Jump to content

Ming Thein on the Leica M Typ 240


zlatkob

Recommended Posts

One small thing, the article suggests that "the LCD is now 3″, and has VGA resolution"

 

which cannot be right as 640 * 480 = 307200 pixels, compared to the technical specifications given on the Leica website of 920000 Pixels.

 

Nick

 

Which is exactly what it has, as for the camera screens as with the EVFs, all the subpixels are counted, so 920000 pixels by the specs means 300k RGB-pixels.

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Feels like a small step forward and broadening of functionality not a generation jump. I bet a few will be talking about the 'old' EVF and LCD screen in 12m time in any case.

 

It's a bigger jump than the M9 was from the M8. That was pretty much only the FF sensor while retaining most of the M8's buggy components.

 

The M addresses a lot of the M9's functional shortcomings. Even if end image quality is not a huge difference, it will be a substantial improvement in usability, at least from my perspective. And I'm one who was generally quite happy with the M9's image quality (at lower ISOs and when I don't get banding).

 

Regarding the start-up lag... if you turn off the sleep option, or set it to a very long delay, it should address most instances where it would be a problem, unless you're in the habit of turning the camera off all the time. With MT's claim of around 2000 shots without much live view use, the new battery should be good for a full day's use without ever turning the camera off or letting it sleep.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regarding the start-up lag... if you turn off the sleep option, or set it to a very long delay, it should address most instances where it would be a problem, unless you're in the habit of turning the camera off all the time. With MT's claim of around 2000 shots without much live view use, the new battery should be good for a full day's use without ever turning the camera off or letting it sleep.

 

Hi there

Exactly what I've been doing ( leaving the camera on). But I'm pretty confident it will be sorted out by the time the camera ships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was most impressed with the M240 bw conversions. Seems to render the Monochrom redundant. Darn shame as I have a Monochrom on rental as of this coming Monday. Oh well, I'll just compare it to the files from my M8.2. But I suppose if I'm willing to wait for a year or more I should put my name on a M240 list somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was most impressed with the M240 bw conversions. Seems to render the Monochrom redundant. Darn shame as I have a Monochrom on rental as of this coming Monday. Oh well, I'll just compare it to the files from my M8.2. But I suppose if I'm willing to wait for a year or more I should put my name on a M240 list somewhere.

 

See the other thread I started. I had cancelled my preorder for the M240 and got the Monochrom. No regrets. Monochrom still has some considerable advantages for B&W only, although the M240 is very nice. If you want to shoot color though, then the choice is obvious!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was most impressed with the M240 bw conversions. Seems to render the Monochrom redundant. Darn shame as I have a Monochrom on rental as of this coming Monday. Oh well, I'll just compare it to the files from my M8.2. But I suppose if I'm willing to wait for a year or more I should put my name on a M240 list somewhere.

Then Leica did a mistake when they made the MM. They should have been waiting the other team to finish the typ240 before making the MM :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thein's was kind of a hype piece.

 

I didn't see any image that demonstrated higher dynamic range. His images with bright objects or point sources are very dark in shadowed areas. You can't know unless you're *there*, but seemed achievable with an M9, let alone an MM. And fairly, if you look at all his images, there are blown highlights everywhere. And don't miss his comment on the collapse of dynamic range at higher ISOs.

 

Get Reid's review, if you can. He's got the goods, comparable images on the M9, MM and M. He concludes you're looking at only about a 1.3 stop bump in usable ISO. ISO 6400 is dramatically worse than ISO 2500 on the M9. I was shocked. And he detects an automatic and destructive in-camera noise reduction kicking in beginning as early as ISO 2500. And he has dramatically different views on Black & White, finding 3200 ISO on the M less acceptable than ... get this ... ISO 10,000 on the MM.

Edited by photomeme
Link to post
Share on other sites

ISO 6400 is dramatically worse than ISO 2500 on the M9. I was shocked.[/QuoTE]

 

Did we read the same review?! Where did you read that? Are you talking about the banding?

 

The noise is way better on the M at ISO6400 than on the M9 at 2500...

 

And that the Monochrom is better is obvious isnt it? But it shoots only B&W... does not help to have nice grainy ISO 10000 if you want a color image.

 

Is the IQ of the M240 generally better than M9: Yes!

 

Wayyyyy better? No.

 

Enough better to purchase the new M: Personal decision

Edited by jaapv
repair quote
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what it has, as for the camera screens as with the EVFs, all the subpixels are counted, so 920000 pixels by the specs means 300k RGB-pixels.

 

It seems strange (and misleading) that different standards are being applied to computer and mobile phone displays, compared to a camera display -- we are not talking about a Bayer matrix here.

 

Nick

Edited by Nick_S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get Reid's review, if you can. He's got the goods, comparable images on the M9, MM and M. He concludes you're looking at only about a 1.3 stop bump in usable ISO. ISO 6400 is dramatically worse than ISO 2500 on the M9. I was shocked. And he detects an automatic and destructive in-camera noise reduction kicking in beginning as early as ISO 2500. And he has dramatically different views on Black & White, finding 3200 ISO on the M less acceptable than ... get this ... ISO 10,000 on the MM.

 

I can't comment on Sean Reid's review since I'm not a subscriber. Based on the sample DNGs released by Leica as well as the ISO test sequence by Dr. Rohde, and compared to my couple years of M9 use, what I noticed at the higher ISOs was that the M240's files build a fair amount of luminance noise, but colour noise was much better controlled than the M9. I suppose it will depend on what you find more offensive: all noise, luminance noise or colour noise. Personally, I like colour noise least, and was happy to see in the sample DNGs processed through LR4, that the default colour noise reduction of 25 was quite effective. For the M240, at ISO 5000-6400, I would perhaps slide colour NR to between 30-35. For the M9, it's frequently more around 50 due to the blotchiness of the noise. I thought the M240's ISO 3200 files looked great and quite competitive to various current DSLRs (if Leica can address the banding issue).

 

I'm sure someone will soon test the M240 to determine where the cutoff ISO is for in-camera ISO increases vs. pushing DNG files in post. FWIW, DxO indicates all ISOs other than base ISO 160 in the M9 are 'smoothed,' which I take to mean have some in-camera NR applied.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get Reid's review, if you can. He's got the goods, comparable images on the M9, MM and M. He concludes you're looking at only about a 1.3 stop bump in usable ISO. ISO 6400 is dramatically worse than ISO 2500 on the M9. I was shocked. And he detects an automatic and destructive in-camera noise reduction kicking in beginning as early as ISO 2500. And he has dramatically different views on Black & White, finding 3200 ISO on the M less acceptable than ... get this ... ISO 10,000 on the MM.

 

Sean didn't say these things (apart from the 1.3 stop ISO ). Or at least, not in the review I read.

Of course you are entitled to your interpretations of his images, but you shouldn't put words into his mouth.

 

All the best

Edited by jonoslack
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bigger jump than the M9 was from the M8. That was pretty much only the FF sensor while retaining most of the M8's buggy components.

 

The M addresses a lot of the M9's functional shortcomings. Even if end image quality is not a huge difference, it will be a substantial improvement in usability, at least from my perspective. And I'm one who was generally quite happy with the M9's image quality (at lower ISOs and when I don't get banding).

 

Regarding the start-up lag... if you turn off the sleep option, or set it to a very long delay, it should address most instances where it would be a problem, unless you're in the habit of turning the camera off all the time. With MT's claim of around 2000 shots without much live view use, the new battery should be good for a full day's use without ever turning the camera off or letting it sleep.

 

I have to disagree regarding the M8 to M9, and 80% increase in pixels, much better ISO full frame was everything for me, using lenses as intended, no UV/IR filters. No wide angle beyond f4 for the M8 (Anything over 28 effective) the M9 was also a little slicker with the shutter.

 

I had zero problems with my M8 and M9, I know some have but hey no one has tried the new M, we all hope its robust but we don't know.... I use my M9 in standby the time it's out of the bag which is most of the time and certainly all of the time I intend to shoot.

 

So far if I was changing I'm getting 1.3 stops and 33% more pixels and functions I have no interest in. I await the CCD/CMOS analysis regarding rendering and hope the image keeps the good.

 

I have to say it would be a small step forward and possibly outside of the ISO no further forward at all. I am not dishing the M all, I just don't as yet aspire to one and see this 'leap'

Edited by IWC Doppel
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

M240 Test

Upon first look the M240 seems to be significantly larger than the M9 or M9P. But after a while the difference seems to get forgotten about. The menu system that is built-in to all the M digital cameras as well as the “point and shoot” versions of the entire Leica series are straight forward and easy to navigate. While all of the buttons on the prototype are in much larger and in silver, I’m very anxious to see what the final camera design will look like! New and vastly Improved high capacity battery, which lasted the entire weekend of shooting and reviewing and deleting many images. Also shot on the same battery for all the studio images about 50-75 on the same charge. Seems to be quite an improvement over the M8/M9 (p) battery, considering “Live View” was used the majority of the time.

All of the testing for the M240 was done over a weekend with varying amounts of light and very little color to work with. Outside of the studio shots, which were shot consistently at ISO 200 with the 90mmf2.0 Apo Aspherical, all others were done with the camera changing the ISO at it saw fit. While it’s hard to pick from the vast list of improvements made to the camera, I feel the most important new feature is the “live view” with the enlarged focusing area for critical focus along with the new Electronic viewfinder. . While not well suited for moving subjects, when shooting still subjects in low light and studio, the feature is most useful. The high ISO performance at 6400 is quite pleasing and I’m sure with any final firmware revisions Leica incorporates before its official release will only improve. The exposure lock feature, incorporated in the shutter button, , got me out of trouble with extremely difficult harsh shadows and light which fool most cameras metering system. It was nice to be able to lock in exposure with out having to use any thing other than your trigger finger!

The Video seems adequate but was not the purpose of the test we did. Seemed quite acceptable and no real negatives with the one video we shot. Need some more time with that.

CMOS vs. CCD? Let the techies decide the merits of each. Image quality looks great, better , more efficient battery power, lower noise at higher ISO’s. These are the important things we’re looking for, correct? The M240 succeeds!. Let those that love to hear themselves speak, talk all they want about whatever it is they need to talk about. All in all the M240 is a worthy successor with great performance for about the same price as an M9P.. Can we ask for much more than that? Only time will tell once its out in the market for a while.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking for myself, I expect a decent leap in IQ. I personally expect there to be the kind of breakthrough that Nikon made with their D800 and it seems it is not there. I didn't invest in Leica for image, for new features, even for rangefinder focussing. I invested at a premium price for peerless IQ and that is what I am expecting but I can't help but feel that the new M is simply a side step to accommodate new features.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why will I get M240 (after all "real life" beta testing is done):

 

-live view/evf (long lenses, t/s lenses, 3rd party lenses, framing, focusing,etc...),

-better resolution (more income with larger size files doing stock photo),

-faster,

-better battery life,

-another M body

-better ISO (not that important to me as I shoot on native ISO most of the time...)

 

What else I can wish for?

I am happy I can afford another M. :D

But, I will not jump and get it ASAP. After being sidetracked with early M8, I am patient this time...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking for myself, I expect a decent leap in IQ. I personally expect there to be the kind of breakthrough that Nikon made with their D800 and it seems it is not there. I didn't invest in Leica for image, for new features, even for rangefinder focussing. I invested at a premium price for peerless IQ and that is what I am expecting but I can't help but feel that the new M is simply a side step to accommodate new features.

 

 

Hi Paul,

 

Interesting opinion. Thanks.

Question: From what we have seen so far, in your view, does the image quality of the M match that of the M9 for low ISOs?

Thanks again.

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...