March LFI debunks CCD vs CMOS theory

[pieterpronk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Really? From day one? Gee, I seem to recall a lot of controversy when the M8 was released. Oh, that's right -- from wiki:

Now, who is in denial?

Wikipedia mentions the infrared problem, which some of the reviewers actually failed to notice or mention at first, because it was not deemed a real problem. It was and still is quite possible to get very satisfying pictures with the M8 even without the added ir filters.

I wasn't in the "Leica world" when the M8 was released but I do know the ir problem only ruined a couple of my shots while many others it played no role.

 

A lesser form of the same problem still exists in the M10 by the way. (Have a look at the black-purple bag in the review by Tim Ashley).

 

I would say the weird colors of the M10 play a role in a bigger percentage of the pictures than the lack of ir filter did in M8 pictures.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Well, I got my M8 Nov. 7th 2006, took 3 shots and got an "digital" aka IR cut filter on Nov 8th. To me the colour shift without filter was and is unacceptable. As it was on the RD1 and the D70.

[Dirk Mandeville]

I would say the weird colors of the M10 play a role in a bigger percentage of the pictures than the lack of ir filter did in M8 pictures.

 

The point being that you can't look at the first pictures from any of Leica's cameras and make a hard conclusion that this camera is better than that camera until they have the firmware and color profiles sorted out and people have time to get accustomed to the camera and take their best shots.

 

As I said before, it is disingenuous to compare the first pictures off the M with pictures from the M8 that were taken years after the camera was first made available. Given a little time, I fully expect that the pictures taken with the M will be just as lovely as those taken with the M8.

[Twilight]

the skin tones in most of the M240 pictures range from not very good to dismal.

 

I agree. Also the side to side test ME-lux35 vs M-lux35 in a portrait from the same people under the same lighting confirm it to me. I have a M240 on order (prepaid) but I am doubting to go for an ME (although I do like shutter , responsiveness and rangefinderaccuracy of the new M a lot).

 

It would also be great to see unprocessed RAW files whibal-card whitebalanced to convince me otherwise or a firmware update with improvements.

 

If I look to the LFI master shots or even the Leica M9 launch photos, skintones looked far better.

[63strat]

In the Leica M Catalog (downloadable from the Leica website), the skin tones on all the M photos look perfect. No? I have the hard copy of that catalog, and they really do look as good as any M9 photos we've seen.

[jaapv]

It would also be great to see unprocessed RAW files whibal-card whitebalanced to convince me otherwise or a firmware update with improvements.

 

Whitebalanced raw?

Raw data have no whitebalance, it is determined at conversion, with a preset added by the camera as a starting point. It is basically up to the user - and the presets and profiles by the raw software to get it right - not that there is a right whitebalance. It is always an artistic decision by the photographer.

[Twilight]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What I meant was photos taken in RAW with a whibal card in the picture (or in a previous one in the same setting), so white balanced could be set in the same way in postprocessing. Especially a portrait taken in the same lighting conditions, with the same lens with both M9 and M240 would be interesting.

[sblitz]

Did anyone look at the pictorials taken in the LFI? All were taken with M9. Anything wrong with them? M is latest technology I am sure it will produce great pictures in the magazine soon enough. Point is the technology is more than good enough such that the power to produce rests with the photographer not the camera If you need what the latest M delivers fine. Personally I haven't yet seen a difference demanding me to trade up. High ISO? Not an issue for me nor is weather sealing and the shutter noise, well the M9 is fine but prefer the M4. This CMOS CCD debate is getting tedious and beside the point. Those Pulitzer Prize photos for this year were probably all taken with CMOS sensors. Anybody notice the colors were off?

[wilfredo]

HI There Wilfredo

I hope you're well - long time no speak

 

 

That's not very charitable! It also rather opens you up to the same sort of criticism!

 

 

 

Rather opposing Mark Dubovoy (who now loves the M and badmouths the M8), the normal trend around here is to badmouth anything new, and then settle down and get to grips with it.

 

You post some very nice shots with the M8, but I don't see anything about them that's better than the M (or the M9).

 

If you're going to talk about denial, you're going to have to find a way to define 'better' or 'good' (or indeed 'bad') which can generally be agreed with - otherwise it's just a bun fight.

 

All the best

 

I never used the word better. The M8 and the new M files differ. I prefer the M8 files. I don't have an M9 but I prefer what I've seen from the M9 and MM to the new M as well. As I said in a previous thread to me it's the difference between the sublime and the ordinary.

 

For those who are enjoying their new Leica M I can only wish them the best, and yes a good photographer will produce satisfactory work with it. I trust there will be improvements to the IQ with future firmware updates. The new bells and whistles are not for me, I have plenty on my Canon.

 

I don't think I need to add anymore to this discussion, the two photo threads (M8 and M) continue to speak louder than words for those who can see the difference.

 

M8 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/112892-m8-photographs-post-them-here.html

 

M http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/274176-leica-m-shots-post-them-here.html

 

Cheers!

[63strat]

I prefer the M8 files.

 

How can you go by a bunch of random M photos, with obvious white balance issues, and half being out-of-focus (to boot), by various individuals on the internet?

 

You should go the Leica site, download the current 1/2" thick M catalog (I have the hard copy), which is full of images every bit as good as those M8 shots. The skin tones are spot-on. Then tell us what you think.

[rirakuma]

I didn't realise they have updated their catalog so thanks for pointing that out. I've just downloaded and looked through the pdf but I have to disagree with you about the skin tones. The images look too warm and have a slight magenta tint which I don't find very pleasing. The fact that these images are boldly used on their catalog worries me into thinking that there may not be a change in color profiles in future firmware. I mean if I was Leica I would not be using images with a "wrong" color profile in my brochures.

 

Edit: here's a link of the catalog for easy access http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_7604.pdf

 

How can you go by a bunch of random M photos, with obvious white balance issues, and half being out-of-focus (to boot), by various individuals on the internet?

 

You should go the Leica site, download the current 1/2" thick M catalog (I have the hard copy), which is full of images every bit as good as those M8 shots. The skin tones are spot-on. Then tell us what you think.

[sblitz]

I think in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing that someone can produce photos from the M8 M9 and M entirely indistinguishable from each other. You will react to the photo itself, it will carry the day and deliver what you want.There are some practical issues that changes the value of one vs the other, full frame, 18 vs 24, better high iso, weather sealing, etc.These things make a difference at different times (personally I prefer a full frame so the M8 never interested me) and what and how you shoot will determine the value proposition (including live view, ability to use R lenses, peak focusing, movies). All these things have value, more to some not at all to others, but none of these things change the quality of the photo. In fact, I would venture to say that Leica tried to make a competitive camera with all these adds w/o diminishing the IQ one gets from the M9 -- which it appears they did which is one reason I have no desire to trade up (there are no R lenses hidden in my stash). Indeed, any fair read of the leica blog and the lfi show great shots possible on all these cameras, including the m6, all are great enough such that one couldn't tell which camera they were made with. 'nuff said

[jaapv]

I didn't realise they have updated their catalog so thanks for pointing that out. I've just downloaded and looked through the pdf but I have to disagree with you about the skin tones. The images look too warm and have a slight magenta tint which I don't find very pleasing. The fact that these images are boldly used on their catalog worries me into thinking that there may not be a change in color profiles in future firmware. I mean if I was Leica I would not be using images with a "wrong" color profile in my brochures.

 

Edit: here's a link of the catalog for easy access http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_7604.pdf

Two things - the monitor calibration used when making the catalog may not be identical to the monitor calibration you are using and the colour perception in the Australian cultural context is different from the German one.

On my recently calibrated Eizo and to my North-western European eye they look just fine, although I prefer slightly less saturation - but that is a matter of taste.

 

Anyway cooling down and reducing/shifting magenta saturation are just two marginal tweaks in postprocessing - or camera profiling in your raw converter.

[63strat]

Funny, I just downloaded it, and they don't look as good as they do in the printed catalog version I have (on my MacBook Retina).

[jaapv]

The Mac Retina screen is not very good for judging colour, as it covers less than sRGB. Sources vary, but values reported vary between 70% and 97 % of sRGB. An Eizo Coloredge or NEC Spectraview covers 98 % of Adobe RGB.

That should explain the difference you are seeing. Of course, a print and a monitor image cannot look the same anyway.

[Rick]

Just a note to readers new to the LUF that have stumbled here to find answers as to whether the new M (not M10, ignore this ignorance there is no such camera) is being reviewed positively here. As Jono wrote above, on the LUF there exists a tendency to love the camera you own and dismiss the new one. To me this behavior seems normal. It is just human nature to seek self justification for what you own.

 

I have owned the M8, M9 and now the M. The M8 had hideous IR problems and skin tones were/are hard to tame in some lighting conditions. The M9 was better in that it didn't suffer from the hideous IR problem that the M8 has and the M9 needed no IR filter. The M9 produced wonderful color but, it is still a little too magenta in skin tones under some lighting. The M has very little IR problem (I'm not sure yet but it might be a little more sensitive to IR than the M9). But, I can tell you it is not enough to bother me. The color on the M is better than the M9 and the red can be tamed in LR to produce wonderful skin tones. I don't get the teflon skin comments, but that may come down to how the files have been PP. My experience is that the files have so much more DR and the color is so easy to PP. The color is really already so good. The M files are so much easier to work with.

 

Don't be fooled by those that don't own the camera. As most people would agree, it takes a while to climb the PP learning curve with any new camera. The M is a fantastic camera and in almost all ways it is much improved from the M9 and certainly the M8.

 

Now, for something different. The M8 was a great camera and I liked it. I think it is a little sharper at 100% than the M9. In print there isn't really a difference except the M9 can be printed a little larger. The M9 is a wonderful camera and its files are slightly less noisy at higher iso than the M8 and the color is better to me under some conditions. Lastly, the M is wonderful camera and its files are a much bigger jump in image quality than the M9 was to the M8 and I find the color much easier to work with especially under tungsten lighting where the previous two M digitals struggled.

 

I could make great pictures with any of these cameras and unlike some here I don't see a need to justify owning any of these three cameras. Being (just) a photography enthusiast, I probably don't really need anything better than the M8. I would confess that to a large degree I just flat out enjoy the experience that improvements from a new camera offer.

[IkarusJohn]

... unlike some here I don't see a need to justify owning any of these three cameras. Being (just) a photography enthusiast, I probably don't really need anything better than the M8. I would confess that to a large degree I just flat out enjoy the experience that improvements from a new camera offer.

 

+1

 

Thanks for this, Rick. I'm getting weary of justifications for buying, and justifications for not buying; and particularly the suggestion, nay assertion, that I shouldn't have a [insert your new M camera here] as I don't need it.

 

I don't need a camera at all.

[Guest malland]

...on the LUF there exists a tendency to love the camera you own and dismiss the new one. To me this behavior seems normal. It is just human nature to seek self justification for what you own...

I suppose there could be people who think like that but, to me, your statement looks like a gratuitous put-down of people who genuinely prefer the color rendition of the M9 to that of the M240. While I don't have an M240, I can only say that I generally prefer the color rendition that I have seen from the M9 to that of the M240.

 

I have thought that it was premature to compare the color rendition of the two cameras until there are better raw developer profiles and/or a firmware improvement for the M240 that will produce better color. However, if the fact that new M240 brochure has the color rendition that many of us haven't liked indicates, as someone wrote above, that this camera already has the final color rendition, then I'm glad that in February I bet on the M9-P by buying one at that time.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

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

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[haroldp]

Well, I got my M8 Nov. 7th 2006, took 3 shots and got an "digital" aka IR cut filter on Nov 8th. To me the colour shift without filter was and is unacceptable. As it was on the RD1 and the D70.

 

In addition, TTL (gnc pre-flash) flash photo's using a metz 54 are incorrectly exposed (grossly underexposed) on the m8 without IR cut filter, I am not certain as to why, but it was not subtle.

 

.... H

[macjonny1]

Just a note to

 

I could make great pictures with any of these cameras and unlike some here I don't see a need to justify owning any of these three cameras. Being (just) a photography enthusiast' date=' I probably don't really need anything better than the M8. I would confess that to a large degree I just flat out enjoy the experience that improvements from a new camera offer. [/quote']

 

Well said! That's what it's about!