Jump to content

I love my M-D 262


Recommended Posts

OK. I'll be first to ask a question.

Is the particular quality of this image attributable to the lens, the camera or the photographer?

Put another way, how would the outcome change if one or any of those variables be replaced?

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I'll be first to ask a question.

Is the particular quality of this image attributable to the lens, the camera or the photographer?

Put another way, how would the outcome change if one or any of those variables be replaced?

or the subject?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I'll be first to ask a question.

Is the particular quality of this image attributable to the lens, the camera or the photographer?

Put another way, how would the outcome change if one or any of those variables be replaced?

 

 

My M-D arrived the other day. All I've had time to do with it so far is take it out and compare it against the M-P typ 240 with a couple of test photographs using my 1972 Summilux 35 v2 and new Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4 lenses (both are six-bit coded). Results?

 

The performance and the resulting photographs are identical. The difference is the working methodology and feel of the M-D body vs the M-P body rather than any measure of the image recording capabilities. The M-D shutter is very marginally quieter than the M-P shutter. The lack of an LCD and control buttons makes it easier to grasp and hold. The lack of Live View, instant review, alternative metering modes, JPEG rendering settings, or motion capture makes shooting with it much more akin to shooting with the M4-2 than the M-P. The direct ISO setting control, aperture priority or manual metering modes with "classic" pattern only makes it much more akin to shooting with an M7. Because of the lack of buttons and LCD, it is a couple of millimeters thinner where my fingers fall compared to the M-P, and I can pick it up out of the bag or off a table without my fingers having to dodge the buttons, the LCD, or the viewfinder windows. 

 

I think I'm in love: even without going for a walk with it yet, I already feel like it is my favorite digital M to date.   :rolleyes:

 

It's exactly what I have wanted for a decade: a truly simple digital camera with full manual control, aperture priority exposure automation, top notch lenses, and excellent build quality.

Edited by ramarren
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

The particular quality is that it gets you out an photograph. That's the first. 

 

It's simplicity cut down to the core, that's what special about it. Nobody else could remove the screen without adding 150 buttons. Leica can because the M camera is already so simple you don't need the screen, other than for reviewing.

 

Without reviewing, you are eager to get back and "develop". You have no idea what you got. Just like film.  

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The performance and the resulting photographs are identical. \

 

I would say so, but when I looked at the pictures, they were better than expected with the M-D 262. I'm testing it for my upcoming M-D 262 article (plug: sign up for my newsletter to get it when out), but these two charts confirms my suspicion that the slightly different sensor in M-D 262 (not made for live view) turns out a slightly different result. I like it.

 

I remember M60 users saying the M60 files looked different than the M240. Don't know is that is the case. 

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!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

My M-D arrived the other day. All I've had time to do with it so far is take it out and compare it against the M-P typ 240 with a couple of test photographs using my 1972 Summilux 35 v2 and new Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4 lenses (both are six-bit coded). Results?

 

The performance and the resulting photographs are identical. The difference is the working methodology and feel of the M-D body vs the M-P body rather than any measure of the image recording capabilities. The M-D shutter is very marginally quieter than the M-P shutter. The lack of an LCD and control buttons makes it easier to grasp and hold. The lack of Live View, instant review, alternative metering modes, JPEG rendering settings, or motion capture makes shooting with it much more akin to shooting with the M4-2 than the M-P. The direct ISO setting control, aperture priority or manual metering modes with "classic" pattern only makes it much more akin to shooting with an M7. Because of the lack of buttons and LCD, it is a couple of millimeters thinner where my fingers fall compared to the M-P, and I can pick it up out of the bag or off a table without my fingers having to dodge the buttons, the LCD, or the viewfinder windows. 

 

I think I'm in love: even without going for a walk with it yet, I already feel like it is my favorite digital M to date.   :rolleyes:

 

It's exactly what I have wanted for a decade: a truly simple digital camera with full manual control, aperture priority exposure automation, top notch lenses, and excellent build quality.

Ramarren, I accept all you say in this regard, but the precise intent of my questions is not to analyze the gear, but to determine any image difference. Those admirable features you elaborate on are, to my perception, purely ergonomic pleasures, which of course should be enjoyed. I am the first to champion the ergonomic useability of any particular camera for it's intended purpose.

 

I suppose I am challenging the purely image producing ability of the camera, simply because I am totally unaware of it's advantages in that respect. Conversely, I am looking for reasons not to buy one! (I have a limited budget).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say so, but when I looked at the pictures, they were better than expected with the M-D 262. I'm testing it for my upcoming M-D 262 article (plug: sign up for my newsletter to get it when out), but these two charts confirms my suspicion that the slightly different sensor in M-D 262 (not made for live view) turns out a slightly different result. I like it.

 

I remember M60 users saying the M60 files looked different than the M240. Don't know is that is the case. 

Thorsten, I have looked hard at your two colour chart images and I find it nigh on impossible to perceive any real difference, at least in 'real world' terms. I can detect a very slight paler colour to the patches from the M240, but would rate that difference as insignificant in any real world shooting scenario, that I normally encounter. Perhaps some finer point is lost in translation via the internet, but I don't know.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thorsten, I have looked hard at your two colour chart images and I find it nigh on impossible to perceive any real difference, at least in 'real world' terms. I can detect a very slight paler colour to the patches from the M240, but would rate that difference as insignificant in any real world shooting scenario, that I normally encounter. Perhaps some finer point is lost in translation via the internet, but I don't know.

 

 

It's the blue (and some purple) that is the difference. I asked the Leica M product manger Jesko at Leica Camera AG as I found that my M 240 used Adobe Standard profile and the M-D 262 used Embedded profile in Lightroom.

 

As he correctly stated, I had to download the June 9 version of Lightroom 6.6 and that one will default use Adobe Standard as camera profile also for M-D 262. When that is done, the difference is very little. And definitely so little that you wouldn't notice the difference on anything other than test charts. 

 

I sort of like the Embedded colors, but I'll have to experiment  little with that and go deeper in my article. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now back to the scheduled program. 

 

As I said, I love my Leica M-D 262

 

 

 

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!

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely photo, Thorsten! 

 

Ramarren, I accept all you say in this regard, but the precise intent of my questions is not to analyze the gear, but to determine any image difference. Those admirable features you elaborate on are, to my perception, purely ergonomic pleasures, which of course should be enjoyed. I am the first to champion the ergonomic useability of any particular camera for it's intended purpose.

 

I suppose I am challenging the purely image producing ability of the camera, simply because I am totally unaware of it's advantages in that respect. Conversely, I am looking for reasons not to buy one! (I have a limited budget).

 

 

There's nothing to challenge, I already answered you: "The performance and the resulting photographs are identical. The difference is the working methodology and feel of the M-D body vs the M-P body rather than any measure of the image recording capabilities." 

 

Although the sensors are slightly different and with optimized color calibration profiles might show slight differences in the balance of some colors, there is no practical difference in the rendering qualities of the typ 240 compared to the typ 262 bodies. If you're not interested in the alternative ergonomics and workflow of the M-D body, there is no reason to debate this. A limited budget is the best reason not to buy an M-D if these things do not draw your interest. 

 

Because I also have a limited budget, I bought the M-D and will now debate between keeping it and selling the M-P vs reselling the M-D. Since I have the SL for versatility and EVF, and now use the M-P with a limited selection of lenses and without taking advantage of its additional features, the simplicity of the M-D appeals to me quite a lot. The only way for me to make that determination is to have both for a time and see which proves to be what I want to use. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the blue (and some purple) that is the difference. I asked the Leica M product manger Jesko at Leica Camera AG as I found that my M 240 used Adobe Standard profile and the M-D 262 used Embedded profile in Lightroom.

 

As he correctly stated, I had to download the June 9 version of Lightroom 6.6 and that one will default use Adobe Standard as camera profile also for M-D 262. When that is done, the difference is very little. And definitely so little that you wouldn't notice the difference on anything other than test charts. 

 

I sort of like the Embedded colors, but I'll have to experiment  little with that and go deeper in my article. 

I did notice a difference in the M-D 262 colorchecker, which probably implies that a new profile for M-D 262 needs to be made from that image. 

 

Since LR is the native raw converter provided by Leica, embedded colour profile should theoretically be the "correct" profile to be applied? My experience with SL was that there is hardly any difference between the embedded and adobe standard profile, provided the LR / CS version supports the camera (LR in this case). However, I preferred the embedded profile for most images.

 

On another note, isn't the purpose of making a colour profile for multiple cameras used in the same photo shoot (wedding photographers) is to ensure that  there is not much difference between the WB and colours in the photos? At least to the target audience?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the embedded profile in SL DNG files produces cartoonish results. The Adobe standard CCP in LR is just about perfectly neutral and matches the SL's output JPEG files at the default settings. 

 

I don't have enough experience with the M-D yet to say whether I need to tweak the profile.

Edited by ramarren
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did notice a difference in the M-D 262 colorchecker, which probably implies that a new profile for M-D 262 needs to be made from that image. 

 

Since LR is the native raw converter provided by Leica, embedded colour profile should theoretically be the "correct" profile to be applied? My experience with SL was that there is hardly any difference between the embedded and adobe standard profile, provided the LR / CS version supports the camera (LR in this case). However, I preferred the embedded profile for most images.

 

On another note, isn't the purpose of making a colour profile for multiple cameras used in the same photo shoot (wedding photographers) is to ensure that  there is not much difference between the WB and colours in the photos? At least to the target audience?

 

 

Leica makes the Embedded, Adobe then makes the Adobe Standard later after the camera comes out. It's a little longer story, but I think Leica trust Adobe to make a more flexible profile. 

 

I see different advice on the SL. Some say use the Embedded, others the Adobe Standard. 

 

On the ColorChecker from X-Rite, it has to be photographed (and later processes) for each type of light, and for each camera (and lens ideally) to produce a standard result across the line. In other words, that is almost impossible any other place than in a studio where nothing changes.

 

White balance should do most of the desired color adjustment, and then often I think we (at least I) tend to develop a specific camera and it's sensor in a way to produce the look I like (in the M9 I desaturated red and orange to get the right skin tones; in the M240 less desaturation of the orange). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love mine too!  Having only ever used the M9 before I have to say, this is a really, really great camera.  Gorgeous, high contrast viewfinder, quiet shutter, superb performance at ISO 1600 (which for me was close to unusable on M9).  The only thing I'm concerned I might miss is the eccentric blue-yellow colour management on the M9, which sometimes gave glorious otherworldly tints to otherwise entirely mundane subjects.

 

But I'm very happy ... I think this is my main camera until it or I die, whichever comes first!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be convinced to jump for the 262, but could not countenance the MD version. The LCD screen is a tool that can offer extra assistance that I use to great advantage, at times.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica makes the Embedded, Adobe then makes the Adobe Standard later after the camera comes out. It's a little longer story, but I think Leica trust Adobe to make a more flexible profile. 

 

I see different advice on the SL. Some say use the Embedded, others the Adobe Standard. 

 

On the ColorChecker from X-Rite, it has to be photographed (and later processes) for each type of light, and for each camera (and lens ideally) to produce a standard result across the line. In other words, that is almost impossible any other place than in a studio where nothing changes.

 

White balance should do most of the desired color adjustment, and then often I think we (at least I) tend to develop a specific camera and it's sensor in a way to produce the look I like (in the M9 I desaturated red and orange to get the right skin tones; in the M240 less desaturation of the orange). 

Thorsten, I think that you are oversimplifying things a bit in dismissing  the Colorchecker. I can think of plenty of circumstances where outdoor lighting is stable enough to use it successfully. Additionally there are dual-illuminant profiles to be made. After all, the embedded and provided profiles are universal, i.e. close, but mostly just off.

The advantage of the color-checker is exactly that one can adapt to the vagaries of ambient light. Get out in the harsh noonday sun with the sun straight overhead and your Adobe and Leica presets break down - that is when you need to use an individual profile. Or rather three. One for sun , one for shade and one dual.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...