M240 image of London by Christopher Tribble

[schmolinski]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, here are my 2 cents

 

I have downloaded the example .dng files provided by Chris Tribble (Thank you, Chris!), and compared to my M9 and my Canon gear in LR4.

Now I can sleep quiet. Luckily I early have bought the M9 and be happy with that for over 2 years now.

 

Well, the IQ the sensor delivers is quite nice but not overwhelming to be honest. Besides the horizontal and vertical lines that appear at ISO 6400 in the images I would say it isn't state of the art unfortunately. Today sensors are able to perform at higher ISO better image quality.

 

I don't see the need to buy an overpriced Camera when I get better IQ at higher ISO with the new Canon 1DX or 5D MKIII or even the new 6D, the latter I tested this weekend.

 

This might be ridiculous from the viewpoint of a rangefinder photographer, but sometimes a Canon (or even Nikon) does a good payed job as well as or even better than a Leica

 

I must confess that the advance isn't so much that I would spend the money for the M240.

 

Please find my viewpoint documented with some images. Just from the practical point of view.

 

Kind regards, Dario

 

Here are two 100% crops, two screen shots from LR 4.3

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!

I find the image from CT is not very chrisp. Perhaps the lens or might lead to the distortion? But for a Leica its slightly to soft. Maybe a wonderful film look but that isn't what I get payed for.

 

Shot with EOS 6D - Sharp 'n chrisp, little grainy but without any complaint and lots of detail.

 

And yes, I love my Leica, and preferably keep it almost always with me although it gets earlier to its limits compared to my canon gear.

 

I hope the new M240 will become a master piece anyhow. But for now I have made my freedom with it and remain by my M9 and my Canon gear. Good Luck Leica!

[ramosa]

Chris,

 

Great thanks for posting the photos. Quickly understandably, most of the discussion has been about image quality and processor speed, etc. I also am wondering about ergonomics and size. I now the new M isn't dramatically different from the M9 and M8, but there are "subtle" changes in size and weight, as well as button, thumb grip, and screen layout.

 

Any comments you would have would be greatly appreciated!

 

Chris

[ramosa]

Hi, here are my 2 cents

 

I don't see the need to buy an overpriced Camera when I get better IQ at higher ISO with the new Canon 1DX or 5D MKIII or even the new 6D, the latter I tested this weekend.

 

This might be ridiculous from the viewpoint of a rangefinder photographer, but sometimes a Canon (or even Nikon) does a good payed job as well as or even better than a Leica

!

 

I can understand your point, but you're sort of comparing apples to oranges. I'm not sure many folks who are pondering a Leica M are making that decision based solely on higher ISO IQ. Not me, at least. I would be pondering camera size, lens quality, shooting experience, and lots of other factors that are dramatically different between a Canikon DLSR and a Leica DRF.

 

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't fully enjoy the Canikon DSLR approach and higher ISO IQ. To each, his own ...as they say.

[sdk]

Well, the IQ the sensor delivers is quite nice but not overwhelming to be honest. Besides the horizontal and vertical lines that appear at ISO 6400 in the images I would say it isn't state of the art unfortunately. Today sensors are able to perform at higher ISO better image quality.

 

…snip...

 

I hope the new M240 will become a master piece anyhow. But for now I have made my freedom with it and remain by my M9 and my Canon gear. Good Luck Leica!

 

Keep in mind this was a prototype camera, not a production one. I do hope Leica and CMOSIS improve the sensor to eliminate or reduce the lines (though line pattern noise is something I have also seen in the shadows of production Canon 5DIII images too).

[Thomas Chen]

Thomas - many thanks. Although I'm still not 100% sure what you mean by "3D", I have the feeling that what you're talking about is the difference between images taken with medium tele-photo lenses (like the 135 Apo-Telyt) and images taken with standard or medium wide lenses. There's no EXIF information on your files regarding lens length, but I'd imagine they were no longer than 50mm. This makes a very big difference to the way in which perspective is drawn.

 

Does this make sense?

 

Best

 

C:

 

Gentlemen,

 

I appreciate all of your comments that are very helpful.

 

In fact, my concern is actually the issue of image rendering between "Kodak CCD and COMS". As Leica never let me down during my path using her priducts, all the way from R6.2, R8, M6, MP and M8, including the range of lenses from 16mm to 135mm. of course, D-lux 4,5, and 6. However, not so much about M240 although with many excellent features.

 

Its my own problem. With engineering background I besides admiring art and craft, always try to stretch the limit of technology. Therefore, I use various monitors depending on the details characteristics of digital images in an effort to exlpore the best presentation possible:

 

1. Sony 16.4" F-series NB (1920x1080, adobeRGB, 8-bit depth, AR coating)

2. APPLE 15.4" Retina display NB (2880x1800, adobeRGB, 8-bit depth, AR coating)

3. Dell ultrashrp 2711 LCD (2560x1440,adobeRGB,10-bit depth, matt coating)

 

The "3D-like" look means "not so flat or as live" when one watches the image on LCD. It is analog to the "sound stage" capability in audio gears. For example, If one plays back the DGG CD of Medelssohn's No. 2 Symphony "Hymn of Praise" by Abbado and London Symphony Orchestra, he should fell like sitting in a concert hall, but in a much smaller scale, perceiving easily the location of each instrument and the depth from chorus, timpani to the violin. Yes, I've equipment to do so, not necessarily very expensive, just with some tweaks with engineering knowledge.

 

For photography as my hobby I also own a Fujifilm W3, a 3D rendering camera.

 

Leica is reluctant to make a A-B test between M9 and M240 under the best possible setting and publish those images, she doesn't have to do so taking business into account. However, as consumer we are entitled to know whether it is the physics limitation of CMOS sensor or is there any way by firmware Leica can create a "3D-like" or at least the "M8, M9-like" image, based on Leica's almost 100 years expertise in 35mm photography.

 

As a potential M240 user, I have no intention to incur any debate in the forum but just want to seek advices from you experts about the image quality ( 3D-like redering like M8 or M9 !) because Mr. Jean Gaumy's pictures give me the impression that M240 images seem to be not flat but also not so "3D-like"

 

Thank you very much.

 

Thomas Chen

Taoyuan, Taiwan

[JCharlton]

Thomas, from what I've gathered from my own observations - with the current capabilities of modern CCD and CMOS sensors in digital camera application. The 3D effect has much more to do with the lens you use, than the image sensor. Even factors such as lighting and composition, I believe, play a larger role in this effect.

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know exactly what these apples and oranges "comparisons" show that is of value. The look of the M240 images we have seen shows that in the hands of a capable photographer the camera is going to be capable of superb work. That statement can also be made about the M9 and indeed the M8, as well as the top of the line Canons and Nikons. If the point being made was that Leica made a mistake developing the M240 because it does not create some elusive "3D" effect I would have to simply say I disagree because IMHO that is more a function of composition, focal length and F/stop than anything else. I will bet a lot of money that in six months time we will see stunning 3D-like images from some great photographers who got their hands on a new M.

[Thomas Chen]

Thomas - many thanks. Although I'm still not 100% sure what you mean by "3D", I have the feeling that what you're talking about is the difference between images taken with medium tele-photo lenses (like the 135 Apo-Telyt) and images taken with standard or medium wide lenses. There's no EXIF information on your files regarding lens length, but I'd imagine they were no longer than 50mm. This makes a very big difference to the way in which perspective is drawn.

 

Does this make sense?

 

Best

 

C:

 

Chris,

 

I just want to say the picture of St. Paul Cathedral is wonderful even under the compression effect of telelense.

 

All elements in the chain of photography from camera, lense, computer, graphic card...to monitor effect the image rendering. Higher pixel number and more color depth in LCD better manifest the digital image into what it should be.

 

Yes, I use Leica lenses under 50mm more often.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

Thomas Chen

[Thomas Chen]

Thomas, from what I've gathered from my own observations - with the current capabilities of modern CCD and CMOS sensors in digital camera application. The 3D effect has much more to do with the lens you use, than the image sensor. Even factors such as lighting and composition, I believe, play a larger role in this effect.

 

Mr. Calton,

 

I absolutely agree with you.

 

Can Leica or anybody help out making a A-B test between M9 and M240? with Summilux M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH (1994 version), aperture set at f/2.8, shooting distance set at 5 meters, other things being equal.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

Thomas Chen

[Thomas Chen]

I don't know exactly what these apples and oranges "comparisons" show that is of value. The look of the M240 images we have seen shows that in the hands of a capable photographer the camera is going to be capable of superb work. That statement can also be made about the M9 and indeed the M8, as well as the top of the line Canons and Nikons. If the point being made was that Leica made a mistake developing the M240 because it does not create some elusive "3D" effect I would have to simply say I disagree because IMHO that is more a function of composition, focal length and F/stop than anything else. I will bet a lot of money that in six months time we will see stunning 3D-like images from some great photographers who got their hands on a new M.

 

Alan,

 

As a matter of fact I have already pre-ordered a set of M240 in a Leica dealer. With the newly embedded excellent features, it can revitalize my dormant R lenses.

 

Both company and customers are greedy in obtaining what they expect. For company, that's business excellence and profit; for customers, that's the satisfaction in using the prodcut.

 

All of my points are partly because my nostalgia about the M6 old good days; partly out of my trust on Leica as a long term and ever lasting camera technology leader in the world.

 

I will appreciate if Leica can version up the M240 firmare even one year later after the first piece delivery, assuming Leica is willing to do so.

 

Many Thanks,

 

 

Thomas Chen

[tgm]

Hi, here are my 2 cents

 

I have downloaded the example .dng files provided by Chris Tribble (Thank you, Chris!), and compared to my M9 and my Canon gear in LR4.

Now I can sleep quiet. Luckily I early have bought the M9 and be happy with that for over 2 years now.

 

Well, the IQ the sensor delivers is quite nice but not overwhelming to be honest. Besides the horizontal and vertical lines that appear at ISO 6400 in the images I would say it isn't state of the art unfortunately. Today sensors are able to perform at higher ISO better image quality.

...

 

Here are two 100% crops, two screen shots from LR 4.3

[ATTACH]360377[/ATTACH]

I find the image from CT is not very chrisp. Perhaps the lens or might lead to the distortion? But for a Leica its slightly to soft. Maybe a wonderful film look but that isn't what I get payed for.

 

[ATTACH]360378[/ATTACH]

Shot with EOS 6D - Sharp 'n chrisp, little grainy but without any complaint and lots of detail.

 

 

!

 

I think we have to wait for side by side comparison of shots take with a tripod.I does not make to much sense to comparte a shot with 135 mm Leica telephoto lens at 1/35 s and one with 50 mm Canon lens at 1/50s and draw conclusions that the Leica is overpriced because the mage taken under such condition is slightly soft

[chris_tribble]

Did you start by working through the menu prior to shooting or was there some sort of draft manual given to you.

 

I had access to a PDF of the manual, but hardly looked at it. The menu system is consistent and clear - If I remember correctly, the only thing I looked for was how to get a histogram in the review screen as this is slightly differently implemented. If you've used an M then you know the fundamentals - it's an M. Video and the other things are icing on a large, familiar cake.

[chris_tribble]

Hi, here are my 2 cents

 

Please find my viewpoint documented with some images. Just from the practical point of view.

 

I find the image from CT is not very chrisp. Perhaps the lens or might lead to the distortion? But for a Leica its slightly to soft. Maybe a wonderful film look but that isn't what I get payed for.

 

Dear Danny - I'm also holding on to my Canon for long lens work. HOWEVER - I'm not convinced by your argument about crispness. An image shot fully open with a 135 lens at 1/30th hand-held is a very different kind of beast from one shot at 1/50th at f5 with a 50mm lens irrespective of ISO setting. In my experience it's a small miracle that the lens + sensor were able to resolve as much detail as they did.

 

Best of luck with your future projects.

[jonoslack]

[quote name=Thomas Chen;2311953

Leica is reluctant to make a A-B test between M9 and M240 under the best possible setting and publish those images' date=' she doesn't have to do so taking business into account. However, as consumer we are entitled to know whether it is the physics limitation of CMOS sensor or is there any way by firmware Leica can create a "3D-like" or at least the "M8, M9-like" image, based on Leica's almost 100 years expertise in 35mm photography.[/quote]

 

Hi there Thomas

I'm not sure that this is correct. I certainly said that I wasn't willing to publish such comparisons, but that's me, not Leica.

The reason is that it's too difficult to create a useful comparison - especially with different resolutions, and as a result, such comparisons always seem to end up in a worthless punch up. But I repeat, that's my decision, nothing to do with Leica.

[theboch]

Like it was also stated by other persons before: I am really pretty sure, that this "3D look" some people are talking about mostly comes from the used lens (and which focal length and aperture is set) and not from the sensor itself.

 

Depth of field, how are the transitions from sharp to unsharp areas rendered by the lens, how good does it render the separation of sharp and unsharp areas, how is the "bokeh"...

 

I bet someone will also not master to get a "3D look" with any lens on the Leica M9 or M8 set to f8 or to focus at infinity...

[mjh]

How a CCD or indeed any kind of sensor could create a ‘3D look’ is beyond me.

 

The ascription of ill-defined properties to specific sensor technologies is bordering on superstition.

[Thomas Chen]

How a CCD or indeed any kind of sensor could create a ‘3D look’ is beyond me.

 

The ascription of ill-defined properties to specific sensor technologies is bordering on superstition.

 

Herr Hussmann,

 

You are right. Sensor is not the only attribution for "3D look", Jpeg processing algorithm may weigh more.

 

However, D-Lux 5 (CCD) is better "3D-like" than that of D-Lux 6 (CMOS). This arouses my concern over M240.

 

Regards,

 

Thomas Chen

[Lindolfi]

However, D-Lux 5 (CCD) is better "3D-like" than that of D-Lux 6 (CMOS).

Thomas Chen

 

In experiments you usually vary only one parameter (in this case the sensor).

 

So Thomas, could you please post a comparison from tripod with the same position, aiming at the same scene, same lighting, same camera settings (focal length, exposure time, ISO and aperture). Only this way we can perhaps see what you mean by "3D-like" effect. Thanks very much!

[Thomas Chen]

Hi there Thomas

I'm not sure that this is correct. I certainly said that I wasn't willing to publish such comparisons, but that's me, not Leica.

The reason is that it's too difficult to create a useful comparison - especially with different resolutions, and as a result, such comparisons always seem to end up in a worthless punch up. But I repeat, that's my decision, nothing to do with Leica.

 

Jono,

 

Thanks for your comment. I understand what you mean about "punch up". As a die-hard Leica customer I'm never willing to see that happens.

 

Since we love Leica, I believe that Leica should do something in return. Couple of years ago, I compared both the RAW and JPEG image files under standard camera parameters setting between M8 and D-Lux 4, the result was..............That's also the reason why I put respectively +1 stop in contrast, saturation and sharpness for the M8 file which I posted on Flickr yesterday. This implying that JPEG processing algorithm plays an more important role. (I have no idea about that of M9)

 

I believe what I see rather than any kind of euphusistic description about a technology-based product.

 

And I also believe that "3D-like look" should be the legacy of M photography. Without distinctive charactieristics of this sort, what's behind M photography?

 

I will do my best to refrain myself from inviting you to do a A-B test between D-Lux 6 and M240 with the last generation M lenses ranging from 24mm to 50mm, other things being equal. However, after I get a M240, I will seriously think about whether it is appropriate to do so and make a publication.

 

Leica M photography should not be a merely myth, any new product must have creative innovations, however, keeping the core value intact.

 

M240 JPEG file with the "M9-like look" is supposed to be what customers deserve to have, allowing them to make superior photo to other brands, not something just can only keep abreast with.

 

Many Thanks and Regards,

 

 

Thomas Chen

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Thomas Chen]

In experiments you usually vary only one parameter (in this case the sensor).

 

So Thomas, could you please post a comparison from tripod with the same position, aiming at the same scene, same lighting, same camera settings (focal length, exposure time, ISO and aperture). Only this way we can perhaps see what you mean by "3D-like" effect. Thanks very much!

 

Bert,

 

Thanks for your idea. However, I've gone too far in this issue as a new forum member. Thus, I will stop doing so and keep silent for a while.

 

My motivation to raise this issue is that I would like to see Leica being a true leader in digital photography not the one needs to defense her position against..............

 

All the best,

 

 

Thomas Chen