jdlaing Posted March 30, 2013 Share #41 Posted March 30, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Probably why Blackstone is a minority partner with not much to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Hi jdlaing, Take a look here Comparison of M9 and M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
krooj Posted March 30, 2013 Share #42 Posted March 30, 2013 If you think the Blackstone investment won't mean significant changes in Leica's business practices, you don't know what you're talking about. I speak as someone who's done business deals with the Blackstone Group. I'd take that bet, the winner buying the camera for the other, but I'm precluded by contract, sorry. Look for a 2014 calendar announcement of a sensor upgraded Leica M. That means up to two years and a couple of months after the M240 announcement. If you think that's so unlikely you'd bet $6000+ against it, you don't know Blackstone. I would love to see Leica put out a down-market M, cheaper than the M-E, that would offer more users entry into the system. Maybe a nice kit for $4k with a Summarit prime. For sure, there's a massive product gap between the X2 and the M where Leica isn't competing, possibly because the competition would eat them alive. The joke is that as MILC manufacturers get better and better, the M's relevance comes under serious scrutiny, and Leica has no choice but to compete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 30, 2013 Share #43 Posted March 30, 2013 If you think the Blackstone investment won't mean significant changes in Leica's business practices, you don't know what you're talking about. I speak as someone who's done business deals with the Blackstone Group. I'd take that bet, the winner buying the camera for the other, but I'm precluded by contract, sorry. Look for a 2014 calendar announcement of a sensor upgraded Leica M. That means up to two years and a couple of months after the M240 announcement. If you think that's so unlikely you'd bet $6000+ against it, you don't know Blackstone. In some ways I hope your right, but Blackstone are not the engineers, I spent 10+ years in lead advisory, I never did a deal with Blackstone on either side, but did do a lot with UK and European private equity. Management will have submitted plans and Blackstone will be endeavouring to ensure they stick to them. As is always the case it will be about the numbers and the M's success will crystallise any changes to current plans. I wonder if Leica would have held back a little longer without Blackstone and addressed the AWB for a start ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2013 Share #44 Posted March 31, 2013 Anyway, we digress. This isn't about me. Let's get back to comparing M9 and M10 image quality. And I'm perfectly fine with leaving this up to people that make better pictures than Ming Thein, or people who own both camera's, but please let's have some more comparisons! Right ..... here are some DNG's taken seconds apart with M9 and M240 both with 50/2.8 lenses on auto white balance. These were early morning in part sun. These are adjusted for crappy M240 auto (and other) white balance. The original DNG's are here on dropbox: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L1014786.DNG https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L4000829.DNG L1.... is M9, L4.... is M240 Load up in LR 4.4 Make sure both camera calibrations are set as EMBEDDED. Auto white balance on the M240 picture is awful. Auto on the M9 is about right. Set the same values as on the M9 (Temp 4200, tint +7). You will have to adjust exposure on the M9 pic by about +0.2 to bring them about equal. If there are any significant colour, saturation or other differences then they are negligible, because I cannot see much..... just the blue bricks .... and the dark brown bottle neck .......and in fact the M240 rendering is closer to the real thing. As for resolution and edge contrast they look mightily similar (note the far R bottle on the M240 is not exactly in focus). Zooming to 1:1 is a bit misleading as you are not comparing like with like .... M9 details appear sharper .... but if these was some way of shrinking the M240 DNG (as a DNG) to M9 size I am think this difference would vanish ...... I have lots of other matched pairs ..... mostly of rather difficult subjects to see what the differences are and can post them if you like .... BUT .... you have to extremely careful in handling in LR4 to ensure you adjust for other variables before you pronounce judgement. If the M240 WB issue was fixed I dont think there would be any of this 'Typical CMOS .... just the same as Canon & Nikon' grumbling...... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2287015'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2013 Share #45 Posted March 31, 2013 Here are some more pairs ....... Sorry they are not more rivettingly exciting subjects .... but they were deliberately chosen of things I have multiple previous shots of so I know how they should look..... Easy adjustment to compare can only be done when both cameras are set to auto WB .... by just applying the M9 WB settings to the M240's...... the M9 is usually not far off colour wise.... I have other pairs with varying WB settings, but these require more manual fiddling (or by just using auto WB in LR and bypassing the camera parameters). I have slow internet connection so it may be a while before these are all uploaded..... https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L1014788.DNG https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L4000831.DNG https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L1014793.DNG https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L4000837.DNG https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L1014797.DNG https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L4000841.DNG And before anyone starts complaining, these were all usually taken when out for a tramp with the dog, were handheld and using the only lens I have 2 of .... the 50/2.8 .... which isn't cutting edge optics ..... so don't expect perfect focus or perfectly horizontal horizons etc..... They will however, give you some real world comparisons instead of pictures of test charts and brick walls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2013 Share #46 Posted March 31, 2013 Then there is high ISO usage ..... and the fact that these images can be de-noised very easily and give excellent results..... This is from a mixed light series in a darkish restaurant .... a situation where I would not have even tried to take some pictures with an M9....... at 2500 with auto iso, 1/45 with a noctilux.... Two small crops 100% to show the noise, before and after my rather inexpert modest de-noising in LR4..... although I cannot think of many situations where I would be using 100% crops of photos in the near dark...... Viewed full screen on a 27" iMac 2500iso (and 3200) images look super, even without NR..... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2287098'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2013 Share #47 Posted March 31, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) And sharpening is much more effective with less artefacts...... first pair M9 before and after sharpening to the level before jaggies and noise appears, 2nd pair is M240 These were rather soft and underexposed images with 50/2.8 wide open.... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2287106'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2013 Share #48 Posted March 31, 2013 So...... from my rather inexpert comparisons I can conclude the following: The M240, 'despite' a despicable CMOS sensor produces 'Leica-like' images that are almost indistinguishable from the M9 in normal usage. Colour rendering is the same ...... although the current embedded WB calibration needs altering. Auto WB in LR4 (or using the dropper) does a much better job in the interim. The increase from 17 to 24 Mpx makes hardly any noticeable difference at first glance..... but..... it allows more flexibility in cropping (and sharpening). Noise up to 3200 is very uniform, unobtrusive and images are eminently usable. I haven't had the need or inclination to go higher. Images tolerate much more aggressive de-noising and sharpening than comparable M9 images and produce excellent results. Detail recovery from shadows seems better than the M9 ... although I have yet to do some critical comparisons.... I assume this reflects the increased dynamic range .... although I can see no other discernible sign of this in my images ... but there again I haven't hunted ...... I am no expert like the eminent Mr Puts, but all the above is enough to make me satisfied that my money has been well spent and that nothing of the M9's great imagery has been lost...... The camera is a delight to handle and use, fast, responsive, flexible and none of the enhancements over the M9 is without a good reason and none are pointless gimmicks. If there is one thing that the M240 confirms ....... it is that base iso M9 image quality is still truly superb ....... and a VERY hard act to follow .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2013 Share #49 Posted March 31, 2013 ps. Posting example images is fraught with difficulty..... ..... no doubt there will be a cascade of 'the Nikocanomatic Hefty ZX 446i can do 128000iso' or the 'Plasticrap Mini is nearly as good and only costs half the price of a bottle of milk' ........ but the comparisons rarely use RAW images and rely on JPG's subjected to devious far eastern processing practices...... ...... but I've been there, done that ...... got the T-Shirt..... and a bad back.... The Leica M philosophy suits what I want from photography ........ doing these comparisons I was carrying around 2 bodies and a few spare lenses in my pockets .... and the cameras were always to hand and hardly noticeable in size and weight. Whatever tempting wonders the opposition come up with, I am sticking with Leica, and the complementary pair of M240 and MM will do me fine for some years to come.... .......oh ... and I'm keeping my 'old' M9 as a spare/second body ....... it's far too good a camera to let go for the current second hand prices ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted March 31, 2013 Share #50 Posted March 31, 2013 Thighslapper, thank you for posting the DNG's. I had a lotta fun with them. After running them through ACR (don't use LR) and then CS6, yes you can sharpen the M240 image more and I thought I could perceive the increased DR, but after all was said and done I found that of what I like in an image the M9 files were (just barely) my preference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2013 Share #51 Posted March 31, 2013 Thighslapper, thank you for posting the DNG's. I had a lotta fun with them. After running them through ACR (don't use LR) and then CS6, yes you can sharpen the M240 image more and I thought I could perceive the increased DR, but after all was said and done I found that of what I like in an image the M9 files were (just barely) my preference. .... and here we have the inevitable dilemma ..... those who have an M240 will claim their images are better..... as a result of necessary self delusion because their financial investment ..... and becoming habituated to the look of them with time ...... ...... and those without .... having a large (and very selective) memory bank of M9 images .... will always find something about the M240's output that are 'not quite right' to justify their position as luddites..... In between are those with a camera on order, alternately gnawing their knuckles with anxiety because of the luddites saying everything posted proves its a worthless upgrade .... and wetting themselves with excitement when the odd wonderful image pops up (which is a rarity at any time) that justifies their blind faith....... Here we have the photographic equivalent of religious conversion ..... I think in a true 'blind tasting' with the WB differences eliminated and exposure equalised, picking which was which at base iso would be a real lottery...... The M240 holds quality very well at higher ISO's and the difference then becomes more noticeable.... and then it becomes a matter of pure preference.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 31, 2013 Share #52 Posted March 31, 2013 .... and here we have the inevitable dilemma ..... those who have an M240 will claim their images are better..... as a result of necessary self delusion because their financial investment ..... and becoming habituated to the look of them with time ...... ...... and those without .... having a large (and very selective) memory bank of M9 images .... will always find something about the M240's output that are 'not quite right' to justify their position as luddites..... In between are those with a camera on order, alternately gnawing their knuckles with anxiety because of the luddites saying everything posted proves its a worthless upgrade .... and wetting themselves with excitement when the odd wonderful image pops up (which is a rarity at any time) that justifies their blind faith....... Here we have the photographic equivalent of religious conversion ..... I think in a true 'blind tasting' with the WB differences eliminated and exposure equalised, picking which was which at base iso would be a real lottery...... The M240 holds quality very well at higher ISO's and the difference then becomes more noticeable.... and then it becomes a matter of pure preference.... Well, how do you know all those things? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krooj Posted March 31, 2013 Share #53 Posted March 31, 2013 Thanks for these comparisons. What I'm getting is that the M9 was a stellar camera for it's time. Heck, the output suggests the M9 is still an excellent camera. On the other hand, the 240 is a generational successor, and all that means: CCD->CMOS, LV, updated screen, updated image processor, etc... I can see why those of you with an M9 would take pause instead of immediately buying a 240. I suspect the same will not be true of the 240's successor, unless Leica decides to turn the M into something else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotttokar Posted March 31, 2013 Share #54 Posted March 31, 2013 So, this being my 1st M, I'll take the live-view and better rear screen along with better DR and +stops in ISO over the M-E or M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krooj Posted March 31, 2013 Share #55 Posted March 31, 2013 So, this being my 1st M, I'll take the live-view and better rear screen along with better DR and +stops in ISO over the M-E or M9. Same. The only reason I could come up with to buy an M9/E would be cost, and since that wasn't a huge issue, I'd rather have the advancements 3 years' development wrought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 31, 2013 Share #56 Posted March 31, 2013 Right ..... here are some DNG's taken seconds apart with M9 and M240 both with 50/2.8 lenses on auto white balance. These were early morning in part sun. These are adjusted for crappy M240 auto (and other) white balance. The original DNG's are here on dropbox: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L1014786.DNG https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8936627/L4000829.DNG L1.... is M9, L4.... is M240 Load up in LR 4.4 Make sure both camera calibrations are set as EMBEDDED. Auto white balance on the M240 picture is awful. Auto on the M9 is about right. Set the same values as on the M9 (Temp 4200, tint +7). You will have to adjust exposure on the M9 pic by about +0.2 to bring them about equal. If there are any significant colour, saturation or other differences then they are negligible, because I cannot see much..... just the blue bricks .... and the dark brown bottle neck .......and in fact the M240 rendering is closer to the real thing. As for resolution and edge contrast they look mightily similar (note the far R bottle on the M240 is not exactly in focus). Zooming to 1:1 is a bit misleading as you are not comparing like with like .... M9 details appear sharper .... but if these was some way of shrinking the M240 DNG (as a DNG) to M9 size I am think this difference would vanish ...... I have lots of other matched pairs ..... mostly of rather difficult subjects to see what the differences are and can post them if you like .... BUT .... you have to extremely careful in handling in LR4 to ensure you adjust for other variables before you pronounce judgement. If the M240 WB issue was fixed I dont think there would be any of this 'Typical CMOS .... just the same as Canon & Nikon' grumbling...... Great work! I do not know how you could steady the cameras after having that much beer just for us. Cheers to you too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2013 Share #57 Posted March 31, 2013 Well, how do you know all those things? a job where I'm confronted with the vagaries of human nature on a daily basis .... ...... and a fair degree self analysis having bought cameras for 45 years and gone through the same process at 2-3 yearly intervals ... ....... and analysis of photographic images .... despite all the test charts and numerical data is still a very subjective exercise..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 31, 2013 Share #58 Posted March 31, 2013 I am no expert like the eminent Mr Puts... Oh, I think you are talking yourself down and I applaud your willingness to post comparisons between the two cameras. Jono doesn't like to, for good reason, it's a largely thankless task. My own (definitely inexpert) opinion is that the cameras compare well and we shouldn't forget how long Leica/Jenoptik took to knock the M9 into shape. Italian flags anyone? The M is in the first flush of youth and will doubtless improve over the coming months. And, as I bask in the 32 degree warmth of Perth coming to the end of a wonderful trip to Australia, I wish I had had my M with me (instead of it being returned to Solms). I'm running nervously on one M9 after the second's rangefinder went completely off for no apparent reason. If I had had the M, I could have used the EVF to keep taking images. To my mind, the M9 is not that great if, in spite of babying it, you can't even focus properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted April 1, 2013 Share #59 Posted April 1, 2013 I'm running nervously on one M9 after the second's rangefinder went completely off for no apparent reason. If I had had the M, I could have used the EVF to keep taking images. To my mind, the M9 is not that great if, in spite of babying it, you can't even focus properly. Agree more than you will ever know! You know this never crossed my mind so with your post it seems the M has hidden value after all, CMOS or not. Good luck getting a second one at this time in the delivery process. Now I understand why both Chris and Jono have 2 copies. They KNOW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swing Posted April 2, 2013 Share #60 Posted April 2, 2013 Hello, Zenny. Thank you for an introduction to my blog and flickr. I am an amateur in the photo. I also like the camera itself, just like taking pictures with the camera. It is not a good photo, I'm glad it is helpful. Thank you. When You're Smiling 君微笑めば Flickr: when you're smiling's Photostream Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.