New LEICA M vs M9 – Daylight picture RAW files comparison

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am in complete agreement with MarkP's comments above.

 

The white balance issue is a non issue especially after the firmware upgrade but frankly was always a matter of the right settings in the convertor. If you're not happy, just make a profile with an X-Rite color checker. Takes ten minutes.

 

Lots of the M240 bashing is from people who do not have one, and have not used one but want to convince others of their wisdom in not buying one. Do as you please I say. Be happy with whatever you shoot with and I hope you get great results. But please don't raise bogus arguments that the M240 was a step backwards, in image quality or otherwise. It isn't. And the the M9 still capable of great results too. Just not for me as I sold mine and I am not nostalgic about it.

[jaapv]

Although I admit that for the extra features and ergonomics for me the M240 is the better deal, I do think the per pixel sharpness makes the M9 a better performer at base iso.

 

The difference between the crops is quite big imo. (This mirrors my experience that I like zooming in to pixel level much less with my new M240 than with my M8.) So although we look at the same pictures we still reach different conclusions. Imo the M240 just produces slightly mushier files that need more sharpening and never reach the same crispness.

Sorry, Pieter, this is nonsense. ~The mushiness in the zooming in has to do with the in-camera software, not with the actual sensor acuity.

I find the M files cleaner in the microcontrast zone than the M9. I think the apparent higher M9 contrast is due to artifacts. Anyway, in print nothing remains of this angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument. Having just been shooting five weeks in harsh tropical light the increase in dynamic range is much more important. In this respect the difference is huge. The M leaves the M9 far behind.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[quadraticadder]

Sorry, Pieter, this is nonsense. ~The mushiness in the zooming in has to do with the in-camera software, not with the actual sensor acuity.

I find the M files cleaner in the microcontrast zone than the M9. I think the apparent higher M9 contrast is due to artifacts. Anyway, in print nothing remains of this angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument. Having just been shooting five weeks in harsh tropical light the increase in dynamic range is much more important. In this respect the difference is huge. The M leaves the M9 far behind.

 

The extra weather sealing of the M doesn't hurt in the Tropics, I'm sure. The lenses apparently are not, though. Did you take any precautions in the tropics?

Best,

Steve

[jaapv]

No. To me the weather sealing adds peace of mind by possibly keeping some more dust out, but the M8 and M9 never failed me in this respect ether. The lenses and mount are built to such narrow tolerances according to Leica that we need not worry there. The same goes for rain, I guess.

[Guest malland]

...Lots of the M240 bashing is from people who do not have one, and have not used one but want to convince others of their wisdom in not buying one. Do as you please I say. Be happy with whatever you shoot with and I hope you get great results. But please don't raise bogus arguments that the M240 was a step backwards, in image quality or otherwise. It isn't...

This is precisely what makes discussions here often so unpleasant: questioning whether the color rendition of the M240, or suggesting that, from what one has seen, that one likes that of the M9 better becomes "M240 bashing," for which one's motives are questioned as being nefarious. Grow up if you want to have an intelligent discussion.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Looking for Baudelaire [WIP]

[Jeff S]

I for one have never questioned motives or name called. As for intelligent discussion, however, that's greatly enhanced when all parties have fact-based experience based on taking pics and making prints with the camera.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Strong opinions, though, without experienced based facts, especially when repeated ad nauseam, do tend to get boring. In my opinion, of course.

 

Jeff

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum

[rirakuma]

No. To me the weather sealing adds peace of mind by possibly keeping some more dust out, but the M8 and M9 never failed me in this respect ether. The lenses and mount are built to such narrow tolerances according to Leica that we need not worry there. The same goes for rain, I guess.

 

I was shooting during several typhoons recently and the camera was under shower-heavy rain for hours. Had no problem whatsoever except the fact that I'd have to occasionally wipe water off the filter.

[MarkP]

I don't think anyone here who is arguing against upgrading is trying to do anything but express an opinion and to get information about the different output/performance of these two cameras, neither of which is perfect

 

There are many perfectly valid reasons for not upgrading from the M9 to the M. Whether the improvement in file quality, and other improved features and handling and user experience are likely to be used and/or worth the cost of the upgrade is entirely up to users. It's not like the M9 files are anything other than fantastic.

 

The only reason that in my experience of using both cameras that I do not think is valid is the suggestion that files and colour are in some way inferior to the M9 because I don't think they are - sorry Mitch

[AlanJW]

I don't think anyone here who is arguing against upgrading is trying to do anything but express an opinion and to get information about the different output/performance of these two cameras, neither of which is perfect

 

There are many perfectly valid reasons for not upgrading from the M9 to the M. Whether the improvement in file quality, and other improved features and handling and user experience are likely to be used and/or worth the cost of the upgrade is entirely up to users. It's not like the M9 files are anything other than fantastic.

 

The only reason that in my experience of using both cameras that I do not think is valid is the suggestion that files and colour are in some way inferior to the M9 because I don't think they are - sorry Mitch

 

+1. It is quite easy to make M240 files and M9 files look exactly the same. Mitch if you happen to like the M9 native rendition better because you think it more accurate, you are entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree -at least after the new firmware-. But at least I know you tried the M240. Looking at files on the Internet not knowing how they wre developed or could have been developed and concluding that the M9 somehow is "better" is not the same.

[pieterpronk]

From my side of the fence it seems astounding people don't see the same differences that I see. So astounding in fact that my first reaction would be to claim others have nonsensical point of views. The whole point in discussing this on a forum however is to gather up and compare such subjective personal points of view.

 

I'm not the only one seeing differences. Sean Reid mentions seeing the same kind of lack in sharpness. The solution was to render the M240 file smaller. Then he mentions that he "thinks" he agrees with this suggestion from Leica to compress the resolution. Effectively the added resolution is wasted, and it does mean the sharpness at pixel level appears mushier.

 

Steve Huff mentions a lesser "crispness" of the M240 files, which other people on his forums have agreed with (some of which own the camera, since some of you seem to think this is a must to take part in a discussion about it)

 

Even the person uploading the pictures mentions his own point of view that the M9 beats the M240 at per pixel sharpness.

 

Just how big a deal one finds such differences if one sees them, is another personal matter. But I just want to point out I' m not the only nonsensical person out there.

 

But, I'm ok with not wanting to talk about such things, but when somebody posts their own test pictures and invites others to give their viewpoint, I will indeed give my viewpoint. As long as you don't agree with me anyway, there seems little danger in that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[Bundestrainer]

From my side of the fence it seems astounding people don't see the same differences that I see. So astounding in fact that my first reaction would be to claim others have nonsensical point of views. The whole point in discussing this on a forum however is to gather up and compare such subjective personal points of view.

 

I'm not the only one seeing differences. Sean Reid mentions seeing the same kind of lack in sharpness. The solution was to render the M240 file smaller. Then he mentions that he "thinks" he agrees with this suggestion from Leica to compress the resolution. Effectively the added resolution is wasted, and it does mean the sharpness at pixel level appears mushier.

 

Steve Huff mentions a lesser "crispness" of the M240 files, which other people on his forums have agreed with (some of which own the camera, since some of you seem to think this is a must to take part in a discussion about it)

 

Even the person uploading the pictures mentions his own point of view that the M9 beats the M240 at per pixel sharpness.

 

Just how big a deal one finds such differences if one sees them, is another personal matter. But I just want to point out I' m not the only nonsensical person out there.

 

But, I'm ok with not wanting to talk about such things, but when somebody posts their own test pictures and invites others to give their viewpoint, I will indeed give my viewpoint. As long as you don't agree with me anyway, there seems little danger in that.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

 

I have tried out the M240 during a hike (see picture above) and I see many differences when comparing the dng files with my M9 files. There are sharpness and color differences (even when auto WB issues are evened out).

[jaapv]

 

I'm not the only one seeing differences. Sean Reid mentions seeing the same kind of lack in sharpness. The solution was to render the M240 file smaller. Then he mentions that he "thinks" he agrees with this suggestion from Leica to compress the resolution. Effectively the added resolution is wasted, and it does mean the sharpness at pixel level appears mushier.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

Sharpness is not the same as resolution The two have little, if anything, to do with another. The compression is 100% lossless so that has nothing to do with resolution at all. I highly doubt that Sean said anything like this.

Edited November 3, 2013 by jaapv

[lct]

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.

[jaapv]

Yes.

[BerndReini]

Jaap is correct in saying that sharpness is different from the rendition of detail. The M8 was sharper than the M9 on a pixel level, yet the M9 shows more detail. Look at the difference between 35mm and medium format. There are some incredibly sharp 16x20 prints made from black and white negatives, while some prints of equal size made from medium format negatives are softer (partly because of lenses used). Even different film stocks and developer combination show different amounts of detail rendering and acuity.

 

The difference was that in the film days, it was perfectly common for photographers to choose their preferred combination of film and developer to get the sharpness and detail they wanted. Meanwhile in the digital world everyone seems to go for more megapixels is always better. I wonder if the old masters set around a table arguing that you can make the new TriX look just like the old one.

 

Also, let me pose the challenge to anyone who claims that you can make the M and M9 look the same "easily" in post. Just try it with these two pictures above. If you are really good, you will get very close with some work. But people keep saying it is easy to make the files look exactly alike, put yourself out there, show the results.

 

This goes beyond personal preference, it is just bothering me that some M owners somehow feel attacked by people who state their preference for the M9 and imply that it is because of a lack of post-processing skills. I would pay $2,000 if Leica offered an upgrade for my M9 to the M frame lines, shutter, and LCD, and I would gladly keep my "outdated" sensor.

[lct]

...let me pose the challenge to anyone who claims that you can make the M and M9 look the same "easily" in post. Just try it with these two pictures above. If you are really good, you will get very close with some work. But people keep saying it is easy to make the files look exactly alike, put yourself out there, show the results...

The cameras would need to be at the exact same place to look for exactitude, if any, but a couple of clicks in my 10 years old iCorrect should suffice to support what i said above. Just do the test yourselves guys. Use a grey card with manual WB and/or the eyedropper of your raw processor and the stupid CCD vs CMOS debate will collapse like a deflated balloon.

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!

Edited November 3, 2013 by lct

[BerndReini]

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

[otto.f]

If it is green in reality….

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Photojazz]

Interesting discussion. I'm an M9 owner, actually a former member here, but couldn't seem to find my main account, I thought I just created an account, but now here I am posting with 61 previous posts. That's weird! Well, apparently I was always photojazz here. lol.

 

I don't really like them taking the "M" designation from the M9. Used to, I could say I had an M, it is a type "M" lens. So, "M" should have remained the generic mount terminology and referred to M7/8/9/and now M. Makes no sense at all.

 

Ok, that said, I haven't pixel peeped these files. I honestly don't care. I have seen images from both cameras I have liked, and I continue to see them. I really want to keep both my M9 and get a M240 someday. No rush. Then I would let the cameras dicates to me how they are used, in my normal use. I'd like to be able to carry a 35mm on one cam, and a 50 or 75 on the other, and flip between cameras without changing lenses, that's ideal to me.

 

These files are naturally going to be a little different, they are different cameras, and produce different sized files. I see both as an advantage. For microdetails I may always choose the smaller image size. For larger big picture prints, I may always choose the 24 mpx, or even my 36mpx Nikon. So, each camera/system can have it's place. Enjoy whatever you own.