M240 vs M9 — Colour Rendition

[firstlight]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People are mixing things up here.. it's only about colour and not general rendering of the image.

 

IMO - there is so much more difference in rendering depending on the lense used on the camera than the sensor.

 

...in regards to colour, I'm optimisitc this will be fixed with further firmware.

Wasn't it the same with the M9 when it came out?

[thighslapper]

but I just can't buy a camera whose rendering leaves me cold. It's going to be a M9 for me, which is kinda sad because I'd like the extra iso performance, general improvements and better ergonomics.

 

The only issue with the M240 is the auto and fixed WB settings.

 

That WILL be fixed with the next firmware update...... which may be sooner than you think....

 

Side by side colour comparisons when corrected for this show minimal differences in the colour palate ...... which is hardly surprising as it is more a product of processing than the actual sensor output ...... almost any profile output can be generated by the manufacturer ..... which is why Canon, Nikon, Sony etc all have their slightly different look .... but it is fairly consistent within the brand.

 

Then it all comes down to familiarity and personal taste.... and I would be fairly confident that in a rigorous blind M240 v M9 image tasting contest there would be no statistical difference in attempts to identify which was which or the 'best' colour/image......

 

I took hundreds of comparison shots when the M appeared in March and posted many of them here. I'm very happy with the M colour and it is as near identical to the M9 look as Leica could get it. There ARE subtle image differences...... but they are down to resolution and dynamic range, not colour rendition.

[pieterpronk]

The only issue with the M240 is the auto and fixed WB settings.

 

Then it all comes down to familiarity and personal taste.... and I would be fairly confident that in a rigorous blind M240 v M9 image tasting contest there would be no statistical difference in attempts to identify which was which or the 'best' colour/image......

.

 

As I said, this is subjective discussion. (In my opinion there is an issue with the color of the M240, and I doubt a fix of the WB will completely fix that issue.)

 

The way I see a big and obvious difference, is by just scrolling through the pictures of the M240 or the M9 groups on Flickr.

For those of you wanting to see the difference, I suggest just starting a slideshow in a M240 group and just let it run for 5 minutes. Then do the same with the M9 group.

 

I really can not understand it if you don't see an obvious difference if you check it that way. Even my wife could pick out the difference. (When I was considering buying the M240 I let her participate in these kinds of blind test exactly because I know that after being too involved in such a decission everything becomes subjective and you cant trust your own judgment any more.)

 

Maybe I've ruined my subjective feelings about the differences by focussing too much on them, but I'm certain that in a blind test of watching a flickr group for about 20 pictures that I can pick which camera the pictures are from. Actually I have tried it in Flickr groups with both M240 and M9 files combined, by checking the exif after picking either of the camera's.

 

Sadly in such blind tests I have always preferred the M9 pictures, if taken at base iso. (which admittedly is a big IF). I prefer it because of color and because of "crispness".

 

Let me just add that I also think that lens-rendering is a factor in this. I have used the same kind of Flickr group slideshow watching to decide which lenses to buy. You can't tell lenses apart (usually) by just watching 1 or even 10 pictures, but watch a slideshow of pictures for half an hour and you will get a feel for it's character. After which it becomes easier to spot the lens from random pictures.

 

In general I feel sensor differences of the M9/M240 have a greater impact than lens differences. But for example a lens like the noctilux f1 has such a strong character that it seems to overpower the rendering of the M240.

 

And I think it's good to pick your lenses to go with the sensor you have. I have some lenses which work great on a M8, but don't seem to work as well on the M9 or the MM. Even the M9 and the MM have differences in good lens-choices. And the differences become even bigger between the M9 and the M240.

 

And yes, I know, to some all this subjective theorizing seem akin to wearing a tinfoil hat, but then again as I said earlier not seeing a difference between the sensors seems just as crazy.

[thighslapper]

 

Sadly in such blind tests I have always preferred the M9 pictures, if taken at base iso. (which admittedly is a big IF). I prefer it because of color and because of "crispness".

 

 

The word 'prefer' is the issue here

 

From a purely technical point of view the 'correct' choice is the one that depicts the scene exactly as perceived by the human eye.

[dwbell]

My M240 and M9 files look basically identical after my application of my profiles. On an A3 print you wouldn't be able to tell me which was which.

 

But then my 5D2 and X100s are also incredibly close to that look too.

 

I have no idea how you can compare the four, at what stage? So many variables it's simply not worth my time thinking too much about it.

[Bundestrainer]

As I said, this is subjective discussion. (In my opinion there is an issue with the color of the M240, and I doubt a fix of the WB will completely fix that issue.)

 

The way I see a big and obvious difference, is by just scrolling through the pictures of the M240 or the M9 groups on Flickr.

For those of you wanting to see the difference, I suggest just starting a slideshow in a M240 group and just let it run for 5 minutes. Then do the same with the M9 group.

 

I really can not understand it if you don't see an obvious difference if you check it that way. Even my wife could pick out the difference. (When I was considering buying the M240 I let her participate in these kinds of blind test exactly because I know that after being too involved in such a decission everything becomes subjective and you cant trust your own judgment any more.)

 

Maybe I've ruined my subjective feelings about the differences by focussing too much on them, but I'm certain that in a blind test of watching a flickr group for about 20 pictures that I can pick which camera the pictures are from. Actually I have tried it in Flickr groups with both M240 and M9 files combined, by checking the exif after picking either of the camera's.

 

Sadly in such blind tests I have always preferred the M9 pictures, if taken at base iso. (which admittedly is a big IF). I prefer it because of color and because of "crispness".

 

Let me just add that I also think that lens-rendering is a factor in this. I have used the same kind of Flickr group slideshow watching to decide which lenses to buy. You can't tell lenses apart (usually) by just watching 1 or even 10 pictures, but watch a slideshow of pictures for half an hour and you will get a feel for it's character. After which it becomes easier to spot the lens from random pictures.

 

In general I feel sensor differences of the M9/M240 have a greater impact than lens differences. But for example a lens like the noctilux f1 has such a strong character that it seems to overpower the rendering of the M240.

 

And I think it's good to pick your lenses to go with the sensor you have. I have some lenses which work great on a M8, but don't seem to work as well on the M9 or the MM. Even the M9 and the MM have differences in good lens-choices. And the differences become even bigger between the M9 and the M240.

 

And yes, I know, to some all this subjective theorizing seem akin to wearing a tinfoil hat, but then again as I said earlier not seeing a difference between the sensors seems just as crazy.

 

I couldn't agree more and am happy someone else feels the way I do.

 

I also had several looks at the flickr pages of the M9 and M240 and prefer the M9 look. As you do I want to buy a M240 or M260 but I'm not happy with what I see on the internet. The M240 files are much more yellowish/warmer or something like that.

 

Let me state that I don't own a M240 but have tried it out. I wish I loved its output because I need a backup camera and was initially going to add a M240 to my M9 so that the latter could become my backup. However, I ended up buying a second M9 (ME to be correct). I deeply hope Leica could fix the rendering of the M240 or have a much improved M260 in a few years.

[dwbell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not for nothing but I couldn't give two flicks what an average perception of two different online groups says to me. I'm only interested in how my images look. If people want to take the standard OOC "look" from a camera that's fine, personal choice, but - as you're now finding out - it limits your tools to one camera. As an artist this prospect is unacceptable to be.

[thighslapper]

Half an hour ago.

 

M9 50/2.8 and M240 50/2.8, iso 160 and 200 auto WB

 

It's raining and crap weather so both at 1/24sec handheld at 2.8

 

WB corrected in LR on the grey frosted glass of the little lamp by the bench. Both using camera embedded profile in LR. Nothing else. Both are possibly still a bit blue ..... and compression and browser viewing does alter things a bit...

 

 

Histograms almost identical

 

There are subltle differences ..... a bit like a game of 'wheres wally' to spot them ....... but are they of any practical significance ??

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!

[dwbell]

Yeah, good job. Add your own profile and they can be even closer, not that it's needed here however.

 

You'll still find people who don't own both saying it's different.

[rirakuma]

Quick observation of the two they look very similar but if you look closely there's a difference in color rendition. I cannot say which one is better by these two pictures but in some situation these little nuances may make a considerable impact on the picture. I'm not knocking the M, in fact I really love mine but I do think there's a difference in the color and I honestly like a lot of the colors from the M9 that I've seen in the past.

[rirakuma]

I agree with you about the existence of difference in color and rendition but I don't think looking in flickr is a good way to judge the colors of the new M. As you said there's a problem with white balance and a lot of pictures aren't corrected properly which gives false impression of the color output.

 

As I said, this is subjective discussion. (In my opinion there is an issue with the color of the M240, and I doubt a fix of the WB will completely fix that issue.)

 

The way I see a big and obvious difference, is by just scrolling through the pictures of the M240 or the M9 groups on Flickr.

For those of you wanting to see the difference, I suggest just starting a slideshow in a M240 group and just let it run for 5 minutes. Then do the same with the M9 group.

 

I really can not understand it if you don't see an obvious difference if you check it that way. Even my wife could pick out the difference. (When I was considering buying the M240 I let her participate in these kinds of blind test exactly because I know that after being too involved in such a decission everything becomes subjective and you cant trust your own judgment any more.)

 

Maybe I've ruined my subjective feelings about the differences by focussing too much on them, but I'm certain that in a blind test of watching a flickr group for about 20 pictures that I can pick which camera the pictures are from. Actually I have tried it in Flickr groups with both M240 and M9 files combined, by checking the exif after picking either of the camera's.

 

Sadly in such blind tests I have always preferred the M9 pictures, if taken at base iso. (which admittedly is a big IF). I prefer it because of color and because of "crispness".

 

Let me just add that I also think that lens-rendering is a factor in this. I have used the same kind of Flickr group slideshow watching to decide which lenses to buy. You can't tell lenses apart (usually) by just watching 1 or even 10 pictures, but watch a slideshow of pictures for half an hour and you will get a feel for it's character. After which it becomes easier to spot the lens from random pictures.

 

In general I feel sensor differences of the M9/M240 have a greater impact than lens differences. But for example a lens like the noctilux f1 has such a strong character that it seems to overpower the rendering of the M240.

 

And I think it's good to pick your lenses to go with the sensor you have. I have some lenses which work great on a M8, but don't seem to work as well on the M9 or the MM. Even the M9 and the MM have differences in good lens-choices. And the differences become even bigger between the M9 and the M240.

 

And yes, I know, to some all this subjective theorizing seem akin to wearing a tinfoil hat, but then again as I said earlier not seeing a difference between the sensors seems just as crazy.

[dwbell]

I guess I'm unsure as to the point of this thread so I'll back out now.

The OP "thanks" every post which says there's a difference and it's noticeable. It strikes me as simply confirmation bias. It's a perfectly valid opinion, but as such doesn't need discussion. I find that, owning and shooting with both, when you reduce it to the colour gamut of my Epson 3880 there is no difference worth a damn. No amount of M9 users who think there is are required. It's just a qualified opinion.

[Guest malland]

I guess I'm unsure as to the point of this thread so I'll back out now.

The OP "thanks" every post which says there's a difference and it's noticeable. It strikes me as simply confirmation bias. It's a perfectly valid opinion, but as such doesn't need discussion...

All this questioning of motives is most unpleasant. If I "thank" posts from people who see differences in color rendition of the type that I see, all it means is that I am interested the information, particularly when it comes from people who have an M240 or who have tried one extensively. It is certainly not "simply confirmation bias," since I have nothing riding on the how the eventual answer comes out. At that point,I can decide whether to get an M240 or not, as there is no reason for me to be in a rush. I've been interested in this question because it is a new Leica camera that prima facie is of interest to me. But there seem to be too many people who are too sensitive to have an open and objective discussion, which is what this question deserves.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[thighslapper]

I don't think looking in flickr is a good way to judge the colors of the new M.

 

....... reduced, compressed and then rendered by a browser is a completely useless way of judging the true quality of a photo.

 

They never look exactly the same as the jpg's on my computer .... and the colours on Safari and Opera are often different although I am at a loss as to exactly why......

 

..... however you can compare photos taken and processed under identical circumstances.... which is the only situation where you can make an objective judgement...

[dwbell]

But there seem to be too many people who are too sensitive to have an open and objective discussion, which is what this question deserves.

 

Why would I be sensitive when I have both bodies and know the results? I'm not guessing, I know. If it was pro M9 I win. Pro M240 guess what - I win again! It's neither. My objective tests, side by side prints, give me the knowledge you seem to seek. There's no discernible difference in the print.

 

The tiny, tiny difference some may see in other people's images are so, SO outweighed by the considerable improvements in other areas of the M240 that it's a non topic, and for me deserves no discussion.

 

Feel free to speculate on a camera you haven't tested thoroughly side by side if it tickles you, but don't pretend it's objective.

[lct]

There is less difference colour wise between M8, M9 and M240 than between various raw converters. Suffice it to use personal colour profiles to realise that. Those who rely on OOC results can hardly be happy with the M240 though at present. If they're in the process of buying another camera, my best advice is to wait for the next firmware update before taking their decision.

[kdriceman]

All this questioning of motives is most unpleasant. If I "thank" posts from people who see differences in color rendition of the type that I see, all it means is that I am interested the information, particularly when it comes from people who have an M240 or who have tried one extensively. It is certainly not "simply confirmation bias," since I have nothing riding on the how the eventual answer comes out. At that point,I can decide whether to get an M240 or not, as there is no reason for me to be in a rush. I've been interested in this question because it is a new Leica camera that prima facie is of interest to me. But there seem to be too many people who are too sensitive to have an open and objective discussion, which is what this question deserves.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

Surely Thighslapper deserves a 'Thanks' just for doing the work to take and post side by side photos... on a rainy day, no less. At least he (she?) is making an attempt to show objective results instead of perpetuating the same subjective chitter chatter we have all come to know on this issue over the last 12 months.

[Karl G]

All this questioning of motives is most unpleasant. If I "thank" posts from people who see differences in color rendition of the type that I see, all it means is that I am interested the information, particularly when it comes from people who have an M240 or who have tried one extensively. It is certainly not "simply confirmation bias," since I have nothing riding on the how the eventual answer comes out. At that point,I can decide whether to get an M240 or not, as there is no reason for me to be in a rush. I've been interested in this question because it is a new Leica camera that prima facie is of interest to me. But there seem to be too many people who are too sensitive to have an open and objective discussion, which is what this question deserves.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

Many people have directly on this thread, on many other threads with the same discussion, and independent reviewers after extensive testing with results posted on the forum (DXO, Overgaard, Jonas, Thein, LFI, etc) have answered this question numerous times. No one is too sensitive. The question about color rendition, CMOS vs CCD is done. Dead. No one I know is pining for the lost parrot of CCD color rendition.

 

 

E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

 

Numerous people again answered the question including the excellent example by Thighslapper posted above that show histograms. Again.

 

The beaten dead horse, I mean parrot, remains dead.

 

Plenty of reasons not to upgrade (and it is an upgrade) from the ME to the M, color rendition is not one and again, not upgrading does not HAVE to be because the M is inferior in color to the ME/9.

[MarkP]

The beaten dead horse, I mean parrot, remains dead.

 

Thank you again Karl for the dead horse analogy.

 

Yet another excuse for me to digress and post, yet again, the tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians.

This is passed down from generation to generation, and says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

In the Public Service, and sometimes in this Forum, a whole range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:

 

1. Change riders.

 

2. Buy a stronger whip.

 

3. Do nothing: "This is the way we have always ridden dead horses".

 

4. Visit other countries to see how they ride dead horses.

 

5. Perform a productivity study to see if lighter riders improve the dead horse's performance.

 

6. Hire a contractor to ride the dead horse.

 

7. Harness several dead horses together in an attempt to increase the speed.

 

8. Provide additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.

 

9. Appoint a committee to study the horse and assess how dead it actually is.

 

10. Re-classify the dead horse as "living-impaired".

 

11. Develop a Strategic Plan for the management of dead horses.

 

12. Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all horses.

 

13. Modify existing standards to include dead horses.

 

14. Declare that, as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overheads, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than many other horses.

 

15. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

 

 

:)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

Seriously though Mitch,

when I first got my M240 I reviewed my first photographs on my MBP (15" pre-retina with high res matte screen but on LR4 which does not have the M240 profiles). I looked in dismay at the colours and surreal resolution and thought what have I done? After all, I was so happy with the M9.

 

But now that I've worked on the files on LR5/PS on my calibrated NEC screens and have more experience processing them I now appreciate how fantastic these files really are. In my subjective opinion the M240 files have better resolution and I perfer the colour that I'm getting out of them.

 

There was some nostalgia for the M9 files, probably as the nostalgia I had for the look of Kodachrome, but I'm past that now.

 

The M9 will stay (primarily at my wife's suggestion so my son has a camera to use (with some ZM lenses), but I will still use it for situations where I may really worry about the M240 (damage, theft,etc) and for nighttime long exposure photography where the 60 sec maximum exposure of the M240 is limiting, and I really like what comes out of the M9 for this type of photography.

 

I should add that the M240'ss B&W output is excellent but does not compare to my Monochrom.

 

 

Regards,

Mark