@Gary very nice buffalo back a page
@Charles, as others have noted, your shot of the child is shakespeare in color.
@Edward very interesting to see your new work with the M after enjoying the A7 shots, many of which are breathtaking. On the last page the camera does seem to struggle more with the brights and darks, but that might be the conditions. My lightroom editing is very different with the M9 and A7, but when I'm done I find the M9 very sweet as a color camera. The biggest difference is the ratios of exposure sliders to the curve sliders in LR5. The raw files seem radically different, and noise sources very differently.
@Joakim really enjoy #1
@najibs very nice
@hanexp nice shadows I like your first post the best.
@Manoj nice vines and the first one is rich
for Charles: L1003874-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
CV35/1.4 (i think)
The copy I found of the 21SEM is interesting. Superb comestically, the cleanest M lens I have ever bought, however the lens group is a bit loose. This happened to my 28 cron, and I sent it into DAG, who tightened it right up. Hopefully the 21 is just as simple.
Re colorshift. I have done no PP whatever in the previous set, but sometimes I forgot to switch to auto, and the lens is coded as a 90 or 35--whatever was just on the camera Exif info is available on flickr so if anyone is really curious it's there.
Charlie, to be honest, I think the color rendition and the DR of the A7 is by far superior to the M. I am quite disappointed with the files of the M to be honest, but I'm enjoying using it, so that's what's most important.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Charlie, to be honest, I think the color rendition and the DR of the A7 is by far superior to the M. I am quite disappointed with the files of the M to be honest, but I'm enjoying using it, so that's what's most important.
Your work and DXO scores support this view, and I don't doubt it's generally true. I only propose that the M files may be teased to enhance DR without too much destruction: possibly.
uhoh7 wrote:
Your work and DXO scores support this view, and I don't doubt it's generally true. I only propose that the M files may be teased to enhance DR without too much destruction: possibly.
How do you compare M DR and color to your old M9?
The M9 colors were generally "nicer". The M has certainly more DR but it tends to blow out the reds substantially more.
Brian, interesting stuff with the M8 and 16 bit raw
najibs, I very much like the tones in your b&w photos
hanexp, nice use of the reflections.
Gary, I agree with you about the great tones. Someday I must go to Yellowstone myself.
Charles, nice photo of your god-daughter(?) but I prefer the previous one. Great set with the violinist.
Charlie, I like the set with the 21 SEM and the last one with the photographers is funny.
Edward, great street sets. My favorites are the one with the guard / police and the close up portrait third from last.
"Vivid Colors" of Kodachrome 25 come to mind when looking at some of the color shots from the M. I'm, surprised a bit that the Reds are getting blown out. I have to wonder if the "lossless-Compressed" mode is really lossless. I learned that Nikon "Compressed NEF" throws away a lot of the highlight portion of the Histogram, even though it is billed as "lossless". I switched to uncompressed on it. Has anyone compared compressed vs uncompressed DNG on the M 240?
BrianVS wrote:
"Vivid Colors" of Kodachrome 25 come to mind when looking at some of the color shots from the M. I'm, surprised a bit that the Reds are getting blown out. I have to wonder if the "lossless-Compressed" mode is really lossless. I learned that Nikon "Compressed NEF" throws away a lot of the highlight portion of the Histogram, even though it is billed as "lossless". I switched to uncompressed on it. Has anyone compared compressed vs uncompressed DNG on the M 240?
Normally I shoot uncompressed, but today I wanted to try the compressed option, so this could be the reason why the reds tend to blow out easily. I noticed the camera writes the files faster, but LR takes more time to read them (probably because it has to uncompress them).
I don't think it's a CMOS problem, the A7 has also a CMOS sensor, and it has no problem with reds. I think it's a matter of a good camera profile. Sony has always been good with color. The M profile seems to produce inconsistent results depending on the light source. My shoot today was in mixed lighting sources and like the M9, the M struggles a bit in such conditions. If I had more knowledge and more patience in PP, I should be able to get better results, but unfortunately I'm not, but I'm not really complaining. I think the colors are ok, but not as good as I can get with the A7 without much tweaking. The M shooting experience is worth the few extra troubles IMO.
Edward, did you have a chance to look at the red exposure in raw files in RawDigger? I am wondering if the reds are really blown out in raw or if it is just a gamut or profile problem. Most of the time I look at my raws, it is the greens that are the most exposed. I heard the complaints about reds with m240 before, but I have never been able to generate that problem. Do you have any tips how to replicate it?
Great images from everyone on the last couple of pages - it always feels like travelling to interesting and vibrant parts of the world when looking at this thread!
Edward - I am having similar issues with Reds with my M240 but have found that by simply underexposing by -0.7 when red is the dominant colour resolves the issue. I post process my images extensively and sometimes the problem can be corrected in Lightroom but I have had instances when it is not possible to even retrieve the problem with the channel mixer and err on the side of caution now.
The dynamic range of the M240 is such that slight underexposure at ISO200 or even ISO400 has no real impact on image quality and seems to benefit colour in general - a bit like slide film.
For example I dialled in -1EV for the image of red tulips below that look now exactly as I experienced them at the time. The histogram and live view showed a horrible pink/magenta hue at what the camera wanted to expose for.
Have purchased my second copy of the VC 21/4 which is now perfect. The first copy was de-centred but the shop I purchased it from originally was reluctant to send me another copy questioning whether it was really decentered (Robert White UK) which was very disappointing.
In the end had to accept a refund which I have to be fair was promptly given...and purchased it locally from another supplier in London who was happy for me to try it out on my camera first before committing and even helped me evaluate the images on their large screen mac. Now that is what I call service!
Exif info is available on flickr so if anyone is really curious it's there.
? I don't know how Charles always gets his skin tones spot on 
