M9 vs Leica M, M-E

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nobody is going to rewrite the forum to answer a non specific question.

 

They are all functional cameras. M has video and takes R lenses and has live view and some new features and has a 25% higher MP count so you can print a bit larger, not 25% larger linearly but 25% area wise all else being equal.

[doolittle]

Well knock my socks off, the internet has given a definitive answer: 100 vs 49 points in favour of the M over the M9

[roguewave]

Ben, seems to me that Bo's brief summary quoted above is very accurate and to the point, including that the M9 and the M240 have different color rendition, the latter being something that some people may like in one camera rather than the other, and other people may feel that the two types of color rendition may be brought very close to each other by careful processing or custom profiles — we'll see.

 

But your statement about the "mud above 600" of the M240 seems to be a very personal opinion that is not likely to be shared by most people. As for myself, I like to shoot my M9-P at ISO 640 on overcast days (often too bright here in Thailand to do so otherwise) precisely because I like the "texture" of the files at this speed.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

 

Mitch, thanks for taking the time to state your opinion. Most of the work I have seen from you is B&W & I have enjoyed the great bulk of those frames. Color is a different beast. In all honesty, Leica still hasn't been able to come close to the Imacon sensor in my DMR. That color rendition is the most beautiful, clear & wideest bandwith of any 35mm camera I have ever used.

 

My hours spent processing the files from the new M haven't convinced me that they are superior to those from the M9. The night shots are toast as far as I'm concerned. A Nikon D800 blows away any Leica for iso up to 6400 & you can convert lots of great R glass to put on that body. But I digress....

 

I'm getting too old to lug around my R/DMR for 5 -8 hours on the street. I'm really trying to get some useful information about what the M9, in any of the configurations, is fully capable of.

 

I guess I should just buy an M9 or M9-P and make a decision on the results I get. One thing that really sticks out is just how strong the B&W files of my M8 are. I love them a lot more than the conversions from color DNGs from the M9.

 

Nothings perfect. Again, I had hoped to mine the Forum for useful information, one of it's greatest resources, along with the helpful & curious, as well as the old curmudgeons that share their booty.

 

Again thanks to all!!

[doolittle]

Ah, colour rendition and black and white performance. Problem is it's a very subjective area and difficult to judge images where there is no reference to judge white balance.

Would it be worth renting an M9 for a weekend (from the likes of Rent professional cameras or camera lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Leica and Pentax )? Just a thought, have you considered the Monochrom?

 

I am only familiar with the M8 and the D800. The sensor in the D800 is something special alright. Haven't done a whole lot of B&W conversions with the M8 (tend to shoot film for that), but I do find it's colour rendition very agreeable.

[Guest malland]

Mitch, thanks for taking the time to state your opinion. Most of the work I have seen from you is B&W & I have enjoyed the great bulk of those frames. Color is a different beast. In all honesty, Leica still hasn't been able to come close to the Imacon sensor in my DMR. That color rendition is the most beautiful, clear & wideest bandwith of any 35mm camera I have ever used.

 

My hours spent processing the files from the new M haven't convinced me that they are superior to those from the M9. The night shots are toast as far as I'm concerned. A Nikon D800 blows away any Leica for iso up to 6400 & you can convert lots of great R glass to put on that body. But I digress....

 

I'm getting too old to lug around my R/DMR for 5 -8 hours on the street. I'm really trying to get some useful information about what the M9, in any of the configurations, is fully capable of.

 

I guess I should just buy an M9 or M9-P and make a decision on the results I get. One thing that really sticks out is just how strong the B&W files of my M8 are. I love them a lot more than the conversions from color DNGs from the M9.

 

Nothings perfect. Again, I had hoped to mine the Forum for useful information, one of it's greatest resources, along with the helpful & curious, as well as the old curmudgeons that share their booty.

 

Again thanks to all!!

Ben, actually, back in February I decided to buy an M-E, when there was a lot of speculation about the the possible differences in color rendition between the M9 and the M240. Someone whose color work I admire wrote at the time that he thought that the color from CCD-sensor cameras was more like color transparency film while that of CMOS-sensor cameras was more like color negative film. I then started looking at a lot of M9 color work and decided to buy an M-E. However, I was Paris and a dealer there had a new M9-P that was still at the "close-out" promotion price that Leica had ended on December 31. That meant that I was able to get a new M9-P for a few hundred dollars more (ex-VAT) than the price of an M-E. I've been so happy with the M9 color that I haven't shot any B&W since I got the camera. I had bought an M-Monochrom last November and only shot with that until February; so, while I love the M-Monochrom, I was ready to shoot color.

 

The issue of the color rendition of the M9 vs the M240 is a hornets' nest, because many people who have the new camera feel strongly that it's a matter of appropriate profiles and processing. Perhaps after there is a firmware upgrade from Leica and some better raw processing profiles they may be proven right and the color output of the M9 and the M240 may become very similar. However, I am still skeptical and am glad that I have the M9-P because, having looked at a lot of people's output from the M240 and having processed some DNGs as well, my feeling is that there is a difference in color rendition that may remain. I realize that this may not be a entirely a CCD vs a CMOS issue, and that the color filter may be involved as well. In any case, I won't be in the market for an M240 anywhere in the near future. In any case, my mind is not closed on the subject.

 

Thorsten Overgaard has written on his blog that the color model for Kodak and Leica when they were designing the M8/M9 sensors was Kodachrome. My feeling is that they did a good job because that is what the M9 color rendition reminds me of. Indeed, looking at Thorsten's pictures on his blog, I find I like the color that he got from his M9 is more to my liking than what he has so far gotten from the M240. Where you and I may differ is on the higher-ISO results from the M9: I feel that at ISO 800 and 1250 the M9 can produce very beautiful color if one doesn't underexpose too much: perhaps you can see that from the latest night shots on my flickr site — I don't mind the increased noise. Basically, I am still affected by the film aesthetic.

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, I might as well show a night picture here that has the color and the chiaroscuro that like. This was shot at ISO 800 at f/2.0 (or f/2.8) with the Summilux-50 pre-ASPH:

 

Bangkok

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[Jeff S]

Nothings perfect. Again, I had hoped to mine the Forum for useful information, one of it's greatest resources, along with the helpful & curious, as well as the old curmudgeons that share their booty.

 

Lots to be mined already here, if an M color discussion is what you're after.

 

After 700+ posts in this thread, let alone other threads as well, it may just be that many here are tired of the discussion and just waiting to get an M to try. The irony is that you apparently have one. If you don't like what you see, then the threads may provide profiling or processing ideas, etc. But if you're still not happy, then no comments from us will help.

 

I echo the comments about renting, and you can get an M9 here if you're interested, with additional Tuesday discounts through July. I'm confused, though, since you say you've already processed M9 files. I think people are having trouble figuring out what info you're after, especially considering all the tests you've already made; at least I am.

 

Jeff

[Guest Duane Pandorf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have very little experience shooting with a Leica rangefinder but have found the M-E I'm shooting with to be a real joy. Since I've never shot with a Leica before I don't miss not having the frame selector and I prefer to use a SD card reader vice connecting the camera to the computer.

 

I may have bought the new M if it were available but seeing that there were too many people already on waiting lists I did not hesitate to buy the M-E and a new warranty.

 

For the last month I've been processing my images using the Huelight Color Fidelity Lightroom Camera Profiles. I'm finding the skin tones using their "standard" profile are very good.

 

I shot for a just a few moments with the new M a few months ago at the Miami Leica store opening and the camera felt just about the same as my M-E. Its hard for me to explain, but the images I captured required very different processing in LR than my M-E files. Under the same lighting condition in the store and having images captured by both cameras required very different tweaking in the Basic and Tone Curve bricks in the Develop module.

 

I'm not saying one is better than the other but the files require a different routine than what I use for my M-E files.

 

I don't require high ISO very often so I don't miss that. Plus I don't have any R lenses nor an ultra wide lens, so the Liveview function does not matter to me. Movies? I use my iPhone as I'm not serious about video and if I was I'd get a dedicated camera.

 

To this day and my very short experience using the FF M-E, there's still not many other cameras on the market that can compare with its size and all the different lenses you can use.

 

Just my .02 and that's all its worth.

[roguewave]

Mitch, thanks for the background info & your preferences. Interesting image. I love grain in film, but almost always, it feels fake when digitally rendered. Just my own aesthetic. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to gather data points so I can make a reasoned decision, that works for me. The principle impulse driving this is that I just need to have a smaller kit that my R8/DMR & 80 Summilux & 35 Summilux in my backpack. I own 6 different M cameras, film & digital. I need to weed some of that as well.

 

I'm older, but far from blind. There are obvious differences in the rendering of color amongst the current crop of Leica M digital offerings. I'm still stuck on the fact that my DMR/IMACON back still gives me the most beautiful images I have seen in this format. I'm finding it very hard to surrender to something of lesser quality, at least to my eye. Thanks for putting up with me.

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Ben,

 

Do you want to continue using your R lenses or where possible switch over to equivalent M lenses?

[furcafe]

For me, digital is almost exclusively a high ISO (above 640) color medium for shooting in available, usually crappy, light; for daylight, etc., I'm happy w/film. Improved high ISO was the main reason why I sold my M9 last October (had the M8 before that & was an early adopter of both) & waited for the 240. Although I wished Leica offered a reduced megapixel model w/even better high ISO performance, I am satisfied w/that decision.

 

From that perspective, if you think the 240 is "mud" above ISO 600, then I seriously doubt you'll like the M9 or M-E. I have no direct experience w/the D800, only played w/a few D800E raw files, but IMHO, high ISO files from my 240 are comparable to my D700 & X-Pro1 up to around ISO 2500-3200, depending on light (or lack thereof). If you're routinely shooting in the 3200-6400 & over range in color in terrible light, I would never recommend the M9/M-E, though from what I've seen, the Monochrom would be fine for B&W.

 

My hours spent processing the files from the new M haven't convinced me that they are superior to those from the M9. The night shots are toast as far as I'm concerned. A Nikon D800 blows away any Leica for iso up to 6400 & you can convert lots of great R glass to put on that body. But I digress....

 

I'm getting too old to lug around my R/DMR for 5 -8 hours on the street. I'm really trying to get some useful information about what the M9, in any of the configurations, is fully capable of.

 

I guess I should just buy an M9 or M9-P and make a decision on the results I get. One thing that really sticks out is just how strong the B&W files of my M8 are. I love them a lot more than the conversions from color DNGs from the M9.