M-240 samples and dng!
Old 02-05-2013   #1
maitani
Registered User
 
maitani's Avatar
 
maitani is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 736
M-240 samples and dng!

quick before the sever crashes...

http://en.leica-camera.com/photograp...oad-196_5.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #2
maitani
Registered User
 
maitani's Avatar
 
maitani is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 736
will M9 prices rather raise or fall after this?... what's your opinion??...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #3
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Some initial impressions:

There's a tremendous -- in my opinion, unacceptable -- amount of color moiré in the ISO 2500 JPG sample, in the woman's hair and in the dog's coat. In addition, the WB is subpar.

The noise characteristics (see the 60mm Elmarit-R image at ISO 2000) look pretty good. The small amount of chroma noise is almost eliminated in LR with +18 chroma NR.

DR in the ISO 200 JPG is impressive.

In the 60mm Elmarit-R image, there appears to be dust on the sensor. An odd choice to make public.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #4
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
Some initial impressions:

There's a tremendous -- in my opinion, unacceptable -- amount of color moiré in the ISO 2500 JPG sample, in the woman's hair and in the dog's coat. In addition, the WB is subpar.

The noise characteristics (see the 60mm Elmarit-R image at ISO 2000) look pretty good. The small amount of chroma noise is almost eliminated in LR with +18 chroma NR.

DR in the ISO 200 JPG is impressive.

In the 60mm Elmarit-R image, there appears to be dust on the sensor. An odd choice to make public.
Obviously everything that's not a numbered result of a measurement is subject to debate, I agree about the WB but to talk about quote [tremendous amount of color moire] is a little exaggeration . I had to go to 1:1 in LR4 to search for it (NEC PA271W). But then this example is a jpg and not the DNG file.
I think my naked eyes will perceive a similar amount of moire looking at her hair in this sunlight. Only that I don't have built in pixel peep mode.

In terms of higher ISO performance this a clearly a step (or two) above the M9. I think MM files (DNG at 2:1) are still ahead of the M240 but that's just B&W.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #5
jtullar
Registered User
 
jtullar's Avatar
 
jtullar is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 98
Hmm looks very canon like.....ugh......
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #6
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
 
mervynyan is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 684
Not impressed.
__________________
a traveler by heart, along pick up photography
- MP/M240, 35LuxASPH, 50LuxASPH, 75Cron AA, 21CBiogen
- Arca-Swiss Discovery, D4M, Schneider SSXL 110/5.6, Nikkor-W 210/5.6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #7
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,640
The photos were nice. They were not outstanding.
Truth tell, Ken Rockwell posted images taken with a Pre-War 50mm
Elmar lens on a M9. That is sharp, the color beautiful.
The showing of work by Leica lacks something.
Even Jean Gaumy's work is not representative of his "Sea" stuff.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #8
phaedrus
Registered User
 
phaedrus is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 27
The one taken with the Summicron 35 asph suffers from a lot of camera movement. Let's hope execution of the cameras themselves is not as shoddy as these sample pics.
__________________
I've got two sites on the internet that you might want to see.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #9
zsas
Registered User
 
zsas is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 187
For a $12k camera kit (240M and 35mm f1.4) I am hardly impressed (based on the picture of the woman/dog). But as a film photog, I might be missing something.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #10
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
I would imagine the cameras will be quite good. The DR and noise characteristics seem to in line with what you might reasonably expect from a typical FF sensor in 2012 or 2013: D600 or 6D. A bit sharper but also with moiré* problems.

But the images are inexplicably poor on artistic and technical terms. The snowy landscape being an exception. That is impressive stuff any way you look at it.

If you are Leica and you are charging US $7k for a fast-depreciating camera body, and can't show the product at its best, why show anything at all? Why not show artistically competent images made by technically outstanding photographers, of subjects that really highlight what the optics and cameras can do?

Baffling.

*Cameras without moiré filters are like digital audio recorders without low-pass filters: technically deficient. Phase One (who make professional backs without moiré filters) knows this, which is why Capture One Pro has the best post-exposure moiré removal algorithms of any major RAW converter. It is a real, non-trival engineering problem that Leica has chosen to ignore.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #11
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
 
SDK is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 444
Moire is almost not there on the DNG of the girl and black dog. See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...onathan-slack/ The JPG conversion accentuated it. I rarely have trouble with moire on my M9P and D800E. Many subjects don’t provoke it.
__________________
Trip shutters, not people.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #12
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 52
Posts: 6,255
I suppose we will see more and better samples soon. I agree about the snow landscape.
The gradation on the LH side in the "sloping" area catches my eye straight away. The rest of the samples could be from an Eos 5/6D ( which is to say very nice ).
Is a well exposed image from a CCD that much richer in appearance (onscreen at least) ?
The M8/M9 images sure do seem to have a certain quality to them when their well exposed. Not seeing that here. Looking forward to more.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #13
raphaelaaron
Registered User
 
raphaelaaron is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: nyc
Posts: 247
meh....

i'd rather buy another canon 5D classic.
__________________
+website|+flickr|+gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #14
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 52
Posts: 6,255
These are much more interesting. Thank you for the link.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...onathan-slack/
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2013   #15
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDK View Post
Moire is almost not there on the DNG of the girl and black dog. See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...onathan-slack/ The JPG conversion accentuated it. I rarely have trouble with moire on my M9P and D800E. Many subjects don’t provoke it.
Thank you for the link.

Having now looked at the .dng, and with all due respect, I disagree.

The JPEG conversion did not accentuate the color moiré. Developed in LR 4.6 to a visually similar level of color saturation as the JPEG, it's about as bad, unless you have chroma noise suppression on (default is 25%). How does the chroma noise suppression filter in LR work? It is a chroma low-pass filter (of course).

Turn off the chroma noise suppression and you will see clear color banding resulting from moiré, just as you see in the out-of-camera JPEG.

This is not unexpected. The JPEG posted by Leica is quite large, so it should not contain a lot of compression artifacts.

---

One final point: if you have a discrete sampling system and it is not aliasing, your input is by definition limiting the resolution (i.e., you are oversampling, which is a good thing). In an audio system this means that the microphone or pre-amp do not pass frequencies higher than about 1/2 the digital sampling rate (often 44 kHz), or there's a low-pass filter in the sampling system; in an optical system it means that a lens has aberrations, there is motion blur, focus is imperfect, etc.

This is why, in scientific imaging, we either take care to over-sample the diffraction-limited resolution of our optical systems, or we employ some sort of low-pass filter.

If you aren't seeing moiré with a D800E or a digital M, you are oversampling. In other words, resolution is not limited by the sensor, but by your lenses, your RF calibration, or your shooting technique (critical focus; motion blur). If you're shooting handheld in available light and seldom achieving truly critical focus, you won't often need to worry about moiré with modern high-resolution cameras.

Canon's engineers understand all of this, they make good lenses, and they sell their gear to critical users, and apparently their sensor design is dominated by their engineering staff. Hence, all Canon DSLRs have AA filters. Nikon's and Leica's engineers understand it as well, but their marketing people know that people who don't understand discrete sampling don't know enough to care whether they are getting accuurate rendering or imaginary detail generated by the sampling procedure. Nikon has enough professional pride (and volume) to sell the D800 in both a professional version (D800) and an amateur-bling version (D800E). Canon does not make this concession.

Finally: you will note that the world's leading manufacturer of both CCD and CMOS sensors is Sony. Like Canon, Sony does not sell DSLRs without antialiasing filters. It is telling that the only two major camera manufacturers that design and fab their own sensors always use antialiasing filters. By the way, the XTRANS sensor from Fuji aliases as well (this is readily detected with good technique and carefully chosen subjects), but its design does seem to do a good job of suppressing color moiré, the most visually objectionable form of aliasing. It's an interesting compromise, if not a complete solution.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #16
maitani
Registered User
 
maitani's Avatar
 
maitani is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 736
after having a closer look now, I'm rather underwhelmed, puzzling why leica put such pics on the corporate site, iso6400 looks hopelessly de-noised in camera and details fall completely apart, looks like my old E-P1,
on my photokina hands on pics on display looked great up to 3200, even zoomed in to the max... but of course, display is display, on monitor now it's different.

why do they post a light-room de-noised iso2500, already this should be 'suspicious' if you have nothing to hide, post full quality un-denoised stuff, also M9 iso 2500 looks great lightroom denoised, and remains very strong in detail ans shaprness.

my plan of selling the M9 for one is 'on ice' I will test one for myself when the M hits the dealer shelves.

if I gain one stop of noise over the M9 there's no way I'm going to buy one, only reason to buy would be great up to 3200 performance for me in order to replace my nikon FF system completely, but it seems, for now, not going to happen...

hope they didn't shoot themselves in the foot, with this new sensor...

also the snow landscape at base iso looks 'good' but has artifacts (like a m4/3 or nex...), and lacks the CCD almost foveon look of M8/M9 files at base iso, something I was afraid of, when I heard they're going CMOS(IS)...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #17
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by maitani View Post
after having a closer look now, I'm rather underwhelmed, puzzling why leica put such pics on the corporate site

That's why I always wait until a competent consumer/user posts shots with one of their new cameras. Most people are unskilled at post-processing, and everybody has an opinion as to what "good post-processing" means.

If I were Leica, I would hire a good photographer (not one who is friends of a buddy at Leica or a Leica dealer, or one whose name is "famous" or "highly-paid", for those just ride on that and are not out to impress anybody except perhaps a clique) that can produce a boring-yet-clinically-good set of photos using the whole range of the camera that could be taken apart and analyzed.

Some of these shots demonstrate capabilities under hand-held "true-life" conditions, but beyond that, this batch is lacking.

I am, however, slightly impressed (can't tell yet since these shots are one cat short of a cat test shot) by the high ISO DNG files.

I wish Leica relied less on buddies and/or hype-elevated testers and more on someone who would be eager to produce some inspiring shots.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #18
cam
the need for speed
 
cam's Avatar
 
cam is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris no more
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post
That's why I always wait until a competent consumer/user posts shots with one of their new cameras. Most people are unskilled at post-processing, and everybody has an opinion as to what "good post-processing" means.

If I were Leica, I would hire a good photographer (not one who is friends of a buddy at Leica or a Leica dealer, or one whose name is "famous" or "highly-paid", for those just ride on that and are not out to impress anybody except perhaps a clique) that can produce a boring-yet-clinically-good set of photos using the whole range of the camera that could be taken apart and analyzed.

Some of these shots demonstrate capabilities under hand-held "true-life" conditions, but beyond that, this batch is lacking.

I am, however, slightly impressed (can't tell yet since these shots are one cat short of a cat test shot) by the high ISO DNG files.

I wish Leica relied less on buddies and/or hype-elevated testers and more on someone who would be eager to produce some inspiring shots.
he is a *very* competent photographer.

i think that Leica chose these images for precisely what i bolded above... i'm sure he has many more images that would suit your aesthetic -- let's just hope Leica allows them to be released soon.

(i think they got burned a bit on the Jacob Aue Sobol pics and so decided to go the opposite direction here... Jonathan Slack -- the very same photog who took these shots -- had a better set, imo, with his pics from China.)
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #19
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
With all due respect, perhaps not all photographers have the same requirements as those engaged in scientific imaging, i.e., maybe we are willing to take the trade-off of more moiré for aesthetic reasons. Also, for the record, many professional photographers own & use the D800E, digital Ms, &/or have had the anti-aliasing filters removed on their Canons/Nikons, so it's not just a matter of "amateur bling." It may be a "non-trivial engineering problem," but that doesn't mean it's a non-trivial photographic problem for all shooters, even the odd pro. As you write, "[i]f you're shooting handheld in available light and seldom achieving truly critical focus, you won't often need to worry about moiré with modern high-resolution cameras" (I would also add "shooting with lenses that have aberrations"). If you're implying that shooting that way renders someone less than professional, in the sense of producing professional-quality work, I would humbly disagree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
One final point: if you have a discrete sampling system and it is not aliasing, your input is by definition limiting the resolution (i.e., you are oversampling, which is a good thing). In an audio system this means that the microphone or pre-amp do not pass frequencies higher than about 1/2 the digital sampling rate (often 44 kHz), or there's a low-pass filter in the sampling system; in an optical system it means that a lens has aberrations, there is motion blur, focus is imperfect, etc.

This is why, in scientific imaging, we either take care to over-sample the diffraction-limited resolution of our optical systems, or we employ some sort of low-pass filter.

If you aren't seeing moiré with a D800E or a digital M, you are oversampling. In other words, resolution is not limited by the sensor, but by your lenses, your RF calibration, or your shooting technique (critical focus; motion blur). If you're shooting handheld in available light and seldom achieving truly critical focus, you won't often need to worry about moiré with modern high-resolution cameras.

Canon's engineers understand all of this, they make good lenses, and they sell their gear to critical users, and apparently their sensor design is dominated by their engineering staff. Hence, all Canon DSLRs have AA filters. Nikon's and Leica's engineers understand it as well, but their marketing people know that people who don't understand discrete sampling don't know enough to care whether they are getting accuurate rendering or imaginary detail generated by the sampling procedure. Nikon has enough professional pride (and volume) to sell the D800 in both a professional version (D800) and an amateur-bling version (D800E). Canon does not make this concession.

Finally: you will note that the world's leading manufacturer of both CCD and CMOS sensors is Sony. Like Canon, Sony does not sell DSLRs without antialiasing filters. It is telling that the only two major camera manufacturers that design and fab their own sensors always use antialiasing filters. By the way, the XTRANS sensor from Fuji aliases as well (this is readily detected with good technique and carefully chosen subjects), but its design does seem to do a good job of suppressing color moiré, the most visually objectionable form of aliasing. It's an interesting compromise, if not a complete solution.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #20
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam View Post
he is a *very* competent photographer.

i think that Leica chose these images for precisely what i bolded above... i'm sure he has many more images that would suit your aesthetic -- let's just hope Leica allows them to be released soon.

(i think they got burned a bit on the Jacob Aue Sobol pics and so decided to go the opposite direction here... Jonathan Slack -- the very same photog who took these shots -- had a better set, imo, with his pics from China.)

They need to hire an editor, then. Not a curator, but somebody with high-brow universal appeal (i.e. National Geographic) not high-brow five-or-six-figures print to match my studio humidor appeal (i.e. New York gallery of mohdern photougraphee) or technically-good-but-so-snapshottish-it-must-be-art (i.e. Foam Magazine).

Maybe I'm just cranky 'cause I got sick last night.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #21
cam
the need for speed
 
cam's Avatar
 
cam is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris no more
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post
They need to hire an editor, then. Not a curator, but somebody with high-brow universal appeal (i.e. National Geographic) not high-brow five-or-six-figures print to match my studio humidor appeal (i.e. New York gallery of mohdern photougraphee) or technically-good-but-so-snapshottish-it-must-be-art (i.e. Foam Magazine).

Maybe I'm just cranky 'cause I got sick last night.
i totally agree with that. i sometimes wonder who makes those decisions? but then again, i think their press conferences suck as well, so what do i know?

truly, though, i'm hoping there will be more images released soon.

and i'm sorry you got sick. feeling better today or is it that nast bug going around that hangs on forever?
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #22
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,162
I think people expedct miracles based on the fact that it is a Leica and it is expensive. However, it is not expensive because it is going to give one IQ above and beyond anything else in its class. It is expensive because it is a luxury good.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #23
Spicy
Registered User
 
Spicy is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: DC
Age: 33
Posts: 672
the only thing about those (i only looked at the jpgs) that was impressive was the london shot at 1/25 with a 135 (probably on a tripod). impressive detail if you cropped, although i haven't the slightest doubt that a d800 would absolutely monster it.

pretty pathetic for a 7k body, if you ask me. yes, i know they're OOC jpgs, but for $7000, you'd like to hope that at least they could develop it enough to look like something a bit better than a snapshot from a 2 year old canon powershot.
__________________
ID7P0M2F854Ior+50PdV3MSFcC05MNC00
[:º] ['☼º]
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #24
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalintrigue View Post
Wow, the impressions/comments here are diametrically opposed to what I'm seeing on other sites.
If you mean over on LUF? No-one dares stick their head above the parapet there any longer.

As far as I can see, the CMOSIS sensor isn't quite a match for the OMD/E-PL5. Especially when it comes to the tartan pattern noise in any areas that are underexposed. As for the skintone examples we've seen - they look fine if all your friends and relatives have faces made of rubber.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #25
douglasf13
Registered User
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
douglasf13 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
With all due respect, perhaps not all photographers have the same requirements as those engaged in scientific imaging, i.e., maybe we are willing to take the trade-off of more moiré for aesthetic reasons. Also, for the record, many professional photographers own & use the D800E, digital Ms, &/or have had the anti-aliasing filters removed on their Canons/Nikons, so it's not just a matter of "amateur bling." It may be a "non-trivial engineering problem," but that doesn't mean it's a non-trivial photographic problem for all shooters, even the odd pro. As you write, "[i]f you're shooting handheld in available light and seldom achieving truly critical focus, you won't often need to worry about moiré with modern high-resolution cameras" (I would also add "shooting with lenses that have aberrations"). If you're implying that shooting that way renders someone less than professional, in the sense of producing professional-quality work, I would humbly disagree.
Semilog is right in that it seems people confuse artifacts and artificial detail as "more detail," which makes AA-less cameras en vogue these days, even to some pros. AA filters are relatively expensive, so it isn't as if most camera manufacturers use them for the heck of it. Of course, as pixel size keeps shrinking, the need for AA filters diminishes, but we're not to that point, yet.

All of that being said, the real advantage of Leica removing the AA filter is in regards to astigmatism with angled light rays. Edge performance, especially with Leica's short registration distance, is improved by removing the AA layer, since it does cause astigmatism leading to softer corners. Leica has to sacrifice moire and false detail for better performance across the frame. Conveniently, this false detail has become known as more sharpness or "sparkle" to many shooters, so it became win-win for Leica.

I don't get moire all that often, but, as Semilog suggests, it is likely because of the nature that I often shoot my M9 (handheld, slight focus errors, lower light, etc.). Throw the M9 on a tripod at F5.6, and moire certainly shows up.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #26
maitani
Registered User
 
maitani's Avatar
 
maitani is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I think people expedct miracles based on the fact that it is a Leica and it is expensive. However, it is not expensive because it is going to give one IQ above and beyond anything else in its class. It is expensive because it is a luxury good.
I agree, partly,

I don't expect it to beat D3S or D4 in IQ, but at that price, for me it's imperative to match at least D700 or so output at higher iso, I'd be extremely happy if yes, extremely disappointed If not.

bests
maitani
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #27
1joel1
Registered User
 
1joel1's Avatar
 
1joel1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 234
Keeping my M8 for now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #28
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
I wasn't disagreeing w/his technical explanation, but rather the implication that a camera without the anti-aliasing filter is just "amateur-bling." Even if all the detail seen without an anti-aliasing filter is "false" or an artifact (& I'm not sure this is true, not being an engineer), if someone likes the look & it works for their photography, I see that as a positive, not negative. The best analogy I can think of is resolution v. grain in film photography. But then again, I don't view photography as equating to scientific imaging. I would also question whether or not Canon or Nikon or Sony or Leica chooses to sell, or not sell, cameras without an anti-aliasing filter has anything to do w/"professional pride" or engineering integrity; I think it has more do whether or not they can make a buck (or rather Yen or Euro) out of the deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
Semilog is right in that it seems people confuse artifacts and artificial detail as "more detail," which makes AA-less cameras en vogue these days, even to some pros. AA filters are relatively expensive, so it isn't as if most camera manufacturers use them for the heck of it. Of course, as pixel size keeps shrinking, the need for AA filters diminishes, but we're not to that point, yet.

All of that being said, the real advantage of Leica removing the AA filter is in regards to astigmatism with angled light rays. Edge performance, especially with Leica's short registration distance, is improved by removing the AA layer, since it does cause astigmatism leading to softer corners. Leica has to sacrifice moire and false detail for better performance across the frame. Conveniently, this false detail has become known as more sharpness or "sparkle" to many shooters, so it became win-win for Leica.

I don't get moire all that often, but, as Semilog suggests, it is likely because of the nature that I often shoot my M9 (handheld, slight focus errors, lower light, etc.). Throw the M9 on a tripod at F5.6, and moire certainly shows up.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #29
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
 
SDK is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 444
The debate about the desirability of antialiasing filters in digital photography is moot, both in the sense of being endlessly debatable, and in the other sense of the word moot: not always being relevant in practice. To insist that there is only one correct solution to the problem of aliasing, the hardware solution, is dogmatic. There are excellent cameras commercially available that have AA filters (Canon DSLRs, Nikon D600, D800, D4) and cameras that have no AA filters or very weak ones (Nikon D800E, Leicas and Phase One equipped medium format bodies). I don’t think the variety of approaches to the problem we se are all market driven, because engineers do evaluate the upside and downside to hardware AA filters. Physical AA filters will lower the resolution of a camera system a bit, and this effect is always there, a built-in limit that cannot be undone in postproduction. The alternative is software AA filtering. Fixing moire in post processing has become easier for cameras that lack hardware AA filters, and can be applied when there is a problem, either to an affected part of an image or to the whole image if needed. Again, resolution will be decreased if software AA filtering is done. In practice, moire may or may not show up in images made with a camera without an AA filter. Things that prevent moire include oversampling, defocused images, lens aberrations, diffraction, motion blur and low contrast or low detail subjects.

Because I mainly do landscape photography and use f/8 or f/11, diffraction (and focusing errors, etc.) takes resolution well below the Nyquist frequency of the sensors of the D800E and M9P. For me moire usually only shows up at f/4 or f/5.6 with subjects like high contrast ice, with really good lenses like my 75mm Summicron, or 100mm/2 Makro Planar. A 35mm/2.8 C Biogon I used to have was the most prone to provoking color moire on my M9P, and I decided to give it to my nephew who is learning B&W film photography along with my old Hexar RF body.

I realize that there are many kinds of photography that do really benefit from hardware AA filtering, such as fashion and wedding photography and portraiture, because cloth is one subject matter that is very likely to provoke color moire, and busy commercial photographers don’t have the time for extra postproduction to correct extra image flaws.

PS. In our lab we use digital microscope cameras that use a 3 shot system for producing color. The cameras we have (SPOT RT3 Color) have monochrome sensors with 3 LCD filters for red green and blue light that rapidly turn on and off during 3 exposures to produce a full color image. This is great because it prevents color moire completely, but it’s only optimal for static specimens, as moving subjects wind up with funny colored edges, which is actually a lot more disturbing than moire. I suppose some day we may have sensors that solve the problem, probably be even more oversampling and the use of better detector material, like some modification of Eric Mazur’s lack silicon (that is too sensitive to infrared right now).
__________________
Trip shutters, not people.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #30
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
Semilog is right in that it seems people confuse artifacts and artificial detail as "more detail," ...

Leica has to sacrifice moire and false detail for better performance across the frame. Conveniently, this false detail has become known as more sharpness or "sparkle" to many shooters, so it became win-win for Leica.....
Maybe I'm just lucky that I haven't encountered the false detail or artificial detail yet
but then I'm also not running around shooting "street" by mounting my cameras on a tripod .

On a side note :
All shots being discussed here are labelled with "M240 pre-production model"
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #31
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by maitani View Post
I agree, partly,

I don't expect it to beat D3S or D4 in IQ, but at that price, for me it's imperative to match at least D700 or so output at higher iso, I'd be extremely happy if yes, extremely disappointed If not.

bests
maitani
Oh, believe me, from a consumer perspective I agree. However, shouldn't people really be comparing the M-240 vs. the M9 regarding improvements in ISO? The reason I say so is that for many M users, a DSLR is not an alternative anyway.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #32
ramosa
B&W
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1joel1 View Post
Keeping my M8 for now.
In contrast, I will be getting the M and then selling my M8 (or maybe keeping it as a backup). I have played some with the images in LR4 and think they work out fine with simple edits.
__________________
——————————————————————————
Leica MM1, Cron 35, Cron 50mm
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #33
douglasf13
Registered User
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
douglasf13 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
I wasn't disagreeing w/his technical explanation, but rather the implication that a camera without the anti-aliasing filter is just "amateur-bling." Even if all the detail seen without an anti-aliasing filter is "false" or an artifact (& I'm not sure this is true, not being an engineer), if someone likes the look & it works for their photography, I see that as a positive, not negative. The best analogy I can think of is resolution v. grain in film photography. But then again, I don't view photography as equating to scientific imaging. I would also question whether or not Canon or Nikon or Sony or Leica chooses to sell, or not sell, cameras without an anti-aliasing filter has anything to do w/"professional pride" or engineering integrity; I think it has more do whether or not they can make a buck (or rather Yen or Euro) out of the deal.
While I would agree that semilog's wording was a little harsh, I understand his point, and he's technically correct. There are two advantages to not using an AA filter: the performance of angled light rays at the periphery of the sensor and cost. The D800E is a particularly unusual specimen, in that their AA-canceling filter (they don't actually remove the AA) isn't any cheaper, and the camera's registration distance probably doesn't warrant the improved edge performance. I'd imagine that's why semilog characterized as "amateur-bling," as there isn't much reason for it. Proper sharpening of an AA'd sensor will not have a resolution disadvantage when compared to an AA-less sensor, and it will show less artifacts. Heck, in the studio, MFDB shooters are usually battling moire by stopping down and using diffraction to their advantage. My MFDB used to drive me nuts in the studio, back when software didn't do as good of a job at correcting moire.

Don't get me wrong. I love my M9, and it's currently my favorite camera, but I think it's important for M9 users to understand why the camera doesn't have an AA filter. Again, cost and angled light rays. If Leica could figure out the astigmatism thing and still use an AA filter, I'd likely welcome it, unless they make a big jump in pixel count, and then the AA wouldn't be needed, anyways.

p.s. Leica also uses one of the cheapest IR sensor filters out there from Kyocera, FWIW
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #34
ramosa
B&W
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Oh, believe me, from a consumer perspective I agree. However, shouldn't people really be comparing the M-240 vs. the M9 regarding improvements in ISO? The reason I say so is that for many M users, a DSLR is not an alternative anyway.
For me, yes. I can't see myself ever going back to a DSLR, so my options are M8 (which I have), M9, or M. (The MM won't work for me, nor will a film RF.) The new M's imagery seems better than I expected. I wanted images to be as good or better than the M9 at base ISO--and I think they will be (see Chris' image of the woman and dog). And better imagery at higher ISO (which is a given IMO). Plus, I will enjoy the better processor, LCD, weather sealing, battery life, etc. (But don't need to the video or live view or focus peaking, etc.)
__________________
——————————————————————————
Leica MM1, Cron 35, Cron 50mm
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #35
douglasf13
Registered User
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
douglasf13 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDK View Post
Physical AA filters will lower the resolution of a camera system a bit, and this effect is always there, a built-in limit that cannot be undone in postproduction.
This is true, but it should be noted that cameras without AA filters simply add false detail through artifacts, so there really isn't a resolution advantage, if you sharpen the camera with an AA optimally.

Anyways, sorry to get off topic.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #36
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
Also, for the record, many professional photographers own & use the D800E, digital Ms, &/or have had the anti-aliasing filters removed on their Canons/Nikons...
Many professional photographers (and doctors, lawyers, etc.) do all sorts of things that have no sound technical basis.

Again, note that the major camera companies that fabricate their own sensors do not sell models that lack AA filters.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #37
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDK View Post
A 35mm/2.8 C Biogon I used to have was the most prone to provoking color moire on my M9P, and I decided to give it to my nephew who is learning B&W film photography along with my old Hexar RF body.
Exactly. That is a staggeringly good lens.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #38
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDK View Post
In our lab we use digital microscope cameras that use a 3 shot system for producing color...
For most applications in microscopy, it's pretty straightforward to match the numerical aperture of your objective to the camera, so that you're oversampling. Diffraction then becomes a de facto AA filter.

We're approaching that point with camera sensors in many cases as well, as pixel sizes descend into the 2µm range. At that point only very good lenses used at wide apertures with immaculate technique will be capable of showing aliasing artifacts. But we're not quite there yet.

The point about the M sensor not having an AA filter because of a design trade-off with astigmatism in the peripheral field (when legacy lenses with a short node-to-sensor distance must be employed) is a very good one. That is an authentic design trade-off, and a reasonable one for Leica's engineers to have made. The rationale for leaving the AA filter off of the D800E is weaker.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #39
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,019
The most useful statement in the current AA / non AA-filter discussion is this one:
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2013   #40
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
True enough, but the last time I checked, photography is not a mere technical problem, i.e., if removing the anti-aliasing filter results in better photography, whether perceived by the photographer or his viewers/clients, where's the harm? Some of us use uncoated lenses &/or toy cameras, even though the technical superiority of coated glass & "real" cameras is obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
Many professional photographers (and doctors, lawyers, etc.) do all sorts of things that have no sound technical basis.
Also true, but again, I think that if Sony & Canon could figure out a way to make money off cameras without anti-aliasing filters, they would (& doesn't Sony make the sensor for the D800E?). The market's simply too small.

Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
Many professional photographers (and doctors, lawyers, etc.) do all sorts of things that have no sound technical basis.

Again, note that the major camera companies that fabricate their own sensors do not sell models that lack AA filters.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:56.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.