Hands on CL test - jpg vs RAW w/ MF lenses

H

Huss

Veteran
Local time
3:35 AM
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
9,859
Today I had the chance to play with the CL. It had an AF lens on it but that held no interest to me, as I wanted to see how it works with M mount lenses.

Ben @ Samys Camera in Los Angeles (Fairfax shop - the only shop that has a demo at the moment) was very nice, and pulled out an M-TL adapter for me to use. What was surprising to me is how much better the RAW files looked than the jpegs. I don't know what the settings were (if there are different jpeg settings), just was told that it was set to record in RAW (dng) + Jpeg.

The RAW(DNGs) looked better w/o me doing anything, but because I would never leave them alone, I show them here w/ slight slider changes to taste. So you can see how a very very mildly breathed on RAW image compares to the jpg.

The first snap is with my iphone 4s (!) to show how the camera looks with the mighty 7Artisans 50 1.1. I was excited to use it and took a couple of snaps - shown here, but changed to my Lux 50 Asph once I realized the 7Artisans could only focus from min focus distance to about 2 meters. There is some physical interference w/in the camera mount as this lens sticks out a long long way. No issues (of course) with the Lux.

One thing of interest is I did not see any vignetting at these distances and shot wide open. I could not leave the building (the sales floor is on the 3rd floor) so obviously the test is not complete. It would be nice to try it at infinity and different apertures.

Anyway:



7Artisans 50 1.1 @ 1.1:

Jpeg



DNG



Jpeg



DNG



----------


Summilux 50 1.4 Asph:

Jpg



DNG



Jpg (shot through a glass display case)



DNG



Jpg



DNG
 
Very interesting.

I do find it incredible that jpg cannot resolve red beyond a bright orange. No such issues in RAW. Drives me nuts at Christmas ;)
 
Mute-on said:
Very interesting.

I do find it incredible that jpg cannot resolve red beyond a bright orange. No such issues in RAW. Drives me nuts at Christmas ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah that's weird. It made me think that maybe I had the jpegs and dngs swapped, but I did not. The DNGs show reds as red, the jpeg shows them as orange.
 
Leica jpegs are never that great to be honest. Never cared though... how did it feel in your hand?
 
The SL JPEGs are the best Leica JPEGs I've experienced. But I leave it on DNG only most of the time, and of course my M-D doesn't make JPEGs.

I could be tempted by this little body. It would make for a very compact travel kit with my R lenses. But I'll resist ... for now at least. :angel:

:D

G
 
ptpdprinter said:
Why would there be any vignetting using a full frame lens on an APS-C sensor? You are only using the center of the image circle.
Click to expand...

Because more of the light hits the sensor at oblique angles further from the center. This needs to be corrected with micro lenses and less depth of the "wells".
 
Have to agree Huss, the RAW files just seem to look very well balanced. It should be said I am crappy at color differentiation.

Thanks for sharing.

B2 (;->
 
retinax said:
Because more of the light hits the sensor at oblique angles further from the center. This needs to be corrected with micro lenses and less depth of the "wells".
Click to expand...

The 50 Lux Asph Huss was using (blue image circle) doesn't vignette on a full frame sensor so its not going to vignette on an APS-C sensor (pink rectangle). You are only using the center of the image circle, so the oblique angles explanation is inapplicable.
image_circle.jpg
 
ptpdprinter said:
Why would there be any vignetting using a full frame lens on an APS-C sensor? You are only using the center of the image circle.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. My findings, albeit in very very limited testing, were contrary to some people reporting vignetting. Which does not make sense for the exact reasons you point out.

Which leads me to believe that some of these 'tests' in fact are not. Just throw in some catch phrases and continue with their day..
 
ptpdprinter said:
The 50 Lux Asph Huss was using (blue image circle) doesn't vignette on a full frame sensor so its not going to vignette on an APS-C sensor (pink rectangle).
Click to expand...

This is just a nomenclature issue. I'm not sure if you don't know this or are just continuing on trying to get them to take the hint.

The issue is "vignette" vs. "fall-off." These days a lot of folks say "vignette" when they actually mean fall-off (or another term I have seen is "peripheral shading :rolleyes:).

Of course "vignette" in older times would mean hard-edge loss of image past the defined imaging circle, as in the image you posted.

While some pedants might insist "vignette" is wrong, I would mention that many modern cameras have "vignette control" in the software that fixes peripheral fall-off. So, I think in modern vernacular "vignette" and "fall-off" are used interchangeably. Don't tell the folks over at the LF forum as this side topic would probably be 10 pages long of arguing about what the words meant when they started shooting seriously in 1914.
 
jsrockit said:
Leica jpegs are never that great to be honest. Never cared though... how did it feel in your hand?
Click to expand...

It felt great. Like the luxury high end item that it is, and much better than the equivalent Fujis/Sonys etc. Which is how it should be given the price tag.
I'm not saying I'm getting one (I'm 95% a film shooter nowadays), but after using it, I 'get it'.

There are a couple of lenses I have that I'd love to try out on it. The killer Summicron 40 f2 and... the Lomo Minitar 32 2.8 pancake. The Lomo is sharp in the middle 1/3 and of course tiny. So it should perform very differently on the CL, as the outer edges are cropped out by the sensor.
 
Huss said:
Which leads me to believe that some of these 'tests' in fact are not. Just throw in some catch phrases and continue with their day..
Click to expand...
Exactly. Draws into question the whole review. If they are making up stuff about vignetting, what else are they making up? In box review?

I like the styling of the CL and can afford it. I could just never rationalize purchasing it over the A6500 or XE3 at 3x the cost. I guess I'm too pragmatic. I'm currently shooting Fuji (XE2/XT2) and like the haptics with the aperture on the lens. Makes going back and forth between film and digital seamless. And I don't get using full frame lenses on an APS-C sensor, with its 1.5x multiplier. I initially thought using my OM lens would be great. I have 18/21/24/40/50/85 and 50/90 macro. The 18 though 50 duplicate the standard (and small) 18-55 zoom. The only MF lenses I use on the Fuji are the 50/90 macro. If I bought the CL, I'd use the 18-56 zoom rather than adapted FF lenses. It covers all the focal lengths and is compact, keeping with the CL's DNA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top