M240 vs M9 — Colour Rendition

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?"

Thanks, the way you've put it is clear and raises an interesting thought: let's say we pick up this thread one year from now and essentially we find that those people who have the M240 like the colour rendition and most of those who stayed with the M9 don't — and that most of the latter decided that they will wait to see what comes after the M240 before possibly switching to a new camera. That's a plausible scenario, on the basis of which some people may conclude that people are prejudiced in favour of what they have. However, I don't think that is a likely reason — the reason being taste in colour rendition. The interesting question is then: if the people who stayed with the M9 is a significantly large group at which point does an apparently subjective preference become an objective judgment? (I suppose that one answer could be that Leica could judge this on the basis of M240 sales).

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Jeff S]

...let's say we pick up this thread one year from now....

 

Please.

 

In the meantime I'll be making prints, not gathering 'data' for some bar discussion, or wasting time wondering why someone else made a different camera choice, which may be for myriad reasons.

 

Jeff

[pieterpronk]

Mitch, While I share your preference for the M9 color and rendering, I really don't think this discussion is getting us anywhere. Basically by posting it in the M240 section you are asking owners of the new M to negatively evaluate their new purchase. (Which none of them seems to do)

 

 

A much more positive approach would be to post in the M9 section to ask M9 owners to positively evaluate their own camera's compared to the M240. Let the M9 crowd bask in their glory so to speak.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with sparking enthusiasm for your own camera, but having to reevaluate a camera serves no purpose. Especially when it's done by somebody who doesn't own the camera.

 

 

While I am of the opinion there are differences, and like the M9 more at base iso, I'm set to buy a M in december anyway, because I think the new M can be fun challenge as well. A new direction so to speak.

Anyway, let's have this discussion in the M9 section ("aren't we all happy we didn't buy the new M?") or let's leave it for a year?

[Guest malland]

Pieter, I'm inclined to leave it for a year, but it's hard not to reply to misleading posts like #106.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[albireo_double]

I currently have both the M (for 2 weeks now) and the M9P (have shot with this and an earlier M9 since 2010). My initial impression is that the color rendition is very similar, after a bit of post-processing, and that the dynamic range differential is visible and sometimes, when I get exposure just right on the M9, the out of camera image is preferable to the M, in the same way that a well exposed slide on a lightbox will be more attractive than a print. But overall, what can still be saved in terms of overcooked highlights on the M is often lost on the M9. Ok, the M perhaps has a tendency, sometimes, for an orange/green cast where the M9 is more cyan/blue. Both require some post processing to get right or to shoot with manual WB (white card target). Neither is as good (by some margin) as what the S2 produces out of camera. Which is a slight disappointment for me as I had expected the M to adopt the same color processing as in the S2 which is more or less perfect. Biggest recent revelation (off topic) for me is how good the M9 can be in low light, shot at ISO 640 with a Summilux wide open, and processed in LR5. I will be shooting with both for a bit more but my initial impression is that M will be a keeper and the M9P will either serve as back-up or find a new home. Or that they will both be used concurrently, with different lenses attached. I don't think there is much merit in these discussions on color, based on my initial results. I am using the new firmware on the M, by the way, that was released about a week or two ago.

[thighslapper]

Thanks, the way you've put it is clear and raises an interesting thought: let's say we pick up this thread one year from now and essentially we find that those people who have the M240 like the colour rendition and most of those who stayed with the M9 don't — and that most of the latter decided that they will wait to see what comes after the M240 before possibly switching to a new camera. That's a plausible scenario, on the basis of which some people may conclude that people are prejudiced in favour of what they have. However, I don't think that is a likely reason — the reason being taste in colour rendition. The interesting question is then: if the people who stayed with the M9 is a significantly large group at which point does an apparently subjective preference become an objective judgment? (I suppose that one answer could be that Leica could judge this on the basis of M240 sales).

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

c'mon Mitch ...... it is all entirely down to habituation and familiarity ..... I found the M240 colours initially different (mostly due to the WB) .... but after a while I find them 'normal' .... and if anything the M9 colours look odd.

 

Same when I had a NIkon .... the colours were great ...... but now they look insipid ..... and I find other peoples Canon shots too lurid ...... and both Fuji and Sony look different again.

 

The human eye is VERY easily fooled .... and a lot of colour perception is modified by what we expect to see, rather than what we actually see.

 

I guarantee that if I made you use an M for 3 months and then looked back at your M9 photos, they would be the ones you regarded as 'not quite right'.

 

It is ALL subjective, from start to finish, and you can basically argue round in circles over this topic ad infinitum.... which means this thread will run and run....

[Karl G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

If so, why?

Thanks.

 

I think Robert (woo rob) makes a very good case for why color right works in a color corrected work flow to produce the most accurate colors possible. With any camera, including the Leica M.

 

For most of us, accurate color is not as important as pleasing colors, an important difference. After the FW upgrade the colors OOC are close to many dual illuminant profiles with subtle differences. Thighslapper has mentioned this as has Robert and they are spot on.

 

For me, the colors OOC with the new FW and adobe standard are a decent starting point with tweaks then applied to realize the look I want to have. For certain looks I will utilize development settings in LR to make quick changes to a whole set or collection from a shoot. This process is not different from any other camera including the Leica ME.

[colorflow]

I've had the M240 for 3 months now. I also preferred the color of the M9 and had to do more with the M240 files to match what I have grown used to. But no more. The new firmware produces color as " good", if not better, than the M9. All my subjective opinion of course.

[Ozkar]

Pieter, I'm inclined to leave it for a year, but it's hard not to reply to misleading posts like #106.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

Perhaps "mess" was a little strong in describing M9 colours at higher ISOs. But they are definitely "odd" relative to the M240 (with the latest firmware). And I maintain that M240 colour rendition will only improve as further firmware updates are released, while the M9's will remain as they are.

[pieterpronk]

Hmmm, I had this feeling most people here were tired of this topic, but I guess I was wrong.

[jonoslack]

I think Robert (woo rob) makes a very good case for why color right works in a color corrected work flow to produce the most accurate colors possible. With any camera, including the Leica M.

 

For most of us, accurate color is not as important as pleasing colors, an important difference. After the FW upgrade the colors OOC are close to many dual illuminant profiles with subtle differences. Thighslapper has mentioned this as has Robert and they are spot on.

 

Hi Karl

I think there is a real issue in what you say.

 

Accurate Colour

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as 'accurate colour' in any kind of normal lighting situation - (i.e. sunlight and shade, mixed lighting). The colour temperature will almost always vary considerably across the frame - in which case there simply isn't a 'correct' answer. Of course, if you want to shoot a colour chart in even lighting of a fixed temperature, then there is 'correct', but if you aren't, then in my book, there isn't!

 

Which means that 'pleasing' is all you're left with!

 

Personally, I like to shoot with Daylight WB in most circumstances, sometimes I'll mess with it in post processing, but usually I treat it like film stock.

 

Since the FW update, it seems to me that the presets are about right.

[mirekti]

And the saga goes on and on From the Leica M9 to the Leica M240…and Back to the M9 By Ashwin Rao | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

[tom0511]

And the saga goes on and on From the Leica M9 to the Leica M240…and Back to the M9 By Ashwin Rao | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

I have been going back an forth between the two cameras. Owning and using both...I believe one can get very good color from the M. The M9 sometimes shines but sometimes it doesn't and in regards of speed (buffer etc.) I much prefer the M.

So even though I see some room for improvement in regards of color for my use the M is the better body.

[Rick]

And the saga goes on and on From the Leica M9 to the Leica M240…and Back to the M9 By Ashwin Rao | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

I guess chip technology moves backwards? Where are those LP's, tube amplifiers and Sony trinitron televisions?

[don daniel]

And the saga goes on and on From the Leica M9 to the Leica M240…and Back to the M9 By Ashwin Rao | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

If you look at the pictures in this article what is your impression about the author's skills in creating good colours?

[jaapv]

I must say that I respect Ashwin as a photographer - he is good, and he is a pioneer of digital M cameras since the first days. But I do think that he has not got the M 240 colour workflow refined. I recognise his problems, I had them initially as well, but with some work - and habituation- the M 240 can do a whole lot better than that.In fact, I prefer it over the M9 by now - but it took time.

[don daniel]

I must say that I respect Ashwin as a photographer - he is good, and he is a pioneer of digital M cameras since the first days. But I do think that he has not got the M 240 colour workflow refined. I recognise his problems, I had them initially as well, but with some work - and habituation- the M 240 can do a whole lot better than that.In fact, I prefer it over the M9 by now - but it took time.

 

He may be good but in this set not only the colours out of the M240 seem to be off, but also the ones out of the M9 do not convince me, except in one or two pictures.

[jaapv]

I guess chip technology moves backwards? Where are those LP's, tube amplifiers and Sony trinitron televisions?

 

Well, tube amplifiers are unsurpassed, even now. But a bit on the pricey side....

And if you listen to a direct cut LP, you are ready to bin all your CDs.

[hossegor]

tube amp and vinyl any day for me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[microview]

……..you are ready to bin all your CDs.

 

Not to mention your hi-res DAC!