M-E vs other / advice

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmm...I am no fan of DXO, but the their results of the M sensor do not support your assertion that there "are many cameras with better sensors"

[Advertisement]

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

[thompsonkirk]

Gordon's advice is very very sound. I don't think anyone should buy a Leica just to improve their image quality, in the conventional sense of the term. Leica is really a system of limitations that constrain / liberate you into a certain style of camerawork.

 

As Gordon and others have said, you have to try one. You might rent one – or by mentioning your location, you might even meet a LUF member with whom you could shoot for a day.

 

I'm not completely in favor of your plan to start with a ME and the lens you mentioned. You can buy a used M9 for $4000 (a lovely one just showed up on RFF for $3500, but it was sold in a few hours). Until there are more M240s available, you can re-sell an M9, if it doesn't feel right to you, for about what you paid for it.

 

You mentioned that you'd like to get away from the 'electronic' look of your other digital cameras, and one way to avoid this would be to use a 'classic' rather than a current Leica lens. The older Leica lenses were appreciated for the subtleties of their imagery, rather than for the crackling contrast and max resolution of most current lenses.

 

If you look in the Wikipedia under 'Walter Mandler,' you'll find a list of the Leica lenses he designed. He aimed more toward the qualitative 'look' of the image, than toward the quantitative specs of contrast and resolution. With an M9 and one of these middle-aged lenses, you might enjoy a digital camera that avoids the electronic / digital look you said you'd grown tired of. And the experiment would be less expensive: If a rangefinder Leica just doesn't turn out to be what you hoped, then you can abandon it without too much depreciation.

 

Kirk

[Duane Pandorf]

Hello everyone

new to this forum, I don't own any Leica gear... yet.

I'm interested in a "basic" combination : M-E + Summarit 35mm, but I know Sony will release a Nex FF at the end of this year

I know that, with the Leica combo, I wouldn't have AF, nor IS, and that Sony would have them, of course, and, as far as lenses are concerned, works with Zeiss;

AF & IS are not mandatory, but I'm a happy 4/3 consumer (E5 + some nice lenses), and used to "easy going" photography, despite the heavy gear - what I'm looking for is a solid light gear, with FF and beautiful IQ to backup my Oly stuff, especially in holidays

can anyone tell me if, despite these "faults" compared to Nex (no AF no IS), the Leica IQ would satisfy me? I mean : if Leica got something "special", not only electronics, but photographic (if that makes any sense, compared to an other camera...) in other words : is it worth (aesthetically) the extra money (and prices are really different : estimated coming Nex : $3000 + $1500 lens : not quite the price of the M-E body...)

 

If someone would be kind enough to advise me, I'd be very thankful, and apologise in advance : not new to photography, but "new" to Leica : never used, never seen any "real" printed photo, etc

 

thank you all anyway, for passing by

 

I've been shooting with the Leica M-E for 9 months and its my first Leica body. I came from shooting with the Ricoh GXR-M and a Leica 35mm Summicron v2.

 

So I was already comfortable "manually" focusing and making my own aperture adjustments.

 

The character of the images I was able to create with the Leica lens brought me to the "real" thing in the FF Leica body. The new M240 was not shipping yet and I knew that I'd have to wait a long while before I'd see one. So I bought a new M-E.

 

I don't live near a store where I could demo one but I had handled a Leica M9 very briefly in a photography store while traveling through Barcelona.

 

You're either going to love it or you won't. What I enjoy about the Leica is its simplicity which allows me to easily control everything quickly.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Hmm...I am no fan of DXO, but the their results of the M sensor do not support your assertion that there "are many cameras with better sensors"

 

I'm no fan of DXO either. By M, I meant the M series. Specifically the M-E the OP is referring to. MANY cameras have a better sensor (on paper at least) than that sensor. Pretty much every current 35mm sensor for a start. At over ISO 800 many of the current APSC cameras using the latest Sony or Fuji camera do as well. Now I "prefer" the output from my M9's over all those sensors but that's because I don't want infinite DR and I shoot 90% of my stuff at base ISO.

 

As for the current m240 sensor. From the tests I have done it's thoroughly trounced by the Canon, Nikon and sony 35mm sensors in their current cameras. All of them have less high ISO noise and more DR than the type 240 sensor. And yet if I could do it all again, I'd choose a Leica M9 over any of those cameras. Although the M9 and M240 sensors are both quite excellent I don't delude myself that they are either state of the art or class leading.

 

Gordon

[MirekE]

Hello everyone

new to this forum, I don't own any Leica gear... yet.

I'm interested in a "basic" combination : M-E + Summarit 35mm, but I know Sony will release a Nex FF at the end of this year

I know that, with the Leica combo, I wouldn't have AF, nor IS, and that Sony would have them, of course, and, as far as lenses are concerned, works with Zeiss;

AF & IS are not mandatory, but I'm a happy 4/3 consumer (E5 + some nice lenses), and used to "easy going" photography, despite the heavy gear - what I'm looking for is a solid light gear, with FF and beautiful IQ to backup my Oly stuff, especially in holidays

can anyone tell me if, despite these "faults" compared to Nex (no AF no IS), the Leica IQ would satisfy me? I mean : if Leica got something "special", not only electronics, but photographic (if that makes any sense, compared to an other camera...) in other words : is it worth (aesthetically) the extra money (and prices are really different : estimated coming Nex : $3000 + $1500 lens : not quite the price of the M-E body...)

 

If someone would be kind enough to advise me, I'd be very thankful, and apologise in advance : not new to photography, but "new" to Leica : never used, never seen any "real" printed photo, etc

 

thank you all anyway, for passing by

 

Cons:

- No zoom, no IS, no AF

- Electronics (speed, quality of the display, battery life) feels 7 years behind current 3rd party cameras

- Heavier and bigger than 4/3 cameras or the full frame Sony RX-1

- It may be difficult to get over the fact that it is an expensive piece of equipment and start using it as a tool rather than fragile jewelry

- Possibly less reliable than other cameras in the same price range and longer repair times

- Getting used to it may take some time

- Limited accessories

- Bad performance at high ISO (max ISO is 2500)

 

Pros:

- The smallest interchangeable lens FF camera (though not light)

- The best body to use with the excellent Leica M lenses (after M a MM)

- Relatively large selection of lenses in native mount (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander)

- Simplicity, different thought process leading to a shot compared to other camera types

- Great IQ

 

Rent one for an extended weekend. It takes some time to start liking this camera, but a few days will give you some idea. Rent a Sony RX-1, too. If you feel you would only use a 35mm lens, it might be a good alternative for you and closer to your 4/3 with the shooting style, capabilities and control.

[MirekE]

As for the current m240 sensor. From the tests I have done it's thoroughly trounced by the Canon, Nikon and sony 35mm sensors in their current cameras. All of them have less high ISO noise and more DR than the type 240 sensor.

Gordon

 

Really? M240 is much better in noise (with more graceful response to NR in post) than my Canon 5D2 and the DR also seems wider. Canon must have made really great progress with the 5D3/6D then...

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...I'm interested in a "basic" combination : M-E + Summarit 35mm, but I know Sony will release a Nex FF at the end of this year...can anyone tell me if, despite these "faults" compared to Nex (no AF no IS), the Leica IQ would satisfy me? I mean : if Leica got something "special", not only electronics, but photographic (if that makes any sense, compared to an other camera...) in other words : is it worth (aesthetically) the extra money (and prices are really different : estimated coming Nex : $3000 + $1500 lens : not quite the price of the M-E body...)...

No one has mentioned color, but I think that the Leica M9/M-E cameras are unique in their color rendition, better than I have seen with other digital cameras. It's a matter of taste, but I would describe the color rendition of the M9/M-E as looking more like color slide film while that of other digital cameras (including what I see from the M240) looking more like color negative film.

 

While people claim that they can process other digital files to yield the color rendition of the M9/M-E that has not been my experience: I used for a while the Ricoh GXR M-Module with Leica M-lenses and, while the GXR M-Module is a very good camera, I found that I had to use Raw Photo Processor (RPP) to get near the color rendition that I liked. In other words, while I liked the results it took a lot of effort to get what I wanted. With the M9 and Lightroom 5, I find that with little work I get the color rendition that I want — and also very good high-ISO results at night using a technique described in a couple of other threads.

 

I can do no better than to quote Charles Peterson, who produces beautiful color work and who wrote in another thread, I do think that the higher iso's on the M9 are vastly underrated, and in general much prefer the image quality of the M9 to the M240. The M9 (and Monochrom by de facto) imo are truly two of the most unique digital cameras out there when it comes to the quality of the image. Not the "best" on paper but they have a look, an "umami" as the Japanese might say, that no other 35mm digital camera, comes close to.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[jaapv]

I'm no fan of DXO either. By M, I meant the M series. Specifically the M-E the OP is referring to. MANY cameras have a better sensor (on paper at least) than that sensor. Pretty much every current 35mm sensor for a start. At over ISO 800 many of the current APSC cameras using the latest Sony or Fuji camera do as well. Now I "prefer" the output from my M9's over all those sensors but that's because I don't want infinite DR and I shoot 90% of my stuff at base ISO.

 

As for the current m240 sensor. From the tests I have done it's thoroughly trounced by the Canon, Nikon and sony 35mm sensors in their current cameras. All of them have less high ISO noise and more DR than the type 240 sensor. And yet if I could do it all again, I'd choose a Leica M9 over any of those cameras. Although the M9 and M240 sensors are both quite excellent I don't delude myself that they are either state of the art or class leading.

 

Gordon

 

So your sole criterium for quality is the nominal ISO speed provided by the camera maker?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

So your sole criterium for quality is the nominal ISO speed provided by the camera maker?

 

That's not what I wrote, but feel free to read it any way you'd like.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Really? M240 is much better in noise (with more graceful response to NR in post) than my Canon 5D2 and the DR also seems wider. Canon must have made really great progress with the 5D3/6D then...

 

Before the M9's i have now I shot over 100K frames on a pair of 5D2's. I'd say yes. The 5D3 and 1Dx my shooing partner uses at the weddings we shoot every week are a significant improvement oiver the 5D2 in both noise and DR. Even though I no loger own any Canon cameras i get the thrill of trawling through about a thousand of them a week.

 

The issues I had with the 5D2 was that the shadows fell apart (banding) far earlier than they should and as such I don't think the 5D2 had great DR at all. The Olympus EM5 I have has more DR than a 5D2. Even the little Fuji EX1 has significantly more DR and somewhat better noise handling than the 5D2.

 

I don't mind a bit of noise in my M9's. It's not as ugly as the Canons and as you say, cleans up very nicely in post compared to the Canons.

 

If you want to see an impressive sensor have a look at some frames from an a99 or a D800.

 

Gordon

[farnz]

The question is raw. How does on access LAB in ACR? Perhaps I can, but just never noticed.

 

Explain benefit to doing so.

Tobey,

 

The question asked was "What does Photoshop have that Lightroom doesn't for raw processing ?" not what does ACR have that Lightroom doesn't. I still consider myself to be working on raw (DNG) files after I've opened them in PS following ACR until I've saved them to a different (PSD, TIFF, or JPEG) file format.

 

I don't believe that LAB colour space is available in ACR.

 

The benefits of using LAB colour space instead of RGB are that luminance and colour information are separated and can be adjusted without influencing the other. In RGB each of the colour channels contains a proportion of the luminance information. So, for example, increasing the red channel in RGB will also increase luminance. In L-A-B (Luminance, A colour channel, B colour channel) luminance would be unaffected and you'd only be increasing the colour information. The benefit is that sharpening, noise reduction, haze removal, colour separation and other features can be adjusted in different (and I believe more flexible) ways. For more information on a complex topic please refer to 'The Canyon Conundrum' by Dan Margulis.

 

Pete.

[pascalg]

hi & thanks all

 

will take the time to read / meditate all your contributions...

 

 

cheers,

[MirekE]

The benefits of using LAB colour space instead of RGB are that luminance and colour information are separated and can be adjusted without influencing the other. In RGB each of the colour channels contains a proportion of the luminance information. So, for example, increasing the red channel in RGB will also increase luminance. In L-A-B (Luminance, A colour channel, B colour channel) luminance would be unaffected and you'd only be increasing the colour information. The benefit is that sharpening, noise reduction, haze removal, colour separation and other features can be adjusted in different (and I believe more flexible) ways. For more information on a complex topic please refer to 'The Canyon Conundrum' by Dan Margulis.

 

Pete.

 

It does not change anything on the fact that PS gives more options how to work with luminance and color, but you can adjust luminance in RGB without touching color if you set your adjustment layer interaction to Luminosity. And you can adjust color in RGB mode without touching luminance by setting the interaction to Color. Some of the Margulis' techniques can be done in RGB, some can't.

[colonel]

I don't understand people who barak Leica on paper specs. Their sensors are never top of the market but they can render in a unique way used properly with Leica glass which have the best MTA curves if you love specs.

 

Comparing Leica on paper misses the whole point, Leica is above the LX7 vs EP-5 vs D800E vs 5Diii fray of other cameras, leapfrogging each other every few months.

 

It is about a pure workflow for photographers who like to control their picture taking with a beautiful instrument,

 

I remember the Japanese hifi watts battle of the 80s. Watts has no bearing on sound quality but people thought this was the nirvana.

[MirekE]

No one has mentioned color, but I think that the Leica M9/M-E cameras are unique in their color rendition, better than I have seen with other digital cameras. It's a matter of taste, but I would describe the color rendition of the M9/M-E as looking more like color slide film while that of other digital cameras (including what I see from the M240) looking more like color negative film.

 

While people claim that they can process other digital files to yield the color rendition of the M9/M-E that has not been my experience: I used for a while the Ricoh GXR M-Module with Leica M-lenses and, while the GXR M-Module is a very good camera, I found that I had to use Raw Photo Processor (RPP) to get near the color rendition that I liked. In other words, while I liked the results it took a lot of effort to get what I wanted. With the M9 and Lightroom 5, I find that with little work I get the color rendition that I want — and also very good high-ISO results at night using a technique described in a couple of other threads.

 

We each have different processing style and sensitivity to various subtle characteristics on an image and our views may differ.

 

M9 has relatively narrow dynamic range. Slide film has relatively narrow dynamic range. M9 is sometimes compared to slide films. So I tried a little experiment. I took an M240 file and clipped its range with Levels in Photoshop (otherwise, I would tweak the contrast, shadows etc. with curves). The picture had more pop and was pretty close to an M9 look. I use homemade DNG profiles, which took care of color differences caused by different embedded (or Adobe default) camera profiles. So I personally think that the "look" has more to do with the clipped dynamic range than with CCD or something like that. But it may be just ignorance on my end...

[gjames9142]

Pascal, I would make the point that one of the strong points of the Leica is that is extraordinarily simple. The advanced DSLR's have crazy, complicated controls, and options that most people don't need. (The S2 is similarly simple -- Leica lent me one without a manual and I just went out and started shooting.) That said, if you like long lenses, stay away from rangefinders. I would also make the point that most people who own them, are not in a position to get the most out of them, in that they don't print their work. It seems to be a machine whose main market is rich amateurs, which is okay because they make it possible for poor professionals, who do not constitute a huge market.

[farnz]

It does not change anything on the fact that PS gives more options how to work with luminance and color, but you can adjust luminance in RGB without touching color if you set your adjustment layer interaction to Luminosity. And you can adjust color in RGB mode without touching luminance by setting the interaction to Color. Some of the Margulis' techniques can be done in RGB, some can't.

Owing to separating four colours (red/green and blue/yellow) in its A and B channels LAB's gamut is larger than RGB's so even blending layers with Luminosity in RGB won't provide the full range available in LAB. But since there are no layers in Lightroom to blend RGB it's kind of a moot point anyway.

 

Another advantage is that Curves in LAB provides enormous latitude for colour work but I haven't been able to replicate the same using Curves in RGB and Color layer blend mode. Happy to be shown how though.

 

Pete.

[MirekE]

But since there are no layers in Lightroom to blend RGB it's kind of a moot point anyway.

 

Agreed. On the other hand, we don't know how exactly are things done in LR. Some types of sharpening can be done in luminosity only, for example...

 

Another advantage is that Curves in LAB provides enormous latitude for colour work but I haven't been able to replicate the same using Curves in RGB and Color layer blend mode. Happy to be shown how though.

 

Do you mean manipulating curves of a and b channels to increase saturation of individual colors? I think this is one of the things that can't be replicated. Another example would be the techniques that involve "blend if" calculations converted to mask from his book Professional Photoshop: The Classic Guide to Color Correction.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

My main concern is IQ : I want something... different (tired of electronics coldness)

 

IMHO, you will not escape such "coldness" as long as you judge images on-screen or

from digital prints. Sincere luck to you.

[Jeff S]

IMHO, you will not escape such "coldness" as long as you judge images on-screen or from digital prints.

 

No argument about screen shots versus prints, but if the only digital prints you've seen are cold, I think you haven't looked at enough digital print options, including for example ones with warmer toned, textured papers, and/or using b/w ink sets with 7 or so shades of grey/blacks, some of which are warm toned to start, that can yield rich tonal gradations.

 

I have produced many 'cold toned' silver prints that are intentionally much 'colder' in appearance than some warmer toned inkjet prints. And of course subject matter, processing, lighting and display conditions, etc., matter.

 

Much depends on the user intent, the materials, and the skill and technique of the one doing the printing....IMO. Lots of diverse options available these days.

 

Jeff