M240 vs M9 — Colour Rendition

[dwbell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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]

 

Please promise to let this thread die for a year? Or buy the camera and verify your weak second hand subjective position?

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkP]

Mitch,

 

as you know I was very happy with the M240 colour rendition. Following the firmware upgrade it's even better.

 

Hopefully you can get to use one soon.

 

Regards,

Mark

[Jeff S]

Glad you feel so superior, but it's tiresome.

 

The difference in our positions is that I've actually experimented and got real results, while you just keep talking away. Talk about tiresome.

 

I don't feel superior in any way; just pleased with results from a marvelous new camera, and weary from your implications that I and many others must be fantasizing.

 

Just speak for yourself, and don't generalize for others, please. And if you're not ready to try the M, then.... (I'll be polite).

 

Jeff

[Karl G]

Mitch, I guess I'm not sure why you didn't post this in the M9 forum? It seems more like a topic that would be of more interest and would speak to more people in the M9 forum. Most of us here now own the M240 and have answered that question for ourselves. Maybe, the mods should move this to the M9 forum where it would be of more interest?

 

Very much agree, thread should be moved to M9 section and retitled "Why I want to stick with My M9"

[MirekE]

Mitch, I did not read all posts in the thread so please forgive me if I'm repeating or paraphrasing something that has already been stated. I think there is too much clutter to see if there are any differences in color rendition or not.

 

If we take two side by side shots with these two cameras, the results will be different, because:

• The cameras have different AWB. So when testing color rendition, one should avoid using AWB and set the WB manually, identical for both cameras. Otherwise we will mainly see different color temperature and tint, not different color rendition.
  
• The cameras have different embedded and Adobe profiles. This is most likely intentional. My understanding is that the goal with camera calibration profiles is not to create perfectly accurate colors, but pleasant colors. The opinion what is pleasant rendering develops over the time and the skill of the people who implement this most likely develops too. But again, this is not the CCD vs CMOS issue, this is interpretation of the color by the engineers. So in order to compare the color, one should make good quality profiles at the same conditions on his own and use those.
  
• The cameras have different dynamic range and different response curve. The M240 pictures have smoother roll off in highlights and the response curve is longer and may lead to less contrasty looking images. With the same processing my M9 images resembled Velvia, while M240 resembles Astia. Not in color rendering, but in contrast. In order to compare color, we would need to even out the difference, otherwise the M9 will look more "punchy", "brilliant" etc.
  
• The cameras have different CFA. I am not a sensor specialist, but i think the color filter array is the only hardware feature that could possibly make the color different. If I understand it correctly, the differences would be apparent in minor differences in color separation and ability to display colors in the same way as humans perceive them under different lighting situations.
  

 

The discussion I have seen so far addresses automatic white balance differences and internal camera calibration differences. These are all software issues in my opinion and do not say much about differences between the sensors or even between CCD and CMOS. I think one would need to eliminate the software influences (and response curve differences) first and what is visible then will be more realistic view on difference in color rendering between the two pieces of hardware.

 

Are there differences in color rendering? I am sure there are. But I haven't seen them yet. I can't compare the cameras side by side and comparing my old M9 images with my new M240 images (or by looking at the samples on the internet), the differences are obfuscated by the aforementioned differences in white balance, camera profiles, different response curve etc.

[Ozkar]

Are there differences in color rendering? I am sure there are. But I haven't seen them yet.

 

In daylight and at base ISO, agreed. However, in low light/mixed light and as ISO increases the M maintains colour integrity while the M9 is a mess.

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In daylight and at base ISO, agreed. However, in low light/mixed light and as ISO increases the M maintains colour integrity while the M9 is a mess.

This is another unsubstantiated statement, which on the basis of my experience is simply incorrect concerning the M9. I've done extensive night shooting with mixed light using the "Shoot at ISO 640 and Push in LR4/5" technique and here are two threads that show that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the M9 is actually a good camera for high-ISO, particularly in view of the colour rendition. Look at this thread and this thread.

 

Moreover, the first linked thread, starting with post #41 on page 3, discusses the results of Jim Kasson's tests of applying this technique to the M240. These tests show that the M240 high-ISO images have a green cast and banding in the shadow areas. Incidentally, Jim Kasson is the one who developed and documented the technique referred to: he runs very careful and well-documented tests.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[lct]

It's a 99% WB issue folks. If you don't like PCs or PP just put a mere grey card in your bag, use it when you can and you'll see how stupid most CMOS vs CCD debates can be.

[Ozkar]

This is another unsubstantiated statement, which on the basis of my experience is simply incorrect concerning the M9. I've done extensive night shooting with mixed light using the "Shoot at ISO 640 and Push in LR4/5" technique and here are two threads that show that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the M9 is actually a good camera for high-ISO, particularly in view of the colour rendition. Look at this thread and this thread.

 

Moreover, the first linked thread, starting with post #41 on page 3, discusses the results of Jim Kasson's tests of applying this technique to the M240. These tests show that the M240 high-ISO images have a green cast and banding in the shadow areas. Incidentally, Jim Kasson is the one who developed and documented the technique referred to: he runs very careful and well-documented tests.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

The M240 cranks out great shots at high ISO with no effort. The green cast has been addressed with the recent firmware update. The M9, as you just have pointed out, requires a lot of faffing about. And there are some issues that just can't be fixed, like skin/lip colour in mixed/low light, that no firmware update will ever address.

[Ozkar]

It's a 99% WB issue folks. If you don't like PCs or PP just put a mere grey card in your bag, use it when you can and you'll see how stupid most CMOS vs CCD debates can be.

 

I couldn't agree more. The only people that seem to be complaining about CCD(M9) vs CMOS(M240) colour have never used the latter.

[Ozkar]

This is another unsubstantiated statement, which on the basis of my experience is simply incorrect concerning the M9. I've done extensive night shooting with mixed light using the "Shoot at ISO 640 and Push in LR4/5" technique and here are two threads that show that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the M9 is actually a good camera for high-ISO, particularly in view of the colour rendition. Look at this thread and this thread.

 

Moreover, the first linked thread, starting with post #41 on page 3, discusses the results of Jim Kasson's tests of applying this technique to the M240. These tests show that the M240 high-ISO images have a green cast and banding in the shadow areas. Incidentally, Jim Kasson is the one who developed and documented the technique referred to: he runs very careful and well-documented tests.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

My statement is no more or less unsubstantiated than your assertion that M9 colour is better than M240 colour. I have yet to see you post any comparison to substantiate your position.

[k-hawinkler]

After the M firmware update do folks still feel the need to use dual illuminant profiles?

If so, why?

Thanks.

[lct]

Not anymore. C1 v7 is good as is for me now.

[woorob]

K-H,

 

Not sure about dual-illuminant profiles, but, after upgrading the firmware in my M to the latest version, I have still found a subtle but meaningful difference using the color profile I created earlier this month using X-Rite's color checker/passport system.

 

I'm obtaining really sublime images from the M, beautiful colors with great detail, especially when using APO lenses from the R system.

 

My personal perspective is that I will be using the X-Rite color checker passport with every important shoot. It enables me to obtain accurate white balance very easily after automatically applying the camera profile during import using Lightroom 5. It's really very easy to do and makes for remarkably fine coloration in the images. A photographer in the UK has a great video on YouTube on how to create and apply the color checker profiles, it's very helpful and, indeed, the best I've seen. I can post a link if anyone's interested.

 

No ax to grind here for the Color Checker/passport system, it's just the best way I've found of obtaining really accurate colors and WB easily and quickly. Works like a dream for me with the M & Lightroom. I've recently sold my M9-P (which I really loved), I'm so happy with the M's coloration and image rendition (not to mention the joy of using my APO-R lenses in combination with the EVF).

 

I'm a very happy camper with the M. Just my two cents worth. :-)

[tobey bilek]

If what you want is accurate color rendition, you must profile your camera AND each lens, calibrate your monitor, and profile your printer. And start with raw files. All else is a general population average that looks different on every monitor. So saying M9 or M240 have different/better/etc rendition is just an admission the you do not have color control in YOUR work flow. Someone else's profiles are just as inaccurate as Leica profiles.

 

We just took whatever film gave us. As a result each film had its own following of users. Digits from any sensor, on a camera with raw, is totally under your control.

 

I can't believe that anyone spending this much money on Leica equipment and caring about the results are not controlling color in their work flow. The requisite equipment (X-rite color checker, free Adobe software and Spyder Elite) should be within the budget of any Leica shooter.

 

+1 You have it nailed and so do the others who say create a profile.

 

WB is 100% within your control unless the camera can not make a WhiBal card grey as in custom WB. Then you are forced to make a preset to change it to grey with eyedropper and individual color channel adjustments.

 

So turn off auto WB which can not work by its nature. It can make grey come out grey.

but unless there is some color temp meter inside the camera, different colors will throw it off to some degree.

[Guest malland]

My statement is no more or less unsubstantiated than your assertion that M9 colour is better than M240 colour. I have yet to see you post any comparison to substantiate your position.

No, your statement that M9 higher-ISO colour "is a mess " os not only unsubstantiated but also incorrect, as shown in the links I provided in post #107. My statements on M9 vs M240 colour have always made it clear that this was according to my taste, going back to my quote from Braque in post #1. (Anyone who wants to know what sort of colour I have in mind has only to look at the 96 photographs (half of them taken at night) linked under my signature below — although no one has to like them).

 

This constant eruption of dyspepsia from people who feel that their precious camera is being criticized, (with recurrent thanks from "dwbel") is indeed making it impossible to have a reasoned discussed because it's, in effect, treating the discussion in the same way as a digital vs film discussion is often treated, which is also an issue that I raised in post #1 — in the hope that there would be a more mature attitude that would keep the signal-to-noise ration of the thread higher than it is, to no avail it seems.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[dwbell]

After the M firmware update do folks still feel the need to use dual illuminant profiles?

If so, why?

Thanks.

 

I do K-H, but that's not, and never has been to 'correct' colour because it's 'wrong'. It is, and always has been, to 'change' colour to what I 'want'.

 

Why I use the CC Passport etc for this is to get a standardised base condition. My profile standardises (simple calibration dual illuminant) and then tweaks the tone curve and colour response to my 'recipe'. This recipe is firstly my artistic intent and sensibility, and secondly the target I set for each of my cameras, regardless of system.

[dwbell]

This constant eruption of dyspepsia from people who feel that their precious camera is being criticized, (with recurrent thanks from "dwbel") is indeed making it impossible to have a reasoned discussed because it's, in effect, treating the discussion in the same way as a digital vs film discussion is often treated, which is also an issue that I raised in post #1 — in the hope that there would be a more mature attitude that would keep the signal-to-noise ration of the thread higher than it is, to no avail it seems.

 

I think it would be helpful if you could distil your position to one sentence, maybe two. I'm afraid I don't know what it is, to be honest. And I'm offering to keep it objective. So, for example;

 

"The M240 cannot match the colour response of the M9"

 

Once that's stated, clearly, we could for example set tests, maybe with Jim, to either verify or disprove that theory. Or leave it unknown.

 

But it's difficult for those users who have both (I'm not sure why you think a new camera would be precious to me, not knowing anything about what I consider to be precious in my life - clue; it's not cheap inanimate objects of function) to understand your point of view, when they are day after day achieving identical or better 'results' with the M240 than they were with the M9 - and when you, who doesn't own both, is claiming they can't do that?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest malland]

I think it would be helpful if you could distil your position to one sentence, maybe two. I'm afraid I don't know what it is, to be honest. And I'm offering to keep it objective...

I think my position is already stated simply in post #1 of this thread, which suggests that it's largely a matter of taste and asks whether anything objective can be stated.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[dwbell]

I think my position is already stated simply in post #1 of this thread, which suggests that it's largely a matter of taste and asks whether anything objective can be stated.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

Can I paraphrase for my clarity and understanding?

 

"Some people find the M240 colour response lacking, for want of a better term, when compared specifically to that of the forerunner M9. Is this a subjective call, or is there any objective data to verify it?"