thighslapper Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share #61 Posted May 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, from one Grumpy Old Fart to another, Thankyou for your effort, it helps me understand this camera much better than before. I would still appreciate it if you could try a quick shot with a Slow memory card at High ISO. If the image is even cleaner than now, some users might want to try for themselves. I still get this question in regard to the M9 and M Monochrom, the slower cards make a difference in them. Sorry ....... I only have a heap of Sandisk 16gb Ultra and Extremes ... and have never ventured into any other territory as Leica's are finicky with regard to cards ........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 17, 2015 Posted May 17, 2015 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here MM, M240, MM246 comparison images. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thighslapper Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share #62 Posted May 17, 2015 ThighSlapper: Any chance you will do comparison shots using a human subject, even at a single ISO setting? being old, sad and grumpy I have a limited list of folk to call on and my partner will (as usual) run a mile when a camera appears. I will try and collar my father ........ but I'm off to Poland for a week in a couple of days time so it may not be for a while ..... and I'm not lugging all three with me ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share #63 Posted May 17, 2015 It could be me ( or my screen ), but in your ISO 6400 M240 image I see less noise compared to MM image?! correct ..... and it surprised me as well, although on reflection not as much as it should ...... the M240 files have always taken a fair bit of sharpening and NR and held up very well compared to the M9 ...... which is why I deliberately posted images processed to give the best final image that I could get ..... I will set up a dropbox link to the original DNG's tomorrow if I get time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
profus Posted May 17, 2015 Share #64 Posted May 17, 2015 correct ..... and it surprised me as well, although on reflection not as much as it should ...... the M240 files have always taken a fair bit of sharpening and NR and held up very well compared to the M9 ...... which is why I deliberately posted images processed to give the best final image that I could get ..... I will set up a dropbox link to the original DNG's tomorrow if I get time. Thanks for answering. Good to know I am not the only one, who saw it... Hope you'll find time to set up the link to DNG's, but in any case - thank you for your effort! Take care / Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted May 17, 2015 Share #65 Posted May 17, 2015 It could be me ( or my screen ), but in your ISO 6400 M240 image I see less noise compared to MM image?! Yet up to ISO 3,200, the old MM looks much better than the M240. I guess it is the same as with the M9, as long as you stay within its ISO limits, the CCD sensor is fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 18, 2015 Share #66 Posted May 18, 2015 Nicely done tests and a good idea to make them as good as you could - I did the complete opposite (treated them all identically) . . . but to be fair I think the results were the same! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted May 18, 2015 Share #67 Posted May 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh well - why not my own two cents' worth. First - great appreciation to Jono for starting this off, and to others for interesting and informative posts. Second - my own position is that for the moment, in terms of image quality, the M240 works well for me. I found it to be a dramatic step up from the M9 in terms of functionality (especially the utility of LF / EVF, and the quieter, better shutter) + I'm glad I made the switch as it doesn't share the sensor issues that have emerged with the M. However, it was less of a turning point in terms of image quality, despire there being an appreciable difference at higher ISO. Third - for my work I need two matched bodies, I need colour with the option of B&W and I have occasional need to use lenses like the R 80-200 when I don't want to lug two systems, but still need reach beyond the 135 Apo-Telyt. Financially it doesn't make sense at the moment (and it didn't in the case of the original MM) to add a monochrome body to the mix. The b&w conversions I can get from the M240 are(more than) sufficient for my needs. Fourth - when I make the next major spend it will be because the next M gives me greater functionality. Priorities will be: enhanced processing power to ensure greater stability / zero lockups enhanced EVF / VF capacity (zero or close to zero delay + movable on-screen focus point - this latter would be essential) Bonuses would be better high ISO performance - though the reality is that I VERY rarely need to shoot above 1600 I hope all of you have fun with the MM246 if you get one - it's certainly a lovely piece of kit and capable of taking great images. Me, I'll wait until the M240 replacement comes along - IF it offers me what I want in terms of improvements. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winedemonium Posted May 18, 2015 Share #68 Posted May 18, 2015 M240 iso 3200 100% crops Biggest difference here, to my eyes. Both MMs are such night vision cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2015 Share #69 Posted May 18, 2015 Amazing post. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share #70 Posted May 18, 2015 Oh well - why not my own two cents' worth. First - great appreciation to Jono for starting this off, and to others for interesting and informative posts. Second - my own position is that for the moment, in terms of image quality, the M240 works well for me. I found it to be a dramatic step up from the M9 in terms of functionality (especially the utility of LF / EVF, and the quieter, better shutter) + I'm glad I made the switch as it doesn't share the sensor issues that have emerged with the M. However, it was less of a turning point in terms of image quality, despire there being an appreciable difference at higher ISO. Third - for my work I need two matched bodies, I need colour with the option of B&W and I have occasional need to use lenses like the R 80-200 when I don't want to lug two systems, but still need reach beyond the 135 Apo-Telyt. Financially it doesn't make sense at the moment (and it didn't in the case of the original MM) to add a monochrome body to the mix. The b&w conversions I can get from the M240 are(more than) sufficient for my needs. Fourth - when I make the next major spend it will be because the next M gives me greater functionality. Priorities will be: enhanced processing power to ensure greater stability / zero lockups enhanced EVF / VF capacity (zero or close to zero delay + movable on-screen focus point - this latter would be essential) Bonuses would be better high ISO performance - though the reality is that I VERY rarely need to shoot above 1600 I hope all of you have fun with the MM246 if you get one - it's certainly a lovely piece of kit and capable of taking great images. Me, I'll wait until the M240 replacement comes along - IF it offers me what I want in terms of improvements. Best ........ the little church where I took these photos is always dark and with the MM at base iso I would struggle to handhold at f2. In contrast the 12500 shots ...... which in prints at A2 still looks great is 1/350sec at f5.6 ..... and opens up a whole new world of flexibility, particularly low lit mobile subjects ...... you can almost pick a speed, pick an aperture and shoot, regardless of the conditions and know that all the images are going to be eminently usable, irrespective of the iso. You really need to see big prints made from this camera to appreciate just how good it is ....... although my 100% crops highlight the differences between the three, it gives a misleading view of how the noise impacts on the final image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted May 18, 2015 Share #71 Posted May 18, 2015 I'm looking at just the ISO 320 samples (at 100%) comparing the M240 and M246, and i see a material difference between the two. To me, it's not even close. The brick at the back looks completely different in those images. I'm not sure that the difference surprises me either. I think stripping out a Bayer filter makes a difference. To me, the M246 image looks much more "immediate" and "natural / organic" -- whereas the bricks in the M240 image look more computerised and not as fully "natural". I saw this type of difference between the M9 and first Monochrom. I see it clearly again between the M240 and M246. PS, many thanks for posting the comparisons, your efforts are much appreciated! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted May 19, 2015 Share #72 Posted May 19, 2015 ........ the little church where I took these photos is always dark and with the MM at base iso I would struggle to handhold at f2. Just to clarify, were these photos taken handheld? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share #73 Posted May 19, 2015 Just to clarify, were these photos taken handheld? yes ...... they nailed me to a pew and tied my hands to the camera ...... ....... errr no ..... all strictly tripod to avoid any possible variations and taken with timer delay to avoid any shake ..... just trying to indicate just how difficult an interior this is to photograph normally ........ for colour I have had to resort to HDR in the past to get a decent photo ....... This was handheld at 12500 with the MM 246 with my voigt 12/5.6: 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/245136-mm-m240-mm246-comparison-images/?do=findComment&comment=2818563'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share #74 Posted May 19, 2015 give us a clue how you delete a post ......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share #75 Posted May 19, 2015 and this was an HDR tripod version on the M from easter ...... 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/245136-mm-m240-mm246-comparison-images/?do=findComment&comment=2818567'>More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted May 19, 2015 Share #76 Posted May 19, 2015 Really appreciate your extraordinary efforts on this, and I'm especially intrigued by the report of the print comparisons. When I printed the identical scene, exposure, etc from my M8 and compared to the M240, the latter was clearly better, but I was astounded how good the print from the M8 was. For my purposes, with my style, at my ISOs and at my print sizes, I could not see much difference between original Monochrom and the M240 with respect to both resolution and tonal gradation. I'm wondering if the M246 is really the quantum leap that several respected and objective reviewers seem to believe it is. A little "field camera" in my pocket would be a great deal of fun. I hope to get my hands on one at a Leica workshop or some other venue. Although, in the past when "testing" Leica cameras I have been fortunate to buy a slightly used one at discount, use it for 6 months, then sell it for little loss and sometimes even a small profit. Love that about Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samir Jahjah Posted May 19, 2015 Share #77 Posted May 19, 2015 Very interesting! Looking at the noise on the top of the wooden lectern, and also the white cloth to the right, I much prefer the MM9. I agree - the wall and cloth seem to have more texture with the MM9... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted May 19, 2015 Share #78 Posted May 19, 2015 I am think this has been posted before, but I'm in a hurry, so apologies in advance for possible duplication, but this review article is one of the best I have seen so far. Further apologies of I am not meant to link to this... although I am sure any mods around can delete if necessary. From EGOR (of course), but enjoy... http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted May 19, 2015 Share #79 Posted May 19, 2015 I am think this has been posted before, but I'm in a hurry, so apologies in advance for possible duplication, but this review article is one of the best I have seen so far. Further apologies of I am not meant to link to this... although I am sure any mods around can delete if necessary. From EGOR (of course), but enjoy... http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/ All the "Leica sent me a camera to try..." articles are a pleasant read, but none I have seen go into the depth of this post, and the effort thighslapper has put into this is truly outstanding. As always, some will see what they want to see, but I respect the commentary on the prints as objective and perhaps the key element. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 19, 2015 Share #80 Posted May 19, 2015 give us a clue how you delete a post ......... How can I delete my post? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.