M240 vs M9 — Colour Rendition

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...... and everybody seems to overlook the point that we are dealing with DIGITAL media

 

The sensor (irrespective of type) just produces NUMBERS......

 

..... it is up to the manufacturer to manipulate those in any way they desire to produce their version of reality.

 

For better, or worse, we have chosen Leicas version.

 

You can stick with this ..... or if you want to use a raw convertor such as DXO you can emulate any camera you fancy...... or anything else for that matter if you create your own profile.

 

Frankly you can rapidly disappear up your own ar*e with arguing about this issue.

 

If we were just stuck with JPEG's it would be another matter..... but we are not, and RAW is endlessly flexible.

 

Leica seem to have got colour rendition that is accurate and pleasing to my eye and consistent within their product range. All I want is out of camera photos that when stuffed into lightroom produce good images with the default profile that need minimal fiddling with .... under most conditions. I don't expect miracles.

 

Hopefully, with the imminent firmware upgrade most of the remaining diehard sceptics will finally just buy the damn camera and get on with taking wonderful photos ......

 

Much as I love my old M9, going back to it after the M is a bit like driving a Trabant instead of my Jag

[Advertisement]

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

[Bundestrainer]

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

 

Great to hear you are happy! Can you share a link where I can see your photos, please?

[Bundestrainer]

...... and everybody seems to overlook the point that we are dealing with DIGITAL media

 

The sensor (irrespective of type) just produces NUMBERS......

 

..... it is up to the manufacturer to manipulate those in any way they desire to produce their version of reality.

 

For better, or worse, we have chosen Leicas version.

 

You can stick with this ..... or if you want to use a raw convertor such as DXO you can emulate any camera you fancy...... or anything else for that matter if you create your own profile.

 

Frankly you can rapidly disappear up your own ar*e with arguing about this issue.

 

If we were just stuck with JPEG's it would be another matter..... but we are not, and RAW is endlessly flexible.

 

Leica seem to have got colour rendition that is accurate and pleasing to my eye and consistent within their product range. All I want is out of camera photos that when stuffed into lightroom produce good images with the default profile that need minimal fiddling with .... under most conditions. I don't expect miracles.

 

Hopefully, with the imminent firmware upgrade most of the remaining diehard sceptics will finally just buy the damn camera and get on with taking wonderful photos ......

 

I hope this will be true.

[thighslapper]

The M240 files are much more yellowish/warmer or something like that.

 

Bundestrainer....

 

This is all down to white balance which in the current firmware is hopelessly wrong......

 

Take a look at my original comparisons....... there are LOTS of images posted from this thread onwards (most are after post 65) .....

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-type-240/278105-comparison-m9-m240-3.html#post2362283

 

I have a selection of other comparison images which include colour reference cards which are very reassuring ..... but unfortunately I am currently barred from showing them

 

Rest assured that these issues WILL be fixed in the next firmware.

[zeitz]

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.

[Guest malland]

...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...

Mark, I'm glad you wrote that because it may enable us to get at the heart of these discussions. I have no problem recognizing that the M240 files have greater resolution and dynamic range or with people saying, as you do, that they have compared the colour rendition of the M240 with that of the M9 and that they like that of the new camera as much or better than that of the M9. But this is all reflexive, coming back to stating in words what you have concluded. Again, this brings me back to the Braque quote in the OP, "How is one to talk about colour?"

 

What we need to see is examples of colour rendition from the M240 that support the assertion that it's as good or better. Yes, there are the pictures in post #28, but they don't show to me what is claimed that they show, most probably because I would have processed the M9 file to have a different look than it does in that post — and, as someone wrote above, there is a difference in the look of the files, despite the curves shown. Mind you, I'm not being obtuse or simply argumentative. What I mean is that people who have the skepticism that I have about the M240 colour rendition will need to see example from the M240 that have the type of colour rendition that we have in mind from the M9. Now, some will object that JPGs on the web are not adequate for that. I don't agree because the differences are not that highly subtle — and files viewed at 50%, with color calibration and management, give a fairly good indication of the look of a print, at least for the purpose we are discussing here.

 

Now you may sigh and think that this will never happen. I think that it will, and that after Leica issues a firmware upgrade there will be more pictures from which we should be able to come to a conclusion that can convince the skeptics — or not. I just hope that people won't jump on me again now and say that I don't want to be convinced. I started this thread basically to see whether now, that more people have the M240, there would be different responses than before, but found that essentially M240 users have said that they are happy with the colours. That's fine, but to me it means it's still too early and that we do have to wait for the firmware upgrade, and see the situation after that. When pictures from the M240 start coming with some volume showing colour rendition that the skeptics like things will be clarified. From the discussion above, it's clear that this is still premature. At least that's my conclusion, which is reinforced when people question my motives or try to bully me — and I don't mean that you have done that;

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...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.

I think that everyone participating in this discussion is working with a properly calibrated monitor and with proper colour management and printer profiles. I use the ImagePrint RIP, which has excellent printer profiles.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Ozkar]

What we need to see is examples of colour rendition from the M240 that support the assertion that it's as good or better.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

Define better? In my view, the colour rendition from the M240 is great. As is the colour rendition from the M9. And with PP, the two can be made to look so close that the difference is neither here nor there. Composition, lighting, accurate focus, lens rendition will have a much greater impact in the end.

 

Here's a site I stumbled across recently with some lovely images shot with the M240:

 

Leica M type 240 (M240) Gallery | Range Traveler

[Jeff S]

When pictures from the M240 start coming with some volume showing colour rendition that the skeptics like things will be clarified. From the discussion above, it's clear that this is still premature. At least that's my conclusion...

 

I've been ignoring this thread, but having dropped in, I find it hard to believe you're still harping on this same topic. If you got your hands on an M, and made your own prints from your own pics, you could save yourself months of wasted forum time. Why would you care about others' results, especially whether they form a consensus or not? The only relevant question IMO should be whether YOU can get the results you want. If you're not interested in finding that out, then your persistence is mystifying.

 

Not that it should matter to you, but I like the results I'm getting. A firmware upgrade may make getting there a bit easier, but that's just a workflow issue, not a camera issue.

 

Jeff

[lct]

I thought that the OP was after the best OOC results but i may be wrong.

[lct]

...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.

Sure but it seems that many Leica users don't feel that comfortable with computers and prefer relying on camera makers. After all the most prestigious photographers let PP to others didn't they.

[Jeff S]

I thought that the OP was after the best OOC results but i may be wrong.

 

And that would just be silly, too.

 

Jeff

[lct]

I don't speak for myself but not everybody's interested in PP.

[Guest malland]

I thought that the OP was after the best OOC results but i may be wrong.

I don't recall whether you posted in the thread I started on the 'Shoot at ISO 640 and push in post" technique that extends significantly the high-ISO capability of the M9, but had you seen that you would know that I am indeed interested in post processing and don't look to straight OOC results. As this current thread has become a "dialogue of the deaf" I suggest that we meet here in one year, on 5 October 2014, and see what the situation is at that time with regard t the colour rendition of the M240.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Rick]

Mitch, I agree with Jeff. Just buy the damn camera and figure it out for yourself. Why do you care what anybody else thinks? Why are you so concerned with what everyone else on the M240 forum, that owns the camera, thinks? And, who cares about these skeptics you elude to?

 

As far as your interpretation from our statements above about this being "premature," you are taking this wrong. We are actually trying to quietly tell you that commenting on the color, possibly a few days before the new firmware is released, is premature. That's all.

 

Leica knows color. Color is very important to Leica and that is why, I'm sure, they partnered with Kodak back in the M8 days. You already know this because, you own the M9 so, you know Leica gets color right. This is no different on the M240. Leica knows the importance of getting the color right and the new firmware will, I'm sure, go beyond the level of the first firmware update to the M9. I am confidant that even your skeptics will be able to recognize this.

[Guest malland]

Rick, yes, I've accepted that it's premature and that's why I said, "let's meet in a year."

 

Actually, I have no pressing need to change to the M240: I have the M-Monochrom, whose purchase one of your posts helped me decide — and I'm thankful for that. I also have the M9-P, which works well in tandem with the Monochrom, the user interface being identical. As far as I'm concerned it's of great value to have two digital cameras with the same user interface.That means that, as long as I'm happy with the M9, there's a disadvantage to move to the M240, because my experience (with Ricoh cameras) is that even relatively small differences between two digital cameras (unlike between two film cameras) is annoying when one frequently changes from shooting with one to the other. That means that there is no reason — actually a negative reason — for me to move to the M240, unless I see something about the image quality that would compel me to do so. At this point, I clearly don't. And it's not that I "care what anybody else thinks;" but that I merely want to see (rather than read about) whether there is any advantage in the colour rendition of the M240, which is what I value so highly in the M9. Rightly, or wrongly as you may feel, I see the M9 as unique among digital "35mm cameras" in terms of colour rendition at this point.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[rirakuma]

After reading this post I'm starting to wonder why you chose to create this thread. It seems like you're dead set on keeping the M9 and no one here will change your opinion on that. I don't disagree with your opinion and I think its great you want to keep the M9 but hypothetically if this thread swayed your way; as in a lot of people are complaining about the color (which isn't actually bad) then it would just end up being a big trollfest. I think the colors are great on both the M and M9, but yes there are differences not necessarily meaning one is better than the other. I believe when you're given a color palette provided by the camera raw file you can work your way around to getting it the way you like it. If you started with an M9 file or M file, with an appropriate amount of knowledge you can get them both to your liking .

 

Rick, yes, I've accepted that it's premature and that's why I said, "let's meet in a year."

 

Actually, I have no pressing need to change to the M240: I have the M-Monochrom, whose purchase one of your posts helped me decide — and I'm thankful for that. I also have the M9-P, which works well in tandem with the Monochrom, the user interface being identical. As far as I'm concerned it's of great value to have two digital cameras with the same user interface.That means that, as long as I'm happy with the M9, there's a disadvantage to move to the M240, because my experience (with Ricoh cameras) is that even relatively small differences between two digital cameras (unlike between two film cameras) is annoying when one frequently changes from shooting with one to the other. That means that there is no reason — actually a negative reason — for me to move to the M240, unless I see something about the image quality that would compel me to do so. At this point, I clearly don't. And it's not that I "care what anybody else thinks;" but that I merely want to see (rather than read about) whether there is any advantage in the colour rendition of the M240, which is what I value so highly in the M9. Rightly, or wrongly as you may feel, I see the M9 as unique among digital "35mm cameras" in terms of colour rendition at this point.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Guest malland]

After reading this post I'm starting to wonder why you chose to create this thread. It seems like you're dead set on keeping the M9 and no one here will change your opinion on that...I believe when you're given a color palette provided by the camera raw file you can work your way around to getting it the way you like it. If you started with an M9 file or M file, with an appropriate amount of knowledge you can get them both to your liking .

rirakuma, no, I started this thread for the reasons already stated and will continue look at what happens on the colour rendition of the M240. I don't agree with your last statement, which essentially means that you can get anything you want out of a (high-grade?) camera. No, there is an inherent look, and it's good if that inherent look is close to, or in the direction of, what the photographer wants. What I think is that the M240 will either end up there — there being what people like about the (unique) colour rendition of the M9 — or a successor of the M240 will. We'll see.

 

It's great to keep a "troll watch," but it shouldn't be like "neighbourhood policing."

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

I don't recall whether you posted in the thread I started on the 'Shoot at ISO 640 and push in post" technique that extends significantly the high-ISO capability of the M9, but had you seen that you would know that I am indeed interested in post processing and don't look to straight OOC results...

Just trying to comprehend your approach Mitch. If you're interested in PP how long will you wait before trying the M240 and doing your own colour profile? It will take you less time than repeating over and over that you don't like the colour rendition of the M240 w/o doing the least effort to evaluate it seriously. Or perhaps can't you rent or borrow a body?

[Guest malland]

lct, difficult for me to find the time: am in Paris this month — haven't had the time even to shoot the last two weeks — and returning to Bangkok in November. It's not possible to rent a body in Bangkok, and doubt that I can borrow one. If I had a pressing need, I would have to wait until I get to the States, probably in February, and not certain that I would have the time. Everybody is busy, but it's hard in my case.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]