M240 vs M9

[Mr_Jones]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been comparing the M240 and M9 for a couple of hours. I had wished for the M9 sensor in the M240 but like to M240 interface improvements. However my memory of the M9 images still lived on as I became more used to working with the M240 files.

 

Although I won't criticise either camera I have been interested in the very subtle difference between the 2 sensors, and really it is very subtle. However, I do still like the M9 by a fraction and I'm trying to work out why.

 

As an example I've 2 photos attached and I feel the M9 one exhibits a shade more differentiation between objects at different distances from the camera giving a slightly more 3d look. I'm not sure why this would be the case or whether I'm kidding myself but it does tie in with my gut instinct about the different sensors.

 

I will say the M240 sensor has had me going in a different and equally rewarding direction in post.

 

I've equalised the white balance in these examples.

 

Anyone care to theorise on the reason for the perceived difference?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[250swb]

 

Anyone care to theorise on the reason for the perceived difference?

 

The difference is micro contrast, the M240 needs a bit more 'Clarity' than the M9 adding in ACR, or if you use the Nik Collection 'Structure' which is the same thing and perhaps more descriptive.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

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

[Doc Henry]

Jones,

Without looking at the Exif I recognized immediately that the first picture is from the M9

As said Erwin Puts , M240 gives "neutral" color and M9 "vivid" color (like Kodak Portra)

I agree with him !

 

Henry

Edited April 1, 2014 by Doc Henry

[Mr_Jones]

Thanks Steve, I added some clarity and it does go some way to restoring the look I'd been missing.

 

Doc Henry, I agree the M240 is less vivid but it does represent better the real colour in this case, so I guess 'neutral' in so much as it doesn't apply much character. I'm still a fan of the M9 look though.

 

Incidentally the differences were more pronounced on my laptop viewing the forum jpegs than viewing the dngs on an eizo. Whatever creates the vivid appearance can obviously be enhanced by limitations in the jpeg compression & display setup.

[Doc Henry]

Jones, after my practice of 4 years now comparing color film pictures vs digital M8, M9 and M240 photos (time to test from

my local Leica store),

For me, the reference for color remains the film like Kodak Portra (do not forget that CCD sensors M8, M9 come from Kodak).

 

Look at these links where I posted film pictures and digital in comparison , during my last humanitarian mission on february 2014.

post n°25 (post n°22 corrected in LR):

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/325507-pictures-mission-2.html

and post n°915:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-46.html

 

This is obvious immediately (relief, contrast, real color and richness of color)

For the color and for M240,I think that we must go through processing software , such as LR, to obtain, if necessary this real lively

and "vivid" character, mentioned by Erwin Puts.........and I do not say that the images of M240 are not beautiful

Best

Henry

Edited April 2, 2014 by Doc Henry

[Mr_Jones]

Henry, I agree about the CCD sensor being closer to Portra, what surprised me was the similarity in colour from the 240 and M9 as I had felt it would be more.

 

With the M240 I have naturally started to process the images to taste, in some cases fairly extreme processing and I'm enjoying it greatly. Although I will miss the M9 sensor I am happier with one colour body. Maybe an MP in my future though.

 

I see you are also a biker and I respect your ability to get good shots whilst on the bike! I toured NZ with an X1 3 years ago but relied on pillions to handle to photography there.

 

Now I would probably opt for a go pro to capture some scenery but the experience can not be fully translated by video or photograph in my mind. So many beautiful scenes rushing past, enhanced of course by remaining only in the memory! The stills provide some lovely reminders though.

 

I'm attaching a heavily processed photo from NZ.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jones thank you for your reply.

Yes the M9 is still a good camera and much longer, as the M8 also makes beautiful b&w (I use it for that and for camera back up).

 

Jones, we are 3 physicians.Our mission was supported by the government to go care for villagers. We have a Toyota 4x4 with air

conditioning and a van behind us with all the equipment essential aid and diagnostics as well as drugs.I took many pictures from

the car because I was sitting in the front , next to the driver.Everyone leaves me in front because they know I have Leica cameras

and I love taking pictures

 

If you're interested, I'll post more photos of this mission in film, M8 and M9

 

Beautiful capture with nice clouds

Where ? vignetting is desired ?

Shooting of a motorbike are also exciting

 

Best

Henry

Edited April 2, 2014 by Doc Henry

[thighslapper]

Having done loads of comparisons initially and more with beta testing I'm also convinced that it is down almost entirely to saturation and contrast/sharpening.

 

A simple profile in LR on import can render them almost identical if you wish.

 

There are still a few subltle differences in the handling of reds and blue-greens that does seem to be exposure dependent .... and the M does tend to overexpose a bit compared to the M9.

 

What is very different is how malleable the M files are ..... the scope for manipulation without unwanted artefacts is much greater than with M9 images.....

[Mr_Jones]

I agree the M240 files welcome manipulation, in a way I see the M9 as a character camera which delivers something finished although 'poetic' and the M240 as a more clinical camera which gives an excellent starting point to create your own signature look.

 

I don't doubt you can get close with the M240 to the M9 but like a lot of complex comparisons the M9 just does itself and the M240 is not designed to imitate.

 

Purely my impression though and nothing I want to force onto anyone else.

 

@ the Doc. Sorry I got the impression from the photos that you were riding motorbikes. I was looking at your pictures of fog on the road and it reminded me of some adventures where you can barely see your hand in front of your face.

[Doc Henry]

Jones , thank you for the answer

In this thread on the film, almost all my photos taken with my M7 are not processed in LR

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-48.html

Best

Henry

[farnz]

Mr Jones,

 

I wondered whether you might be in NZ when I saw your two lovely Cordyline Australis (Cabbage Trees) in your back garden. I'd guess that the photos were probably taken in September or October 2013 judging by your neighbour's flowering Forsythia and your 'flowering' Cordylines.

 

Pete.

[Mr_Jones]

No, I'm in the UK. That's the back garden in London April 1st 2014. Only spent 3 weeks touring in NZ and didn't see any signs of the air pollution we get here. We do love the Cordyline though. I found NZ quite different in details but very similar to Wales and Scotland on the surface. Very lovely country though. Lucky to see a lot of both islands in one trip.

 

Here's a nice back garden from NZ.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 4, 2014 by Mr_Jones

[Mr_Jones]

@ The Doc. I really like the ADOX CHS 100. That could get me into shooting film.

[tobey bilek]

Mostly imagination.

 

However the greens are different. Check the palm leaves and the vertical bush near the flower pot. They tend toward yellow, but different ones in different pictures.

 

One may have a tad more contrast.

 

If you want them the same, profile the camera with profile editor in Adobe labs.

[jaapv]

Which could be a difference in IR sensitivity. Try again with an 486 filter on the lens.

[jaques]

Mostly imagination.

 

However the greens are different. Check the palm leaves and the vertical bush near the flower pot. They tend toward yellow, but different ones in different pictures.

 

One may have a tad more contrast.

 

If you want them the same, profile the camera with profile editor in Adobe labs.

(my underlining)

 

I have definitely noticed this above all else: the greens on the m240 tend to have a lot more yellow in them.

[Doc Henry]

(my underlining)

 

I have definitely noticed this above all else: the greens

on the m240 tend to have a lot more yellow in them.

Jaques , that's right, well seen !

also for red, yellow, purple (flower in background)

Best

Henry

[keenr]

Which could be a difference in IR sensitivity. Try again with an 486 filter on the lens.

 

JAAP - Just to clarify, are you suggesting a 486 filter on the m240 or the m9?

[Mr_Jones]

It wouldn't matter if you used it on both, especially since the lens is the same. I don't have the M9p any more though. I was quite happy with the comparison and I can miss the M9 a bit less. Only a bit though, it's still a fantastic camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bocaburger]

Which could be a difference in IR sensitivity. Try again with an 486 filter on the lens.

 

But if the M240 making greens yellower than the M9 was due to increased IR sensitivity then wouldn't it follow that it (M240) should also tend to produce more magenta with black synthetics? Does it? In my few days with an M240 I didn't notice that it did and I haven't read of this being an issue. Hopefully it's just a color balance issue that can and will be sorted in a future firmware update.