New M - A Question

[richfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've read quite a few reviews of the new M (240) and realize that it is not yet fully supported for RAW capture. Nonetheless, I haven't found that a consensus exists on the singularly most important question I have coming from an M9 with CCD sensor which I really like - is the IQ of the new M superior to that of the M9?

I really have no interest in shooting video with an M nor with live view or an EVF. Call me old-fashioned, but that's where I'm coming from.

I understand the higher ISO capabilities of the CMOS sensor and reportedly greater dynamic range, but I'm really asking, simply, whether the new M has better IQ than the M9.

[Advertisement]

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

[StephenPatterson]

I'm really asking, simply, whether the new M has better IQ than the M9.

 

Yes.

 

The in camera WB is not yet correct, but setting a manual WB and/or using a custom profile in LR helps considerably, especially with skin tones. I expect this to be resolved with a firmware update soon (just as it was with the S2 and M9).

[Jeff S]

Depends really on how one defines IQ. The link in this thread covers resolution differences.

 

Jeff

[thighslapper]

Yes.....

 

Read on from here.....

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278105-comparison-m9-m240-3.html#post2362283

[pieterpronk]

Only DxO Mark can answer that question.

If by "image quality" you mean resolution, low noise at high iso and dynamic range, then yes the image quality is better than the M9.

[jaapv]

:confused:I've never seen anything specific on image quality on the DXO site - just some numbers that may or may not influence the final visual impact of a photograph.

Edited April 18, 2013 by jaapv

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

+1 and Yes to Stephens post. Some of us are trying to use the WhiBal card to smooth out Wb settings just like I did with my M9. See Thorsten Overgaard's website about WhiBal card use. Good reading.

[LinkerX]

I find the AWB more accurate than my M9 and the dynamic range is like night and day most of the time, but I recently took some shots in South Beach that mirror shots I took with my M9 and I was disappointed by the difference. All of the shots were taken at night. The M9 never left 1250 and the new M never left 1600. Picture quality was very similar at these settings, I think the M9 even matched the dynamic range of the new M at these settings, but the new M really pulls ahead past 1600.

[StephenPatterson]

I find the AWB more accurate than my M9...

 

That's the first report I've heard where someone favored the M(240)'s AWB over the M9's. Most users I've talked with (myself included) find the files too warm with incorrect skin tones. Unless you think all people should look like Oompa Loompas stay away from AWB and pray for a firmware update.

 

...the new M really pulls ahead past 1600.

 

All the way to 3200, where it hits the wall. I find pretty severe banding past here, and Leica was obviously so concerned that they labeled these ISO setting "Push". Amazing that on Leica's CMOS sensor ISO4000 is push while on Canon it's 51,200. The M(240) is 1.3 stops better than the M9.

Edited April 18, 2013 by StephenPatterson

[jaapv]

It depends on the amount of in-camera processing. The difference between sensors of the same type as such is rather small.

[LinkerX]

That's the first report I've heard where someone favored the M(240)'s AWB over the M9's. Most users I've talked with (myself included) find the files too warm with incorrect skin tones. Unless you think all people should look like Oompa Loompas stay away from AWB and pray for a firmware update.

 

It really depends on the lighting source or sources. Most of my pictures are taken out doors under the bright Florida sun and the ones that are taken indoors often have multiple sources of light. The M9 was a nightmare indoors, but the M240 keeps pace with other cameras I have shot. People looking like Oompa Loompas might have more to do with your raw converter then whitebalance, because I have noticed slight difference between lightroom 4.4 versions myself. Also people in FL tend to be very tan so judging "accurate" skin tones becomes difficult because they can change daily.

 

 

All the way to 3200, where it hits the wall. I find pretty severe banding past here, and Leica was obviously so concerned that they labeled these ISO setting "Push". Amazing that on Leica's CMOS sensor ISO4000 is push while on Canon it's 51,200. The M(240) is 1.3 stops better than the M9.

 

I have actually seen banding between 1600 - 3200, but it is rare and is generally caused by something I did wrong or an odd lighting source. 6400 isnt useful at night, but with fast glass I never really need to use it. 3200 and beyond do seem to work ok if you want to stop down to f8 or f11 and hand hold with enough light to expose properly. I personally only ever needed a little more than 1250 a few times on my M9 so being able to push the camera all the way to 3200 satisfies all of my needs. Beyond that getting the rangefinder patch illuminated and aligned is almost impossible.

[gpwhite]

rcerick, you ask a key question that many of us are pondering even after shooting with the M240 a bit. I really appreciated the conclusion in Tim Ashley's review that the improvements one enjoys with the M240 are apart from image quality per se. So a simple answer to the specifics I infer from your query is "maybe/ maybe not."

 

But let me throw out to you my opinions after a bit, but not 000's of images, of shooting the M240 (with some head-on comparisons with a tripod versus my M9). My summary is that I have no example where the M9 is superior to the M240, but there are several points where the M240 is substantially superior to the M9.

 

VF/RF- I find the M240 VF is brighter and the focus patch contrastier vs. M9. I can focus my 35 FLE and ZM 85 Sonnar very accurately and reliably with RF (M240 vs. M9) and prefer this method to the more tedious EVF technique that the M240 offers. The EVF, however, does a quite superior job viewing and focusing with my 135 APO, versus the struggle with M9.

 

IQ- On my best lenses (50AA and 24 Elmar), it is hard for me to find differences in sharpness across the full image between M240 and M9. Sometimes the peripheral 50% of the image appear sharper on the M240, sometimes not-- the precision of my tripod set up and shifting daylight hinder my offering a serious comparison.

With my other lenses, the M240 is obviously superior. 18 Elmar, 35 FLE, ZM 85 f/2 and 135 APO all produce images on M240 that have better peripheral sharpness and cleaner, deeper blacks. Is this because of the sensor capture system or improved focus (see above), I do not have the expertise to say. But the images are superior (M240 vs. M9), time after time.

 

ISO- I despise noise in an image and have been reluctant to use even ISO 640 on my M9 (in film days, I shot Panotomic X and then Velvia 50). That said, I am very happy with M240 at ISO 1600. You can denoise the color static in ACR so that ISO 1600 images are completely smooth yet crisp-- all you lose is some saturation and a bit of depth.

 

I do find the M240 to be a worthwhile improvement over the M9. If you shoot lenses with odd field renditions, like the 50 ASPH or 35 FLE, then I believe you will enjoy better overall IQ with M240. Yes, you will need to fiddle with WB until ACR is updated with a better profile, but this is not a bother like it was with early M8's. Taking all of this into account, I think whether you will see an obvious difference in your 13 x 19 prints (M240 over M9) depends on the lenses you use.... even then, the differences will not be night-vs-day. But, you will enjoy shooting the M240 more on each exposure.

[richfx]

Thanks, gpwhite and everyone. Looks like I'm going to try to new M(240).

[ramosa]

Hmmm ... The comments didn't seem to be overwhelming ... But maybe you knew what you wanted before starting this thread

[henning]

As others have noted: in comparison with the M9 the M240 is never worse and often better. In my comparisons almost always better. The increased dynamic range is truly useful and makes the files much more robust in processing. The AWB is fixable in processing, and hopefully will get adjusted in firmware.

 

Still, the reason I was waiting anxiously for the M240 lies in another area. The new M is much more responsive; the electronically induced slugginshness of the M8 and M9 has disappeared and I never have to wait for the camera. That is worth a lot in a camera that has in its lineage the great film M's of the last 50 years. The smoother shutter release and (minutely) increased viewfinder and rangefinder clarity/contrast are just unexpected bonuses.

 

Now if they can just fix the clumsy exposure compensation procedure and live view magnification patch location issue, I can be completely happy with the camera.

 

Henning

[bocaburger]

From all the comments I've read so far, and from handling the camera and seeing images from it, my impression is that (except for those who really are excited to attach SLR lenses to it, or to shoot video) the M240 would best be described as "evolutionary not revolutionary". Which is not disappointing (except for those who were hoping for high-ISO performance contemporary with Nikon and Canon) considering just how good the M9 is for most of us. If and when my M9 becomes unserviceable I think I could be quite content with an M240 despite it's noticeable added bulk and heft.