a week with the M240 and pretty disillusioned‎

[hossegor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have had my m240 for a week now and i have to admit i seriously regret selling my M9 to fund this camera. while the built quality is nice, after shooting for a week i have not found one image that impressed m IQ wise. they all have a very generic look, like i could have taken them with my d700. it kind of feels like the M has lost its magic. Its a bit hard pinpoint what it is, i will give it another week but i think i will part with it again.

[lct]

Not sure if you're asking for help here but i'd suggest that you try another raw converter if you're not a jpeg shooter.

[Advertisement]

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

[leica lux]

Out of Camera experience might not be the same as in the M9, but with a little bit post processing you get even better results.

 

Lightroom is great with the new M

[jaapv]

Agree. Getting the hang of post-processing differences is the trick. We had the same posts after the M9 succeeded the M8. Every camera demands its own processing to get the best out of it. The corny adagium it is not the camera but the photographer extends to postprocessing. Why was Ansel Adams so great? Because of his darkroom skills.

[Bill W]

Good advice, my M arrives today and I also traded my M9 in to fund the M. I shoot Raw + jpeg and post process in Photoshop.

[jdlaing]

Good advice, my M arrives today and I also traded my M9 in to fund the M. I shoot Raw + jpeg and post process in Photoshop.

 

If you get a chance........try Lightroom.

[Bill W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have my copy of Lightroom but have never gotten the hang of it. I have used Photoshop for so many years and have my "flow" down so to speak.

[Peter H]

The Nikon D700 was (is) a fine camera, but the M9 was, in my opinion, a step up in picture quality. And in my experience so far, the M represents a similar advance in picture quality over the M9 as the M9 did relative to the D700.

 

But for the first little while, until I'd learned how to get the look I wanted from the M, the photos looked a little flat to me, as though they needed processing. Which they did!

 

I have a feeling that the "better" digital cameras become, the more the top-end cameras will increasingly differentiate themselves in that to get the best out of them, a little more work will be needed, but they offer the potential to exceed the quality available from previous-generation and lower-end cameras, for the most part anyway.

[jaapv]

The higher the dynamic range, the flatter the output will seem, but the more malleable it is.

[fsprow]

I am only interested in big prints and with (probably) a little more post processing (Lightroom) the images are even more stunning than my old M9 which was no slouch.

 

Even through I have no interest now in Live View or movies, they will probably enter my routine later. The camera quality is truly outstanding, as is the match of the lenses and the camera.

[AlanJW]

What's this about "magic"? The M will not necessarily result in better photographs than your Nikon as they are both being driven by the same computer -- the one between your ears. Is there potential for good photos in there? Yes, if you understand what the camera is about and how to post process. That's probably true for any good camera.

[algrove]

I am only interested in big prints and with (probably) a little more post processing (Lightroom) the images are even more stunning than my old M9 which was no slouch.

 

I like big prints too. What size is normal for you and what size becomes really big?

[Guest malland]

Alan, this not aimed at you but I don't understand why everyone assumes that the OP does not how to do post-processing. Be that as it may but, while what is best from the pictures comes from the photographer, different cameras do have different color rendition even after excellent post-procssing and, as far as my eyes see, and as far as I've tried M240 DNGs, that os the case with the M240 and the M9. It is certainly anyone's right to prefer one to the other without being criticized or accused of "bashing" a camera.

 

I don't know whether you know Prosophos, but he has a new M240 that to which he has the same reaction as the OP in this thread — and he certainly is skilled in post-processing. There is a large element of taste in play here, and some people think they have better taste than others, and vice verso. It's certainly not about which camera has "more accurate color," the same way that wasn't the case with different color films.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[gpwhite]

As Jaap and others suggest, many of us are not aware enough of the changes to processing and even lens choices that come with new camera bodies. For instance, read Tim Ashley's comments about how favored lenses on M9 don't excite when captured on M240.

 

So, it takes a lot of shooting to learn what a camera+lens system can do relative to the style or composition that you want to achieve. Pick one lens and work with its M240 files to get post-processing flow down that pleases you (i.e., I add black now on most every M240 file, but did so rarely if ever with M9). Of course, I am assuming that M240 is about shooting RAW, not .jpg.

[Peter H]

..........There is a large element of taste in play here, and some people think they have better taste than others, and vice verso. It's certainly not about which camera has "more accurate color," the same way that wasn't the case with different color films.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

Mitch, this is no doubt true.

 

I find it helpful to read about other people's experiences and preferences, even if I don't share them. It helps me to question whether my assumptions are correct, and keeps me alert to issues that in my ignorance or complacency I may have overlooked myself.

 

But I have found, after extensive use of both the M9 and the M, that there's very little if anything that the M9 could do that can't be accurately replicated by the M, but that doesn't apply in the opposite direction, and that leads me to conclude that in image terms alone, setting aside all the handling benefits, I prefer to use the M for the greater malleability of its files, enabling me to take greater control over the final appearance of the image.

[hossegor]

thanks for the constructive feedback, yes i do shoot raw and i use lightroom to edit my files.

the thing is, at the moment i have to tweak images a lot so they look halfway decent, compared to the out of camera results of the m9. i am guessing i have grown to love the rendering of the ccd to much and maybe i was listening too much to the marketing hype. my fault..

[JimKasson]

The higher the dynamic range, the flatter the output will seem...

 

While this is true of sets of separate exposures that have been combined using HDR software (prior to tone mapping), it is not true of raw files. Noise aside, raw files show a linear response to light. Double the light, and the average count in the raw file will double. Therefore the slope of the tone curves are the same regardless of dynamic range, at least in the brightest parts of the image away from the noise floor. For a constant bit depth, raw files have the same full-scale values regardless of dynamic range.

 

The difference between two cameras with different dynamic ranges is in the level of the noise floor -- the amount of signal that is present when no light impinges on the sensor. A camera with a lower dynamic range will have a higher noise floor than a camera with a higher dynamic range.

 

To see how this works mathematically, consider camera A, with a 14-bit bit depth, and a noise floor that averages 100 counts. At full scale, the SNR, measured in stops, will be log2((2^14-1)/100) = 7.35. To calculate the dynamic range, decide what a barely-acceptable SNR is -- let's use 8 -- and subtract the log base 2 of that -- 3.0 -- from the full scale SNR. Camera A has a dynamic range of 4.35 stops, clearly not stellar.

 

Now consider camera B, with a 14-bit bit depth, and a noise floor that averages 1 count. At full scale, the SNR, measured in stops, will be log2((2^14-1)/1) = 14. To calculate the dynamic range, decide what a barely-acceptable SNR is -- let's use 8 -- and subtract the log base 2 of that -- 3.0 -- from the full scale SNR. Camera B has a dynamic range of 11 stops, which is excellent, bordering on miraculous.

 

Note that full scale on camera A is 16383, just as it is on camera B. One stop down from full scale, camera A will produce a count of sqrt((FS/2)^2 + 100^2) = 8192.11, while camera B will produce a count of sqrt((FS/2)^2 + 1^2) = 8191.5 -- virtually identical. Three stops down, camera A will produce a count of sqrt((FS/8)^2 + 100^2) = 2050.3, while camera B will produce a count of sqrt((FS/8)^2 + 1^2) = 2047.8 --very close.

 

But 6 stops down, when camera A will produce a count of sqrt((FS/64)^2 + 100^2) = 274.8, while camera B will produce a count of sqrt((FS/64)^2 + 1^2) = 256.0. So the higher dynamic range camera actually produces files that are less flat than the lower dynamic range camera, in the shadows.

 

Addition: in the above calculations, I omitted the effects of photon/shot noise. Let me know if you want to see the more accurate calcs.

 

Jim

Edited November 8, 2013 by JimKasson
Add paragraph about photon noise.

[Dannybuoy]

I know what you mean. Initially was yearning for the M9 look OOC with RAW files but then I realised that was stupid. The M9 seemed to clip the lightest and darkest parts of the image resulting in a contrasty look that I think is the 'M9 look'. But then I discovered all that amazing extra detail in the shadows. This changed everything for me. I can shoot with more flexibility. I can reproduce the look of peer cameras but also very simply make them more M9ish. Is adding a bit of contrast/clarity/shadows/blacks in Lighteoom that hard. You can even create default import setting in LR so no work at all.

 

Ultimately the M produces images far far superior to the M9. I really don't miss my M9 at all. Apart from sentimental value as I took photos of both my children just minutes after being born with it. :-)

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I have had my m240 for a week now and i have to admit i seriously regret selling my M9 to fund this camera. while the built quality is nice, after shooting for a week i have not found one image that impressed m IQ wise. they all have a very generic look, like i could have taken them with my d700. it kind of feels like the M has lost its magic. Its a bit hard pinpoint what it is, i will give it another week but i think i will part with it again.

 

Who is in charge here, the camera or you?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[albireo_double]

Alan, this not aimed at you but I don't understand why everyone assumes that the OP does not how to do post-processing.

 

Perhaps it is because the OP says that he's had the M240 for only a week - I had the same impression during the first week before I learned to work a bit harder on post processing and then concluded that I was as happy with the M240 files as I was with the M9 files, and perhaps even happier.