Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not Steve but have owned the M10-P and current shoot with the M10-R. My answer to your question is yes. (no longer necessary if the metering gets it right)
Fred knows the answer to this much more than I do because I haven't shot the M10R yet. I trust Fred of course but he is just one of several people who have reported the same thing, so I am convinced that the M10R doesn't need the negative exposure compensation and protects highlights much better.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not Steve but have owned the M10-P and current shoot with the M10-R. My answer to your question is yes. (no longer necessary if the metering gets it right)
I'm not Steve either ( ) but I would add the caveat that if using the optical viewfinder, the sometimes erratic behavior of the metering is still the same – sometimes it's dead-on, sometimes it's way off. I'm really glad the M11 has put an end to this since I would waste a lot of time checking shots on the rear LCD. Having to chimp with the LCD to check for exposure error sucks the joy out of having a simple experience with the optical rangefinder.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I'm not Steve either ( ) but I would add the caveat that if using the optical viewfinder, the sometimes erratic behavior of the metering is still the same – sometimes it's dead-on, sometimes it's way off. I'm really glad the M11 has put an end to this since I would waste a lot of time checking shots on the rear LCD. Having to chimp with the LCD to check for exposure error sucks the joy out of having a simple experience with the optical rangefinder.
This is true and exposure compensation plays an even bigger role when metering off the blades. With the M10-R, whenever lighting is tricky, I press the LV button for more accurate matrix metering, even when using the rangefinder. (Same metering as the M11)
I just noticed how different jpeg and Capture One DNG files are: colors, sharpness...
I think that default C1 parameters for the M11 are not optimised yet.
And Jpeg colors are closer to the reality. This is not the first time with C1 and the Leica DNG files.
pmeheut wrote:
I just noticed how different jpeg and Capture One DNG files are: colors, sharpness...
I think that default C1 parameters for the M11 are not optimised yet..
I see that the DNG Basic camera profiles for the M11 by Cobalt-Image.com are ready now. I use the Cobalt-Image camera profiles for the M10, and have found them to be much better than the Adobe Lightroom profiles for images taken in difficult light or with difficult colors, such as images with a lot of reds and yellows. Stuart Richardson, who runs a small lab in Iceland, has reported on LUF that the Cobalt-Image profiles are better than the custom profiles that he has been making for himself. There is a thread on the Cobalt profiles on this forum.
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
Mitch Alland wrote:
I see that the DNG Basic camera profiles for the M11 by Cobalt-Image.com are ready now. I use the Cobalt-Image camera profiles for the M10, and have found them to be much better than the Adobe Lightroom profiles for images taken in difficult light or with difficult colors, such as images with a lot of reds and yellows. Stuart Richardson, who runs a small lab in Iceland, has reported on LUF that the Cobalt-Image profiles are better than the custom profiles that he has been making for himself. There is a thread on the Cobalt profiles on this forum.
Thanks for the tip but in this case, I'm not convinced.
Top left is default C1 profile, top right is Cobalt Neutral, bottom left is Cobalt Standard bottom right, bottom right is jpeg.
As far as I'm concerned, Cobalt profiles are the worst here.
I'll see if I find the time to build my own but I'm not excepting any miracles.
pmeheut wrote:
Thanks for the tip but in this case, I'm not convinced.
Top left is default C1 profile, top right is Cobalt Neutral, bottom left is Cobalt Standard bottom right, bottom right is jpeg.
As far as I'm concerned, Cobalt profiles are the worst here.
I'll see if I find the time to build my own but I'm not excepting any miracles.
The Leica JPEGS from my original Leica Q clearly had a tone curve applied, and I suspect some color work as well. I could never duplicate the look in post. Perhaps Leica has done this again with the M11 JPEGs, and C1 needs to try harder to replicate.
According to the author Leica M9 colors are back. Any comments from those who already own the M11?
Not sure about m9 color. But this one remind me a lot from GFX100S in term of color and file. I can't say more than that before I spend more time with it. If you are good on color process you will be fine because the files are robust with deep depth in color. Otherwise, you will see a lot of overdone, over processed digital images on the web from m11. My 2C
pmeheut wrote:
Thanks for the tip but in this case, I'm not convinced.
Top left is default C1 profile, top right is Cobalt Neutral, bottom left is Cobalt Standard bottom right, bottom right is jpeg.
As far as I'm concerned, Cobalt profiles are the worst here.
I'll see if I find the time to build my own but I'm not excepting any miracles.
pmeheut, I want to be sure I understand. Is your test with the Cobalt Neutral and Standard Profiles coming from the Cobalt M11 base package or from some other camera's base package?
Also, I use Adobe Camera Raw, do you know if the Default C1 profile is similar to Adobe Standard or Color profiles?
goodbokeh wrote:
Is your test with the Cobalt Neutral and Standard Profiles coming from the Cobalt M11 base package or from some other camera's base package?
They are coming from the Cobalt M11 base package.
goodbokeh wrote:
Also, I use Adobe Camera Raw, do you know if the Default C1 profile is similar to Adobe Standard or Color profiles?
zhangyue wrote:
Not sure about m9 color. But this one remind me a lot from GFX100S in term of color and file. I can't say more than that before I spend more time with it. If you are good on color process you will be fine because the files are robust with deep depth in color. Otherwise, you will see a lot of overdone, over processed digital images on the web from m11. My 2C
I think there was documentation (or speculation) that the sensor in the GFX100(s) and the A7R IV and FP L are cut from the same wafer. This includes the Fujifilm 26mp X-Trans in the X-T3/T4/E4/T30/100v. I would assume the color and dynamic range from these sensors are similar. The only difference will be the number of pixels recorded and the amount of light hitting the sensor.
If we assume the M11 uses a similar/same sensor as the FP L an A7R IV then the color and tonality should be very similar to those 2 cameras along with the GFX100(s)
Shogoxxi wrote:
I think there was documentation (or speculation) that the sensor in the GFX100(s) and the A7R IV and FP L are cut from the same wafer. This includes the Fujifilm 26mp X-Trans in the X-T3/T4/E4/T30/100v. I would assume the color and dynamic range from these sensors are similar. The only difference will be the number of pixels recorded and the amount of light hitting the sensor.
If we assume the M11 uses a similar/same sensor as the FP L an A7R IV then the color and tonality should be very similar to those 2 cameras along with the GFX100(s)
Yes, the technology should be the same or very similar. I dont expect they share the same color though given the CFA and cover glass difference The sensor itself only take colorless signal.
It is too early to give positive or negative feedback yet. Especially I am not sure LR profile are fully mature. In the past, I feel m10, m240 color are more muted and contained if that make sense but m11 seems has more "possibility".
However, people have tendency to over do image process with strong DR cameras because they can do it, hence my original comment.
Jan 24, 2022 at 06:15 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Shogoxxi wrote:
I think there was documentation (or speculation) that the sensor in the GFX100(s) and the A7R IV and FP L are cut from the same wafer. This includes the Fujifilm 26mp X-Trans in the X-T3/T4/E4/T30/100v. I would assume the color and dynamic range from these sensors are similar. The only difference will be the number of pixels recorded and the amount of light hitting the sensor.
If we assume the M11 uses a similar/same sensor as the FP L an A7R IV then the color and tonality should be very similar to those 2 cameras along with the GFX100(s)
No they are not the same. It is easy to see that the dual gain transistors in the pixels kick in at different ISOs. The pixels are a similar size, but they are not the same.
Steve Spencer wrote:
No they are not the same. It is easy to see that the dual gain transistors in the pixels kick in at different ISOs. The pixels are a similar size, but they are not the same.
Also ISO 64, hence the dual gain kicking in at a lower ISO. Probably a custom "Mark II" of the A7R4 sensor.
Steve Spencer wrote:
No they are not the same. It is easy to see that the dual gain transistors in the pixels kick in at different ISOs. The pixels are a similar size, but they are not the same.
ISO is just a number that represents gain. Every brand can say a certain amount of gain represents a specific ISO number. ISO 12800 on a Canon R5 may not expose the same as ISO 12800 on an A1 even if shutter speed is the same and the same lens is used. My theory is that the Sony A7RIV sensor on the M11 is less sensitive than the previous generation sensor on the M10 and M10-R but Leica wants the exposure of their cameras to roughly match so they chose to use ISO 64 as a number rather than 100..
Not the case. Manufacture can’t just put 2 stop ND filter and claim it’s camera has native ISO25.
I know some false claim ISO number (not native ISO, FUJI? CANON?) but I never heard any false claim base/native iso number which is the spec measure how much photon each pixel can take. The lower the ISO, means pixel can take more light/‘signal’ before it saturates. Hence, lower ISO usually has slightly more DR with the similar noise performance. That is clearly showed in PTP plot.
Iso12500,50000 are not native ISO but simply circuit(analog) gain. Extended ISO means digital gain usually. Manufacture can play a little bit here but not native ISO.
derKoekje wrote:
ISO is just a number that represents gain. Every brand can say a certain amount of gain represents a specific ISO number. ISO 12800 on a Canon R5 may not expose the same as ISO 12800 on an A1 even if shutter speed is the same and the same lens is used. My theory is that the Sony A7RIV sensor on the M11 is less sensitive than the previous generation sensor on the M10 and M10-R but Leica wants the exposure of their cameras to roughly match so they chose to use ISO 64 as a number rather than 100..
I was wondering if Leica's CFA choice could be a reason for the lower base ISO? In other words, if the M11's CFA is denser than the a7RIV's, could it be a reason for the base ISO being 64 instead of 100?
According to the author Leica M9 colors are back. Any comments from those who already own the M11?
zhangyue wrote:
Not sure about m9 color. But this one remind me a lot from GFX100S in term of color and file. I can't say more than that before I spend more time with it. If you are good on color process you will be fine because the files are robust with deep depth in color. Otherwise, you will see a lot of overdone, over processed digital images on the web from m11. My 2C
Go to the LUF M11 images thread to already see some over processed images. Not so much the color, but over exuberant highlight recovery resulting in swaths of gray, lifeless sky that would look better if left blown out.
From that thread, I downloaded the DNG of the heron perched on a bridge and found the ISO 64 file to be nicely flexible and can take a lot of sharpening, yet still look good. As you said, the file appears so malleable that it's necessary to impose some self-restraint. The temptation to tone map it to the nth degree is very strong.
Yes, this is the tendency I have too with GFX file or early D800S seldom high DR scene brought me good images that is why I am not too into this sensor DR thing all good now. M11 still gives me bragging right though I do look forward to take sunrise sunset ISO64 60M images with M11.
Again, I doubt about CFA change ISO because manufacture can’t shouldnot do that, it is cheating. It is so technically wrong that I haven’t seen one did that. Nikon’s ISO 64 is real. So I believe M11 in this case based on that PTP results.
rscheffler wrote:
I was wondering if Leica's CFA choice could be a reason for the lower base ISO? In other words, if the M11's CFA is denser than the a7RIV's, could it be a reason for the base ISO being 64 instead of 100?
Go to the LUF M11 images thread to already see some over processed images. Not so much the color, but over exuberant highlight recovery resulting in swaths of gray, lifeless sky that would look better if left blown out.
From that thread, I downloaded the DNG of the heron perched on a bridge and found the ISO 64 file to be nicely flexible and can take a lot of sharpening, yet still look good. As you said, the file appears so malleable that it's necessary to impose some self-restraint. The temptation to tone map it to the nth degree is very strong. ...Show more →
) but I would add the caveat that if using the optical viewfinder, the sometimes erratic behavior of the metering is still the same – sometimes it's dead-on, sometimes it's way off. I'm really glad the M11 has put an end to this since I would waste a lot of time checking shots on the rear LCD. Having to chimp with the LCD to check for exposure error sucks the joy out of having a simple experience with the optical rangefinder.
The sensor itself only take colorless signal. 