pieterpronk Posted March 11, 2013 Share #41 Posted March 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, thanks for the pictures. Seeing as I only need the new M to be on the same level image quality wise as the M9, pictures like these are building confidence that the ordering of the M was a good choice. I'm glad I don't own the M9, as I'm not sure the somewhat improved ergonomics and the high iso would be enough to convince me it is enough of an upgrade. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 Hi pieterpronk, Take a look here New LEICA M vs M9 – Daylight picture RAW files comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Agent M10 Posted March 11, 2013 Share #42 Posted March 11, 2013 .These MUST be enough to put an end to that stupid CCD vs. CMOS debate because with a tiny little tweak in the conversion it will be absolutely impossible to pick which camera was used once you resize these images. The little bit of extra detail will give away the M, but that is it. There is no magic CCD look. The only difference that people are seeing is the difference in color between shadow and highlights, which can be changed with a profile, and the extra "bite" that a lower pixel count brings over a higher one. This is more visible between the M8 and the M9. In fact, I would say that there is less difference in perceived micro-contrast between the M and the M9 than between the M9 and the M8 with its weaker IR filter. I'm certainly no expert, but if there isn't any difference whatsoever between CCD and CMOS, why do all the MF manufacturers use CCDs? Why would they deliberately provide systems that can't do the higher ISOs? Why would Phase One, for example, just introduce new MF backs with the highest ISO being 800? Why wouldn't they just drop a CMOS sensor into their backs and tout ISOs north of 6400? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 11, 2013 Share #43 Posted March 11, 2013 Because there are no medium format CMos sensors on the market? At least not at a price point that would make them a viable proposition for a camera? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted March 11, 2013 Share #44 Posted March 11, 2013 I'm certainly no expert, but if there isn't any difference whatsoever between CCD and CMOS, why do all the MF manufacturers use CCDs? Why would they deliberately provide systems that can't do the higher ISOs? Why would Phase One, for example, just introduce new MF backs with the highest ISO being 800? Why wouldn't they just drop a CMOS sensor into their backs and tout ISOs north of 6400? They use CCD because they have no choice. Most MFD users - including myself - would kill for a CMOS based MF system with all the inherent advantages. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelyleica Posted March 11, 2013 Author Share #45 Posted March 11, 2013 Thanks guys for all these enriching comments. Here are some more informations about the shots to help you judge the two cameras: - first these shots are taken in Lausanne Switzerland. Light was constant - I used a tripod, a Gitzo Systematic with Arca-Swiss P1 ball head - Same WB setting on both cameras, but not relevant for Raw - Same speed: 1/350s - Same aperture: f8 (as some of you mentioned already, M is better at "guessing" actual aperture for exif data) - Took the same lens from one camera to the other, as I cannot afford to buy 2 Nocti 0.95 ;-) - Focused at infinity - ISO 200 on both cameras What I will try to do in the next days is : - make a LR profile for the M - take 2 pictures at night to make a similar raw comparison exercise. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted March 11, 2013 Share #46 Posted March 11, 2013 Great pictures! Thank you so much. A couple of obvious things: 1) Some people here don't know what is real detail and what is false detail (euphemistically "crispness") It is totally obvious that M picture has more real detail and M9 has more false details) But still, yes, M9 seems to have more per pixel sharpness, because: 2) f/8 is really too small aperture for sensors of this caliber to show the absolute micro contrast limit. diffraction is already present and softens the micro contrast. And of course this will be somewhat more present in M. These days the best lenses often have optimum micro contrast at f/4. But any how, what a great pair of pictures. Poeple who have bashed the M look are having a hard time now. I guess it eventually ends up to claims about "skin tones" or what ever that can not ever be quantified or even discussed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daure Posted March 11, 2013 Share #47 Posted March 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello, Yes, great pictures. @ lovelyleica Only one question. You said you have used a tripod. Ok But are the images cropped ? (both or only one or one more than the other etc...) Only to confirm one feeling i have with my 2 weeks old M. Thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swiss leica fan Posted March 11, 2013 Share #48 Posted March 11, 2013 Last week I have made some comparisons with M9 vs M and D800E vs M. The M has more saturated colors than the M9 and the D800E using LR4. See here: M9 50mm Lux ASPH vs. M240 50mm Lux ASPH | Flickr - Photo Sharing! and here: D800E 1.8/50 AFS vs M240 1.4/50 Lux ASPH | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Kind regards Andreas Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted March 11, 2013 Share #49 Posted March 11, 2013 No doubt the M sensor has an advantage, the value of which will be weighted very differently across user-profiles. After seeing the first video clips that have come out, I can't help but to think that Leica can't be content that they have perfected this as they might be in the photo area. The ingredients for really steller video results are apparent; but without any kind of image stabilization (and perhaps an element of auto focus) its utility is far from its potential. I woudn't be shocked if Leica is busy trying to improve upon the video technology for the next M (241?). Which brings me to the question of whether people who are jumping with less than 4 feet into the new M will find themselves with a more of an accelerated depreciating investment than they might think. In other words, for those M9-owners who don't absolutely NEED an M for their work or otherwise, might holding on to the M9 for more (or perhaps all) of its useful life and upgrading to the next version of the M (which could reasonably be expected to have upgraded video and perhaps an overall refined second-generation CMOS sensor) be more of a cost-beneficial proposition.... Leica is, after all, owned in part by a major private equity firm and it's not so unreasonable to conclude that the enhanced competitive and profit-seeking spirit that has been injected into it is condusive to continuing to work on and generate upgraded models. Perhaps not nearly as much as the Asian manufactures, but by the same token probably not nearly as long as 4 years (which the period that the M9 reigned). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelyleica Posted March 11, 2013 Author Share #50 Posted March 11, 2013 Here is the JPG file produced by the LEICA M to make the comparison with RAW file. It is interesting to see that the color tone is VERY different from the RAW in LR4.4RC. LEICA M JPG File Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 11, 2013 Share #51 Posted March 11, 2013 No doubt the M sensor has an advantage, the value of which will be weighted very differently across user-profiles. After seeing the first video clips that have come out, I can't help but to think that Leica can't be content that they have perfected this as they might be in the photo area. The ingredients for really steller video results are apparent; but without any kind of image stabilization (and perhaps an element of auto focus) its utility is far from its potential. I woudn't be shocked if Leica is busy trying to improve upon the video technology for the next M (241?). Which brings me to the question of whether people who are jumping with less than 4 feet into the new M will find themselves with a more of an accelerated depreciating investment than they might think. In other words, for those M9-owners who don't absolutely NEED an M for their work or otherwise, might holding on to the M9 for more (or perhaps all) of its useful life and upgrading to the next version of the M (which could reasonably be expected to have upgraded video and perhaps an overall refined second-generation CMOS sensor) be more of a cost-beneficial proposition.... Leica is, after all, owned in part by a major private equity firm and it's not so unreasonable to conclude that the enhanced competitive and profit-seeking spirit that has been injected into it is condusive to continuing to work on and generate upgraded models. Perhaps not nearly as much as the Asian manufactures, but by the same token probably not nearly as long as 4 years (which the period that the M9 reigned). I agree there I think Leica will be upgrading more frequently than before but in a more incremental fashion rather than complete design change. Easy to change processor, EVF performance, bump in ISO, etc than changing the whole chassis. Perhaps those upgrading may want to hope that the cycle will still be as long but that's where I see the world moving. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelyleica Posted March 11, 2013 Author Share #52 Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Here is a LEICA M PROFILE for Lightroom (done with Color Checker Passport). LEICA M (Typ 240).dcp (I don't know why but google is adding a .tiff to the file, just remove it. The file should be named "LEICA M (Typ 240).dcp") On a Mac the file has to be copied to ~/Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles. On a PC I don't know the location but this shoul be easy to find on internet. In Lightroom, go to develop mode and to the bottom on the right side pane in "Camera Calibration". Here select the Profile "LEICA M (Type 240)". This profile will remove the red cast that is usually found in M pictures. Edited March 11, 2013 by lovelyleica 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 11, 2013 Share #53 Posted March 11, 2013 Hi There LovelyLeica Great job - and brave too - I'm afraid I was too cowardly to present a direct comparison. As others have said, it seems to me to finish off the CMOS/CCD arguments very conclusively. So that there is no reason NOT to upgrade on the basis of base ISO files but there is a big reason TO upgrade on the basis of high ISO and camera functionality. all the best 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted March 11, 2013 Share #54 Posted March 11, 2013 While it’s tempting to order a new Leica M, I don’t need one. And these RAW files actually underscore how similar the resolution of the Leica M and Leica M9 are. The introduction of the M (Typ 240) is not like the jump in resolution Nikon made from the D3X to the D800/D800E, because it’s a mere 14% linear increase in resolution over the M9. I think Leica is going to have to go over 36MP to get me to upgrade. Steve K. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manolo Laguillo Posted March 11, 2013 Share #55 Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Following the reasoning of a fellow leicanist, I opened both files (M9 & M) within Raw Photo Procesor 64, a developer that gives a lot of sharpness. After adjusting the WB and giving them a K64 preset (no touching of the sharpness at all), I exported them as tiff, and opened them in Photoshop for making the comparison. My conclusion: at 100% on the screen both files look at 1st sight nearly equally sharp. But at 2nd sight the M has a little bit more detail, more information, more "reality", because there are a little bit more pixels. One place to look at is the sign "Zurich" on the tall building, or the window frames on that very same building. This is as it should be, and not the other way round... Again, thank you for posting these files, lovelyleica! Edited March 11, 2013 by Manolo Laguillo 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelyleica Posted March 11, 2013 Author Share #56 Posted March 11, 2013 If you are looking for Raw files for a night scene at ISO 1250 go HERE Enjoy ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelyleica Posted March 11, 2013 Author Share #57 Posted March 11, 2013 Hi There LovelyLeicaGreat job - and brave too - I'm afraid I was too cowardly to present a direct comparison. As others have said, it seems to me to finish off the CMOS/CCD arguments very conclusively. So that there is no reason NOT to upgrade on the basis of base ISO files but there is a big reason TO upgrade on the basis of high ISO and camera functionality. all the best And I will add that if you love nice and precise photo tool then you will find in the New LEICA M a magnificent piece of craftsmanship. When I feel the camera in the hands it gives the impression to be an even more refined LEICA with that soft typical M shutter button we missed so much since M8 came to life. When you press the shutter it is no more with a harsh and metallic sound, plus a vibration you feel in the hand. Now the shutter is delightful, very soft and silent, marvelous! There must be a cloth shutter in this body ;-) It's such a pleasure to shoot with this camera! You really can't have this feeling with any other camera on the market today. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daure Posted March 11, 2013 Share #58 Posted March 11, 2013 Thanks guys for all these enriching comments. Here are some more informations about the shots to help you judge the two cameras: - first these shots are taken in Lausanne Switzerland. Light was constant - I used a tripod, a Gitzo Systematic with Arca-Swiss P1 ball head - Same WB setting on both cameras, but not relevant for Raw - Same speed: 1/350s - Same aperture: f8 (as some of you mentioned already, M is better at "guessing" actual aperture for exif data) - Took the same lens from one camera to the other, as I cannot afford to buy 2 Nocti 0.95 ;-) - Focused at infinity - ISO 200 on both cameras . Out of topic, but ... It is something i cannot understand and i have seen on my own pictures made with a M and a M9P (and i have tried hard) Could somebody help me to understand how the M could see a "larger" field horizontally than the M9 and have a bigger enlargement vertically. Have a look on both side of the 2 picture - left and right. You can see more of the subject with the M. But if you compare the "size" of the tall building (with the Zurich Insurance company advertising), he is higher with the M than with the M9. Help !! Thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manolo Laguillo Posted March 12, 2013 Share #59 Posted March 12, 2013 Out of topic, but ...It is something i cannot understand and i have seen on my own pictures made with a M and a M9P (and i have tried hard) Could somebody help me to understand how the M could see a "larger" field horizontally than the M9 and have a bigger enlargement vertically. Have a look on both side of the 2 picture - left and right. You can see more of the subject with the M. But if you compare the "size" of the tall building (with the Zurich Insurance company advertising), he is higher with the M than with the M9. Help !! Thanks that the size of the Zurich building is bigger in the M picture than in the M9 picture is only natural: there are more ppp in the M picture than in the M9 one. Being the screen pixel density the same for both pictures (you are looking at them on the very same screen, right?), the bigger amount of pixels of the M make a bigger image. curious, the first question of your post... lovelyleica obviously did not alter the tripod's position, as can be seen on how the different buildings overlap in both pictures in exactly the same ways. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daure Posted March 12, 2013 Share #60 Posted March 12, 2013 Thanks, You are absolutely right about the size of the M/M9 pictures, seen on the same screen. As simple as your clear explanation. For the second point, seems that i have won a brand new unexpected Summilux 1,4 / 48 mm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.