Lindolfi Posted February 11, 2013 Share #121 Posted February 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Dear Thomas, Leica does not need being defended. They produce camera's and they listen to what photographers do with these camera's and what they like or would like in them. With their unique approach they can not be a market leader, but their products appeal to certain photographers, because of the way they work with camera's and the high quality of the optics. The M 240 is an interesting step for these photographers: an accurate rangefinder, use of their beloved lenses, compact and some extra options. If the image they can produce with this camera is to their liking (much like that of the M9), it may be worth investing. But that is a personal decision. Apart from that, if members of this forum make bold statements on particular properties of images (like "3D-like effect") from different models of Leica, it is worth to find out what is meant. Photographers should be able to select a camera that suits their eye and styles. Sorry to hear you are not able or willing to demonstrate what you mean. In the mean time, I must say I was interested in the DNG files posted that were made with the M 240. But give me an hour with the camera and I can learn more, since the photographer-camera combination is the decisive one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Hi Lindolfi, Take a look here M240 image of London by Christopher Tribble. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IWC Doppel Posted February 11, 2013 Share #122 Posted February 11, 2013 I would be surprised if some (myself included) are not interested in the 'look', rendering etc of the new M240 over and above the measured technical performance. I guess it depends what and how you measure, most have long since accepted in the world of hifi 'THD' and valve amplifiers was not very informative (sorry to draw a HiFi parallel, the best I could think of). No one yet in the world of Hifi has been able to get the prefect analysis that stopped me or anyone else plugging it in and listening to conclude (yes double blind etc, etc) One interesting recent discussion with a friend and sharing images of his 5DII, vs his M8 did show some interesting subtleties over and above sharpness, detail etc. We both agreed the M8 looks more "3D, or looks less 'flat' " than the canon (I accept contrast and adjustment has an impact here), more 'live', difficult to articulate better, but somehow more Leica pictures appeared to capture the moment and event. The CMOS based sensor somehow seemed more remote (I know this raises lots of questions including fair comparisons, but) One very real observation was the way the 5DII renders highlights and bright whites, which were very obvious in some shots (Not over exposed but high values 95%+). They looked somehow less real and more digital and reminded me of something about digital pcitures I had forgotten about having used my M8/9 exclusively for over 12m. Fingers crossed that the M240 has been developed with an appreciation of what CCD does differently to most CMOS and they have retained the good (I firmly believe that some 'clues' of reality will be in the M8/M9 product that are perhaps missing or distorted in some/most CMOS sensors, as ths familairity of some of the characteristics of the 5DII were a sharp reminder of what I had fogotten and I have never owned a full frame Canon). I can feel the technically based comments dismissing my unscientific observations, but they are observations and the world of science is still looking for the majority of the known unisvers after all (dark matter ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 11, 2013 Share #123 Posted February 11, 2013 Fingers crossed that the M240 has been developed with an appreciation of what CCD does differently to most CMOS Nobody nowhere in the world can say that there is a noticeable difference in IQ between CMOS and CCD it is only a legend on the forums Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 11, 2013 Share #124 Posted February 11, 2013 The M8 and M9 render differently to other cameras in my limited experience. Are you saying there are no characteristics to the M8 or M9 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 11, 2013 Share #125 Posted February 11, 2013 The M8 and M9 render differently to other cameras in my limited experience.Are you saying there are no characteristics to the M8 or M9 ? M8 and M9 are CCD not CMOS and CCD I dont say that there is no difference between a sensor of 2005 and another one from 2009 or 2012 I just say that nobody has ever proved that it was because of CCD vs CMOS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 11, 2013 Share #126 Posted February 11, 2013 To percieve any difference which could be attribuated to the camera we'd have to look at photos taken with different cameras of the same motive with the same lens. At least the last premise is hard to fulfill for fullframe cameras and M-lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 11, 2013 Share #127 Posted February 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) M8 and M9 are CCD not CMOS and CCD I had appreciated that ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Chen Posted February 11, 2013 Share #128 Posted February 11, 2013 Dear Thomas, Leica does not need being defended. They produce camera's and they listen to what photographers do with these camera's and what they like or would like in them. With their unique approach they can not be a market leader, but their products appeal to certain photographers, because of the way they work with camera's and the high quality of the optics. The M 240 is an interesting step for these photographers: an accurate rangefinder, use of their beloved lenses, compact and some extra options. If the image they can produce with this camera is to their liking (much like that of the M9), it may be worth investing. But that is a personal decision. Apart from that, if members of this forum make bold statements on particular properties of images (like "3D-like effect") from different models of Leica, it is worth to find out what is meant. Photographers should be able to select a camera that suits their eye and styles. Sorry to hear you are not able or willing to demonstrate what you mean. In the mean time, I must say I was interested in the DNG files posted that were made with the M 240. But give me an hour with the camera and I can learn more, since the photographer-camera combination is the decisive one. Bert, I do have image files for D-Lux 5 vs. D-Lux 6 per your prescibed condition, only without a tripod as I believe that I can hold the tiny camera firm. As I watch the images on a high-resolution screen (Apple McPro 15" with Retina Display), I'm afraid that the audience in the forum percieves not what I saw and invoke unnecessary further debate. Thus, no need to post them. The new features on M240 are much welcome. However, after users' passion about those features fade away they will return to the basic: the iamge quality. I am not so sure that most Leica customers are willing to accept a new product that is inferior to the old one in the core value: image quality (including 3D-like look or legacy Leica look). A M9-like look is the minimum threshold user can accept, I suppose. Of course, tuning the DNG file in LR 4 can make a so-called "3D-like" image. However, it is very time consuming and tedious, and I trust that Leica can do better job than customer does. Best Regards, Thomas Chen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted February 11, 2013 Share #129 Posted February 11, 2013 CCD M8 & M9 are shot with M lenses, also ZM & VM and most of these outperform typical SLR optics and typical DSLR camera is fitted with CMOS sensor. So CCD cameras under discussion are shot with better optics than CMOS cameras - at least at base ISO. There are so few published examples of images shot with a new M(240) to draw any meaningful conclusions yet. Key contributing factor for myself to fully embrace Leica was revelation of R glass via Leitax conversion. If image looks good, maybe even 3D good optics is probably key contributor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted February 11, 2013 Share #130 Posted February 11, 2013 As I watch the images on a high-resolution screen (Apple McPro 15" with Retina Display), I'm afraid that the audience in the forum percieves not what I saw and invoke unnecessary further debate. Thus, no need to post them. Thomas Chen It may well be that you underestimate at least part of the audience visiting this forum, their gear and the way they use it. As soon as I receive my M 240, I'll post a comparison and you can tell me if you see whether the "3D-like" effect is present or not in the M9 and in the M 240 images on your high-resolution screen loaded from DNG. I'll get back to you on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 11, 2013 Share #131 Posted February 11, 2013 I have recently acquired a CMOS Canon 5D3 for quick AF and long AF tele work. For me 2-3 Canon lenses are sufficient for the 5D3. The 22MP images are OK to me. In order to get those images close to my M9 workflow, after checking for any clipping and then in ACR I find increasing the contrast around +25 helps me later in PS processing. I never have to do this with my M9 CCD images. Thus far, my 5D3 experience is very limited so perhaps this view will change over time. With LV on the Canon (which I never use) if I recall you are getting views (focusing) no better than a P&S camera. I use the eye piece which provides ample information. As for the 240 I will use LV for R lens work to start with. Time will tell if the EVF lump will work better for that use. Until reading here on LUF I completely missed that the RF on the 240 has been improved. That could be most significant to me since I MUST use a Walter eye piece on my M9. What real "improvements" have been made other than LED frame lines? As for this 3D discussion, to me years ago Kodachrome had that 3D feel to it, but I always assumed it was due to the emulsion layers. Maybe that's why many like HDR even though it originated for different reasons. I have never tried HDR personally, but maybe PS HDR could improve my Canon CMOS images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 11, 2013 Share #132 Posted February 11, 2013 M8 and M9 are CCD not CMOS and CCD I dont say that there is no difference between a sensor of 2005 and another one from 2009 or 2012 I just say that nobody has ever proved that it was because of CCD vs CMOS Hi Erick. I completely agree with you about this. I always felt that files from the A900 (CMOS) looked more like M9 files than those from the D3x which has the same sensor. I suspect it has more to do with on chip noise reduction which Canikon lay on thick than the distinction between CCD and CMOS. (But I have no proof to back this up either) The M files are definitely different from the M9 files (I actually like them better, but that's me!). As far as the "Leica Glow" I've only ever seen it in some shots. I'm still seeing it in some shots with the new M. I think it's more to do with the lens than the sensor. These sort of discussions are fascinating, but they must always be subjective (at least until someone can provide an empirical definite of the Leica glow ......... Which we all agree with:rolleyes: I think that day may be some time off All the best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 11, 2013 Share #133 Posted February 11, 2013 The M files are definitely different from the M9 files (I actually like them better, but that's me!). and with Leica lenses + no AA filter they should be very good ... I hope I'll get very soon the new M too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmolinski Posted February 11, 2013 Share #134 Posted February 11, 2013 Dear Chris, Gentlemen, maybe my comparison might have been a little bit to much beyond technical demands but as I stated, I have the feeling that at first impression the sensor of the Leica is not state of the art. It's only an opinion of one person. And of course others have other opinions, as you sirs stated. According to Chris' answer, my name is Dario, not Danny. Anyhow, I agree with you when talking about the power of Leica lenses. But than we should compare Leica lenses perhaps an equivalent focal length on both camera bodies. As you have both cameras in use you are in the pole position for a comparison of both cameras. Perhaps you could provide your opinion with some evidence maybe with R-Lenses? Anyhow my prejudice according overpriced, this was only to provoke some reactions With new Leica products its always the same. The are pro and cons and thousands of various opinions. I just posted mine and how I justify my decision of not jumping in the cue to wait for the next Leica M model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 11, 2013 Share #135 Posted February 11, 2013 Dario - sorry for the name mistake I'm afraid that the NDA precludes the kinds of evidence you request - we'll all have to wait and see! V Best C: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Chen Posted February 12, 2013 Share #136 Posted February 12, 2013 Hi Erick. I completely agree with you about this. I always felt that files from the A900 (CMOS) looked more like M9 files than those from the D3x which has the same sensor. I suspect it has more to do with on chip noise reduction which Canikon lay on thick than the distinction between CCD and CMOS. (But I have no proof to back this up either) The M files are definitely different from the M9 files (I actually like them better, but that's me!). As far as the "Leica Glow" I've only ever seen it in some shots. I'm still seeing it in some shots with the new M. I think it's more to do with the lens than the sensor. These sort of discussions are fascinating, but they must always be subjective (at least until someone can provide an empirical definite of the Leica glow ......... Which we all agree with:rolleyes: I think that day may be some time off All the best Jono, You are right! "Leica Glow" is about the image created by 35mm f/1.4 Summilux (the preceder of the 1994 ASPH version). Quote Erwin Putts's comment: "At full aperture, the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux produces a low contrast image with fine details clearly visible in the center and rapidly softening in the field and corners. Very fine details in the field are fuzzy but just discernible. At this aperture the lense shows a veiling glare and strong halos and double images aroud point light sources....." Using this lense, when I shoot the street light in the night the light source image looks like elliptical rather than a round one. Only at f/8 the image reaches the optimum. I own a 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-Titanium (adjustment rings are Ti-plated, but the base is cut from solid Titanium), every time when I put it into my M6-Titanium I always sigh: "That's really the Leica !". What a wonderful combination. From today's standard it will be regarded as a bad lense. However, when everything about photography seems to be so perfect, the imperfect becomes a scacity. Something like "Leica style Bokeh". Perhaps the term is created to promote the old Leica lense. For your inforamtion. Thomas Chen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Chen Posted February 12, 2013 Share #137 Posted February 12, 2013 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, I made it to describe what "3D-like" I mean, at least in an analogical way. 1. Compare the pictures in LFI magazine 2002 or earlier and LFI 2003 or later, the former are more "3D-like" than the later. 2. Take the typical work of several Western painters to refer the "3D-like" quality of variuos Leica products, based on my subjective point of view Raffaello > M8 or M9? Ingres > M240 Lembrandt > CM- Zoom Botticelli > not yet in the stage of development Hopefully it helps. Thomas Chen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 12, 2013 Share #138 Posted February 12, 2013 Raffaello > M8 or M9? Ingres > M240 Lembrandt > CM- Zoom Botticelli > not yet in the stage of development Lascaux ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted February 12, 2013 Share #139 Posted February 12, 2013 Pardon my ignorance, but Thomas, I don't understand what you say by 3-D like and in a discussion around camera bodies and sensors. I always thought the 'Leica' look is a very subjective opinion and revolves around a subtle rendering quality of a lens due to taking pictures wide open, combined with contrast, bokeh and some coma. If this is all due to the lens, then what has a good sensor, CCD or CMOS, to do with it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 12, 2013 Share #140 Posted February 12, 2013 HI There Thomas Bert, I made it to describe what "3D-like" I mean, at least in an analogical way. 1. Compare the pictures in LFI magazine 2002 or earlier and LFI 2003 or later, the former are more "3D-like" than the later. I understand what you're saying - but I'm not sure that I agree (and if I don't . . ) I'm seeing a lot of what I feel is '3d' from the new 50 summicron, which in theory should be the most clinical of lenses 2. Take the typical work of several Western painters to refer the "3D-like" quality of variuos Leica products, based on my subjective point of view Raffaello > M8 or M9? Ingres > M240 Rembrandt > CM- Zoom Botticelli > not yet in the stage of development Hopefully it helps. I love this - excellent! (whether it helps or not is another matter). all the best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.