The M9 is to the M240 as Jpeg is to Raw?

[jffielde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I need a little group therapy. I just can’t decide whether the move to the M240 from the M9 is an upgrade, downgrade or sidegrade. I’ve canceled the order and now un-canceled it.

 

I would appreciate your thoughts on my thoughts:

 

On the one hand: there are many indisputable benefits to the M240. I need the 13-shot buffer desperately, I very much like (and almost need) the 1.5 or so stops of improved ISO performance, and I like the increased dynamic range and weather-sealing. The increased detail from the larger sensor, focus peaking, and larger battery mean nothing to me. The better screen for focus confirmation would be a luxury.

 

On the other hand: I could detect the “look” of the M9 and I loved it. I appreciated that it was special and distinguishable from my Canon’s images, and I could easily pick out OOC photos from the M9 in a set (just as I can pick out the "Zeiss-lensed" photos from Canon / Nikon ones). Unfortunately, I cannot pick out an M240 photo from a Canon / Nikon set. The M240’s OOC photos aren’t special in a way that I can detect anymore. That saddens me, in part because the output from my M9 is my favorite. It also saddens me because, if the images are now comparable to everyone else’s, the new Leica sensor is easily trounced by even the prior generation technology of the major manufacturers. That is, if the images now compete a good bit (obviously there are other considerations like lenses) on ISO performance and dynamic range, they’re easily bested by cameras that cost a fraction as much. And Leica used to have size and weight in its corner, but the base model camera of every manufacturer are now comparably sized and universally lighter weight.

 

Finally, it seems possible to me that saying the Leica M240 has lost the M9 magic and looks like every other CMOS is a back-handed complimentary way of saying it has assumed the benefits of semi-modern sensor design, meaning that it has greater dynamic range which might produce a necessary side-effect of less contrasty images. Essentially, the M9 produces OOC images that look Jpeg-like with lots of sharpness, contrast and saturation, while the M240 produces a more raw-like output with less of those things but a more malleable file. If that’s the case, then most anyone would choose the M9 image OOC, but the M240 after PP.

 

Any thoughts on my rambling?

[DigitalHeMan]

Any thoughts? Yep, it's a decision only you can make for yourself.....

[Lindolfi]

Perhaps two thoughts

 

1] Many things we see are based on expectations and prior knowledge (CCD or CMOS). In the end the customer will just see the image.

 

2] There is no fundamental difference between on camera processing and postprocessing. In the end the customer will just see the image.

[Dirk Mandeville]

I am thinking if you can pick out the pictures from a particular sensor (M9), it is probably because of the faults of that sensor (i.e. lower dynamic range, color aberrations) stand out, rather than anything especially good about how that sensor performs. The M9 can produce great images within its limitations. I expect the M(240) will produce great images with less limitations and a lot more flexibility. I think your last paragraph is fairly accurate.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Somewhat related... I had a Sony a77 for a while. Loved it. Great camera to use. I'm an EVF fan and it has the best one available. But..... Sometimes (actually a lot) I though it just had too much DR. The files OOC (even raw) were incredibly flat and needed much more post processing to bring back some punch. And creating an import preset in LR didn't really work either as each image was off in a slightly different way.

 

The thing is, I think it taught me I quite like a limit to the DR in a camera. I'm not yet sure where that limit is but there are cameras out there that have more DR than I want and I generally prefer camera with a slightly lower DR than what is possible. The Olympus E-M5 has a range that I really like. My M9's are maybe a half stop below that.

 

The fact that the new camera has more DR may just go against your personal preferences. No problems with that.

 

Gordon

[almoore]

So did the "magic" of Leica only begin with the M8? I seem to recall people thinking that Leicas were fairly magical when they took the very same Tri-X and Kodachrome as Canons and Nikons.

 

The notion that the Leica "look" is a product of a CCD rather than CMOS sensor is bizarre.

[macjonny1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So did the "magic" of Leica only begin with the M8? I seem to recall people thinking that Leicas were fairly magical when they took the very same Tri-X and Kodachrome as Canons and Nikons.

 

The notion that the Leica "look" is a product of a CCD rather than CMOS sensor is bizarre.

 

Yes exactly!

[pieterpronk]

So did the "magic" of Leica only begin with the M8? I seem to recall people thinking that Leicas were fairly magical when they took the very same Tri-X and Kodachrome as Canons and Nikons.

 

The notion that the Leica "look" is a product of a CCD rather than CMOS sensor is bizarre.

 

To be fair the OP talks about the M9 having a "look" without it necessarily being that famous Leica "look". His preference for the M9 sensor ooc can probably be likened to different kinds of film. Some people have preference for a certain film to go with their magical Leica lenses. Some people actually prefer a filmtype that has less DR than another. And even considering how post processing can help you make one sensors output look like anothers, it just doesnt always work and can take some effort.

The OP's reservations seem valid enough, and judging from his post I would advice him to stick to the M9 untill he sees some output from the M that he really falls in love with. With both the M9 and the M10 he will have the same Leica magic coming from the same lenses, but he should pick his favorite sensorlook to go with it.

[jffielde]

So did the "magic" of Leica only begin with the M8? I seem to recall people thinking that Leicas were fairly magical when they took the very same Tri-X and Kodachrome as Canons and Nikons.

 

The notion that the Leica "look" is a product of a CCD rather than CMOS sensor is bizarre.

 

I don't see the relevance of your comment. I'm not suggesting that there's none there: I just don't see it. I don't know what the "Leica Look" is, but I can say that there's easily a difference I can detect between film (any film) and the output of the M8. In fact, I would say the differences strike me more than the similarities. Similarly, I like the look of the M9's output (as you may be fond of film), and the M240's output departs from that look and becomes more a kindred spirit of the other major brands than to it's predecessor, the M9. I have mixed feelings about that development that I'm struggling with.

 

In any event, thanks for your input.

[Guest WPalank]

Just stay on the M list. Could be a while. possibly by then you fall back in love with the M9 (yes, typed exactly the way I intended).

You seem to have "Lost that Loving Feelin' ", otherwise you wouldn't consider getting rid of the M9.

[almoore]

I don't see the relevance of your comment...I like the look of the M9's output (as you may be fond of film), and the M240's output departs from that look and becomes more a kindred spirit of the other major brands than to it's predecessor, the M9...

 

My point is that if the M240 is supposedly lacking in character because its sensor has similar characteristics to those found in Canon or Nikon, then it would be reasonable to suggest an M4 lacked character because it was dependent on the same film emulsions as Canon and Nikon.

 

I suspect that the 8 and 9 will rapidly be seen as unrefined (poor low light performance and awful shutter release feel) blips in the progress of the M line, and the 240 as the camera that gets things back on track.

[jffielde]

My point is that if the M240 is supposedly lacking in character because its sensor has similar characteristics to those found in Canon or Nikon, then it would be reasonable to suggest an M4 lacked character because it was dependent on the same film emulsions as Canon and Nikon.

 

I suspect that the 8 and 9 will rapidly be seen as unrefined (poor low light performance and awful shutter release feel) blips in the progress of the M line, and the 240 as the camera that gets things back on track.

 

The first point isn't terribly persuasive, but you very well may be right about the second.

[Guest malland]

I need a little group therapy. I just can’t decide whether the move to the M240 from the M9 is an upgrade, downgrade or sidegrade. I’ve canceled the order and now un-canceled it...

As the doctor says, "take an aspirin and drink a large glass of water." What's the rush? You have an M9 and seem happy with it. Get off the M list and give someone else a chance. Then just wait to see what the output from the M240 is like once there are profiles for major raw developers, especially LR4 — and perhaps a firmware tweak as well. IMHO, it's too early to judge the color rendition of the M240 now.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[lct]

We can make our own profiles if need be. The M240 has no specific colors or i'm becoming daltonian. Don't ask me about jpegs though, i don't know.

[Guest malland]

Sure people can make their own profiles, but I haven't yet seen any really good ones for the M240.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[StephenPatterson]

On the one hand: there are many indisputable benefits to the M240. I need the 13-shot buffer desperately, I very much like (and almost need) the 1.5 or so stops of improved ISO performance, and I like the increased dynamic range and weather-sealing. The increased detail from the larger sensor, focus peaking, and larger battery mean nothing to me. The better screen for focus confirmation would be a luxury.

 

 

Finally, it seems possible to me that saying the Leica M240 has lost the M9 magic and looks like every other CMOS is a back-handed complimentary way of saying it has assumed the benefits of semi-modern sensor design, meaning that it has greater dynamic range which might produce a necessary side-effect of less contrasty images. Essentially, the M9 produces OOC images that look Jpeg-like with lots of sharpness, contrast and saturation, while the M240 produces a more raw-like output with less of those things but a more malleable file. If that’s the case, then most anyone would choose the M9 image OOC, but the M240 after PP.

 

Any thoughts on my rambling?

 

Yes, stick with the M240. PP is an essential part of the Leica experience, and the MM and M240 need it to shine. I will always prefer more dynamic range over less, and more pixel level detail over less, as these things can be managed to produce a given look. It's very hard to add information to an M9 RAW file that isn't there to begin with.

 

I am now at a point where I'm working with M240 files every day, but still have jobs to finish with files from the M9. I can say with no hesitation that the M240 files are much easier to work with, and are producing cleaner and sharper images. The prints just look amazing.

[kdriceman]

Perhaps two thoughts

 

1] Many things we see are based on expectations and prior knowledge (CCD or CMOS). In the end the customer will just see the image.

 

2] There is no fundamental difference between on camera processing and postprocessing. In the end the customer will just see the image.

 

Lindolfi is right here. I think the CCD/CMOS thing is now in your head and you are going to have a hard time shaking it. For me, I just don't buy it. I stared at comparable M & M9 images for hours and there is very little difference (that can't be addressed in PP) to my eye apart from ISO range and DR which is hard to distinguish in the limited number if images I've seen.

 

So, for me, I'm upgrading because the M images are as good or better and for the increased usability (ISO, DR, build quality, weather sealing, battery life). I am having a hard time parting with the M9, but she's off warranty and not getting any younger, so I ordered the M.

[skinnfell]

My first thought about reading your post is that you should WAIT.

 

So you are potentially losing a few months of M ownership (and hopefully shooting) but in case you decide its a bad decision you can potentially lose quite a bit of money.

 

I would wait until more and more parameters, and user experiences of the M240 become clear, and you can compare those to your M9 experience. Who knows, maybe you find yourself in the position to borrow or try an M240 one day. This might influence your decision both ways.

 

The fact that we are even having threads like this is a testament to how great the M9 is, despite being ridiculed by Dx0.

 

In my case I have done quite a bit of the same mind-twisting as you, but decided that there are just too many things about the M240 that I don't like compared to the features I do like. That, compared with the features I don't like on my M9, and all the features that I am indifferent to, has led me to decide to sell my M9 and get a Mono as soon as I can afford the difference.

 

As to your philosophical question at the thread title, I have no answer...

[pieterpronk]

I believe (seems the appropriate word in this context) in the difference between sensors. Just like the M8 renders different from the M9, especially for B&W. And I know that it is next to impossible to make the M9 (B&W and color) output look exactly the same as the M8 in postprocess. And this is just between two sensors of the same CCD design, but even between those two there are differences.

 

So I just don't think there is some magical preset or some magical way of postprocessing that makes M10 look like everything else. Expecting a completely different sensor to copy exactly what another sensor does seems ludicrous. Especially considering that postprocessing is not some completely white sheet upon which we can draw whatever we like. Postprocessing is enhancing the positive characteristics of a photographers skill and the camera's own sensor, while trying to minimize the negative aspects.

I think with the M10 it will be foolish to try and make it look like the M9. It's a new camera. It does it's own thing. And I believe when learning to work with it's own characteristics we can make it shine just as bright as a M9. But then it will shine differently.

 

How about a magical sensor that can emulate film characteristics. We have been trying for many years. We can't do it. Not even with all the postprocessing we throw at it, and we know how many people are working on trying to copy the film look, I bet most of us have worked at it one time or another.

 

I for one am looking forward to the new journey of finding what works with a new camera. And I believe I will get more from the M that way, than when I desperately want it to look like an M9. Basically stick with your M9 if you want the look it provides. Stick with the M8 if you like it's characteristics (especially b&w). And buy the M10 if you are ready for the journey into new territory.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[thighslapper]

When corrected for the vagaries of the current WB (particularly auto WB) settings in the Leica 'embedded' profile, the results at base ISO look the same as the equivalent M9 shots.

 

I have posted numerous pics as comparisons and I am perfectly satisfied that the basic M240 output has the same character as the original M9.... when Leica get the profile finalised.

 

If you put M9 and M240 files in LR4 and press auto WB the files invariably look identical.

 

It is ALL down to RAW conversion, and you can make the photos look like anything you like if you want to.