M240 Color Test ... Oh, oh!

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is no secret to many that I've been put off by the M240 color rendition ... and I believe I'm not alone.

 

Of course I was rebuked for my opinion and told I should have no opinion on the files I was seeing unless I tried the camera myself.

 

Of course, most anything can be adjusted in post, but my concern was why all the work to get decent color? Especially color in lighting a M rangerfinder may be more likely to be used ... low light, a bit higher ISOs, more likely than not auto WB in fast paced shooting conditions ... and likely tungsten based lighting.

 

So, when I got the opportunity to get a Demo M240, I did. Arrived yesterday. Charged the battery, and loaded the latest firmware. (FW_M240_2_0_011)

 

I had previously discussed the color issue with another Pro photographer friend that has used the M240 and also found the color problematic ... except he had a simple suggestion for a solution that frankly I didn't believe until I tried it.

 

So I did a simple test of his theory.

 

I set up a controlled studio shot with constant tungsten light from my Profoto strobes ... that way there would be no variance shot-to-shot.

 

I shot one image normally, ISO 1600, f/2.8 ... then the same exact image with a Leica UV/IR Cut filter I still had from my M8 days.

 

Brought them both into LR, eyedropper WBed the neutral shooting table surface, converted to web images and loaded them here.

 

 

BINGO!

 

Weak IR filtration affecting the color which explains a lot of what I was seeing in M240 files.

 

Next test will be shooting people in various lighting and at different ISOs ... with and without IR to see how it affects skin tones.

 

Extremely nice camera BTW ...

 

- 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!

[Advertisement]

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

[01af]

With the M9, it would look just the same

[edwardkaraa]

The IR contamination is exactly what I mentioned yesterday regarding DW studio comparison between the M and A7r. It showed on the black fabric of a similar photo bag. I guess this is the price to pay to make wide M lenses work without corner smearing, an ultra thin UV/IR cut filter. Many thanks for this thread, Marc. Looking forward to the next installments!

[Leonil]

So what exactly IS the verdict?

 

Get a UV/IR filter? Get a different camera? If get a UV/IR filter, which one?

[lct]

Yes was the same with the M9 more or less and some of us are still using IR cut filters for some reason. Now the remaining IR sensitivity will affect skin tones much less than the default settings of LR itself if the M240 profile or LR5 shows the same red saturation as that of LR4. I did not try the former though but i would compare with C1 if i were the OP.

[01af]

I guess this is the price to pay to make wide M lenses work without corner smearing ...

Exactly.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nothing new here; I and others have repeatedly mentioned the benefits of a cut filter on the M9 and new M, neither of which reduce IR contamination (under some circumstances) as well as using an external filter on my M8.2. Makes for nice b/w, too.

 

Still of course need to deal with proper WB, profiling, etc., for best results.

 

Jeff

[lct]

So what exactly IS the verdict?

Get a UV/IR filter? Get a different camera? If get a UV/IR filter, which one?

Just the OP dicovering something we've been working with since the launch of the camera. Zero reason to panic if you ask me but if you don't own a bunch of UV/IR filters already i would buy one Leica, B+W, Heliopan or even Rocolax sample in each diameter of your lenses for sake of precaution.

[mirekti]

Zero reason to panic if you ask me but if you don't own a bunch of UV/IR filters already i would buy one Leica, B+W, Heliopan or even Rocolax sample in each diameter of your lenses for sake of precaution.

 

...and end up with this http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/307627-35fle-filter-reflections.html

[lct]

Old story indeed. Some of us are still using M8/M8.2 cameras with permanent red noses more or less. Better remove any filter for night shootings though.

[AlanJW]

Marc: I am not sure that one can say anything about the color rendition of a camera without including the raw developer. It is all a process with in camera capture just the start of it.

 

I do see the magenta in your test shot, but since May when I got my M(240), color rendition has not been an issue. I created a profile with an Xrite Colorchecker and use that as the default camera setting in ACR, and have had no issues with rendition.

 

There are some people who prefer the way Canon sensors render, and others Nikon (not intending to foment that debate). They are all affected by the way the raw developers work. Having used in the last several years Canon 5Dii and Nikon D800E and M8, M9 and M(240), my view of the M(240) is that the M(240) is no worse (and no better) than any other except the M8, which really needed the cut filters. It can be made to work quite well with a minimum of effort and the files are very easy to correct and hold detail in shadows and highlights as well as any.

 

Of course this is very personal. What is good enough for me may not be good enough for you.

[jaapv]

Yes, but working with high IR-content light can turn postprocessing into a colour fight, more so than the M9. I have dug up my IR /UV filters again.

[adan]

Very interesting! I wonder where the M240 falls on an IR "spectrum" between the M8 and M9.

 

Coincidentally, I just got to try a demo M240 myself today. REALLY liked the reduced shutter noise, and the reduced image noise. Can't say much about the color rendition as such, yet (except that the "as shot" auto WB seems to work much better than the M9's).

 

Fortunately, I get another chance to try it out Sunday (today or tomorrow depending on your time and date zone ) - and I happen to have a nice IR-pass filter (as in, for intentionally making IR pictures), so I will see what kind of exposure is needed to pull out an "IR-only" exposure. Sadly, no green foliage this time of year.

 

As I recall, when the M9 was young I checked it with the same filter, and it was about 100(?) times less IR sensitive than the M8 - but would still record an IR image if the ISO was high enough and the shutter speed long enough.

 

I've always known that the M9 color (without UV/IR cut filters, since they introduce their own problems with my preferred wides) was not quite as pretty as the M8 with UV/IR filters - but just worked around it, since I needed the FF sensor.

[BerndReini]

The M240 is definitely more sensitive to IR than the M9. This could easily be seen in some of the earliest samples. So now what? With wide lenses, there is no built in correction for the cyan color shift that an IR filter produces at the corners. Post-production again?

 

Oh boy, two steps forward, one step back.

[tom0511]

Interesting.

But when we would use an IR-Cut filter we would need new profiles , right?

I am very interested in your findings about skin tones!

[jaapv]

No. Why?

If the IR content of the light is low there is no problem and the profiles are fine. So reducing IR by a filter when needed does not make a difference.

[Rick]

This has been pointed out here before. Here is the Leica FAQ from their website discussed awhile ago:

 

5. Do I have to use a UV/IR filter on the new M? How infrared sensitive is the new M?

 

All image sensors for Leica M cameras are designed and constructed to provide the best possible image quality with Leica M lenses. One prerequisite for this is the use of an extremely thin infrared filter on the image sensor to ensure a full corner-to-corner rendition of details. The consequence of this thin filter is that infrared light is not completely absorbed. This may result in slight color variations in certain lighting situations. This can be particularly critical when photographing dark-colored textiles in incandescent light. The infrared sensitivity of the M8 is so high that we strongly recommend the use of a UV/IR filter. The infrared sensitivity of the M9 and M (Typ 240) cameras is approximately 5% of that of the M8; these cameras can therefore be used without an IR cut filter.
Nevertheless, when shooting critical subjects, it cannot be completely ruled out that corrections in post processing may be necessary.

[mwilliamsphotography]

I appreciate all comments as I explore this camera.

 

I will say that getting this demo M240 is a dangerous undertaking. It is a VERY seductive piece of gear for a long time die-in-the-wool rangefinder user like myself. It truly is an industrial design work of art that feels fabulous in hand, has a GREAT viewfinder, and is smooth to operate ... the shutter whisper itself is a Siren's song. However, in the end it is just a camera that one has to evaluate based on one's needs when making photographs.

 

RE: IR ...I do not agree that the M9 was the same, as has been suggested ... I had 2 M8s and 3 different M9s I used for paying work, including weddings with black tuxedos made of fabric not found in nature, and the M9s never showed IR effects like this. As far as the M8 is concerned, I was one of the first to point out the magenta blacks issue, which led to the IR diagnosis.

 

As far as post work, I use LR and have no plans to alter that. When I work I use more than one camera at most shoots including my own S2, Sony A99 and some form of a M rangefinder ... plus either Nikon or Canon DSLRs shot by my second shooter at weddings.

 

All the images are then dropped into one folder and sorted by time shot because the "creative" story flow edit sequence is of paramount importance. One catalog with access to various plug-in processing programs with-in LR, and non-distructive editing. Doing hundreds of jobs with thousands of images to process this way had helped me develop an eye for processing to some level of consistency across digital camera platforms. If ANY camera makes it exceedingly difficult to obtain a reasonable consistency, and I can't manage to make a LR User Preset to ease the task, then it comes into question. I had that issue with the Nikon D3X, a fine camera that required to much attention in post ... which I replaced with a Sony A900, a much more well behaved choice in terms of initial color response.

 

The other aspect is how and where I use a rangefinder. IMO, most cameras do a good job in daylight at normal ISOs ... how well they handle more challenging light is the question ... and this is especially true for my rangefinder work that tends to be available tungsten or mixed lighting.

 

I say the above not to bore everyone, but to set the context I use in evaluating any camera as opposed to what other people find important. I just did some preliminary testing of the Sony A7R in the same manner (which is not a rangefinder, nor was considered as a replacement for one).

 

Almost every photo I take has a person in it. Skin tones are the number one evaluation for me. Preliminary M240 images shot in normal levels of indoor tungsten @ ISO 640 to 1600 using a custom WB off a grey card show overly magenta skin with the remainder of the environmental scene being reasonably correct (as long as there isn't any artificial black material). This is difficult to correct without a lot of effort.

 

The question is whether a preset can work. I still have a set of M8 IR Presets in LR, and none of them worked.

 

I will continue on trying the camera in various situations today and tomorrow where possible ... I'd really like this to work.

 

- Marc

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

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?

[jaapv]

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.