It looks like the X1 gives a lot of CA in deniors pictures. But then again they are way oversharpened in my opinion, and (edit: maybe) it's because of that.
Philippe: I was thinking of the S90.. yes, you are right that the form factor would not have to increase. The lens would though.
Charles: Yepp, that's the problem. When you start adding proper lenses you end up with something almost as large as a small DSLR, but without the image quality or the optical viewfinder. The Leica X1 got things right in theory albeit not in practice. If they could add a decent screen, speed up things (especially the AF) and have a faster lens f/1.4 would be ideal (The Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake is no larger than the X1 24/2.8 when fully extended) it would really have been a good option.
Ryan: You mean the hand grip? It increases the size of the camera significantly. I can see it improving the ergonomics though.
Makten: Yep, there is CA and it's not really over sharpening - the main problem is simply the lack of detail in the picture. This is a 100% crop:
That particular shot wasn't so bad, but in some of the other ones CA seems very high and clearly visible even at this small size. And your aggressive sharpening doesn't really make it better.
Are you sharpening in LAB mode? If not, try it! Shapening only the L channel (lightness) is much more forgiving with color artefacts, while you can get just as good (hrrrm) per-pixel sharpness.
Edit: This one particularly. Look at the building to the left:
No, I'm using a variation of Samuli's method which is an iterative approach in RGB space (sharpen, resize, sharpen, resize..etc). I have been very happy with the results it produces on my 5DII images. It's a bit more difficult to judge how good it is on X1 shots as the raw material isn't as good. Overall, the sharpening procedure is fairly complex but at the same time relatively conservative.
Here is the same scene with the same sharpening, but only applied to the L channel in LAB mode:
To be honest although there is a slight difference, I don't see anything I would consider a definitive improvement.
I see what you mean. That's not CA however, just shadows and light. There is CA in the shot, but not enough to be visible in a 1024x image
100% crop:
Sharpened L channel only:
Edit: I've tried the LAB approach on a couple of 5DII images now, and indeed in some shots with fine detail, sharpening just the L channel does seem to reduce the harm done by aggressive sharpening. Thanks for the tip.
The difference is very subtle, but the one sharpened only with the L channel is better. The CA is less visible and it doesn't at all look as oversharpened as the previous one. In fact, it looks more 3D because there are less per-pixel artefacts, which will otherwise reveal that there is a screen you are looking at.
The whole image looks "smoother" but still about as sharp as before.
Nice shot Thrice with the 50 Sonnar. I now have on hold a 50 Sonnar optimized for f/1.5, thanks to your advice
Excellent tips Martin, and interesting discussion again on sharpening. I suppose the 5DII is more forgiving, but I now find the sharpening with the M9 DNG files requires a lot less sharpening.
Luka, the main plain I notice the difference in sharpening in the L channel compared to RGB, is looking at the leaves on the top right on the lower shot. It does look better when you compare the two, although subtle as it maybe.
I will try this L channel sharpening with M9 DNG files in future, and monitor the difference.
Luka, I have now accepted until latest developments catch up evolve maturely, I have 3 (2 ) cameras in essence, the S90 (Sole ownership of my fiancee ), the M9 and 5DII/7D.
Makten & Charles - yes, in the street shot I can agree that there is a slight improvement, but I would not call it dramatic. I suspect the dot pitch of the monitors we are using would be a more decisive factor for the overall look. For me to see the per-pixel artifacts I really have to press my nose against the monitor
Anyway, I'll do some more tests and come with results (probably in the Zeiss thread though as I have more suitable material).
Thrice: I got caught up in the technical discussion here, so I forgot to say: Great 50 Sonnar shot! I love the rendering of the eyes. I have only seen such rendering (with a sort of reflective surface) with Leica and Minolta glass. A portrait that I shot with the X1 showed that same effect and it was basically it that convinced me not to chuck the damn thing out of the window.
Dan, I like your Sonnar shot. Color is a little undersaturated for my taste but the sharpness of the face combined with the bokeh is appealing. If I remember correctly, yours is optimized for 1.5? I'll have to go back and read the previous discussion about it.
Dan, I like this one better. Her skin is very natural and the greater saturation makes her lips pop more. I agree with denoir's comment about her eyes. They just jump out at you. One thing's for sure: the WB is spot on.
zombii wrote:
Dan, I like this one better. Her skin is very natural and the greater saturation makes her lips pop more. I agree with denoir's comment about her eyes. They just jump out at you. One thing's for sure: the WB is spot on.
+1
Love the rendering of the skin and the eyes.
Update with the calibration of the M9 and lenses. Best decision Spoke to the manager of Camera Clinic, the M9 was front focusing, and 3 of the 6 lenses were back focusing. All these will be fully calibrated by the end of today. In future any issues with new lenses, I just need to send the lens, as they now have the master calibration details.
Also, they recalibrate and shim 5D/5DII focusing screens too for calibrated accurate MF.
) cameras in essence, the S90 (Sole ownership of my fiancee 
