andrew00
Established
Heya,
I have an M9 and M8.2 and was looking at getting a film Leica but was put off by the prices. A friend suggested I try his X100V.
I took some random shots with the X100 and my M9, nothing too interesting, but I do notice significant differences when looking at the shots.
I was wondering if anyone can offer some thoughts on the colour of the two sets of images.
For me, the quick look has the M9 showing much nicer colour, and much greater difference in the tone/variation of the colour. I was wondering if this is the old CCD thing.
The Fuji, to my eyes, doesn't have much drama to the colour and on the sky shot doesn't get the depth of colour in the skyline.
But I don't know if I'm just not taking the shots 'right', so I thought I'd ask if anyone has any thoughts.
Do you feel that the M9 is showing the CCD benefit? Is this why we like these cameras for the way they produce this colour? Or are these just different variations? Nothing better/worse, just different images.
A few details about the shots:
- Both set to Jpeg for ease, although I have the Raw's
- M9 -> Voigtlander 28mm f2 w/B+W UV/IR cut filter (from my M8, left it on the lens and it does give a green wash, but I kinda like it)
- X100V -> Classic chrome, otherwise standard
- The sky shots were taken one after the other
- The lamppost shot were on different days but similar conditions
In case it doesn't show, the first image in both situations is the M9, the second the X100V
M9 by Andrew N, on Flickr
X100V by Andrew N, on Flickr
M9 by Andrew N, on Flickr
X100V by Andrew N, on Flickr
I have an M9 and M8.2 and was looking at getting a film Leica but was put off by the prices. A friend suggested I try his X100V.
I took some random shots with the X100 and my M9, nothing too interesting, but I do notice significant differences when looking at the shots.
I was wondering if anyone can offer some thoughts on the colour of the two sets of images.
For me, the quick look has the M9 showing much nicer colour, and much greater difference in the tone/variation of the colour. I was wondering if this is the old CCD thing.
The Fuji, to my eyes, doesn't have much drama to the colour and on the sky shot doesn't get the depth of colour in the skyline.
But I don't know if I'm just not taking the shots 'right', so I thought I'd ask if anyone has any thoughts.
Do you feel that the M9 is showing the CCD benefit? Is this why we like these cameras for the way they produce this colour? Or are these just different variations? Nothing better/worse, just different images.
A few details about the shots:
- Both set to Jpeg for ease, although I have the Raw's
- M9 -> Voigtlander 28mm f2 w/B+W UV/IR cut filter (from my M8, left it on the lens and it does give a green wash, but I kinda like it)
- X100V -> Classic chrome, otherwise standard
- The sky shots were taken one after the other
- The lamppost shot were on different days but similar conditions
In case it doesn't show, the first image in both situations is the M9, the second the X100V
M9 by Andrew N, on FlickrX100V by Andrew N, on FlickrM9 by Andrew N, on FlickrX100V by Andrew N, on Flickr
Last edited:
andrew00
Established
Ok I seem to be failing to get the images to show so any help would also be appreciated lol
Edit -> got it
Edit -> got it
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
On flickr you need to "view all sizes" and copy the direct link to the image, not the page.
You're comparing JPGs to JPGs. Yes, the images from the M9 look really nice without much work. How much have you played around with the JPG processing of the X100V? It might just take a bit more work to create the look you're after. The X100V sensor is technically way beyond the ancient M9 sensor - especially at high ISOs, and with dynamic range. I'm aware of the praise for the CCD colors but I know you can improve the output of the X100V if you are willing to put in the work (or simply shoot raw).
This also isn't a very technical test. To that end, it really makes sense to spend some more time just going out and photographing more things with the X100V than lamp posts and sunsets.
And finally, the X100V isn't going to satisfy your itch for a film Leica, especially if you already have M-mount lenses. Nothing against it, it's a great camera! But you could sell your M8.2 and probably buy a M2 or M4 with the money...
You're comparing JPGs to JPGs. Yes, the images from the M9 look really nice without much work. How much have you played around with the JPG processing of the X100V? It might just take a bit more work to create the look you're after. The X100V sensor is technically way beyond the ancient M9 sensor - especially at high ISOs, and with dynamic range. I'm aware of the praise for the CCD colors but I know you can improve the output of the X100V if you are willing to put in the work (or simply shoot raw).
This also isn't a very technical test. To that end, it really makes sense to spend some more time just going out and photographing more things with the X100V than lamp posts and sunsets.
And finally, the X100V isn't going to satisfy your itch for a film Leica, especially if you already have M-mount lenses. Nothing against it, it's a great camera! But you could sell your M8.2 and probably buy a M2 or M4 with the money...
Richard G
Mentor
Agree. No useful conclusions to draw yet. Even the original X100 had very nice output. The M9 has some subtle qualities but nothing to make the Fuji look drab I don't reckon, even my original X100.
Archlich
Well-known
Should compare between M9 Standard and X100 Provia.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
You could still get III series film Leica and used Skopars for not crazy price. Just don't expect film to be the same as it used to be. And check film cost and all associated to get decent image from it.
I like my Olympus E-PL1 for film like and great colors. They are just right. My M-E 220 colors after new glass installed are between meh and OK.
I like my Olympus E-PL1 for film like and great colors. They are just right. My M-E 220 colors after new glass installed are between meh and OK.
jmonat7
-
This is mostly a white balance issue. The M9 for some reason on auto white balance renders very cool, while Fuji cameras lean towards a warmer palette. I haven't shot with an X100 but have shot quite a bit with an X-Pro2 and M9 and I found that adjusting the white balance nearly evens out the differences. Both are nice but I wouldn't say one is better than the other objectively. There would definitely be people who prefer the Fuji's more gentle colors to the M9's punchiness.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I don't put much stock in the CCD/CMOS thing. I'm sure there are some differences, but none that really matter to us. That being said, color filter arrays do not all have to be made the same way, and the choice of this filters does affect color reproduction. I believe there are some trades to be made with respect to ISO sensitivity and color purity. DXOmark used to have a measurement of RGB sensitivities of different sensors; I think some other sites did as well.
Despite the above, I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of what you are seeing is white balance and/or jpg processing. There's a lot of color math involved in taking the raw data and outputting it to something we look at, and designers make choices there. Even if you were to shoot raw files and take them into PS/Lightroom, it doesn't mean that you'll be able to get the same results for the same settings - there are still differences behind the scenes (camera profiles, profiles embedded in the raw file, etc.).
Despite the above, I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of what you are seeing is white balance and/or jpg processing. There's a lot of color math involved in taking the raw data and outputting it to something we look at, and designers make choices there. Even if you were to shoot raw files and take them into PS/Lightroom, it doesn't mean that you'll be able to get the same results for the same settings - there are still differences behind the scenes (camera profiles, profiles embedded in the raw file, etc.).
andrew00
Established
Yeah I know it's not a technical test or anything, I wasn't trying to do one it was more something I just observed when looking over the photos.
The sky one was most interesting to me because the sky was very similar to the M9 version, in that it had many layers of colour, from the blue at the top, the pink, orange, yellow etc.
I found it interesting the Fuji didn't get the blue in the top part of the sky and the whole image tended to have a bit of a pink vibe. I couldn't easily get it closer, at least in a few minutes in Lightroom. It's been a while since I've tried to do anything like that tbf so my skills are prob not great.
The sky one was most interesting to me because the sky was very similar to the M9 version, in that it had many layers of colour, from the blue at the top, the pink, orange, yellow etc.
I found it interesting the Fuji didn't get the blue in the top part of the sky and the whole image tended to have a bit of a pink vibe. I couldn't easily get it closer, at least in a few minutes in Lightroom. It's been a while since I've tried to do anything like that tbf so my skills are prob not great.
nzeeman
Well-known
i think from my fuji experience that they like to go on brighter side so it washes out colors-i always underexpose one stop and everything is much nicer...
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
Try playing around with the "film simulations" (Fuji marketingspeak for JPEG profiles). The X100V also has "color chrome" and "color chrome blue" effects that can be switched on or combined. They appear to boost vibrance in already saturated colors but not global saturation. You can use them with all JPEG profiles except for monochrome and Acros.
michael_isaev
Newbie
I might be wrong, but it looks like images from Fuji are more "true to life", and leica is more "artistic" by "default" or some camera setup. It looks like you can try to make results from both camera to be looking more alike if you tweak white balance and color balance in film simulations menu. The simulations themselves are merely starting points. Changing color balance and other jpeg options can move the final result much closer to where you want to see it.
There's a website with a good amount of "recipes" for film simulations
https://fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iv-recipes/
You can play with these presets, maybe you'll be able to find something that you like
There's a website with a good amount of "recipes" for film simulations
https://fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iv-recipes/
You can play with these presets, maybe you'll be able to find something that you like
CMur12
Well-known
I have read that Fujis produce especially good skin tones and have less overall punch to their colors.
I would also follow Judge Holden's advice and try the film simulations.
This all assumes you are working with jpgs. My understanding, from reading on this forum, is that it really doesn't matter if you are shooting RAW, because the user is then setting the color characteristics.
- Murray
I would also follow Judge Holden's advice and try the film simulations.
This all assumes you are working with jpgs. My understanding, from reading on this forum, is that it really doesn't matter if you are shooting RAW, because the user is then setting the color characteristics.
- Murray
willie_901
Mentor
FUJIFILM in-camera JPEGs attempt to render similarly to their film products.
FUJIFILM has a large semiconductor Materials business. Part of this business is their COLOR MOSAIC® RGB films for color filter arrays. FUJIFILM can use proprietary CFA films to create unique, in-camera rendering aesthetics.
No camera company will copy a competitor's rendering aesthetic.
Differences in lens coatings and IR filter film transmission properties in the sensor coverglass also play a role.
Using raw files is useful if one wants to have maximum control over the rendered image. Using well-designed, controlled methods it should be possible to render raw images similarly (but not identically!) for different camera brands. This would be tedious.
Don't listen to anyone who claims sensor assemblies offer unique renderings based only on CCD or CMOS technologies. Both CCD and CMOS convert light into photoelectrons which are then converted into DC voltages. These electrical charges and corresponding voltages can not have unique characteristics. What is unique are the CFA RGB filter films, IR coverglass film properties and the JPEG demosaicking algorithm models.[1] These factors are responsible for aesthetic color rendering differences. As with all aesthetic preferences, some people will prefer image rendering from images that happen to use CCD sensors.
1. To be complete, CCD photodiodes have a slightly different frequency response profile than CMOS photodiodes. Absorption thickness differences affect the lower frequencies (red). Manufacturing differences also affect the higher frequency (blue) response. These small differences can be moot if the demosaicking models take them into account (unlikely).
FUJIFILM has a large semiconductor Materials business. Part of this business is their COLOR MOSAIC® RGB films for color filter arrays. FUJIFILM can use proprietary CFA films to create unique, in-camera rendering aesthetics.
No camera company will copy a competitor's rendering aesthetic.
Differences in lens coatings and IR filter film transmission properties in the sensor coverglass also play a role.
Using raw files is useful if one wants to have maximum control over the rendered image. Using well-designed, controlled methods it should be possible to render raw images similarly (but not identically!) for different camera brands. This would be tedious.
Don't listen to anyone who claims sensor assemblies offer unique renderings based only on CCD or CMOS technologies. Both CCD and CMOS convert light into photoelectrons which are then converted into DC voltages. These electrical charges and corresponding voltages can not have unique characteristics. What is unique are the CFA RGB filter films, IR coverglass film properties and the JPEG demosaicking algorithm models.[1] These factors are responsible for aesthetic color rendering differences. As with all aesthetic preferences, some people will prefer image rendering from images that happen to use CCD sensors.
1. To be complete, CCD photodiodes have a slightly different frequency response profile than CMOS photodiodes. Absorption thickness differences affect the lower frequencies (red). Manufacturing differences also affect the higher frequency (blue) response. These small differences can be moot if the demosaicking models take them into account (unlikely).
David Hughes
David Hughes
It's none of my business but I can't help wondering why anyone with a Leica M9 would bother with another camera and especially another make.
The M9 pictures, lenses etc, etc seem to me a much better subject to concentrate on; or do you just fancy a smaller camera? That's the only snag with the M9 and a few lenses; meaning the weight and size.
Regards, David
The M9 pictures, lenses etc, etc seem to me a much better subject to concentrate on; or do you just fancy a smaller camera? That's the only snag with the M9 and a few lenses; meaning the weight and size.
Regards, David
agentlossing
Well-known
The Fuji images look pretty magenta-shifted to me. That may be a feature of classic chrome, but not one that's working to the advantage here. The M9 files look a bit cyan shifted, which isn't bad - CMOS files tend to have a bit of yellow-green about them which I've never liked, and a bit of a cyan shift may be what people often refer to as a CCD look.
Magenta boosts the lower midtones so you get good contrast across the image, but it also fades colors. Maybe that is how classic chrome gets its "classic" look, in part.
Magenta boosts the lower midtones so you get good contrast across the image, but it also fades colors. Maybe that is how classic chrome gets its "classic" look, in part.