March LFI debunks CCD vs CMOS theory

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

There may be just as much a tendency for some to fall in love with the new product, just because it's the latest. Nothing wrong with that, if that floats one's boat.

 

But the greater tendency, it seems to me, is for readers to take comments (and screen pics) from others as fixed or as gospel, rather than taking the time, effort (or expense to rent) so that one can draw his/her own conclusions based on his/her own working methods.

 

If the camera, or lens, or other gear were the determining factor, everyone using that gear would generate the same look. Some people use modest equipment and work wonders; others do little despite great expense.

 

I advise new LUF readers (and probably some older ones) to not only take comments with a grain of salt, but to take a test drive regardless the perceptions of others. Unless of course it's just the thrill of the purchase.

 

But then I'd never buy a car without a test drive, even after all the reviews.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[daure]

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).

 

I confirm

 

M(240) without and with Leica UV/IR filter

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!

[wattsy]

Maybe time to crack out the IR/UV filters.

 

Which, I might add, isn't a bad idea with any digital camera (though I haven't bothered when using the M9). What is the significance for cyan drift (remember that?) using the filters with wider lenses on the M – presumably the camera would need to be informed that a filter was in place to be able to make any necessary corrections?

[Jeff S]

Another reason to appreciate the 'cropped' M8.2 with filters. I knew the world would come around.

 

Jeff

[dwbell]

On an (useless) aside the cardboard sleeve MacBeth Color Checker comes in shows a nasty Magenta hue shift both without AND with the IR filter! Bet they did that on purpose, to niggle at OCD measurebaters like myself. Those evil Xriters and their weapons of colourmetry destruction.....

[wilfredo]

Another reason to appreciate the 'cropped' M8.2 with filters. I knew the world would come around.

 

Jeff

 

You have a good sense of humor. :-)

 

Shifting the discussion away from the M 240 type, I would have preferred an M9 with no IR filter on the sensor. I am wondering if Leica could provide the service of removing the IR filter from the sensor if I purchased the ME or M9? I prefer the higher resolution without the IR filter.

 

Thanks!

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Both the M8 and the M9 have an IR filter; it is just that the filter in the M9 is slightly thicker. If Leica (or Truesense Imaging) could remove the IR filter they would have to replace it with a clear cover glass of the same thickness.

[wilfredo]

Thanks for clarifying that Michael.

[Rick]

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 -

 

I agree with you on all of this, even the part about the oblique gratuitous put-down - that's just me. Maybe, I was just trying to make a point when I felt reasonable balance was tipping. I'll work on it. As to the color, except for tungsten lighting where the M is much easier to work with, I have yet to take as rich a color photograph with the M as I have with my M9, in daylight conditions. I still I love the M9 color at 6000K. But, read on, please.

 

Only having the M for 3 weeks, I just haven't had a chance to make a great photograph with it. It has been grey and rainy here and nothing much inspiring has come out of my M yet. From what I can tell though, I am fairly confident that the M will be able to produce rich and beautiful color. It may or may not be much better than my M9, but it will have more latitude to push around in PP and that is huge when it comes to producing "eye pleasing color." At this point, that is my impression.

 

The M does have a certain amount of blotchy color noise in the shadow detail. But, it is less than the M9 and it can be tamed in PP easily if needed (not needed under lower ISO if, exposure is relatively good). The D800 files I have taken have much less, but the D800 may have more processing in-camera - how would I know.

 

The M does seem to have some IR leak. But, I have seen more in DSLR files and it is such a small amount that it can be remove it in PP without screwing up other colors. I don't remember ever noticing this in the M9. And, I have only noticed it in files that I tried to find it by using the synthetic fabric I saved from the M8 days. If, this was some sort of design trade-off made by Leica, I don't know, but it really isn't an issue for me at all.

 

The M does have noise at base ISO, of course, but it is both less and different looking than my M9 files as I look back at them in LR. Sometimes, the noise does show up in skin and other texture. I'm not experienced with enough M files to say whether the M9 files are more pleasing. I'm just not sure why sometimes the M files produce this effect on certain texture. It might be an exposure problem, slight focus problem or it just may be that I'm not used to the pattern. Why I can't say more is because, sometimes I really like the M skin texture (more than the M9) and sometimes I think the M should look better than it does. Maybe, it is just due to more noise in the M9? I'm not there yet with the M to be more definitive...

 

Later this summer we are going to Turkey and Istanbul. I am confidant that the color from those photos will start out a little better than the M9. But, here is the big difference I have found so far: The M files can be adjusted with a lot more latitude before they posterize or fall apart. The increased DR give the files more creative latitude. They are less constrained. A fair amount more can be done with them.

 

I am much more enthusiastic about the M than I am writing and I can easily recommend it, but I'm trying to be balanced.

 

Rick

[macjonny1]

 

Mitch -

 

I agree with you on all of this' date=' even the part about the oblique gratuitous put-down - that's just me. Maybe, I was just trying to make a point when I felt reasonable balance was tipping. I'll work on it. As to the color, except for tungsten lighting where the M is much easier to work with, I have yet to take as rich a color photograph with the M as I have with my M9, in daylight conditions. I still I love the M9 color at 6000K. But, read on, please.

 

Only having the M for 3 weeks, I just haven't had a chance to make a great photograph with it. It has been grey and rainy here and nothing much inspiring has come out of my M yet. From what I can tell though, I am fairly confident that the M will be able to produce rich and beautiful color. It may or may not be much better than my M9, but it will have more latitude to push around in PP and that is huge when it comes to producing "eye pleasing color." At this point, that is my impression.

 

The M does have a certain amount of blotchy color noise in the shadow detail. But, it is less than the M9 and it can be tamed in PP easily if needed (not needed under lower ISO if, exposure is relatively good). The D800 files I have taken have much less, but the D800 may have more processing in-camera - how would I know.

 

The M does seem to have some IR leak. But, I have seen more in DSLR files and it is such a small amount that it can be remove it in PP without screwing up other colors. I don't remember ever noticing this in the M9. And, I have only noticed it in files that I tried to find it by using the synthetic fabric I saved from the M8 days. If, this was some sort of design trade-off made by Leica, I don't know, but it really isn't an issue for me at all.

 

The M does have noise at base ISO, of course, but it is both less and different looking than my M9 files as I look back at them in LR. Sometimes, the noise does show up in skin and other texture. I'm not experienced with enough M files to say whether the M9 files are more pleasing. I'm just not sure why sometimes the M files produce this effect on certain texture. It might be an exposure problem, slight focus problem or it just may be that I'm not used to the pattern. Why I can't say more is because, sometimes I really like the M skin texture (more than the M9) and sometimes I think the M should look better than it does. Maybe, it is just due to more noise in the M9? I'm not there yet with the M to be more definitive...

 

Later this summer we are going to Turkey and Istanbul. I am confidant that the color from those photos will start out a little better than the M9. But, here is the big difference I have found so far: The M files can be adjusted with a lot more latitude before they posterize or fall apart. The increased DR give the files more creative latitude. They are less constrained. A fair amount more can be done with them.

 

I am much more enthusiastic about the M than I am writing and I can easily recommend it, but I'm trying to be balanced.

 

Rick[/quote']

 

Hi Rick what is your thought vs the RX1?

[Rick]

Hi Rick what is your thought vs the RX1?

 

Our RX1's will produce slightly better files at base ISO. But, I have a hard time keeping track of which file I'm looking at between the M and the RX1 up to ISO 800. Same thing with comparing the RX1 with the M and 35FLE - you are really going to have to look for differences. Conclusion: If, having the best pixel peeper is important then, the RX1 is better.

 

Once, these cameras leave base ISO and reach 800 the RX1 begins to look better and is easier to distinguish from the M. At 1600, it is pretty easy to see that the RX1 is better. By 3200 the M starts to really loose color depth while the RX1 is still holding this much better. For me, noise at higher ISO isn't anywhere near as annoying as loss of color depth and color noise. If, the M is shot with correct exposure and ATTR, 3200 does look surprisingly good. Nobody is going to use 3200 for landscape photography, but surprisingly good street night shots are possible - not true with the M9 at ISO 2500.

 

After 3200, the M is useable but banding and low color depth is a killer for me. The RX1 still holds on at 6400. Beyond this the RX1 is amazing, but I can't imagine getting a very useful color print that I would like. Just for the record, I'm the guy that will do anything to stay at base ISO. I just like the look of clean files for most of the stuff I do. I could now be happy with 800-1200 (maybe 1600) with the M. In comparison my personal range with my M9 was 640.

 

 

I'll break up my answer into 2 posts...

[Rick]

Hi Rick what is your thought vs the RX1?

 

I was talking to algrove and discussing the idea of ditching the M on this summer's trip and freeing myself up by just carrying the little RX1. Why not? It actually can produce a slightly better picture. Less gear. Less worry. More freedom just trekking around.

 

I came to the answer after shooting the M for the last couple of weeks and looking at the files. First off, the M lenses are better. Hey wait, I just said the RX1 lens was better. In real world shooting, my M shots are clearer almost all of the time, have better focus accuracy, and I like the look and color of them.

 

The range finder on the M nails the correct focus. The EVF on the M almost always seems to be vague when I look in LR. The RX1 is pretty good if I use center focus method, but not exact. Maybe, the center patch is too large? This can wreck the photo for me. Maybe, somebody else can master the art of PAS fine photography, but it isn't me.

 

The M system has too many good lenses to just leave them at home. I couldn't do what I want just carrying the RX1. It would take the fun out of going to places around the world chosen mainly because I want to take pictures there. The final photographs from the M (and my M9) are always the ones that amaze me. In my opinion, I take much better pictures with any of the three M digital cameras - contrary to what the reviews say is a better camera!

 

Part three...

[Rick]

Hi Rick what is your thought vs the RX1?

 

The RX1 is also a worse camera when it comes to control of the system. I can't manually focus it anywhere near as well as well as a Leica RF. If, DxO had a metric for how I work when focusing, the RX1 would score a 25 and the M would score a 92 - whether the RX1 used auto or manual focus. This alone would make the M the top scoring camera, for me.

 

Same thing extends to the control of the exposure. The M is fast and intuitive. My brain is connected more directly to the camera. The M is simple - without a ramifying mechanical and electronic path of menus and buttons that stand between the photographer and his creative mind. Again, if DxO had a rating for this, nothing would even come close to the M.

 

I know that owners of DSLRs or RX1 will say that they learn these menus and controls and feel the same about their auto-computer-cameras. Ok, fine, but for me, it just gets in the way and that makes it harder for me to take a good picture. The M is much easier and more consistent in producing better exposed and focused images. It has overall higher fidelity of camera-lens files than the RX1, or any other 35mm camera for that matter. Who else comes close to making a camera system with better lenses and sensor when taken as a complete system?

 

macjonny1 - So where does all of this leave the RX1? Our Cybershot RX1 is: The most amazing point and shoot camera ever made. I shoot it on auto almost all the time. Point, shoot and... amazing.

[macjonny1]

Thanks Rick for an amazing summary! I agree the RX1 has some amazing IQ but feels nothing like a rangefinder. The experience is totally different, and one needs to take that into consideration (not saying one is inferior just different). Honestly all of these cameras far exceed my talents but as you said in another post the fun of trying out different tools is part of it!

[algrove]

Well now Rick, I am glad you finally came to your senses and opted to take all the stuff we all travel around the world with in your bag. I am sure the RX1 will still be with you or your wife, but at least you will have Leica glass along and more than just a 35mm lens. Why leave it all at home and then 8000 miles from home wish you had this or that lens.

 

I too will pack as usual this Spring and Summer, but will have the RX1 as my backup providing the tiny batteries can hold their charges over the course of a day.

 

Rick, very much appreciate all your posts here about the M8, M9 and M, not to mention the RX1 three part series.

[Xavier Forcioli]

Even though I want to believe the M240 is "better" that the M9, howcome anyone has been able to (produce and) post an uncontested photo on the forum that makes everyone happy?

[Lindolfi]

Even though I want to believe the M240 is "better" that the M9, howcome anyone has been able to (produce and) post an uncontested photo on the forum that makes everyone happy?

 

1] Because no single photo can make everyone happy, especially not on this forum

 

2] Because a photo published on internet is heavily compromised in terms of quality

[Xavier Forcioli]

1] Because no single photo can make everyone happy, especially not on this forum

 

2] Because a photo published on internet is heavily compromised in terms of quality

 

Well, the best pictures I saw from the M240 I saw are from Ming Thein review:

The 2013 Leica M Typ 240 – Ming Thein | Photographer

IMHO I didn't see yet something similar on this forum - hoping this will be sorted soon...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Notice that Ming Thein has no problems with Asian skin tones at all?

[sblitz]

didn't see one photo i couldn't capture with the m9. higher iso and peak focus and ability to use r lenses -- functional improvements great for some less meaningful for others. from an iq standpoint don't see it, the shots for me to say yes to m could be out there lurking, if so, pls show yourselves.