M240 vs M9 — Colour Rendition

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the feeling that comparing the colour rendition of the the M240 vs the M9 is being treated like film vs digital discussions: "let's not start another film vs digital thread!" When it is discussed there seem to be largely the following sets of views on the M240:

 

1. Too early: the M240 needs firmware and raw processor profile upgrades.

2. It's the white balance that's off.

3. Make a dual-light profile and everything will be okay.

4. Learn to process the files well and you can get the same colours as the M9.

5. The M240 colour rendition is better; just increase the contrast.

6. There is no difference in CMOS and CCD colour rendition.

7. Look at Ming Thein's review and tell me you don't like the M240 colours.

8. It's only a matter of taste.

 

Maybe you can add still other sets of views, but my reaction from everything I've seen on the web and from having tried processing a few M240 files is that the following statement by Charles Peterson, an excellent colour photographer, resonates at this stage the most with my own views: I do think that the higher iso's on the M9 are vastly underrated, and in general much prefer the image quality of the M9 to the M240. The M9 (and Monochrom by de facto) imo are truly two of the most unique digital cameras out there when it comes to the quality of the image. Not the "best" on paper but they have a look,an "umami" as the Japanese might say, that no other 35mm digital camera, comes close to.

 

This morning, looking at reviews of the huge Georges Braque exhibition at Grand Palais that I'm going to in a few minutes, I came across the following quote from Braque: ‘The only thing that matters in art is what cannot be explained,’ Braque wrote. And: ‘How is one to talk about colour? ... Those who have eyes know just how irrelevant words are to what they see.’ Further: ‘To define a thing is to substitute the definition for the thing.’

 

There's truth in what Braque says, but is there anything objective that can be said about M240 vs M9 colour rendition?

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[rirakuma]

I've never owned an M9 but I've wanted one for a while and did my research on it before buying the M. I personally think that there can be a difference in color rendition depending on the lighting. Ming wrote that he finds the color from the M9 cooler and lighter and I agree with this. I also think the colors from the M is more "natural" however I do like the color rendition of the M9 a lot. If someone posts a blind test I may not be able to tell the difference most of the time but I have a theory that cameras can render colors very differently depending on lighting scenarios (especially in harsh conditions) and its on those circumstances that the difference will greatly show between the M and M9. IF I had the money I would also get an M9 just so I can get its color rendering however I felt the M is just a much more logical camera to get as a new Leica user due to its technical improvements over the M9.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Dannybuoy]

At first I was almost programmed to try and make the files out of my M to look like M9 files. I'd become so accustomed to the way it rendered I was initially after that exact same look from the M. Then I realised that the M had its own way of doing things. It was a very different DNG to work with and I've become more accustomed to my workflow. And now I must say that I'm much happier with the colour from the M than the M9. It's all down to personal preference at the end of the day. M files feel more modern, maliable and hardy. Colour feels more controllable. As for B&W. Wow :-)

[harvey999999]

A recent article in LFI magazine very objectively set out the case for the colour rendition of the M240 being much better than the M9 and showed evidence that the problem lies in the white balance settings of the M240. Hard to deny that if you read the article.

[thighslapper]

A recent article in LFI magazine very objectively set out the case for the colour rendition of the M240 being much better than the M9 and showed evidence that the problem lies in the white balance settings of the M240. Hard to deny that if you read the article.

 

Correct ...... And this will be fixed in the next firmware update

[woorob]

I just received my new M yesterday. One of the first things I did was to create a camera calibration profile using the ColorChecker Passport plug-in in Lightroom 5. I have a similar camera calibration profile for my M9-P.

 

Shooting identical pictures off my deck, using two tripods side-by-side and then applying the matching profile for each in the Develop module, the coloration of the two images is almost identical. So it seems very likely that white balance is indeed the only color "shortcoming" of the M.

[mirekti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Could you share this profile, please?

[Karl G]

Mitch, you desperately seek for the color of the M to be inferior to the M9. Besides all the objective reviews and users that say it isn't so, I'll add, the color on the M is fine. I have many files from a ME and a M, if I didn't know when I switched, you couldn't tell. PP is a different work flow to taste, but that is true with any different camera. You can however do more with the M files like bringing up shadows than you could with the ME.

 

There are lots of people shooting the M now, and the color profile for the M with FW updates (i.e. the white balance) will be completely sorted. The M9, as I recall also needed FW updates at the beginning.

 

Really the only ones not happy or raising the CMOS/CCD question on colors are people looking for justification not to upgrade. That horse remains dead after its many beatings. You do not need justification to not upgrade. If the ME does everything you need, you can stick with it. It's a fine camera. The M does not HAVE to be somehow defective in color (which it is not) so you don't have to upgrade.

[Guest malland]

Mitch, you desperately seek for the color of the M to be inferior to the M9...The M does not HAVE to be somehow defective in color (which it is not) so you don't have to upgrade.

Karl, please don't question my motives.

 

I started this thread to see how a reasonable discussion could be conducted, now that there are quite a few people shooting with an M240. Just because I'm still skeptical about the colour rendition from what I see from the images — as opposed to what people write — does not mean I'm looking for a reason to justify the M9.

 

It's a complex issue because it's related to color perception and is also to taste, which is the reason that I included the Braque quote, "How does one talk about a color?" There is no need trivialize the discussion as you are doing by questioning my motives.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Ozkar]

Mitch, you desperately seek for the color of the M to be inferior to the M9. Besides all the objective reviews and users that say it isn't so, I'll add, the color on the M is fine. I have many files from a ME and a M, if I didn't know when I switched, you couldn't tell. PP is a different work flow to taste, but that is true with any different camera. You can however do more with the M files like bringing up shadows than you could with the ME.

 

There are lots of people shooting the M now, and the color profile for the M with FW updates (i.e. the white balance) will be completely sorted. The M9, as I recall also needed FW updates at the beginning.

 

Really the only ones not happy or raising the CMOS/CCD question on colors are people looking for justification not to upgrade. That horse remains dead after its many beatings. You do not need justification to not upgrade. If the ME does everything you need, you can stick with it. It's a fine camera. The M does not HAVE to be somehow defective in color (which it is not) so you don't have to upgrade.

 

 

This is a very opportune discussion for me since I'm deliberating on whether to upgrade to the M240. I thank Mitch for spearheading this discussion.

 

As much as I love the (potential) colour rendition coming out of the M9, it is effectively (for me) only a daylight/ISO 160 camera. In mixed and/or low lighting there are many issues that need to be addressed in PP due to noise and colour shift.

 

I have a loaner M240 at present. Like many, I was a little underwhelmed at the outset. I was expecting the M240 to render colour like the M9. And while it is possible to process the two to be pretty much identical (as was also the case when I was shooting both my M9 and NEX7 side by side) I came to the realisation that this was not the way to go. The M240 is capable of better/more accurate colour than the M9 with considerably better dynamic range. Reds were always a problem with the M9 but are very appealing with the M240. I don't want to digress into a film vs digital discussion, however I will say that the M240 looks far more filmic due to the gentle roll-off of highlights. The M9 will abruptly clip highlights, much the same as the many and varied point and shoots I have used.

 

The jury is still out but after spending a few days with the M240 I find I'm liking what I see. I have not yet committed, at this stage, since I'm waiting to see what Sony will bring to the table with their new FF ILC. If the rumours prove to be true, a D800E sensor with a 4mp integrated EVF are a very tempting proposition. But that is a separate discussion.

[woorob]

Here's a download link to the camera calibration profile I created for my new M (240), using Xrite's ColorChecker Passport plug-in for Lightroom --

 

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D243783_74495284_885575

 

Hope it works for you. It's calibrated for overhead clear sunlight at ~12:00 noon, 45th latitude, Minnesota, on October 2, 2013.

 

I can post another for overcast conditions, or for my M9-P, if anyone's interested.

[Ozkar]

Karl, please don't question my motives.

 

I started this thread to see how a reasonable discussion could be conducted, now that there are quite a few people shooting with an M240. Just because I'm still skeptical about the colour rendition from what I see from the images — as opposed to what people write — does not mean I'm looking for a reason to justify the M9.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

I get the impression that almost all that claim the M9 trumps the M240, in terms of rendering, colour, micro-contrast, sharpness, 3D POP, magic, you name it, have never shot with the latter.

 

This site is a typical example: Blog | P r o s o p h o s | Photographing Life's Little Moments™

 

I wonder how many people (including the fellow that runs the blog) actually used both cameras before responding to the poll? My guess, zero.

[Rick]

At it again I see, Mitch. I'm going to wait just a little bit longer before I expend any energy responding to this topic.

[Guest malland]

At it again I see, Mitch. I'm going to wait just a little bit longer before I expend any energy responding to this topic.

Rick, that sounds like a "digital vs film" situation, no? Seriously though, one of my thoughts is that it's simply too early to reach any conclusion, i.e., before Leica issues a firmware update; but if it's simply a white balance issue, like many suggest, I would have thought that Leica could have fixed it by now.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria [download link for book project]

[Rick]

Rick, that sounds like a "digital vs film" situation, no? Seriously though, one of my thoughts is that it's simply too early to reach any conclusion, i.e., before Leica issues a firmware update; but if it's simply a white balance issue, like many suggest, I would have thought that Leica could have fixed it by now.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria [download link for book project]

 

Mitch, it isn't anything like a film vs digital. It is an older digital technology vs a newer one. Technology marches on and the M is simply a better sensor than the 2006 CCD sensor that the M9 inherited from the M8... even before the update it is better.

 

I agree with you, it is simply too early to reach any conclusion before Leica issues a firmware update. And, what you are seeing is both a WB issue and a color issue that I'm sure is going to be solved by Leica in the firmware update. Give Leica a little bit more time to test and make sure the update is up to the standard you would expect.

[Guest malland]

...The M240 is capable of better/more accurate colour than the M9 with considerably better dynamic range. Reds were always a problem with the M9 but are very appealing with the M240. I don't want to digress into a film vs digital discussion, however I will say that the M240 looks far more filmic due to the gentle roll-off of highlights. The M9 will abruptly clip highlights, much the same as the many and varied point and shoots I have used...

Yes, I would think that the greater dynamic range should be significant, but I suppose that some of the Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras have better dynamic range than the M9, but many people prefer the colour rendition of the latter. The roll-off of highlights of the M9 has been tamed by process PV2012 in LR4/5 because the compression is similar to film, but that should work even better with a camera with greater dynamic range like the M240 — so this is puzzling.

 

I'm surprised by your statement that the reds "are very appealing with the M240" because it seemed to me, both from what people have been writing and from seeing posted pictures, that it's the red and yellows that are problematic.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

Edited October 4, 2013 by malland

[pieterpronk]

While I appreciate you wanting to discuss this in an objective fashion, I doubt we will be able to. I've spent months trying to decide if I could make the M240 rendering work for me (with whatever profiles or post processing), but in the end I got no further than just liking the CCD rendering more than the CMOS. I have failed to give this subjective statement much objective reasoning.

 

I do know there is a difference between the rendering of the sensors. This is so clear to me that I'm just soo puzzled when somebody says there isn't. But then again each viewers subjectivity plays a big part in this. I do see more and more people saying there is a difference.

 

For me personally, I have the cash in hand to buy another color camera next to my MM, and about a month ago my dealer called me to offer me the new M240, but I just can't buy a camera whose rendering leaves me cold. It's going to be a M9 for me, which is kinda sad because I'd like the extra iso performance, general improvements and better ergonomics.

 

Anyway, do you have any suggestion as to how you would think we can discuss this issue in a civilized and objective way? Until we do, this topic will stay a way to push our subjective opinions unto others, which seems unfair both to people that bought the M240 (it gets tiring to defend your new investment) or to those that for whatever reason decide to stick to their M9 (it gets equally tiring to defend your trusty old workhorse from the shiny new and improved one).

[Guest malland]

While I appreciate you wanting to discuss this in an objective fashion, I doubt we will be able to...

Pieter, I think you state the dilemma clearly and articulately. Perhaps it is too early for a meaningful and objective discussion — and this has to wait until Leica issues a firmware upgrade, after all.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Rick]

Mitch, I guess I'm not sure why you didn't post this in the M9 forum? It seems more like a topic that would be of more interest and would speak to more people in the M9 forum. Most of us here now own the M240 and have answered that question for ourselves. Maybe, the mods should move this to the M9 forum where it would be of more interest?

Edited October 4, 2013 by RickLeica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest malland]

I posted this in the M240 for the reason that you yourself stated: essentially to get the views of M240 users, particularly if they have the M9 as well. The trouble is that words are not going to do it: as Braque says, "How do you talk about colour?" — you have to see it. The posts above make me conclude, however, that it's still premature.

 

I must say, though, that it's disingenuous for you to suggest that the moderator should move this thread to the M9 forum — as it is for you to question the motives of pieterpronk. It's this sort of thing that made me state in the original post that "I have the feeling that comparing the colour rendition of the the M240 vs the M9 is being treated like film vs digital discussions." That is too bad and reflects something that is so obvious that I don't have to state it, which is too bad.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]