M240 vs M9 — Colour Rendition

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What a nice little girl! Congrats Bernd but you are not comparing two cameras here. What you're comparing in fact is two different white balance settings with some red cast in the first pic and some blue cast in the second one. Just use a grey card or adjust WB in PP and you will see very little differences between the two pics, if any.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

No subtext intended, and I appreciate the more detailed feedback. However, I agree with lct that if you use something like a ColorChecker Passport, or at least a WB card, you won't get results like you show, especially not after any necessary PP edits. The new FW may make these steps less necessary, but no question that they help with the release version. 'Pre-processing' is as important, or more important, than PP. That's what I meant by a starting point; if the camera doesn't give you one, you need to better control it yourself.

 

Jeff

[Guest malland]

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.

Bernd, thank you for illustrating they key issue of this thread: what you show in your example is what I see, to various degrees, from most M240 pictures that people post — in other words, from this starting point people end up with M240 color renditions that are more like those of other CMOS cameras than that of the M9, particularly, it seems to me, when the photographer is going for a "color slide-film look." (And I am writing this as someone who is also "fairly proficient" in post-processing and works with a calibrated display.) I would be most interested in reading (and seeing) the result of your trial of the new M240 firmware.

 

As luck would have it, your post is followed by three posts that illustrate the typical responses one gets when raising the comparative color rendition issue. Post #80 acknowledges the difference and states satisfaction with the M240 color rendition (i.e., a matter of taste), while posts 81 and 82 state that the difference stems from white balance issues and recommend the use of at least a white balance card. Also, post 82 states that "'Pre-processing' is as important, or more important, than PP," which in a couple of other threads Jim Kasson has shown conclusively is not true, in that DNG files don't back in any irreversible white balance that cannot be adjusted in resetting the WB in post-processing.

 

Now, so far all the posts on the new M240 firmware fix have been along the line of posts 80-81, which don't address the color rendition issue but merely state that the writers of the post either like the upgrade or that it has fixed the color problem or improved the white balance and that there was no problem before that. So, in this respect these types of statements are meaningless until one sees a broad range of pictures coming from the M240 cameras after the firmware upgrade, which will either show that the "problem" has been fixed (if it indeed is a problem) or whether the M240 color rendition is, indeed, substantially different from that of the M9 and that all this is a matter of taste.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[BerndReini]

I agree that a color chart would give more accurate results, but I really mostly do street photography with my M9. I had an M for two days and I decided that my testing would be to shoot with it the way I shoot with my M9. So I spent a day shooting alternating between my M9 and the M indoors outdoors and then in the street from late afternoon until dusk. This was after an evening of street photography when I just went out and played with the M. When I reviewed the photos I had taken the night before, I realized that only a handful were taken above ISO 1000. I never used live view, because the shutter lag drove me nuts within the first minute, so most of the big advantages seemed unnecessary for my style of shooting.

 

That being said, I just recommended the M to a colleague of mine who shoots professionally and doesn't own a digital Leica yet. However, I advised another friend, who owns a pristine M9 to save his money for a new lens or the MM, since he is an avid black and white shooter.

 

If anyone is interested in the photos I took during my informal street test, here's a link:

 

Leica M240 - a set on Flickr

[Jeff S]

Also, post 82 states that "'Pre-processing' is as important, or more important, than PP," which in a couple of other threads Jim Kasson has shown conclusively is not true, in that DNG files don't back in any irreversible white balance that cannot be adjusted in resetting the WB in post-processing.

 

All that shows is that some people and/or some software are better at getting at the intended result than others. I have no such problem using the new M. Prints speak for themselves.

 

You keep talking. Try working.

 

Jeff

[lct]

Just one click in iCorrect on the supposedly grey socks of the little beauty. FWIW.

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!

[Guest porco1962]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

edited a bit.

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!

[BerndReini]

Just one click in iCorrect on the supposedly grey socks

 

Sorry, guys, if it was that easy, I wouldn't have a problem. I like the M9 out of camera better than after the correction. Sure they look closer, but it isn't my goal to make the M9 look like the M. Neither should I have the desire to make the M look like the M9.

 

Also, can you see what I mentioned above: in the M shot after correction, the wall has a green tinge while the face has a pink cast. This is where you get into selective corrections, which is beyond a profile fix. Maybe I am too picky, but these images still look different. Porco's version still shows the pink face tone. Also, look at the color of the red bricks on the top left of frame. It is close to what I came up with and I did this, with different values, for other photographs depending on what colors were present. After a week of playing with different photographs, I just decided it wasn't for me. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

 

I admit that if I had never owned an M9, I would be completely happy with the colors of the M, but being faced with selling my M9 and spending another $3,500 after tax I do not want to spend a minute in Photoshop trying to replicate that look of the camera I just traded in.

[lct]

Just wanted to show that images are different because WBs are different. Remove the color casts and the images will be so close that it will be difficult to recognize them other than through side by side comparos.

[dwbell]

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.

 

Wow Bernd. I see what you mean. But what can I say, with the old firmware and my custom profiles, and now with the latest firmware I have never had anything anywhere near as different as the two images you post! Not by a long shot! There are very subtle differences in DoF, and DR that if you look hard you can see, but this MASSIVE colour difference? Uh uh, no sir.

 

Don't know what to say other than that.

[Guest porco1962]

I think Digital M needs some adjustment in development process not only M240 but also M9 and M8.

If you want good image just out from camera and without some adjustment, and if you like M9 image, just use M9.

I don't think M9 image as a god reference.

[dwbell]

I agree that a color chart would give more accurate results, but I really mostly do street photography with my M9. I had an M for two days and I decided that my testing would be to shoot with it the way I shoot with my M9.

 

Ok, this gives an insight right here. I don't use the CC card in every shot, I did carefully dual illuminant profile my camera, both the M9 and the M240. I'm very careful to have my cameras render colour how I want them to! not how they "just look, straight out of the box". If I left it as it is OOC I could never expect any other camera to look the same, from the same manufacturer or from another.

 

I think many are coming from a different frame of reference than I am, and that's the problem. My prints are identical, how often do people who are shooting and printing with both every day have to say that to people who, quite simply, aren't?

[BerndReini]

I can't wait to try out the new firmware. I am sure you guys remember one of the first side by side comparisons that was posted here on the forum. It was a cityscape with a church and a lot of rooftops. The color difference was similar to my examples. I used the first demo camera that was available on the west coast. Maybe things have been refined and changed by now, so I will reserve judgment. It is kind of a moot point for me anyway since I have since tried out a Monochrom. I really, really enjoyed that camera and I will probably get an MM to add to my M9 and skip at least one generation of the M.

 

I didn't do any side by sides between the M9 converted to B&W and the MM, but the MM was just pure joy and even if it was not superior to the M9, I don't think I'd want to even find out. That MM is just one of those cameras that didn't make any sense for me ... until I tried it. Unfortunately everyone else that has used one seems to feel the same way, and there just aren't any used "buyers remorse" cameras floating around.

 

I also make sure my cameras render colors the way I want them to, and I will tweak in post if they don't. Ever since the M8 first came out, I've had people comment on the color in my photographs with these cameras, and most of them didn't know what it was they liked about them, but many times I heard: "Wow, look at these colors." Before I started shooting digital (with Canons back then), I shot a Contax N1 with Kodak E100G. Kodak also had a warm-tone version of that film, the E100GX, which I never liked. I also never particularly cared for Provia or Velvia. Neither of these films were true to reality. E100G simply rendered reality the way I wanted it in my photographs. There is nothing wrong with using a standard profile if you like the results. I also shoot with a Sigma DP1 Merrill and the colors out of that camera are far from real, but they are stunning.

[Ozkar]

Wow Bernd. I see what you mean. But what can I say, with the old firmware and my custom profiles, and now with the latest firmware I have never had anything anywhere near as different as the two images you post! Not by a long shot! There are very subtle differences in DoF, and DR that if you look hard you can see, but this MASSIVE colour difference? Uh uh, no sir.

 

Don't know what to say other than that.

 

If your objective is to spend little to no time post-processing images, the M9 is hardly a good choice. Unless, of course, you only shoot in daylight and at ISO160.

[dwbell]

There is nothing wrong with using a standard profile if you like the results.

 

Other than not being able to achieve that "look" with the next camera, it seems. I transitioned without missing a beat, others, who stay with OOC rendering seem to be having trouble. I would argue my colour meets my artistic intent and is future / brand proof. Gives me much more choice of tool, as an artist.

 

Bernd, please do not read any vicious tone in my words. There is none intended.

[Guest malland]

All that shows is that some people and/or some software are better at getting at the intended result than others. I have no such problem using the new M. Prints speak for themselves.

 

You keep talking. Try working.

 

Jeff

Glad you feel so superior, but it's tiresome. It's not that my aim in life is to own an M240. Merely interested in its color rendition. As I've written earlier in the thread, not interested in what you or others say about the colors, but am interested in what I see. Nor am I interested in a pissing contest. I am also interested in seeing Bernd's results with the new firmware.

 

Bernd's reference to E100G in post #93 is interesting, because it's the film that I used before digital, in addition to Tri-X and Neopan 1600.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[dwbell]

not interested in what you or others say about the colors, but am interested in what I see.

 

This confuses the hell out of me. You're not interested it what those who have both, and print both, and see no difference "say". You're only interested in largely randomly processed, small, browser fed JPEG samples that you can "see"?

 

And all this despite not wanting to own an M240 because you wouldn't be able to shoot with two different menu systems when coupled with the MM?

[StephenPatterson]

I'm also confused, as the colour rendition between the M9 and S2 has never been the same even though both have a very similar CCD sensor, and my M240 (with FW2.0.0.11) is different from my Canon 5DMk3. I don't care about OOC, but these differences are so subtle that I can shoot an event with both the Canon and M240 and process the images together in LR (which wasn't possible with the old FW...well, it was but it was very time consuming).

 

This is like trying to turn a Burgundy into a Bordeaux, better to just enjoy and realize that these two cameras are never going to be exactly the same.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dwbell]

And to be honest I'm a bit disappointed that I even got involved!

 

Mitches position is;

 

'my reaction from everything I've seen on the web and from having tried processing a few M240 files is that the following statement by Charles Peterson, an excellent colour photographer, resonates at this stage the most with my own views'

 

So, a reasonably under researched opinion, when compared to those who have both bodies and can do direct comparisons.

 

Also, it's an opinion. If he stated "the M240 cannot recreate the colours of the M9" then it would be different, the burden of proof would be on him to verify that assertion of fact. But he didn't do that. He basically said; "I've read someone who I like say they didn't like the colour, and seen some jpegs on the internet and based on that, I don't think the colour is as good as the M9"

 

As said, it's his opinion, all be it underqualified and under researched, but it doesn't need to be refuted, just as he doesn't need to bother proving himself to be right, by actually using both cameras extensively and posting his findings, for example.

 

So all in all, a non discussion with no resolution..

 

I wouldn't want potential future Leica M240 buyers to read this thread and be concerned with "poor" colour, so I thought it pertinent to point out the above.

[Guest malland]

Gimme a break! You can write whatever you want and ridicule all you want, but my position has been clear from the original post onward. Lot of people said that all this would be resolved when the firmware upgrade is available, I said "maybe," but better to see a year from now...

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]