JeffG wrote:
in a nutshell, the e-m5 is underexposing raws relative to the jpg output by up to 2.0 ev.
I can't see any difference in exposure between JPG and RAW in ACR. "Underexposing" can't be the right word either since it's the same shot, so the exposure must be the same. But the JPG:s could of course have a different gamma and processing.
i used to sell cameras. never would i compare anything to a leica lens or a zeiss t*. it's just silly to do so. the lenses made by people that are not leica or (mostly) carl zeiss are mass produced.
So, the Panasonic Leica 25/1.4 is not mass produced? I find it more silly to put Leica and Zeiss above everything else. As I said, the Voigtländer 15/4.5 is one of the sharpest lenses I've owned and easily competes with very expensive M lenses.
Now, cost is not my problem as I have photography as my main hobby, and I'm willing to spend almost every penny I earn on gear (I'm definitely not rich). No, this is about finding the smallest possible camera and lens combination, that still gives good IQ and is nice to use. The 5N gives me better IQ than I'd ever need, but the handling isn't optimal and the aspect ratio makes me have to choose shorter lenses than I would like to, due to cropping. The OM-D with 20/1.7 would be perfect if the colors were a bit better. I've now installed some profiles that I'm going to try before anything else.
Image of my OMD warranty card - for You2- but others may reply also. My new silver body came ith this suspevt paper work. Looks like its a re-cycle , repair or re-burb. Under the stickers on the left side, it says ( M12-5035-63EZ/ABP250336 ) Trying to determine if a repaired camera, such as You2s camera has same or sililar numbers or stickers covering the numbers - from Olympus repair. I want to return it today to my dealer today. So far i havent been able to fully communicate to him, what iam looking for. My S/N is very close to the group/numbers that he said may have shutter problems. My S/N is BF3504345.
Thanks
Harry Palmer
Makten wrote:
I can't see any difference in exposure between JPG and RAW in ACR. "Underexposing" can't be the right word either since it's the same shot, so the exposure must be the same. But the JPG:s could of course have a different gamma and processing.
So, the Panasonic Leica 25/1.4 is not mass produced? I find it more silly to put Leica and Zeiss above everything else. As I said, the Voigtländer 15/4.5 is one of the sharpest lenses I've owned and easily competes with very expensive M lenses.
Now, cost is not my problem as I have photography as my main hobby, and I'm willing to spend almost every penny I earn on gear (I'm definitely not rich). No, this is about finding the smallest possible camera and lens combination, that still gives good IQ and is nice to use. The 5N gives me better IQ than I'd ever need, but the handling isn't optimal and the aspect ratio makes me have to choose shorter lenses than I would like to, due to cropping. The OM-D with 20/1.7 would be perfect if the colors were a bit better. I've now installed some profiles that I'm going to try before anything else. ...Show more →
you don't see the difference in acr or c1 because both raw processors compensate using settings in the raw file created by the camera. there are no true, purely-unadulterated raw imaging processors out there.
what you will see however is more noise than an exposure with a camera set using UniWB and ETTR at any given iso due to the up to 2.0 ev underexposure.
although more research would be needed in regards to the panasonic leica lens, i have the feeling that just like other cross company lenses taht had zeiss t* or leica on them in the passed that only part of the optical process comes from leica and i suspect it's just the coatings, or an element.
JeffG wrote:
you don't see the difference in acr or c1 because both raw processors compensate using settings in the raw file created by the camera. there are no true, purely-unadulterated raw imaging processors out there.
Why would the camera underexpose if it doesn't have to? And what does this have with JPG and RAW to do? The exposure is of course the same.
what you will see however is more noise than an exposure with a camera set using UniWB and ETTR at any given iso due to the up to 2.0 ev underexposure.
although more research would be needed in regards to the panasonic leica lens, i have the feeling that just like other cross company lenses taht had zeiss t* or leica on them in the passed that only part of the optical process comes from leica and i suspect it's just the coatings, or an element
Call me a Kool-Aid drinker, but the PL 25 1.4 renders noticably different than "generic" 50mm photos - I was able to see this from the samples online, which is why I have one coming this Friday (and I'm not really a 50mm fan).
I doubt a simple Leica coating could do that. I would love to know the extent of the Leica involvement, though. My guess is perhaps a design coordinated with Leica and perhaps some of their element qualities & coatings, whereas the manufacturing, assembly and overwatch are all Panasonic.
I read somewhere, and regretfully I don't recall the source that design is by Leica, manufacture and assembly is by Panasonic, and quality control is by Leica. If this is all true, then the Pan-Leica lenses should pretty much hold up to Leica standards. Obviously, 'tho, for the price differential we should not expect the smaller replica to be fully as good as the original. Whatever - my 25 is very, very good, and my 45 is even better (contrast more crisp, colors more punchy) and I am happy with them .
ETTR means expose to the right, and I guess you are familiar with it in this form. It is an attempt at using the bits of each pixel better.
UniWB was developed as a response to the fact that the histograms you see in the camera are based on the JPG preview, not the RAW, and can be arbitrarily wrong. Basically, you find out exactly the bias the JPG has (typically boosted reds and blues), and use a uniform colour opposite of this bias to use as a WB preset. Using this, the JPG preview image will have the wrong colours, but the histogram will be extremely accurate. I am on my iPad now, but a couple of posts back I posted a link.
CalW wrote:
I read somewhere, and regretfully I don't recall the source that design is by Leica, manufacture and assembly is by Panasonic, and quality control is by Leica. If this is all true, then the Pan-Leica lenses should pretty much hold up to Leica standards. Obviously, 'tho, for the price differential we should not expect the smaller replica to be fully as good as the original. Whatever - my 25 is very, very good, and my 45 is even better (contrast more crisp, colors more punchy) and I am happy with them .
That's exactly how it works, although Panasonic has some input on the design (It's Panasonic's AF tech, and OIS on lenses that have it, so Leica needs input from Panasonic to allow for those features). The only exception to this in the m43 and 4/3rds lineup was the original PanaLeica 14-50 2.8-3.5 which originated from an Olympus optical design (the 14-54 mk I) and was then heavily worked over by Leica.
Note this is also exactly how ALL Zeiss lenses are produced. Zeiss designs with input from the partner, either the partner (Sony or Cosina today, Kyocera in the past) or Zeiss produces the lens, Zeiss does the QC.
Leica did much the same with Minolta, Kyocera and even IIRC Sigma in the past. And Leica, unlike Zeiss, has also long used non-Leica designs modified to Leica spec for sale under their own branding, this has occurred for both R and M mounts.
mawz wrote:
Leica did much the same with Minolta, Kyocera and even IIRC Sigma in the past. And Leica, unlike Zeiss, has also long used non-Leica designs modified to Leica spec for sale under their own branding, this has occurred for both R and M mounts.
While strictly speaking accurate, the phrasing is misleading: it has been quite a while (2 decades?) since Leica has re-branded R lenses, possibly excepting the 35-70/4, I can't quite remember. Which M lenses were rebranded, I am not aware of any?
carstenw wrote:
ETTR means expose to the right, and I guess you are familiar with it in this form. It is an attempt at using the bits of each pixel better.
Ah, yes. I expose as high as possible, but what does that matter if the live histogram lies? Because it must lie if the camera is said to underexpose 2 full stops, which I can't see. Though it wouldn't surprise me if something is going on, considering the MUCH higher noise than I get from the 5N. After a little PP, even ISO 200 is pretty grainy, perhaps equivalent to 800 on the 5N. Which is 2 stops.
UniWB was developed as a response to the fact that the histograms you see in the camera are based on the JPG preview, not the RAW, and can be arbitrarily wrong. Basically, you find out exactly the bias the JPG has (typically boosted reds and blues), and use a uniform colour opposite of this bias to use as a WB preset. Using this, the JPG preview image will have the wrong colours, but the histogram will be extremely accurate. I am on my iPad now, but a couple of posts back I posted a link.
Hmmm, I suppose it would be smart to use daylight WB and set the JPG output to low contrast and "neutral" then? Unfortunately, the live histogram is not RGB, so I don't think you'll know if one channel is blown out anyway.
This whole 'Raw Digger says it's underexposed and pushed' stuff is complete and utter nonsense. I couldn't give two whits about how the E-M5 stores it's RAW data (which seems to be what that discussion is all about). The simple fact of the matter is looking at the final images, and at base ISO, noise is similar to the Panny 16MP sensor, but with much higher DR and similar exposure in the final image.
krugorg wrote:
Drove by this sunflower field at dusk yesterday, on our way home from the North Shore (the long cut):
.... with Panasonic-Leica 25mm @ f1.4, 1:1 crop
A little surprised how well this $200 lens does better on MFT than NEX. Mostly because I didn't think the glass was good enough to show such good central sharpness even on MFT.
I find it more silly to put Leica and Zeiss above everything else. As I said, the Voigtländer 15/4.5 is one of the sharpest lenses I've owned and easily competes with very expensive M lenses. 
that design is by Leica, manufacture and assembly is by Panasonic, and quality control is by Leica. If this is all true, then the Pan-Leica lenses should pretty much hold up to Leica standards. Obviously, 'tho, for the price differential we should not expect the smaller replica to be fully as good as the original. Whatever - my 25 is very, very good, and my 45 is even better (contrast more crisp, colors more punchy) and I am happy with them 