M240 Under Attack

[kcnarf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter, aka Prosophus on his website of the same name states,

 

"I’ll note three things I don’t appreciate about the Leica M240 sensor:

 

"Colour signature. The native Leica M240 colour signature is suboptimal for skin tones, and one has to constantly fight against the default settings to achieve acceptable results.

Colour Tonality. Colour transitions are rendered more coarsely by the M240 vs. the M9. The M9 renders tones in a more subtle and delicate fashion.

Microcontrast. Although the M240 sensor (24 MP) will objectively out-resolve the Leica M9 sensor (18 MP) at 100% magnification, the M240 files as a whole are more “muddy” and “flat” as compared to the more “crisp” and “3D”-like images generated by the M9. See here for two examples](see various photo-sharing sites, photography fora, and generally the entire internet for more …).

 

"As for the Nikon Df and Sony A7/A7R, they are not rangefinder cameras, and so obviously cannot provide the rangefinder experience, which is important to me. Also, being CMOS sensor cameras, they cannot equal the M9 in Points #2 and #3 above."

 

REACTIONS, ANYONE?

[farnz]

… REACTIONS, ANYONE?

So what?

 

Pete.

[zeitz]

I assume we will see his M240 offered for sale on the used market.

[Jeff S]

REACTIONS, ANYONE?

 

Yes, in hundreds of other posts in various other threads. Just search 'M color' or 'M9 versus M240 color'.

 

Jeff

[photolandscape]

I am not the world's most patient human, but I am getting weary of all of the endless and often pointless critiquing of the M240. It has strengths, it has faults. I am six months and 6000 shots into mine. The only appreciable problem I have seen is red edging, and I will be sending my M240 in to have it examined and hopefully corrected for this one issue. But beyond that, I don't see any significant difference in the way it renders files. They are DNG files--simply a starting point. My role is to take the files and bring them along to match my recollection of what I saw when I recorded the image in the first place. To my way of thinking, I have made some of the best images I've shot with the M240, just as I did with my M9. That's it.

 

It ain't cheap, it ain't perfect, but I would take it over any other camera out there. Period.

 

Yes, in hundreds of other posts in various other threads. Just search 'M color' or 'M9 versus M240 color'.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Make that one more critique.

 

Jeff

[Guest Gilgamesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

narf - your link doesn't work.

 

Direct, out of the camera, the M240's DNG's require PP. So what?

 

Having viewed many, many gallery images here on this site, I can only assume most people here simply do not use PP or if they do, it's mere lip service or just don't know how to use PP to achieve the / any reasonable final result?

 

This is a flawed camera on so many, many levels, but the files to my mind are not really one of them. I do not own an M9/8 but does it really matter, either enjoy the files, get the skills required to extract the best from the files or sell (or do not buy) the M240. No one cares either way.

[jip]

I enjoy mine so... Why care about attacks

[quadraticadder]

Leica still sells the M-E for folks that prefer it. In that way, Leica is doing what the CCD folks want by selling a camera that contains the CCD sensor. Its even less costly than the M. So why bash the M? Because M9 owners don't like the M's output? Because they believe that DXO results are irrelevant? Perhaps to keep the value of their M9's from dropping? Good for them! As for me, the higher dynamic range and better low light capabilities of the M are a much better fit for my preferences. I shoot available light, indoors, outdoors, during the day and night. I almost never shoot at base ISO. And dynamic range drops as you increase the ISO as it is, so it's best to start with as much as possible. I didn't buy an M to use it only at base or moderate ISOs. I would have bought the M-E, then.

Best,

Steve

[kcnarf]

DEAR GILAGAMESH:

 

Why do you assume that I agree with Peter/Prosophos and a bevy of other highly proficient photographers of like mind? I don'!! But I nevertheless have enough respect for them to keep their words under inquisitive consideration.

[jaapv]

So he prefers the M9/ME. I have both an M9 and M240 and prefer the latter. So what , why should anybody care? Personal taste...

 

FWIIW, colour output of a sensor is not determined by the sensor technology, CCD or CMOS, but by the colour choices made in the Bayer filter and demosaicing algorithms.

[MarkP]

So he prefers the M9/ME. I have both an M9 and M240 and prefer the latter. So what , why should anybody care? Personal taste...

 

Exactly.

 

Now I have the Monochrom and the M, the M9 just sits there looking very lonely except when my son or nephew take it out for a spin....

[pieterpronk]

I agree with Peter in the sense that I prefer the output of the M9 over that of the M240. Also I do not think the differences in output can be consistently covered up with post processing.

I find it hard to pinpoint the exact causes for the differences I see, whether is color rendition, sharpness or noise randomness. But I do see a difference and have a clear personal preference.

 

But a preference is not an attack. Let's not create more drama than necessary, since any discussion about color, sharpness or general image quality will stir up plenty drama even when we try to keep our heads cool.

[01af]

Peter a.k.a. Prosophos on his website of the same name states,

 

"I’ll note three things I don’t appreciate about the Leica M (Typ 240) sensor:

 

"Colour signature. The native Leica M (Typ 240) colour signature is suboptimal for skin tones, and one has to constantly fight against the default settings to achieve acceptable results."

Peter Prosophos confuses the final colour output with the camera's colour signature. It's true that the M (Typ 240)'s 'native' colour output in the 'native' raw converter (which is Lightroom) is terrible right out of the box, especially for skin tones ... but so is the M9's. Create custom profiles for both, install them in your raw converter as the respective cameras' defaults, problem solved.

 

 

"Colour Tonality. Colour transitions are rendered more coarsely by the M (Typ 240) vs. the M9. The M9 renders tones in a more subtle and delicate fashion."

In my pictures, just the contrary is true ... especially in the shadow areas. The M (Typ 240) has better dynamic range and less noise, hence more delicate tones—not only at high ISO but also at low ISO.

 

Of course, you definitely need to apply an optimised profile in order to let the M (Typ 240) files shine. When using the original 'Embedded' or 'Adobe Standard' profiles in Camera Raw/Lightroom, the finer tonal details will get crushed in gross over-saturation. However this has absolutely nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS but simply is a matter of good vs bad profiles.

 

 

"Microcontrast. Although the M (Typ 240) sensor (24 MP) will objectively out-resolve the Leica M9 sensor (18 MP) at 100 % magnification, the M (Typ 240) files as a whole are more 'muddy' and 'flat' as compared to the more 'crisp' and '3D-like' images generated by the M9."

The M9 files have better micro-contrast indeed which adds acutance (perceived sharpness) to fine detail. But it does so at the expense of tonal subtlety. In the M (Typ 240) files, fine detail appears less crisp but more life-like. It's just a matter of taste which to prefer. I prefer the M (Typ 240)'s way of rendition because it looks less 'digital' and more realistic. And if required, you can always crank up micro-contrast in post-processing.

[Guest Gilgamesh]

kcnarf: I assumed nothing. I supposed nothing. Assumption & supposition are the mother of all mess-ups. Please re-read my comments and that will become clear.

 

My comments were not directed at you or them, they were a reflection of what I know to be true and the rest of the world can go hang for all I care as I happen to like the files, with or without a comparison to camera X or camera Y, which quite frankly is a dead-end game for people with too much time and not enough photo projects on-going.

 

I told you the link was not working.

[jaapv]

I agree with Peter in the sense that I prefer the output of the M9 over that of the M240. Also I do not think the differences in output can be consistently covered up with post processing.

I find it hard to pinpoint the exact causes for the differences I see, whether is color rendition, sharpness or noise randomness. But I do see a difference and have a clear personal preference.

 

But a preference is not an attack. Let's not create more drama than necessary, since any discussion about color, sharpness or general image quality will stir up plenty drama even when we try to keep our heads cool.

Ummm... covered up?

[thighslapper]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

The factors Narf is concerned about are essentially subjective.

 

I don't agree with his opinion ..... but he is welcome to air it if he wants .....

[jaapv]

I think the main point is that there is a bit of a learning curve to get optimal results out of the M240. Not everybody is prepared to do that. It really took me weeks, but now the colour is as good as it gets - skintones included.

For instance, any camera struggles with mixed tungsten, halogen and eco light.

I am happy with this:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/313353-selling-candles.html#post2581886

[Peter Branch]

........ FWIIW, colour output of a sensor is not determined by the sensor technology, CCD or CMOS, but by the colour choices made in the Bayer filter and demosaicing algorithms.

 

You are correct that the choice of CMOS or CCD plays little part in the final colour rendering but it is a bit more complicated than just the Bayer filter - although that is a major factor. The spectral sensitivity of the sensor and any IR filtering also play a significant role.

 

It is the overall spectral sensitivity that matters together with the subsequent digital algorithms.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mjh]

You are correct that the choice of CMOS or CCD plays little part in the final colour rendering but it is a bit more complicated than just the Bayer filter - although that is a major factor. The spectral sensitivity of the sensor and any IR filtering also play a significant role.

While the latter is obviously true, the choice of CCD vs. CMOS has no bearing on either spectral sensitivity or IR filtering.