MarkP Posted October 5, 2013 Share #61 Posted October 5, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi again Mitch, regarding workflow when shooting, the Monochrom and M9 obviously work well together but the user interface difference between the M9 and M240 is also trivial. I've just spent the weekend away with the Monochrom and M240, and transitioned seamlessly between the two cameras. My only dilemma I had was which one to bring up to my eye - first world problem Getting back to your concern regarding M240 colour rendition, I agree that only when you get to work on your own files that you will be able to resolve this. Now the order backlog is clearing there may be access to demo M240s in the near future. No rush though as it's not like the IQ of the M9 had suddenly deteriorated with the introduction of the M240. Regards, Mark ps: I haven't posted before about your technique with the M9 of shooting at lower ISO such as 640 and pushing in camera, but I wanted to say that I agree with you here. I do a lot of long exposure night photography at ISO 160 (limitation of M240 with 60 sec max exposure) and despite trying to get the exposure right I often end up with significantly underexposed files to protect the highlights (and control sensor blooming) The M9 files have proven to be extremely robust to pushing in PP. (ie http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/284441-moonrise-over-joadja.html) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2013 Posted October 5, 2013 Hi MarkP, Take a look here M240 vs M9 — Colour Rendition. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest malland Posted October 5, 2013 Share #62 Posted October 5, 2013 Thanks, Mark. That's an impressive picture that you've linked! —Mitch/Paris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 5, 2013 Share #63 Posted October 5, 2013 I don't speak for myself but not everybody's interested in PP. Does PP stand for both pre- and post- processing? There's such a thing as a proper profile to start, or don't many care about that either? Silly. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 5, 2013 Share #64 Posted October 5, 2013 There are no statistics i know of about that but most people are doing like i did i guess i.e. developing their raw files with their favorite raw conveter and liking the results or not. I did like the results of the M8.2 this way but less so those of the M240 so i had to create a colour profile for the latter. Not sure that i'll do it again with the next firmware update if it addresses the current issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 5, 2013 Share #65 Posted October 5, 2013 I will reiterate for the consistently deaf........ The current colour 'issues' are a product primarily of hopeless auto and fixed WB.... This WILL be fixed in the firmware uprade which will appear SOON I suggest this thread reconvenes then ....when M users have upgraded and pronounced judgement on the changes....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitz Posted October 5, 2013 Share #66 Posted October 5, 2013 No camera manufacturer can guess how your monitor is calibrated. So it is random if any camera manufacturer's profile looks good on your monitor. If you are not prepared to profile and monitor, then you can't comment on the manufacturer's profile. Any I'm assuming you have a monitor suitable for photography, not the monitor on your laptop or a $100 monitor from Best Buy. White balance - an attempt to make all photos gray on the average. If you shot a red Ferrari against a fire truck, green trees on grass, or lemons next to lemonade, the camera will give the wrong white balance. Again, this is regardless of manufacturer. The camera can't guess what the color of the subject is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 5, 2013 Share #67 Posted October 5, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I will reiterate for the consistently deaf........ The current colour 'issues' are a product primarily of hopeless auto and fixed WB.... That too, and for that there's also an interim solution for any user willing to spend a few minutes. One might also think that anyone buying a $7000 camera, intended for manual use rather than auto-everything, would bother to do a little work to get things right, rather than complain endlessly on the forum. My comments here are especially directed at those who apparently care more about forum surveys than actual experience and doing a bit of work until things are (or maybe are not) better sorted by Leica. And anyone who doesn't know by now that Leica rarely gets things right out of the box (after multiple digital M product offerings spanning 7 years or so), hasn't been paying attention. End of rant. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted October 10, 2013 Share #68 Posted October 10, 2013 Although I deeply enjoy the imagery from my M9, there's no doubt I prefer the overall image quality from my M-240. The M-240 certainly has white balance issues, but those are fixable in post. Beyond that, the notable increase in resolution and dynamic range, along with a pleasing color rendition, sway me to the newer camera. Neither compare to the Monochrom - the camera that remains Leica's finest moment, IMHO. I also agree with Mark - I find moving between the interface on the M9/MM and M-240 to be a total non-issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 11, 2013 Share #69 Posted October 11, 2013 Here's my experience: I also immediately tried to "correct" my images to make them look like the M9 files, which proved incredibly difficult. Aside from the obvious correction of the warm white balance, there was also a green/magenta tinge to the shadows and highlights of the M9. I also had to push the clarity slider about 10 to 15 points to get the mid-tone separation close to that of the M9. I finally decided not to buy the M because, while maybe not true-to-life, I really enjoy the way the M9 draws and I saw no reason to get away from that look. I'm not saying that the M9 looks like Kodachrome, but it has a unique look that I personally find very compelling. I know people say that the Cmos vs CCD debate is nonsense, but I own several digital cameras with CCD sensors (still and video) and I am a big fan. I use an old P25 back on a Contax 645, and I have yet to see any digital camera that draws like this combination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 11, 2013 Share #70 Posted October 11, 2013 ...there was also a green/magenta tinge to the shadows and highlights of the M9. Easily adjusted if desired using separate highlight and shadow tone controls in LR 5, if not already accomplished using a custom profile. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 11, 2013 Share #71 Posted October 11, 2013 Tried it, not really happening. I can get close but with a lot of tinkering and there is no one profile that will work in every situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 11, 2013 Share #72 Posted October 11, 2013 ... there is no one profile that will work in every situation. Of course not, with any camera. That's what PP edits and/or multiple profiles are about. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 12, 2013 Share #73 Posted October 12, 2013 Exactly my point, Jeff. I've been using my M9 for several years now. It is predictable and I am used to the look. I have my post-processing down and when I shot an M in several different situations, in all of them except the low light shots above ISO1000 I preferred the version from the M9 straight after Lightroom import. This was my reason to give back the M and pass on my pre-order. I'm not trying to offend anyone who prefers the M rendering but I sympathize with the OP, and I don't believe he was trying to start a fight. I was looking forward to the M, I was excited, I was one of the first people to get my hands on it, I loved the sound and feel of the shutter, I had saved up the money, but when I looked at the pictures side by side, I was disappointed. Just my personal subjective opinion. I did a lot of soul-searching, and I came to the conclusion that the last thing I need was to take a big hit on my M9, spend a couple of thousand of dollars to spend more time in Photoshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 12, 2013 Share #74 Posted October 12, 2013 I would try the last firmware update before drawing any conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest porco1962 Posted October 12, 2013 Share #75 Posted October 12, 2013 Exactly my point, Jeff. I've been using my M9 for several years now. It is predictable and I am used to the look. I have my post-processing down and when I shot an M in several different situations, in all of them except the low light shots above ISO1000 I preferred the version from the M9 straight after Lightroom import. This was my reason to give back the M and pass on my pre-order. I'm not trying to offend anyone who prefers the M rendering but I sympathize with the OP, and I don't believe he was trying to start a fight. I was looking forward to the M, I was excited, I was one of the first people to get my hands on it, I loved the sound and feel of the shutter, I had saved up the money, but when I looked at the pictures side by side, I was disappointed. Just my personal subjective opinion. I did a lot of soul-searching, and I came to the conclusion that the last thing I need was to take a big hit on my M9, spend a couple of thousand of dollars to spend more time in Photoshop. You don't have to emphasize more about how you abondon M240 and how you don't like tthat picture. Truth is that new firmware of M240 had already released and you do't have a chance to experience that anymore. So your opinion is now not based on actual product anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 12, 2013 Share #76 Posted October 12, 2013 Exactly my point, Jeff. Not really. My point is that you should have been able to better match the output without tremendous effort, if that was your goal. And, as others say, the new FW would likely have helped you, as it seems apparent that you need a better starting point. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzy11 Posted October 12, 2013 Share #77 Posted October 12, 2013 Exactly my point, Jeff. I've been using my M9 for several years now. It is predictable and I am used to the look. I have my post-processing down and when I shot an M in several different situations, in all of them except the low light shots above ISO1000 I preferred the version from the M9 straight after Lightroom import. This was my reason to give back the M and pass on my pre-order. I'm not trying to offend anyone who prefers the M rendering but I sympathize with the OP, and I don't believe he was trying to start a fight. I was looking forward to the M, I was excited, I was one of the first people to get my hands on it, I loved the sound and feel of the shutter, I had saved up the money, but when I looked at the pictures side by side, I was disappointed. Just my personal subjective opinion. I did a lot of soul-searching, and I came to the conclusion that the last thing I need was to take a big hit on my M9, spend a couple of thousand of dollars to spend more time in Photoshop. Sounds like you want the new M to replicate image quality output from the M9, then why not just keep the M9 and be done with it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 12, 2013 Share #78 Posted October 12, 2013 That's what I'm doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 12, 2013 Share #79 Posted October 12, 2013 Here is an example of what I got straight out of camera with the M9 and the M. I am fairly proficient in both Lightroom and Photoshop and I work with a calibrated Eizo display. Don't compare sharpness, since my daughter was moving around and this is not what I was comparing here. It was just one of many real-life situation snapshots I took when making a decision about the M. I am also not telling you that one is better than the other, just a matter of personal preference. I am just trying to show you that it is not a quick adjustment to make the M shot look like the M9. If someone wants to play with the DNGs pm me and I'll be happy to provide them. Simply adjusting to a cooler white balance does a lot, but even when adjusting shadows, mid-tones, and highlights separately for green-magenta shift, I am having difficulty getting the wall color and face color "right" without ending up with a slight green tinge to one and magenta to the other. And yes, I will be able to demo an M with the new firmware in a couple of weeks, which will be nice since "apparently I do need a closer starting point." Maybe I'm just reading too much condescending subtext into these posts, which happens when you are not communicating in person, but I know what I'm doing, I am not badmouthing the M, and I am simply stating that there are obvious differences in color rendition. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/213984-m240-vs-m9-%E2%80%94-colour-rendition/?do=findComment&comment=2440493'>More sharing options...
r7photo Posted October 12, 2013 Share #80 Posted October 12, 2013 Yes different but both nice. Leica has switched to CMOS and no going back, for me new M was no brainer as I traded beloved M9p, and yes miss it but new M which takes more learning is also can produced nice files. I am still learning camera but happy with upgrade. I am curious to see what Leica produces next , a B/w based on 240 sensor So yes wish m had ccd but CMOS looking working good to me Thx Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.