M240: It's Not the Color - The Thing That Seems Most Different to Me

[skimmel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having now seen a bunch of M240 images (and read the numerous discussions about color), my sense is that there is a bigger difference than color between the M240 and M9.

 

The out of focus highlight areas appear to be quite different. To my eye, particularly bright out of focus areas appear somewhat more "blown out" and/or "busy" than non-M240 images. I'll post some links below from public on-line pages.

 

I'm not saying any of this is good or bad, just different. Also, this is totally uncontrolled (so can't tell how much is lens/exposure/etc) -- it would be great to have side by side comparisons of cameras at same time/exposure/etc. I'd be curious to hear from those with the camera as to whether this is real or just an artifact of on-line/selective web viewing.

 

Henry Crown Fellowship X Reunion | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Henry Crown Fellowship X Reunion | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Big Basin State Park - Leica M240 Sample Images | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

L1000985 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8106/8613537430_08db7c5b66_b.jpg

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/other/378913d1369757777-leica-m-shots-post-them-here-portrait-3.jpg

[jaapv]

Well, that is hardly surprising, given that not only the sensor technology is different, but also the microlens geometry.

[erudolph]

I hesitate to stick my neck out on this subject because technically I'm not that well-versed, but in the earlier image posts from the M(240) I noticed what I took to be slightly blown highlights in images from accomplished photographers. Likewise, in my first images with this camera, I noticed the same although I was careful not to clip the whites. I take this to be a profile issue, possibly exacerbated by the use of LightRoom 4.x, which, as the exposure value is increased, seems to add a soft clip to the whites, thus rolling off highlight detail.

[skimmel]

I hesitate to stick my neck out on this subject because technically I'm not that well-versed, but in the earlier image posts from the M(240) I noticed what I took to be slightly blown highlights in images from accomplished photographers. Likewise, in my first images with this camera, I noticed the same although I was careful not to clip the whites. I take this to be a profile issue, possibly exacerbated by the use of LightRoom 4.x, which, as the exposure value is increased, seems to add a soft clip to the whites, thus rolling off highlight detail.

 

Thanks. I hesitated to even post this since it's so subjective and I in no way want to make this a "camera A is better than camera B" discussion.

 

My main reason for posting is I want to see if this is something even real, and, if so, inherent in the sensor/camera or related to post-processing.

[luigi bertolotti]

I hesitate to stick my neck out on this subject because technically I'm not that well-versed, but in the earlier image posts from the M(240) I noticed what I took to be slightly blown highlights in images from accomplished photographers. Likewise, in my first images with this camera, I noticed the same although I was careful not to clip the whites. I take this to be a profile issue, possibly exacerbated by the use of LightRoom 4.x, which, as the exposure value is increased, seems to add a soft clip to the whites, thus rolling off highlight detail.

 

Indeed, given the DR specs of CMOSIS sensor one wouldn't expect a higher tendency to blown highlights... unless, as you speculate, is a LR / profiling issue...

[lct]

Your pics look good when they are not overexposed. Have you been using matrix metering?

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Blown highlights do seem to be more common ..... but you can reduce this enormously in LR and there is usually a surprising amount of recoverable detail..... so they are often not really 'blown' in the normal sense of the word.

[Dannybuoy]

Having now seen a bunch of M240 images (and read the numerous discussions about color), my sense is that there is a bigger difference than color between the M240 and M9.

 

The out of focus highlight areas appear to be quite different. To my eye, particularly bright out of focus areas appear somewhat more "blown out" and/or "busy" than non-M240 images. I'll post some links below from public on-line pages.

 

I'm not saying any of this is good or bad, just different. Also, this is totally uncontrolled (so can't tell how much is lens/exposure/etc) -- it would be great to have side by side comparisons of cameras at same time/exposure/etc. I'd be curious to hear from those with the camera as to whether this is real or just an artifact of on-line/selective web viewing.

 

 

I 100% agree. Pretty much every M photo I've seen lacks that M9 quality that I've come to love. Most remind me of output from my 5Dmk2. Which I not surprising seeing as it's now a CMOS sensor. It's pretty much the only negative I have against getting an M, but I'm sure I'd get used to it over time. Lucky I've got time... can't see me getting a delivery until next year.

[lct]

I don't know about the M9 that i don't like much but i see no significant difference with my M8.2 as far as IQ so far. Just more resolution and a bit more dynamic range. Nothing to do with the smearing results of the 5D2 but my good old 5D1 with R lenses is not far setting aside resolution, sharpness and digital noise where the M240 is indeed superior. Not the case for WB though where the 5D1 is shining by comparison.

[01af]

Out of the box, the M9 colours are terrible, and it takes a custom-made profile to tame them. The M (Typ 240) colours are different from the M9's but terrible, too, and also require a custom-made profile. The standard profiles (i. e. "Embedded" and "Adobe Standard" in Lightroom and Camera Raw) are unusable with both cameras.

 

The M (Typ 240)'s dynamic range is at least as wide as, if not slightly wider than, the M9's. So if you see M pictures with blown-out highlights, they are either over-exposed or over-processed—as simple as that. Don't blame the photographer's incompetence to the camera ... or, worse yet, to the sensor being CMOS.

[colonel]

is it possible the M240 sensor is just not as good as the M9's at retaining highlight information ?

 

just asking because I thought the exposure system (when using the RF) has not really changed

[elmars]

is it possible the M240 sensor is just not as good as the M9's at retaining highlight information ?

 

just asking because I thought the exposure system (when using the RF) has not really changed

 

The M240 has a more than one stop higher dynamic range. This was tested (by DXO for example) and mentioned here in the forum several times. I made a little test for myself with a rented M240 and my M9. I overexposed the same picture in various steps. The M240 DNG highlights could be recovered from one f-stop more overexposure than the M9 DNG

 

Elmar

[skimmel]

The M240 has a more than one stop higher dynamic range. This was tested (by DXO for example) and mentioned here in the forum several times. I made a little test for myself with a rented M240 and my M9. I overexposed the same picture in various steps. The M240 DNG highlights could be recovered from one f-stop more overexposure than the M9 DNG

 

Elmar

 

Thanks. This is great to know!

 

I'm not sure it's dynamic range issues that I'm seeing more than how the sensor renders out of focus areas. Did you see any differences there? (Also, where did you rent the M240 from?)

 

Thanks.

[jaapv]

is it possible the M240 sensor is just not as good as the M9's at retaining highlight information ?

 

just asking because I thought the exposure system (when using the RF) has not really changed

No. All sensors "retain" highlight information the same way. Their pixels fill up and cut off when they are full.

[colonel]

No. All sensors "retain" highlight information the same way. Their pixels fill up and cut off when they are full.

 

different sensor technologies could do so in different ways

i.e the bucket could have a higher frequency/smaller wavelength senstivity

 

for example a larger dynamic range of one sensor to another could mean more shadow detail rather than any difference in highlights

 

the CMOSIS sensor is definitely better on paper

[dwbell]

Yes, indeed most of my cameras rendering of 18% grey is not at the exact mid point of the range. ie DR/2

[jaapv]

different sensor technologies could do so in different ways

i.e the bucket could have a higher frequency/smaller wavelength senstivity

 

for example a larger dynamic range of one sensor to another could mean more shadow detail rather than any difference in highlights

 

the CMOSIS sensor is definitely better on paper

It is still full=full.

Shadow detail is different That is a gradual rolloff into noise.

Exactly the opposite of negative film.

[elmars]

Thanks. This is great to know!

 

I'm not sure it's dynamic range issues that I'm seeing more than how the sensor renders out of focus areas. Did you see any differences there? (Also, where did you rent the M240 from?)

 

Thanks.

 

I did not see any differences in out of focus areas. But I can say, that the "look" of overexposed areas in analog pictures is very different from digital pictures. So it may be, that there are differences between different sensors, but I think they are little.

 

I could rent the M240 from a dealer for half an hour.

 

Elmar

[don daniel]

 

The out of focus highlight areas appear to be quite different. To my eye, particularly bright out of focus areas appear somewhat more "blown out" and/or "busy" than non-M240 images. I'll post some links below from public on-line pages.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/other/378913d1369757777-leica-m-shots-post-them-here-portrait-3.jpg

 

This one was made by me. There are no blown out highlights, but bokeh is al little busy because of rather difficult background and because I stopped the Summilux 50 asph. down. When you do this, background with highlights immediately gets busy, no matter which camera you use.

 

Edit: Or do you mean the white stripes of the t-shirt on the shoulders? Indeed, their blown-out. And transition doesn't look very well.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[skimmel]

This one was made by me. There are no blown out highlights, but bokeh is al little busy because of rather difficult background and because I stopped the Summilux 50 asph. down. When you do this, background with highlights immediately gets busy, no matter which camera you use.

 

Edit: Or do you mean the white stripes of the t-shirt on the shoulders? Indeed, their blown-out. And transition doesn't look very well.

 

Thanks. I was looking mostly at the bokeh but as you explain likely due to lens aperture (as I mentioned in the original post, there are many variables at play! ) But the man's right shoulder also caught my eye and looks similar to the transitions I've seen on some other M240 images.