jbl Posted February 2, 2014 Share #1 Posted February 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just got the M this week to replace my M9. I’ve been futzing around with it sort of trying to figure out how to like it. I just took this of my daughter with the Noctilux wide open. I’m sold. This new sensor feels a lot like Portra to me, less like the M9’s slide film feel. At least that’s my first impression. Not a bad thing per se, just different. -jbl 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/221372-ok-i%E2%80%99m-sold/?do=findComment&comment=2524257'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Hi jbl, Take a look here ok, I’m sold. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
steveBK Posted February 2, 2014 Share #2 Posted February 2, 2014 Wonderful shot and interesting observation! Coming from an M8, I find the new M to be much less temperamental about exposure. Sort of like slide vs negative film I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share #3 Posted February 3, 2014 Thanks :-). This is totally subjective, but…. I remember reading that the M9 CCD was modeled on Kodachrome. To me, the sensor felt a lot like Kodachrome, but a bit less yellow than Kodachrome was. It wasn’t anywhere near as blueish as the Fuji slide films are, but the M9 definitely felt like slide film to me. Many of the sample M shots I’ve seen in reviews look a lot flatter. Checkout Thorsten’s review or even Steve Huff’s article on it. You see a lot of flatter photos than on the M9. Not necessarily flatter bad, just flatter, closer to how I remember Portra behaving. The skin tones, at least for caucasians, are far, far superior on the M. The M9 always had trouble in the magenta areas for me. My 2 cents. -jbl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 3, 2014 Share #4 Posted February 3, 2014 Many of the sample M shots I’ve seen in reviews look a lot flatter. Checkout Thorsten’s review or even Steve Huff’s article on it. You see a lot of flatter photos than on the M9. Not necessarily flatter bad, just flatter, closer to how I remember Portra behaving. The skin tones, at least for caucasians, are far, far superior on the M. The M9 always had trouble in the magenta areas for me. I agree that the new M firmware has made significant improvements to skin tones and overall color, but I also feel that most of the differences you are noticing are due to post processing techniques and not the sensor per se. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share #5 Posted February 3, 2014 You’re probably right, this is more what it looks like out of the camera. I’m sure it could be post-processed to look like the M9 (though maybe not the other way around: once DR is lost it can’t come back). I really did like the look of the M9 under decent outdoor light. I was never happy with it indoors. -jbl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted February 3, 2014 Share #6 Posted February 3, 2014 I agree that the new M firmware has made significant improvements to skin tones and overall color, but I also feel that most of the differences you are noticing are due to post processing techniques and not the sensor per se. I thought the latest firmware only changed WB values for the auto settings? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 4, 2014 Share #7 Posted February 4, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I thought the latest firmware only changed WB values for the auto settings? I believe the firmware changes were more involved than that, as Leica addressed the issue of skin tones and embedded color profile. It was not as simple as just fixing AutoWB, which could and did change values, sometimes severely, from frame to frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share #8 Posted February 4, 2014 Correct me if I’m wrong, but affecting the embedded color profile when I’m shooting RAW and using my own color profiles that were generated from a Color Checker chart, I shouldn’t see any difference, right? -jbl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 4, 2014 Share #9 Posted February 4, 2014 After the M240 was released many of us used the Passport color checker to create custom profiles for use with DNG files, but there was never one that seemed to work consistently over varying white balance temperatures. The latest fw seems to have resolved most of the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 4, 2014 Share #10 Posted February 4, 2014 I believe the firmware changes were more involved than that, as Leica addressed the issue of skin tones and embedded color profile. It was not as simple as just fixing AutoWB, which could and did change values, sometimes severely, from frame to frame. Correct - I for one feel no need for global profile adjustments with LR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted February 4, 2014 Share #11 Posted February 4, 2014 Thanks for sharing, and congrats with new M . I use M9 and M side by side, and as far as I can make out the only significant difference of IQ is the improved dynamics of M, and a tad better high-ISO. Then again I dont use JPEGs out-of-camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 4, 2014 Share #12 Posted February 4, 2014 Correct - I for one feel no need for global profile adjustments with LR. +! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 5, 2014 Share #13 Posted February 5, 2014 I think all the discussion of different film types misses a bigger, more general point: the Leica M9 is the only consumer digital camera that looks like film. All the rest, and I've had and used a bunch, look digital—including the new M. The M9 and its spinoffs seem unique in this regard and I think as a result will become sought-after items in coming years. This is why Leica could charge so much and do so well with a camera that measured poorly on technical performance: it had a tonality, richness, 3D quality, and "rightness" to the files that defied the technical specs and has yet to be matched by other non-medium format digital cameras. Digital is fine, and the new M is really nice and has many advantages, but for IQ at normal ISOs, the M9 is still king. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share #14 Posted February 5, 2014 That’s a good point. I’m not ready to part ways with my M9 yet, we shall see :-). -jbl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 5, 2014 Share #15 Posted February 5, 2014 If you can, use the M9 during the day and the M240 at night when you need the speed. The M9 is kind of a dog in low light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share #16 Posted February 5, 2014 Yep. That’s why I bought the M :-). -jbl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted February 5, 2014 Share #17 Posted February 5, 2014 The files have their own elegant look, even if they're not as 3D or film-like as M9 files. They're still better than most DSLR or mirrorless cameras I've seen. Plus, there's the object itself, which brings tears to one's eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.