March LFI debunks CCD vs CMOS theory

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I.e., the perfect argument for not being an early adaptor.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

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

 

HI Mitch

Although firmware updates will doubtless come (as they did with the M9) and things may indeed change. . . . . . . .

 

I think this sort of issue has much more to do with familiarity. When I was posting RAW files from the MM, there were lots of naysayers - and those files haven't changed at all (could have been my snaps I guess).

 

For most people the M files are unfamiliar - Whilst I'm not pretending there isn't room for improvement (just as there is with the MM files), I've come to rather love them, and going back to M9 files is irritating in that they aren't so easy to manipulate, they have less dynamic range, and the reds are all pink.

 

What I'm trying to say, is that perhaps it's good to be an early adopter, because whilst everyone else is examining their navels you can just be enjoying the benefits of the new camera.

[Advertisement]

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

[IWC Doppel]

I still await comparisons that demonstrate the new M is really comparable at base ISO, no matter what I did with a few shots with the M vs M9 I simply preferred the M9. The gap will close I'm sure but for me there is a gap in favour of the M9 at base ISO and outdoors

[J12]

The 'Teflon' look of the Typ 240 could be due to overcompensation for noise for all ISOs which makes it excessive at native ISO and a bit higher.

 

I was thinking the same. Even if the color profiles are improved, I don't think it will eliminate this 'Teflon' look.

 

However, if the new M had high ISO performance on par with current Nikon and Sony CMOS sensor cameras, then I could be persuaded to accept that issue as an unavoidable tradeoff for the added versatility of being able to shoot color under a greater variety of ambient lighting conditions. But even then, I can see myself hanging onto an M9 for use at base ISO.

 

I think I'll probably sit this generation out, but it will be interesting to see what comes after the M Typ 240. If anything I may be tempted by a Monochrom as it appears to excel at what it does, and I shoot a fair amount of black & white. It wouldn't replace film for me, but I can see scenarios where the utility of the Monochrom would allow new photographic possibilities. That's what makes it interesting and would justify the purchase.

[jonoslack]

I still await comparisons that demonstrate the new M is really comparable at base ISO, no matter what I did with a few shots with the M vs M9 I simply preferred the M9. The gap will close I'm sure but for me there is a gap in favour of the M9 at base ISO and outdoors

 

You won't see them - it isn't comparable - it's different: Easy. What's much much harder to define is 'better', and what's much more interesting is whether others will get to love the M files as they have the M9 files - they certainly have character.

 

All the best

[pieterpronk]

I think it is indeed time to move the discussion past the idea that the M10 has (or should have) the same look or character as the M9. Even considering upcoming firmware updates which may change colors somewhat, they won't have the same look.

 

The next step is to learn to enjoy the new look the M10 gives. For example I love the way it renders shine and reflections. In the Venice pictures by Jono the pictures that made the biggest impression on me were the ones where reflection played a big part. I remember especially the picture of the seagull in the puddle and the picture of the boat with the lower half of the picture showing the soft waves.

Another great M10 picture with reflection which I liked was made by Steve Huff, showing an elephant on a merry go round in the setting sun.

I believe the M9 would render these subjects differently, and just wouldn't draw it with as much punch.

 

Another thing I like about the M10 is the dynamic range. Some pictures just wouldn't be possible on the M9, at least not with the same subtle drawing of the different lights and shades.

 

And I wonder if Leica really is looking for a big change in the color rendition with the next firmware. Many seem to know that for sure, but that seems mostly based on their own expectations. I wonder if Leica don't just mean for the M10 to be really vibrant colors (which sure can be hard to control in mixed lighting admittedly). Without that color-rendering it would take the M10 another step closer to Nikon/Canon.

Sure it might not always look like realistic colors, but in some pictures those bold colors work. At least the M10 has a bold and brave character. And I think we should learn to love those, as I am not sure they will get "fixed". I sure hope not.

[Guest malland]

Vibrant colors or not, the skin tones in most of the M240 pictures range from not very good to dismal. Whether this is an issue stemming from the firmware or from the raw processor profile, evaluating the color rendition or comparing it to that of the M9 is a useless exercise. I would assume that Leica will fix this color rendition, and current owners need to deal with it as a problem of early adopters, rather than "learning to love it."

 

As for nomenclature, it seems to me unnecessary, and for some people confusing, to call the camera in question an "M10", when Leica calls it the "M Typ 240" or simply the "Leica M". As, the last appellation is also confusing why not simply call is the "M240"?

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

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

[pieterpronk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Vibrant colors or not, the skin tones in most of the M240 pictures range from not very good to dismal. Whether this is an issue stemming from the firmware or from the raw processor profile, evaluating the color rendition or comparing it to that of the M9 is a useless exercise. I would assume that Leica will fix this color rendition, and current owners need to deal with it as a problem of early adopters, rather than "learning to love it."

 

As for nomenclature, it seems to me unnecessary, and for some people confusing, to call the camera in question an "M10", when Leica calls it the "M Typ 240" or simply the "Leica M". As, the last appellation is also confusing why not simply call is the "M240"?

 

I'm not a big fan of the M10, but I do think the skin color problem is a bit overblown. Besides that's maybe a topic for a different thread imo, instead of part of the comparison discussion.

 

According to LFI "there is emphatically no 'M240' in Leica's portfolio"! So M240 is equally wrong as M10 according to Leica. Besides I suspect more people know it by the M10 name than by the 240 number.

[jaapv]

Still, for consistency's sake, let's refer to the camera as M or M (typ) 240 on this forum. One thing is certain, an M10 does not exist at all.

[jonoslack]

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

 

Hi Mitch

I hope you're well?

I cordially disagree with this assessment - there's quite a lot of similar posts, but my experience is rather to the contrary, I think it's better than the M9.

The AWB is occasionally a bit erratic (on the rare occasions when I use it).

 

I've been thinking very hard about this - and looking at pictures with reference to the scene. You don't have to like the colour, but in most circumstances it seems to me to be pretty good.

 

all the best

[sblitz]

Excuse me for this, but really, considering the wide gamut of color mixes you can apply in LR4 using their internal adjustments or any of the many outside vendors (DxO, VSCO, etc) -- what does all this matter? You make this thing look anyway you want. This isn't like debating Ektar vs Portra vs Fuji ....... I can take my m9 shot and make it look like an overexposed Polaroid. Either the camera delivers malleable files across a broad enough range of light conditions or it doesn't. Personally, the M9 does well enough for me. I can understand why others feel different about the M. Given how one can manipulate a file to look like Kodachrome 25 this debate strikes me as an argument about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. Correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure people here will.

[tobey bilek]

Much of the complaining about fairly flat Monochrom files was because they didn't understand that ideally one should have a flat, neutral raw conversion file to be the canvas on which one then works one's magic

 

That is exactly why I shoot raw.

 

ACR or LR allows individual color tweeking, local color adjustment including brightness, chroma, contrast etc including global adjustments of same. Other programs can do the same, except I am not familiar with them.

[Guest malland]

Jono, nice to hear from you. I'm only going by what I have seen in terms of skin color from the M240 online and admit I have followed this only in a desultory way; if you can point me to some pictures that show good skin color I will certainly look, but hope you can give some indication that those good color rendition pictures represent the majority, as my impression — only an impression — is that they are as rare as hen's teeth.

 

Steve, while colors can indeed be pushed all over the place my experience is that it's very difficult, starting with wonky skin tones, to get them "right" without screwing up other colors. I suppose that is why many people think that the M240 needs some firmware tweaking in addition to better raw developer profiles.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[sblitz]

and, btw, this also extends to developing negatives for scanning -- flat is better so you can contrast or whatever to your hearts content in a digital processor.

[wattsy]

Still, it was funny that there was a spate of comments that the M240 images looked " too CMos" when there were M9 images (accidentally) mixed in between them

 

Reminded me of that time you raved about the plasticity of Ian Berry's skin in some M9 B&W photos you thought were taken with a Monochrom.

[wilfredo]

On the first look, I thought yeah, the M8 pictures are better.

 

But if I read it correctly, the M8 was released Jan 2008 and the thread was created in Jan 2010, so we are looking at pictures from people, who already learned how to shoot and post process M8. They are showing off their best pictures from the camera, not what they shot on their way from the store. In the M thread though, people are showing their more or less very first shots. In addition, some of the M shooters are clearly enjoying and showing what the camera can do in conditions where the previous models would fail, rather than what the camera is capable of in ideal light. Going back and forth between the threads, I can see pictures in the M8 thread that the M would do better. And I have high hopes that the profiles will improve over the time and we will find our way through the sliders of LR to make the M pictures more appealing.

 

In other words, if you open the threads two years from now, your verdict might be different.

 

Edit: Looks like Dirk beat me to it.

 

I'm astounded by the level of denial I am reading here. I will post some shots taken with the M8 on the M8 picture thread dating as far back as 2006 and 2007. I was one of the first lucky one's to get the camera when it hit the markets and I got some very satisfying shots with it from day one!

[63strat]

Leica has had a near-fanatical fan base for many, many years. People who love to discuss one particular M model against another are all over this forum and others. All these M model numbers have historically been extremely easy to reckon with: M3, M6, MP, M9, etc. All good. But now they want to saddle this iconic camera with a generic name, much like Apple is trying to do with the iPhone, and simply call it the M. Bad idea. People will get confused, and in efforts to differentiate this new model from others, will come up with a number of options, furthering the confusion. Leica M type 240. Too long, clunky, and not memorable. SImple is always better. There's no reason why it shouldn't have been called the M10. This would have been in keeping the naming history, and its history something Leica has always remained faithful to, in the evolution of the M series. It could have easily gone on and on, to the M15, M20 and beyond -- all very classy names. Now what will we have? The Leica M type 350, followed by the Leica M type 470, version B, followed by the Leica M type 580? Some guy's bad idea at Leica corporate that I hope they can banish starting with the M11, and get this train back on the right track.

[dwbell]

In your humble opinon.

[jonoslack]

HI There Wilfredo

I hope you're well - long time no speak

I'm astounded by the level of denial I am reading here.

 

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

 

I will post some shots taken with the M8 on the M8 picture thread dating as far back as 2006 and 2007. I was one of the first lucky one's to get the camera when it hit the markets and I got some very satisfying shots with it from day one!

 

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

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I'm astounded by the level of denial I am reading here. I will post some shots taken with the M8 on the M8 picture thread dating as far back as 2006 and 2007. I was one of the first lucky one's to get the camera when it hit the markets and I got some very satisfying shots with it from day one!

So did and still do I, as I did and still do with for instance the Digilux2. But there is no denying that time and technology is moving forward. Admitting that progress has been made does not devalue previous tools but it does provide us with more advanced ones.

[Dirk Mandeville]

I'm astounded by the level of denial I am reading here. I will post some shots taken with the M8 on the M8 picture thread dating as far back as 2006 and 2007. I was one of the first lucky one's to get the camera when it hit the markets and I got some very satisfying shots with it from day one!

 

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

 

The Leica M8 suffered from some controversy on its release due to image quality problems reported by some users, especially an extremely high sensitivity to infrared light, which made black colors appear purple. Leica has since released a statement saying that it will send two free special UV/IR screw-on photographic filters to all future M8 purchasers, and upon request for all current M8 users. Users experiencing other image quality problems can apply to return their M8 for repair.

 

Now, who is in denial?