denoir wrote:
A RAW file should be as raw as possible..
There are a myriad corrections applied to a RAW image by sensor-makers before camera-makers get to play with the 'RAW' image. If they did not, cameras would cost more than what they do now. Defect clusters, black level correction, shading - you name it
Unfortunately, a pure RAW image is of not much use to many, may be except for engineer-photogs!
Ajay, yes, but those are camera/sensor related corrections - not lens based ones. Leica applies geometric, color shift and vignetting corrections depending on the lens it thinks you have attached to the camera. Canon, Panasonic and others do it as an optional step in the raw development software and they do not nuke the RAW file with the correction in-camera like Leica does.
Charles - great sets with both the Lux and Cron. Excellent colors
Luka - you too had great lighting. Like the side of the red building shot!
Boris - nice shots with the 50 Lux. It would seem like you have no issues with focusing based on those . I will agree with you on the colors, auto wb on the M8 SUCKS! I set mine to cloudy and it fared much better than auto ever did. The WB is much better on the M9. I could instantly tell those were M8 shots just by the color of the green
Alex - nice shots from the rally. Really like the last two best
Luka - you mention better high ISO....what is the highest you have used so far? I think that at the higher ISO it does get grainy faster than a D700/5DII but I like the grain much better on the M9 vs those two cameras. I also agree, I never use outside 21-100.....live view would be all I would want. Everything else is a bonus. I have already ditched all Nikon but one lens....and I just used it for the first time in 3 months today.
Oh yeah, I would like to see the 6 bit coding override the manual selection like the D700 does, but that should just be a firmware fix.
Considering that Leica is one of the first important manufacturers to embrace DNG, I would consider it fitting if they opened up the specs for their corrections, and simply gave that code to the various RAW development companies (Apple, Adobe, Phase One, ...). It would be nice if the end-user didn't have to do anything to get it to work, but the power user had some way out when the lens chosen was the wrong one.
Of course, Leica could fix almost all of this by simply making coded lenses override manually input lenses
Ryan, I just want to confirm that you really like the M9's grain better than the D700, and by extension, the D3? I find the grain on my D3 looks quite nice, and has a very small colour component, whereas the M8 throws in a lot of colour sparkles at fairly low ISOs, and the M9 does too, I believe, above ISO 1250.
I did some test shots with my new Lux 50 Asph today on a flat object. At f/1.4 the lens is sharp in the center, but has pretty low contrast, soft edges and soft corners. At f/2.0 the contrast is much higher, but the corners are still soft. And from f/4.0 on the corners are sharp (on a M8 1.3x crop camera).
Is this a typical behavior for the 50 Lux?
Luka, Carsten, Charles or anybody with 50 Lux Asph experience could you confirm this?
At f/1.4 I get sometimes (but not always!) a "glow" in the images, that I've not seen in Lukas or Charles images shot wide open with the Lux. Here is an example (shot with my NEX5 and not with the M8): Glow
Have you seen this effect sometimes with your 50 Lux?
carstenw wrote:
Ryan, I just want to confirm that you really like the M9's grain better than the D700, and by extension, the D3? I find the grain on my D3 looks quite nice, and has a very small colour component, whereas the M8 throws in a lot of colour sparkles at fairly low ISOs, and the M9 does too, I believe, above ISO 1250.
Yes, the M8 was horrible about throwing color in noise...even at ISO 400. Even at ISO 200 in the shadows it is a problem. The M9 is better, and you do start to notice it (not even close to as bad as the M8 from what limited amount of shooting I have done) close to 1250. I honestly don't like grain but in B/W photos...and yes, I like the grain in B/W on the M9 better than the D700. When I am out shooting I don't like to go over 400 due to loss of detail. The only time I do go over is for shooting people and 9/10 times I don't mind a slight amount of grain in the shot...and would take the M9 grain over the D700 any day in those situations. The M9 is more a film like grain than what I see from the D700. Of course, the amount of grain you see at 1250 on the M9 vs the D700 is a mile apart, the D700/D3/D7000 kills it.
That doesn't sound like my 50 Lux ASPH, but recall that I have just an M8 (but so do you, right?).
I did have to send in my copy 3 times (!) to get the focusing ring, aperture ring and performance right, but it was really worth it. I would take it to your dealer and send it back.
Although... I don't really see huge problems in your test shots. Comparing these corners to your 50MP is like comparing razors to wet rags Okay, crop factor, maybe there is an issue. I would get it checked out.
The glow is normal but won't happen in the plane of focus. This is one of the nice things about this lens.
Ryan, it doesn't sound like you are really making a fair comparison
I like the M8's grain in B&W conversions, and guess I would like the M9's grain in that situation too, but I find that my D3 has clean-ish grain up to and including ISO 3200, and only after that I don't like it any longer. And yes, I prefer the M9's grain at ISO 1250 to the D3's grain at ISO 6400
Ryan, I don't like to go above ISO 800, but I can basically tolerate up to ISO 1250. On my 5DII the corresponding numbers are ISO 1600 and ISO 3200.
Boris, there seems to be a lot of camera shake blur in the Hut shots, but generally speaking - yes, the corners/edges are relatively soft wide open. You can compare these two examples (open in separate tabs and flip between them):
carstenw wrote:
That doesn't sound like my 50 Lux ASPH, but recall that I have just an M8 (but so do you, right?).
I did have to send in my copy 3 times (!) to get the focusing ring, aperture ring and performance right, but it was really worth it. I would take it to your dealer and send it back.
Although... I don't really see huge problems in your test shots. Comparing these corners to your 50MP is like comparing razors to wet rags Okay, crop factor, maybe there is an issue. I would get it checked out.
The glow is normal but won't happen in the plane of focus. This is one of the nice things about this lens....Show more →
Thanks Carsten. Yes I have also a M8. My 100MP on the 5D for example has a better corner performance at f/2.0, but it is no 1.4 lens. Therefore I don't know if this is normal for the 50 Lux.
What do the other experts think?
By the way the images look pretty much identical on the NEX5 (focused with 14x lifeview), therefore the result has nothing to do with rangfinder adjustments or focusing.
denoir wrote:
Boris, there seems to be a lot of camera shake blur in the Hut shots, but generally speaking - yes, the corners/edges are relatively soft wide open.
Do you really think at 1/1000s on a Gitzo Series 5 tripod there is a visible effect of camera shake?
I expected soft corners at f/1.4, even on a crop camera, but I didn't expected it at f/2.0. So what should I do? Keep it, return it or send it to Leica?
denoir wrote:
Revisiting the MTF chart, I don't think you should be seeing the softer edges except for the rendering of fine detail (40 lp/mm) on the M8.
The M9 sensor is 36x24mm meaning that the end of the chart is at 36/2 = 18mm. The M8 sensor is 27x18mm and the end thus at 27/2 = 13.5.
Erm Luka, cutting the M9 off at 18mm and the M8 at 13.5mm means that you are only going out to the edges. To go into the corners, you need to go to 21.6mm and 16.2mm, respectively. I know you are good with maths, so maybe you have already had your first (or second) beer?
Boris, going to 16.2mm instead of 13.5mm mainly improves the lens. I would say that you have nothing to lose by sending it back and asking for it to be checked over. If you bought it at a dealer, they will probably pick up the shipping costs.
I used default Lightroom settings. I think there's a lot more detail visible, but it's difficult to say for certain without shooting side by side. Plus the difference in format makes comparisons difficult.
Anyway, unlike your shots these were taken handheld, but I think they are fairly free of motion blur.
carstenw wrote:
Erm Luka, cutting the M9 off at 18mm and the M8 at 13.5mm means that you are only going out to the edges. To go into the corners, you need to go to 21.6mm and 16.2mm, respectively. I know you are good with maths, so maybe you have already had your first (or second) beer?
Hehe. The funny thing is that it's the second time I've done this mistake. Yes you are correct of course - 18mm is just to the long edge and not to the corner. Damn you Pythagoras!
carstenw wrote:
Erm Luka, cutting the M9 off at 18mm and the M8 at 13.5mm means that you are only going out to the edges. To go into the corners, you need to go to 21.6mm and 16.2mm, respectively. I know you are good with maths, so maybe you have already had your first (or second) beer?
Boris, going to 16.2mm instead of 13.5mm mainly improves the lens. I would say that you have nothing to lose by sending it back and asking for it to be checked over. If you bought it at a dealer, they will probably pick up the shipping costs....Show more →
Thanks Carsten, but I'm afraid, that you are now mixing the numbers. You probably meant "16.2mm instead of 21.6mm". How many beers do you had recently? ;-)
Hehe, no, I actually meant that going slightly further out in the field of the M8 makes the lens better. There is a significant dip around 13.5mm in the MTF which recovers somewhat around 16mm. The other curves are less affected, and the smaller difference there is less likely to be visible, I would guess/think.
And to answer your question, I have had just 1 beer recently (although I did have another in the sun this afternoon), but I am in the process of test-tasting the 17-year Glenfarclas with the 1993 Glenfarclas sherry cask special edition I bought both of these only because they are sold out of the 21-year, which is a fantastic Scotch at any price, but is very affordable to boot!
You appear to have an extra 'f' in your post. Beer?
