New LEICA M vs M9 – Daylight picture RAW files comparison

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

+1

 

To me the increased DR is a major step forward, that alone is a compelling reason to upgrade.

[Leonil]

+1

 

To me the increased DR is a major step forward, that alone is a compelling reason to upgrade.

 

I never understood the DR difference between the cameras. For me, its still hard to determine the difference between the M and the M9 and while Im still learning the nuances of the Leica family, I have to admit that when testing the M, the histograms show me that I get more accurate shots than the M9.

 

Maybe someone can post a DR comparison, Ive yet to find someone pointing out what I should be looking at.

[pieterpronk]

Maybe someone can post a DR comparison, Ive yet to find someone pointing out what I should be looking at.

 

The comparison which I found most illuminating about the dynamic range was done in the review by Kristian Dowling. It shows how the increased DR can be helpful in quite an ordinary scene.

Leica M (typ 240) Field Test and Review — Kristian Dowling

[jaapv]

Glossary: Dynamic Range: Digital Photography Review

[tom0511]

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.

 

As someone who has switched from M9 to M type240 I can attest you that I preferred out of camera images from the M9 over those from the new M in regards to "overall look". Except for ISO higher than 1000 and except images in certain artificial light where tones in faces were off (specially lips).

But I can not say that I find the images form the new M any less "3D" than those from the M9.

I am quite happy with the output from the M and I love to be able to stop-down and use higher ISO if I want to. I am not a slave of light who has to use open f-stop all the time, I can more often choose the DOF I like even in dimmer light and still get nice colors.

Having said that I find medium format including the S2 being ahead in regards of color and "natural" look, not knowing if its sensor type (ccd), sensor size or lenses (probably a combination).

[albireo_double]

These are generally my conclusions, too, including the one regarding the S2. But I have tried to shoot the same scenes with the same lenses with an M9P and my new M and I couldn't see much difference (this was with the latest firmware for the M). I can of course find images in my database shot with the M9 that I really like and images shot with the new M which I am not sure about (in terms of the "look", "feel" or what not) but I always remind myself of all those rejects that I had with the M9 due to its own idiosyncrasies. So overall, despite my first week's conviction that the output from the M9 was nicer (at base ISO) than that from the M, I am now not so convinced and I actually think they are very similar.