Leica M (typ 240) Field Test and Review

[intermediatic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great article!

 

My only concern is the Auto ISO feature. How did you find that?

[GlennB]

"After the first batch of 7 frames on the M9, you could continue to shoot at 1 frame every 3 seconds (before all images were saved to SD). The M240 could shoot 1 frame every 4 seconds while saving."

 

I'm guessing that you meant to say that with the M240 you could continue to shoot at 1 frame every 3 seconds while saving after the first (more than 7 frames) ?

 

Overall, I really enjoyed your review and images.

[Guest malland]

...The question is, can you define the problem you are concerned with?

Can I see it?

This has been discussed extensively in the "M Color" thread. Some people are concerned about the AWB and others about the nature of the color rendition of the M240 and whether the problems they perceive can be fixed by a firmware fix and by better raw developer profiles. Kristian has shown that by careful and skillful processing the more obvious issues of the relationship of colors to one another and of skin tones can be dealt with.

 

What remains is, my view, the nature of the look of the color rendition of the M240 versus that of the M9. Someone has characterized the color rendition of the M9 as being more like color slide film while that of CMOS-sensor cameras as being more like color negative film: when the processing is as skillful as Kristian's, this difference becomes more subtle; but this is what I see and, at this stage, feel I would be giving up something about color rendition that I value by going from the M9 to the M240, notwithstanding the high-ISO improvements. Indeed, for me the question is whether a firmware fix could change this.

 

—Mitch/Paris

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

[erl]

........snipped

 

What remains is, my view, the nature of the look of the color rendition of the M240 versus that of the M9. Someone has characterized the color rendition of the M9 as being more like color slide film while that of CMOS-sensor cameras as being more like color negative film: when the processing is as skillful as Kristian's, this difference becomes more subtle; but this is what I see and, at this stage, feel I would be giving up something about color rendition that I value by going from the M9 to the M240, notwithstanding the high-ISO improvements. Indeed, for me the question is whether a firmware fix could change this.

 

—Mitch/Paris

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

 

Mitch, that quote you used about the M9 being like slide film and the M being more like negative film means nothing IMO. Both slide films and negative films within themselves are so varied, or they used to be when film was plentiful, that it is still not clear, from that, what each looks like.

 

I do accept that you see differences and prefer the M9 over the M for colour rendition. I guess I will have to shoot the M for myself some time to 'see' the difference. Working someone else's DNG's does not tell one what the original motif looked like. Patience in that respect will save both my M9 and money.

[Guest malland]

Erl, well, that quote is, indeed, merely a characterization and, as you say, doesn't have an inherent meaning. However, despite substantial differences among slide films and among color negative films, it does give a sense of the general differences most people would see between, say, Kodachrome and Portra 160 in terms of hue, intensity and contrast. But, then, Ektar 100 would confuse the issue, so it is a generalization, and I used it because I don't know how else to describe or characterize what I see, particularly when the differences, as with Kristian's processing, can be subtle.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[leicashot]

"After the first batch of 7 frames on the M9, you could continue to shoot at 1 frame every 3 seconds (before all images were saved to SD). The M240 could shoot 1 frame every 4 seconds while saving."

 

I'm guessing that you meant to say that with the M240 you could continue to shoot at 1 frame every 3 seconds while saving after the first (more than 7 frames) ?

 

Overall, I really enjoyed your review and images.

 

Basically once the buffer fills up on either camera, it is the M9 that continues to shoot more often than the M, but the M wins with more initial bursts at a faster rate, which is what I prefer.

[leicashot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great article!

 

My only concern is the Auto ISO feature. How did you find that?

 

I don't use auto features at all. Using Auto ISO is just as bad as using auto exposure in any mode and never trust a camera that relies on TTL metering or anything like it.

[digitalfx]

Basically once the buffer fills up on either camera, it is the M9 that continues to shoot more often than the M, but the M wins with more initial bursts at a faster rate, which is what I prefer.

 

I find just the opposite. The M9 stops for several seconds after the buffer fills.

The M's buffer is 2X larger and only slows down to 1 shot per second once full.

 

The M9 would cause me to miss shots regularly, whereas to date on the M this has never occurred.

[leicashot]

Kirk, my monitor also is calibrated, however not so sure about my eyes.

 

My impression is that so many of the images I am seeing are either artificial or mixed light sources. I believe such scenarios will never render 'correctly', whatever that is. I for one dislike clinical correctness, but prefer the look and feel of the ambient to be retained to some, perhaps reduced, level. That leaves me wondering if I did have a technically correct image, would I throw some 'personality colour' into it? Probably I would. The question is, does the new M easily allow such variation? I have gained the impression that the answer is YES.

 

The question is, can you define the problem you are concerned with?

Can I see it?

 

Yes I do like my images looking punchy, but I'm not adding much to my pictures. Also, keep in mind I am shooting in mixed lighting environment backstage, and not even an M9 will be able to color correct in those situations...in fact it would give up as it's ISO is poor above ISO 320.

 

I really don't get what all this CCD vs CMOS things is about, but then again I'm also a Nikon shooter and find no issues with my D4 and D800E files. The M has some color quirks in regards to white balance presets being inaccurate and AWB being inconsistent and varying more than it should from shot to shot, but I can get the color and look of the files to look just like the M9, and sometimes better. But to do so, you need to know 'what' accurate colors look like and understand light and white balance well.

 

As far as I'm concerned there are many people who don't want to see their M9 investment losing value and are seeing what they 'want' to see. I also think that some Monochrom users want this camera to fail for similar reasons. The difference between the M9 and M are the accuracy of the white balance computations, and not the use of sensor types.There is nothing wrong with this CMOS sensor, only the way the processor is computing the algorithms to white balance correctly. It's not a major issue and only takes a little more time in Lightroom to process.

 

Like I said in the review, what good is a camera 'overall' if it can only render accurate white balance at base ISO? It's not much better than a Sigma DP. The M maintains it's color integrity up to ISO 3200, and that's an amazing feat for a Leica M sensor.

 

In terms of calibration, while I make final judgements on my Eizo CG246, I often edit on my Apple iMac 2013 because it's closer to how 'most' people will view the images. On either, I have no issues with my M....but I will admit, that in most situations, the M9 will provide more accurate colors out of camera....but the fact that the M can color correct with a few simple steps, it's only s small niggle that will be ironed out soon enough I hope.

 

 

 

Check out my ongoing gallery of images here to find more faults

 

http://kristiandowling.com/galleries/

[Jeff S]

Erl, well, that quote is, indeed, merely a characterization and, as you say, doesn't have an inherent meaning. However, despite substantial differences among slide films and among color negative films, it does give a sense of the general differences most people would see between, say, Kodachrome and Portra 160 in terms of hue, intensity and contrast. But, then, Ektar 100 would confuse the issue, so it is a generalization, and I used it because I don't know how else to describe or characterize what I see, particularly when the differences, as with Kristian's processing, can be subtle.

 

Mitch, I think you liked that description so much that it motivated you to buy an M9. I can therefore see why you cling to it as your mental construct. Like Erl, however, it never resonated with me; besides many different variations, there are different presentation methods (prints, projection) and processing methods that make the comparison useless to me.

 

But, no matter. You like what you like and that's what counts. But I suspect that as a result of your somewhat entrenched view, you will never know if the M files could, with proper processing, yield a satisfactory result for you. Not that you need to know.

 

I like so many of the usability aspects of the M (weather sealing, quiet shutter, faster processor and longer battery life, 2m and illuminated frame lines, etc) that I'm willing to wait and eventually work with the M files to see if I can make make prints (of my own work) that I like, irrespective of comments from others, catchy or not.

 

Different strokes...as it should be.

 

Jeff

[Guest malland]

...As far as I'm concerned there are many people who don't want to see their M9 investment losing value and are seeing what they 'want' to see. I also think that some Monochrom users want this camera to fail for similar reasons

Hey, Kristian, you can think what you wish, but I find this questioning of motives offensive and puerile. I'd be happy if the M240 color rendition were "as good" as that of the M9 at low ISO — and obviously for some people it is — but I see what I see.

... You like what you like and that's what counts. But I suspect that as a result of your somewhat entrenched view, you will never know if the M files could, with proper processing, yield a satisfactory result for you. Not that you need to know...Different strokes...as it should be.

Jeff, I have no problem with what you say, although I hasten to say that my view is not "entrenched". At this point, I'm skeptical but that doesn't mean that I won't change my mind when I see it differently. Again, I'd be happy to be able to get near the M9 color rendition with the M240, particularly at higher ISO, which obviously is a problem with the M9. But until then, I call it as I see it.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Lanka Footsteps [M-Monochrom/Sri Lanka]

[Jeff S]

But until then, I call it as I see it.

 

As you should.

 

For me, the only 'seeing' that matters is my own prints of my own pics, after sufficient time to 'normalize' my workflow. YMMV.

 

Thanks for the reply. No debate, just a different approach.

 

Jeff

[leicashot]

Hey, Kristian, you can think what you wish, but I find this questioning of motives offensive and puerile. I'd be happy if the M240 color rendition were "as good" as that of the M9 at low ISO — and obviously for some people it is — but I see what I see.Jeff, I have no problem with what you say, although I hasten to say that my view is not "entrenched". At this point, I'm skeptical but that doesn't mean that I won't change my mind when I see it differently. Again, I'd be happy to be able to get near the M9 color rendition with the M240, particularly at higher ISO, which obviously is a problem with the M9. But until then, I call it as I see it.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Lanka Footsteps [M-Monochrom/Sri Lanka]

 

Mitch, that is what I believe to be the case with many who are out there putting this camera down without ever using one. It all started with Leica's choice to put beta cameras in questionable hands, obtaining poor results, and posting them....and now we are here. Well those who take offense to my suggestion of motives for attacking the camera, are possibly guilty, or they wouldn't be taking offense. If you're one of them or not, is not my concern or suggestion. My only concern is stating the facts from my own use, accurately.

 

If people want to question my credibility and have researched my history of using Leica and professional use, to find I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not a blogger, then so be it. Now, I will walk away from this forum as I always do when things get heated and stupid....over cameras.

[Guest malland]

Kristian, I am not questioning your credibility, or motives. You see what you see and I see what I see, and that may, or is likely to, differ. Some of this is a matter of taste. And de gustibus non disputandum est. No reason to walk away or to get confrontational. There is, or should be, civil discussion.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Lanka Footsteps [M-Monochrom series from Sri Lanka

[wda]

Kristian, thank you for your interesting report. Your fine photographs and professional subjects depicted convincingly support your conclusion that the new camera is the right one for you and a worthy upgrade. For the time being I am more than content to continue using my M8 and M9 cameras which serve my current needs very well. Improved framing is a strong temptation, but for years I have learned to make the best of the old-fashioned rangefinder system which is classic Leica. Now if I had to earn my living from the equipment, I might reach a different conclusion.

[leicashot]

Kristian, I am not questioning your credibility, or motives. You see what you see and I see what I see, and that may, or is likely to, differ. Some of this is a matter of taste. And de gustibus non disputandum est. No reason to walk away or to get confrontational. There is, or should be, civil discussion.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Lanka Footsteps [M-Monochrom series from Sri Lanka

 

My apologies Mitch, was tired and rundown last night and overreacted. I've had some negative experiences on this forum and it wasn't fair what i said. Hope you can accept my apology.

[leicashot]

Kristian, thank you for your interesting report. Your fine photographs and professional subjects depicted convincingly support your conclusion that the new camera is the right one for you and a worthy upgrade. For the time being I am more than content to continue using my M8 and M9 cameras which serve my current needs very well. Improved framing is a strong temptation, but for years I have learned to make the best of the old-fashioned rangefinder system which is classic Leica. Now if I had to earn my living from the equipment, I might reach a different conclusion.

 

Thanks David. The M9 was no worse than film when it came to ISO, so if it fits into your workflow and you're happy with the results I see no reason to upgrade. The M9 was and still is a great camera, even with it's limitations. If you like to shoot wide open a lot it's fine. For me, I'm so thrilled using the M because I shoot in low light a lot and for the first time, I have a Leica that can work alongside my Nikon in just about any environment. Either way, it's an expensive investment so while the logic of the new features make sense, sometimes the expense cannot be justified, understandably.

[pieterpronk]

Great review! And I can see why you like the new M so much. Some nice pictures going with that review.

 

I think it's good to see what the M is capable of when using it in a setting that is taking advantage of the strong points of the M. A dark setting where the extra iso is put to good use with loads of artificial lighting and strong colors everywhere. Strong visual stimulation from all sides. Taking a M9 there would result in much blander pictures.

The M is smoother and slicker with colors popping from every nook and cranny. I mean in a setting where everything is about pumping up visual impressions (full on make up, full on colored lighting, every glitch in human skin cemented away, hair in absurd colors), the M shines (almost literally in the pictures it takes).

 

I think people contemplating the purchase of the M would do well to see how well the M does this, and how it's character works with what we photograph. If you're going for a full-on colorful modern look I would say the M is even better than CMOS camera's like the D800.

 

And worrying about AWB is almost silly with a beast of a modern bold color camera like the M. Give the M some color to work with and it goes to work to suck every bit of color out of the scene (on the other hand, give it a drab boring landscape-scene and it refuses to work it's magic at all). You can't have both brave full on colors and realistic AWB at the same time. To me the M is a camera that you should shoot because you're excited about what the M will do with it. A real "let's see what the M sees here" camera.

 

There are some disadvantages to the advantages (as the Dutch guru Johan Cruijff teaches us ). Poppy colors and slick/smooth rendering with great dynamic range do have the tendency to look kinda digital and plasticky. The HDR look is always a danger to the M files in my opinion. Sometimes even bringing the shadows up just a lil will be enough to suddenly make a picture look overly post-processed. Sometimes even the unprocessed picture will already look like a digital CGI rendering to my eyes.

Going with the times, I doubt the modern look will be a problem for the M. It takes the M to where Nikon and Canon already seem to be going. Besides with the World Press winner having that kinda HDR digital movie poster look, very few people seem to mind it, and many love it.

 

Btw one could of course change the files in post during either the raw-processing or the printing. One could try to make the M9 look more like the M or vice-versa. But my theory is that it's always better to work with the character/rendering of your camera than against it. That goes for lenses as well. Some lenses will be working with the character of the M and some will be working against it. For the best results work with a camera and a lens and a way of processing that works with your visual vision (instead of against it). Old lenses on a MM is a good example of how this works.

 

It doesn't really matter if it's a CMOS-CCD thing or some other part of the camera, but I think that there certainly are differences between the rendering of the M and the M9 (and the MM btw). And where there are differences a subjective decision is called for by the buyer. Choosing your gear is part of the creative process. Will the M take you were you want to go? Or does the M9?

[thompsonkirk]

Is it the out-of-camera rendition you dislike, or do you not think PP can be made to suit? ,,, Unless the colors are unalterably 'off', it seems that over-saturation ... can easily be tamed in PP.

Jeff

 

For me, this is the important open question. In the many examples I'veseen, neither the Embedded nor the Adobe Standard profile for M240 seems to yield colors as plausible to me as M9. If I were to describe what I see as a difficulty, it's not so much general over-saturation as exceedingly bright primaries. Without measurements (that I don't expect to make!), this is of course a personal/subjective judgment.

 

I don't know if what I see is mainly a processing, software, firmware, or sensor problem. I read somewhere (LUF?) that Sandy McG, who developed CornerFix for M8 and knows a bit about sensors and color, thinks it is still an open question.

 

I do quite a bit of post-processing of images for printing, so I'm not shy of that – but do want to start from an appropriate baseline, such as I already have with M9s, using the Adobe Standard profile (or in some instances, custom profiles that I made to go with particular lenses).

 

This may, however, be little more than a question of taste. To quote Pieter: "It doesn't really matter if it's a CMOS-CCD thing or some other part of the camera, but I think that there certainly are differences between the rendering of the M and the M9 (and the MM btw). And where there are differences a subjective decision is called for by the buyer. Choosing your gear is part of the creative process. Will the M take you were you want to go?"

 

Kirk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pieterpronk]

Just to add a bit about my own preferences: I personally prefer the rendering of the M9/M8 and the MM to that of the M for what I want to use my camera for. If I were to work with models I would probably prefer the new M. If I wanted to explore the more slick HDR look I would prefer the new M. The new M seems great at painting a kind of unreal picture. Kinda "enhanced reality".

But I personally enjoy the less slick rendering of the M8/M9/MM. It just seems more natural to my eyes. Less digital. It's noise, raw crispness and it's subtle colors just seem more real to me. Not "real" in the sense of "realistic", but "real" in the sense of more "honest".

 

The M would be like a cgi rendering of an idea, while the M9 would be like a painting of an idea.

 

And considering that I see a big difference in black and white as well, I'm not even convinced it's just a color thing.

A camera is more than just a bunch of characteristics like contrast, color and sharpness, and it's not just a case of sliding those characteristics in some sort of lightroom sliders to make any camera look like any other. It's the complete set of interplaying characteristics that can never be completely controlled, which in the end form the character of a camera, which can never be completely deconstructed into separate characteristics.

 

This is cool, because Leica has an uncanny ability to give its camera's its own character (with its faults and warts). I was afraid the new M would be the end of that, but I feel that Leica has done it again with the new M. It has a real own character completely new and different from the M9.

How cool is that? A camera company with three different camera's with unique feeling output. It's a luxury to be able to choose between the MM, M-E and the M. And even though I made mine with MM, I can see why some would choose the others.