M240 Dynamic Range Improvement

[jffielde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's certainly much talk about the improved dynamic range of the M240 over the M9, but scarcely any evidence of it on the internet so far. I would love to see a few examples that really highlight the improvement, if anyone would be so kind. Thank you.

[tobey bilek]

improvement may involve the ability to enhance shadows more with one camera than another and further will be different results with different ISO values.

 

In short this will be a complex answer if done correctly. At least there should be the same picture taken at the same time and subject with both cameras.

 

Too much dynamic range gives a flat ugly pic much like a HDR that has not been tone mapped. You will not like it.

 

People have had good results with enhancing shadows with the M9 as opposed to higher iso. Perhaps look there. Or a small fill flash that does not overpower the natural light. Fill light is a great improvement if done correctly.

[elmars]

You cannot see the dynamic range directly in a picture. What You can see is ever a limitation of that, what the camera is able to register. For instance, on paper You can distinguish only about 8 or 9 f-stops (following the good old zone system from Ansel Adams). This is less than the camera dynamic range of 11 to 12 f-stops, that the M9 can register. A greater dynamic range helps only to recover shadows or highlights. This can be helpful, when You have a scene of great contrast; in post production You can for example recover highlights, that seem to be blown out, to something with structure in a print.

 

I tested the dynamic ranges of the M9 and the M240 in a simple way: I oberexposed the same motive in the same ligtht several stops. From the RAW of the M240 I could recover the clouds in the sky with 1 to 2 f-stops more overexposure compared to the M9. This is exactly that, what several tests say.

 

Elmar

[Lindolfi]

Here is a direct comparison

Lens Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH at f/11

Exposure time 1/15 sec

ISO 640

 

M9 uncompressed DNG, M 240 compressed DNG (lossless)

 

DNG file M9

 

DNG file M240

 

And here a comparison at 100% of the same files, mounted in jpg format, with 6 stops overexposure in postprocessing (top M9, bottom M 240)

 

M9 M240 Comparison

[Hey You]

My simple-minded (and probably wrong) way of interpreting this is that an M240 with a Summicron can take images that on an M9 would require a Noctilux.

Which would make an M240 a (relative) bargain, so I must be wrong.

[theno23]

You're right that the M240 can capture pictures with a Summilux that would require a Noctilux on the M9, but that's sensitivity, not DR.

 

Also you don't get the depth of field of the noctilux, which is why many people use it.

 

 

Resolution, DR, and sensitivity (high ISO quality) are all better, by 1.5-2 stops, depending in who you ask. The Noctilux is "only" 1 and a bit stops faster than the Summilux.

[theno23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ah, just seen that you said Summicron. Not quite, that's over two stops difference, and personally I don't think the M240 is that much cleaner.

[Stealth3kpl]

My simple-minded (and probably wrong) way of interpreting this is that an M240 with a Summicron can take images that on an M9 would require a Noctilux.

Which would make an M240 a (relative) bargain, so I must be wrong.

 

Think of dynamic range like this: If it's good, you're more likely to make out the look of concern on someone's face as they sit inside the out-house watching the last squares of white toilet paper blow across the snow outside it.

[digitalfx]

I see a significant improvement in DR on the M vs the M9, I don't have my M9 any longer so can't provide comparison images but the difference is very noticeable when processing images, you can really pull significant detail out of the shadows.

Attached is a poorly exposed image that I was able to salvage...not the best example, but the camera jpg was black...no detail at all except the window which is overexposed. I was able to pull details out of the shadows that would have been impossible w/ M9 DNG

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[farnz]

Think of dynamic range like this: If it's good, you're more likely to make out the look of concern on someone's face as they sit inside the out-house watching the last squares of white toilet paper blow across the snow outside it.

This sounds suspiciously like it is drawn from personal experience.

 

(I think I would have the door closed to prevent icicles from forming on things that no icicle should ever form on.)

 

Pete.

[BerndReini]

More dynamic range these days pretty much means that you can take a crappy picture in crappy light and still see detail in the highlights and shadows of a crappily lit or badly exposed photograph. I work in Hollywood and almost any day of the week I see tourists in the shade on the south side of the Boulevard posing with a sunlit Grauman's Chinese Theatre in the background. The guy with the Nikon D800 will probably get more out of the shadows of his wife's face than the guy with the iphone, but both pictures suuuuuuuuck!!!

 

Sorry, I know this isn't always the case, but as someone else mentioned before, the exposure range of your average scene usually does not exceed the dynamic range of the M9.

[IWC Doppel]

Putts did some work here and whilst the comprehensibility of the article to me was a challenge I recall concluding that the absolute range was greater with the M but the way the M9/MM move out of black potentially provided more graduation. plus the realistic view of practical dynamic range here

 

OECF | The TAO of Leica

 

The upshot as far as I can see is try the camera and see how you get on. Add to this an ability to print or show graduation that is recorded , particularly at low IRE levels and the ability to compare apples with apples becomes even more problematic.

[Paul J]

The difference in the two is quite obvious in viewing pictures of the two cameras. The M9 rewards with careful exposure but does have a propensity to blow out highlights and while it has more DR than film, we all know it doesn't not handle these blow outs in the same gradual way. Careful exposure is one thing, but for some applications the luxury of time is not so available to facilitate it. The smoothness of tones in between is also another benefit, though I tend to tread a fine line between lo-fi and hi-fi in my work so I quite like the look of a harder curve. Nice to have it, to play within it though.