New LEICA M vs M9 – Daylight picture RAW files comparison

[pieterpronk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If that green wall in the two photos looks the same to you, then I rest my case.

 

That green tint is just the 'ad nauseum' thing acting up...

[leica lux]

The new M must be a real filhty thing. I'm wondering why M9, M-E prices do not raise exorbitant

[Bundestrainer]

I don't understand why you M240 guys feel the need to shift the serious and fair discussion on such a sarcastic level.

[BerndReini]

No, the green wall is not a deal breaker. If I didn't own a digital Leica and was in the market for one I would buy an M over an M9, and I made that recommendation to several of my friends and colleagues. But the fact is that it would cost me about $4,000 to upgrade to an M and I'd rather sit tight and wait for some aspects of the camera to be improved.

 

Leica let me test an M for a couple of days and I gave them my feedback, both positive and negative. The Leica representative btw. did agree with my observation that the colors are different, and he was a lot more gracious about my observations than a lot of people on this forum. If Leica had taken such a defensive stance about their cameras, they would have never made the M9 a full-frame camera without the IR issues of the M8, and they would have never made the M with all the improvements and a CMOS sensor. They actually listened.

 

Just please do me a favor and don't tell me to run around with a color checker and adjust my work flow, if something like the color of a wall doesn't matter to you.

[rirakuma]

^I agree, that post made by Artin was uncalled for. There's a difference in the color but its not necessarily better as some may have interpreted it. I'm sure there are occasions where the M files after post will look nicer than the M9 files and vice versa.

[BerndReini]

I agree, and I must say that I had a great time shooting with the M. I was one of the first people to get the M8 and dealt with some of its issues (and got a great voucher from Leica for it.) After three years of good use, going full-frame with the M9 was a no-brainer.

 

There are a lot of things I really like about the M, but in some ways I think the next generation will offer a lot of improvements. I was very disappointed by the shutter lag with live-view. I was looking forward to using it for portraiture, but the lag time makes it very difficult for that application. People have talked about other issues. I think that Leica had to release the camera to position themselves in the market, but another two years of competition from Fuji, Sony, and Olympus will be a good incentive to come out with a great successor to a first CMOS camera in my opinion, and this will have more impact on the value of the current M than my already well-depreciated M9.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll do you even a bigger favour and let you in on a little fact the colour of that wall is not correct in either of the pictures. I should know considering I photographed it in my showroom and the shot with the green wall is the M9

 

 

As I've said...ad nauseam, even;)...the comments most worth reading are from actual users.

 

Moreover, one can't draw overall conclusions from a single photo, let alone from a screen post. It's all about an entire workflow, including user intent and execution, not just a camera.

 

Jeff

[BerndReini]

Here is your problem: look back at the posts and see if I ever advocated "accurate" color. I simply talk about the colors of the M and M9 being different, and not agreeing with the statement that they can easily be matched. I have posted samples myself, I have worked on the original DNGs of this post, and I have come to my own conclusion. I never said that one is more accurate or less accurate. So if you don't have the decency to look at the history of this post, then any condescending tone is highly inappropriate.

 

So as the owner of one of Ontario's largest film separation houses, please tell me: is there a difference in color or isn't there? This is all I was discussing before things got condescending. And before you answer the question, here is my peace offering: I would have thought that the first picture was the M and the second one was the M9, had I been guessing. I agree that you can't tell what camera something was shot with after adjustments, but I am agreeing with people who say they are different.

[jaapv]

Calm down, gentlemen. It is just a camera you are discussing]

[otto.f]

I don't understand why you M240 guys feel the need to shift the serious and fair discussion on such a sarcastic level.

 

I do understand it. There is a lot of money involved. Once you bought a new Leica of a certain line you want it to be better than its predecessors in that line, so let nobody tell you that this might be doubtfull

[Leonil]

Off course they are different as far a colour cast

Remember this is still a digital capture regardless whether the same lens same lighting I each camera has its own DA convention .

My point was made perfectly by all of you who automatically guessed that the green cast less desirable image was the M240. And that my friend proves that you were looking for an underlying reason to claim the new camera an inapt tool

The M is near perfect in this day for what it was designed for A professional rangefinder

 

I think its a good point being made about automatic bias. I am new to Leica and I couldn't tell the difference until someone pointed out the green wall, and didn't understand why people were pointing at it and barraging the M when I tried looking for a comment as to where the labels of each image were, and I felt the labels were intentionally removed - thankyou for confirming the images.

 

A stark reminder the internet is full of false experts.

[lct]

...I felt the labels were intentionally removed...

Really? BTW there are just traces of green in those walls, if any. Just oversature the greens in Photoshop and you will see the truth emerging from the well.

[BerndReini]

I guess the other thing that we learn time and time again is that it is really difficult to have a discussion on a forum without everyone somehow getting offended. I am sure that if we were all sitting around a table none of these misunderstandings would happen, and I have to say that emoticons don't help the situation at all. As long as in the end we all get along again, it is all good. Sometimes I think life would be easier as a black and white photographer, but then again, there would be different things to obsess about.

[mirekti]

There are some articles about the green cast right here Characterizing the Leica M240, part 12 | The Last Word

[otto.f]

Dramatic... And good for the competition

[mknaidu11]

This will be slightly off the topic for discussion.

As an engineering products CCD & CMOS, what I understand is CCD produces pictures which are as seen by eyes rendering natural colour and contrast percieved by eyes. Where as CMOS produces colours which will be very near to what the eyes will see. No doubt leica has made a significant development in designing the CMOS sensor which are far superior to CMOS sensors avaiable with sony/cannon/nikon cameras. If not superior atleast it is at par with the best cameras available in the market like nikon 800e. Leica has leaped into the foray of CMOS sensor world and has proved that it can produce best sensor as well as best camera not letting down the fans/die hard lovers of M9.

 

Now coming back to M9/ME pictures vs M (M240) pictures. I have reviewed allmost all the photographs of the street photography as well photographs taken by professionals by nikon/cannon/sony etc (leaving apart medium format photography). What I could conclude in short is pictures by CCD sensor will put subject alive infront of you and you too become part of the subject (3D rendering).

 

Where as pictures by CMOS sensors will give you a two dimensional effect, where in the subject will be far off from your feel (Typical 2D effect).

 

You might feel like swimming in a photogrpah of a lake with beautiful surroundling taken by CCD/Film camera (M9/ME/MP), the same feeling will not arise if the picture is taken by a CMOS digital camera (M240,Cannon,nikon).

 

Thanks for reading, can provide feedback.

[firstlight]

What I could conclude in short is pictures by CCD sensor will put subject alive infront of you and you too become part of the subject (3D rendering).

 

Where as pictures by CMOS sensors will give you a two dimensional effect, where in the subject will be far off from your feel (Typical 2D effect).

 

You might feel like swimming in a photogrpah of a lake with beautiful surroundling taken by CCD/Film camera (M9/ME/MP), the same feeling will not arise if the picture is taken by a CMOS digital camera (M240,Cannon,nikon).

 

doh... that's to much.

 

Whats next? CMOS can not produce the leica glow?

[JimKasson]

This will be slightly off the topic for discussion.

As an engineering products CCD & CMOS, what I understand is CCD produces pictures which are as seen by eyes rendering natural colour and contrast percieved by eyes. Where as CMOS produces colours which will be very near to what the eyes will see. No doubt leica has made a significant development in designing the CMOS sensor which are far superior to CMOS sensors avaiable with sony/cannon/nikon cameras. If not superior atleast it is at par with the best cameras available in the market like nikon 800e. Leica has leaped into the foray of CMOS sensor world and has proved that it can produce best sensor as well as best camera not letting down the fans/die hard lovers of M9.

 

Now coming back to M9/ME pictures vs M (M240) pictures. I have reviewed allmost all the photographs of the street photography as well photographs taken by professionals by nikon/cannon/sony etc (leaving apart medium format photography). What I could conclude in short is pictures by CCD sensor will put subject alive infront of you and you too become part of the subject (3D rendering).

 

Where as pictures by CMOS sensors will give you a two dimensional effect, where in the subject will be far off from your feel (Typical 2D effect).

 

You might feel like swimming in a photogrpah of a lake with beautiful surroundling taken by CCD/Film camera (M9/ME/MP), the same feeling will not arise if the picture is taken by a CMOS digital camera (M240,Cannon,nikon).

 

Thanks for reading, can provide feedback.

 

This is poetic, even lyrical. However, it doesn't square with reality as I know it, from my experience as a color scientist for IBM in the early 90s. The color characteristics of the captured image are detirmined by the wavelength-by-wavelength product of several transmission spectral responses -- the lens, the IR-blocking filter, and the color filter array -- with the spectral sensitivity of the (CCD or CMOS) sensor.

 

CCDs and CMOS sensors have different spectral sensitivities. However, it is the product of the spectra of all of the items in the imaging chain that determines the captured color. Engineers designing cameras take into account the sensor response when choosing the IR-blocking filter characteristics and the CFA responses.

 

No commercially available camera -- CCD or CMOS -- sees color the same way that humans do. They all suffer from capture metamerism -- colors that humans would say were identical are captured as different colors, and colors that humans would say are different may be captured as the same colors.

 

You can make broad generalizations about color accuracy for particular cameras, but not for particular kinds of sensors, which are, without their CFAs, monochromatic.

 

In the face of your eloquence, I feel like someone who shows up for a wine tasting carrying a gas chromatograph. Sorry.

 

Jim

[jaapv]

On the subject of metamerism, the M is the first digital camera I know of (film too, come to think of it) that will render purple or lavender flowers with anything approaching fidelity.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

Sorry to repeat ad nauseam but colour differences come from in-camera WB folks. Use a grey card for manual WB or click your eyedropper on a grey part in PP and you will see that the colours are more or less the same.

As for sharpness, visible differences come from the default settings of your raw converter. Change those settings or choose another raw converter and you won't see any significant difference again, just more resolution, less noise and more dynamic range out of the M240. FWIW.

 

Agreed. I can't recall whether I've commented on this before but the improved dynamic range of the M is quite marked. I never cease to be amazed by a perfect histogram from the M in lighting which would have led to loss of data below 0 or above 255 on the M9.