M240 Color Test ... Oh, oh!

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly what is this filter, UV+IR, UV or IR? I ask because UV and IR are on each side of 'normal' human vision colors. Can the filter cut both?

Yes, Pico, it's a waveband-pass filter that's the equivalent of an electrical (say, Tchebyschev) band-pass filter; ie it passes the band of wavelengths between roughly 400 to 700 nm and attenuates all other wavelengths.

 

Pete.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Marc - I do get purple on some fabrics when shot inside under tungsten lighting. I'm sure the IR content isn't anywhere near 800w tungsten lamps, though. But, I do think you will have problems with black tuxes, maybe not outdoors and maybe not under certain lighting conditions, but you most certainly will run into it. I commented on Jono's shots back in beta-beta days. And, I mentioned it when commenting on the M color in april that I thought it was a little more IR contamination than the M9.

 

So far, this has not been a problem that has spilled over to skin tones, for me. I like the redder skin tones rather than the desaturated red tones that I see from some other cameras. You asked before what waxy meant to me; yellow, desaturated red, and over processed in-camera NR.

 

I never liked the M8 + UV/IR filter skin tones under artificial lighting, at any ISO. I loved the M9 skin tones in natural and low ISO artificial light. I like the M skin tones better than the M9 in general and especially when the ISO rises. As Chris demonstrated the M is so much easier to work with at higher ISO under tungsten. Then, there is my RX1. Different skin tones once again.

 

So, I think you are going to be disappointed when you compare the M to other cameras that have a design that allows for less IR contamination. Both, synthetic fabric and matching skin tones from these cameras will be a challenge. A IR low pass filter might help. But, the wides will be screwed up in the corners which will add a step to your PP and I know you are loathe to more time spent in PP and I get that... I don't have to take several thousand pictures a week. I can spend time on PP, but I will say, I spend less time with the M than the M9. Most often, and I'm sure others will agree, the M AWB is dead on. Odd, that Leica went from Zero to Hero on this one with the firmware update.

 

Also, I think your skin tones are not going to match your M9 or the other cameras you own. We can discuss which is most correct, but this will be fruitless. Sometimes I'll like the desaturated red and sometimes I'll like a little more red. I think that Chris tends to like the M color and so do I. Others here do not like something about the M color and that is fine. But, I may be putting words in your mouth, and I'm sorry if I do, but I believe, from what you have posted, that you have a certain look that works for you. It all has to do with pleasing skin tones. You get pleasing skin tones very well. But, it doesn't always leave the rest of the color unaffected. Look at the fire engine picture.

 

So, I think we all have different likes for skin tones and we may have different likes for the rest of the general color rendition of a camera. For example, I might not want a peaches and cream complexion to a ruddy old sailor. You, on the other hand get paid to make people look and feel good about their photographs. It is an experience. And, If I were you I would pick what works to that end.

 

I, on the other hand, walk around on vacation and take snap shots and endeavor for a moment, and that is where the M shines, for me. The rest of the time I work my ass off all week long like you. So, for me, it has nothing to do with a studio or clients or matching a workflow or efficiency. I hope you realize we are aware of the IR decisions Leica has made and we understand why they chose to do that. And, to that end, I hope you enjoy the M240.

 

Just,

 

Rick

 

I agree, skin tones are a subjective decision. I do not particularly have an issue toning down or intensifying skin tones for creative reasons ... heck, most of these cameras can hardly custom white balance for the newer low-energy tungsten bulbs taking over everywhere ... so it ain't easy with any camera indoors at higher ISOs.

 

Yes, adjusting for optimal skin tones can affect the surrounding image ... in the case of the "fire engine" M9 shot, it was an interior lit by tungsten but the firehouse garage door was open right behind me, and it was a very clear blue sky day ... so the reflected light from that source was intensely blue (affecting part of the dress, the chrome, and mixing temps in the background). No camera can selectively split the WB.

 

What I prefer is a base skin tone found in nature, which I can then take up or down based on creative reasons. Like Jaapv, I also use a rangefinder in tropical light that can be beastly at times, so that is also a consideration. I'm shooting a job in Miami this January for example (poor me : -).

 

I know that based on my examples so far in may be easy to type cast the skin tones I'm after ... however, not every people shot I do is "peaches and cream" complexion ... I've exposed/WB for much more color impact ... or just to capture the lighting environment as it is like Chris Tribble alluded to. See attachments ... more creamy skin when appropriate, and for others not so much ... even the occasional wedding image.

 

I also appreciate what may have been sacrificed to make all of the M lenses perform reasonably well. It makes sense I guess given their design challenges. Perhaps future firmware issues will help, like the latest one seems to have done for a lot of M240 users. After all, this is a whole new sensor, and a new sensor company for Leica. It took some time for the S2 to get "tamed", I can attest to that first hand.

 

It comes down to what Jaavp mentioned: "I am not concerned with design constraints, I am concerned with obtaining the result I want and practical solutions."

 

- Marc

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!

[Rick]

Marc - Ruddy; adjective

rosy, red, pink, roseate, rubicund; healthy, glowing, fresh; flushed, blushing; florid, high-colored; rubescent. ANTONYMS pale. Not yellow or orange. For me, a more natural less waxy aesthetic. As you said so well, something found in nature.

 

I also agree with Jaapv, "I am not concerned with design constraints, I am concerned with obtaining the result I want and practical solutions." And, for me that means a solution to use my M-lenses with and it doesn't have to be the M240 necessarily (my A7R is coming soon). A camera I can use my M-lenses on and get a look I want. I do understand that your world is more studio based and their may not be a practical solution for you and the M240.

 

I hope you come up with some insights and some practical solutions for us. Anyway, that is it for me. Their is no reason to go back and forth on what anyone prefers for color or skin tone.

 

Rick

[adan]

Attached are two pictures. Lighting was primarily halogen downspots or LED downspots tuned to "tungsten" coloration. A little blue daylight leakage is visible in the background

 

Pics are white balanced for the silver accessory boxes bottom center of the frames.

 

Leica rep's blouse and jacket were both "visually black" materials. Both show magenta IR contamination.

 

One picture is with M9 and one with M240 - anyone care to guess which is which?

 

35 Summicron v.4, ISO 800, f/2

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!

[Stealth3kpl]

Mz=M240.

Pete

[Rick]

Mz=M240.

Pete

 

+1

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...anyone care to guess which is which?...

Which raw converter did you use? Default settings of the latter?

[mwilliamsphotography]

Marc - Ruddy; adjective

rosy, red, pink, roseate, rubicund; healthy, glowing, fresh; flushed, blushing; florid, high-colored; rubescent. ANTONYMS pale. Not yellow or orange. For me, a more natural less waxy aesthetic. As you said so well, something found in nature.

 

I also agree with Jaapv, "I am not concerned with design constraints, I am concerned with obtaining the result I want and practical solutions." And, for me that means a solution to use my M-lenses with and it doesn't have to be the M240 necessarily (my A7R is coming soon). A camera I can use my M-lenses on and get a look I want. I do understand that your world is more studio based and their may not be a practical solution for you and the M240.

 

I hope you come up with some insights and some practical solutions for us. Anyway, that is it for me. Their is no reason to go back and forth on what anyone prefers for color or skin tone.

 

Rick

 

Bad assumption that I'm studio based unless you mean "business photography" verses "personal work" ... 80% of my photography is candid location work, street photography (Leica MM), personal travel images (whatever strikes my fancy at the time), and a LOT of family stuff including the inevitable pets. I've all but retired from commercial work. Still do "fitness portraits" in studio like the body builder above ... and some family studio portrait work in the winter.

 

I have a Sony A7R coming also ... and thanks to a friend who already has one, I've already tried it with some key M lenses I use a lot ... the M50/0.95 and M75/AA are amazing to use on it.

 

"Not yellow or orange" ... or magenta : -)

 

Haven't a clue what to do with the M240 files at this point ... will just keep fooling around, and another friend has some profile suggestions I may try.

 

- Marc

[paulsydaus]

Hi,

I've always used the Leica UV/IR filters and never had any problems with reflections. How common is this? Under what conditions?

Thanks!

 

 

Yes, they cut both .You could call them visible light pass filters . Of course, with modern lenses, the UV part is not really needed.

 

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/en/industrial-solutions/industrial-filters/products/filter-types/cut-filter/486-uv-ir-cut-filter/

 

 

These are multicoated too, reducing the reflection problem Leica filters have.

[Rick]

Marc - I'm really looking forward to trying the A7R on 50 Cron APO when I get it back. It is back at Leica Germany for the central veiling flare issue. Also, I can't imagine the detail I'll get from the 280/4 APO. And, I'm sure the color will be fine.

[mirekti]

Yes, they cut both .You could call them visible light pass filters . Of course, with modern lenses, the UV part is not really needed.

 

Jos. Schneider Optische Werke Kreuznach: 486 UV- IR- Cut Filter

 

 

These are multicoated too, reducing the reflection problem Leica filters have.

 

I didn't find 46mm Schneider. Are these good enough too? Amazon.com: B+W 46mm UV/IR Cut with with Multi-Resistant Coating (486M): Camera & Photo

Do B+W filters produce reflections?

I will have to buy 46mm and 49mm filters as I have 35 FLE, 75mm Cron and 135 APO.

Can someone confirm these will fit under the lens hood of each lens, please?

 

And what should one use for his wide angle lenses?

I plan on buying a 21mm SEM and found this:

"Please note however that, in contrast to mass-colored (integrally colored) filter glass, the (486M) UV-IR cut filter is based on thin-film technology. More than 30 interference coatings are vapor-deposited on one side, while the opposite side is MRC-coated. In wide-angle lenses, the laws of physics lead to shallower incidence angles for peripheral rays. For geometric reasons these rays have to travel further through the interference coatings than rays traveling vertically through the coatings in the center of the lens. With increasing angle of incidence, this leads to a change in light color towards blue. This effect can clearly be seen by looking at an UV-IR barrier filter from an angle. The color of the reflected light changes, with a similar effect on the light traveling through the filter. The filter is therefore not suitable for lens systems with an angle of view of more than 60° "

[01af]

One picture is with M9 and one with M (Typ 240)—anyone care to guess which is which?

My guess: Mz = M9; Mx = M (Typ 240)

[adan]

I'll leave you in suspense until Monday sometime, in case anyone else wants to guess.

 

Although I think I've demonstrated that there is very little difference between the M9 and M240 with regard to IR sensitivity. Both show about the same amount - if there are color differences, they are probably due to some other factor.

 

@ lct - not sure it matters which converter was used, since it was used identically for both images. But it was Adobe Camera Raw with Adobe's defaults (except for manual WB as described).

[lct]

Than you Andy. So Mz = M240 to me.

[John Black]

I didn't find 46mm Schneider. Are these good enough too? Amazon.com: B+W 46mm UV/IR Cut with with Multi-Resistant Coating (486M): Camera & Photo

Do B+W filters produce reflections?

 

B+W and Schneider are the same company (history). There are two version of the filter; this is for wider than 60º --- B+W Filter

[mirekti]

B+W and Schneider are the same company (history). There are two version of the filter; this is for wider than 60º --- B+W Filter

 

Thanks, but the details from the provided link read the same statement i.e. not for lenses wider than 60.

[jaapv]

There is nothing new there - this has been discussed all along here since 2006….

It is an understandable statement for a filter maker selling the things, but there are many nuances.

[daure]

So Mx = M240 to me.

[satijntje]

My guess: Mz = M9; Mx = M (Typ 240)

 

+1

 

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

To begin with, there is a considerable exposure difference between the two.