MM, M240, MM246 comparison images

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't say I noticed any striking differences between the old and new MM files ..... except in the character of the noise, which to be honest I would prefer to get rid of ...... and if I wanted it for effect I woud be adding/altering it in PP

 

Whether the new MM image quality improvement is of any value to you depends entirely on your ultimate use of the images ....... If you are contributing to 'Pixel Peepers Monthly' you need an M246 upgrade to stay in the game ....... otherwise the old MM may be perfectly adequate.

 

What finally reassured me that I hadn't wasted my money was the print quality ...... at base iso at A2 it is stunning ..... and even at 12500 is really excellent..... and all the advantages of the M240 make the old MM feel clunky and fiddly in use.

 

I would have upgraded even if the image quality and iso performance was unchanged ...... the fact that these are significantly better makes this camera a delight to own and use.

[profus]

I can't say I noticed any striking differences between the old and new MM files .....

 

I would have upgraded even if the image quality and iso performance was unchanged ...... the fact that these are significantly better makes this camera a delight to own and use.

 

I am a bit confused now. First you say you didn't notice any striking differences between the old and new MM files. And then at the end you conclude that image quality ( and iso performance ) is significantly better?

[markforce]

I am a bit confused now. First you say you didn't notice any striking differences between the old and new MM files. And then at the end you conclude that image quality ( and iso performance ) is significantly better?

...I am assuming there's no striking difference at base ISO but the higher up you go the more apparent the difference is.

[thighslapper]

I meant the 'character' of the files as per the inevitable CCD versus CMOS debate ....... The tonal rendition to me looks the same and shadow recovery (at base iso at least) is similar ....... but as iso rises the disparity becomes ever more apparent. 

 

Anyway, I posted all these images and the originals so you can come to your own conclusions and make a more informed decision, rather than just listening to 'expert' opinions without any actual factual examples to support what they say.........

 

I'm not here to sell cameras for Leica .......   just a curious and mildly sceptical consumer ....   

[profus]

Well, I thought that I ( analyzing your original files, tnx again! ) - more or less - wrote pretty much the same / reached the same conclusion?

 

So I do not really know what we're arguing about? :-)

[algrove]

thighslapper

 

What a job! Who cares what we see, just the magnitude of work makes me blind.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Similarly, I'm not being even remotely critical of anyone's decision to buy the M(246) - platform consistency was why I had matching silver chrome cameras. The death of my M9 spoiled that.

 

My only issue is that talking about improved output is dancing on the head of a pin. I'm sure you can find it, but this thread does suggest that you need to go looking for it.

 

I accept I haven't played with the DNGs, but that rather reinforces my point. Thighslapper processed them - is there any need to "improve" on that processing? Not for me, I think.

[jonoslack]

Similarly, I'm not being even remotely critical of anyone's decision to buy the M(246) - platform consistency was why I had matching silver chrome cameras. The death of my M9 spoiled that.

 

My only issue is that talking about improved output is dancing on the head of a pin. I'm sure you can find it, but this thread does suggest that you need to go looking for it.

 

I accept I haven't played with the DNGs, but that rather reinforces my point. Thighslapper processed them - is there any need to "improve" on that processing? Not for me, I think.

Hi John

to be honest I think most 'upgrades' these days are dancing on the head of a pin from an IQ point of view . . . . although I think it's unquestionable that the 25,000 ISO on the new monochrom is better than that on the old. 

I'm going to buy one because I think the shutter/rangefinder/lcd/battery etc. etc. advantages are thoroughly worthwhile - and for platform consistency - black monochrom and silver chrome M240p is a nice combination. 

[IkarusJohn]

Quite right too. It's one of the reasons I like the matching LCDs on my M-A and Edition 60 

[Mike Rawcs]

The primary interest for me, and I hesitate to write this, is how 'film like' are the results from the camera? I know, I know, the old cliche: but what I love about film is that I can take a reading with an incident meter and get a range of tones from black to white, and the highlights, especially, just fade to white without that 'digital clipping'. What I love about digital is the outstanding resolution that it offers. How close is the 246 to satisfying both of these requirements  (apart from a camera the same dimensions as a film M - but that's for another post)? How relevant is the incident meter when using the M 246?

 

Mike.

[Likaleica]

 black monochrom and silver chrome M240p is a nice combination. 

 

+1

[thompsonkirk]

Mike,

 

I'm a habitual low-ISO shooter; so tonal values are the most important issue with M246 for me, too.  

 

But IMO an incident meter no longer sets a standard.  In the same time it takes to read the meter and set the camera, you can make a quick exposure and check the histogram to see where the curve of tonal values 'really' lies.

 

You can't fix fried digital highlights; but even with the original MM, if you watch your highlights then you can open up shadows that are deeper than you'd believe.  

 

Kirk

[Mike Rawcs]

Mike,

 

I'm a habitual low-ISO shooter; so tonal values are the most important issue with M246 for me, too.  

 

But IMO an incident meter no longer sets a standard.  In the same time it takes to read the meter and set the camera, you can make a quick exposure and check the histogram to see where the curve of tonal values 'really' lies.

 

You can't fix fried digital highlights; but even with the original MM, if you watch your highlights then you can open up shadows that are deeper than you'd believe.  

 

Kirk

Thanks Kirk,

           when I use digital I always check the histogram. I've heard quite a lot about highlight clipping when using the Monochrom but not having used one, I don't know just how easily the highlights blow out. Like you, I don't want to have to torture my files. Do monochrom files need a lot of P.P.?

 

Mike.

[profus]

I accept I haven't played with the DNGs, but that rather reinforces my point. Thighslapper processed them - is there any need to "improve" on that processing? Not for me, I think.

 

I'll have to disagree on this. Think playing with the DNG's is only way to make any conclusions. Those files ( incl. M240 ) are so close to each other, so the way you process them is very important.

( I have nothing against thighslapper's processing, that's not the issue. I just want to do things myself. But anyway -  how do you know if there's a need to improve his processing if you didn't take a look at DNG's? )

 

And again looking @ iso >6000 - using DNG files and not processed files with applied noise reduction - there is indeed ( I would say significant ) difference between M246 and MM

[Nordvik]

I have made som test prints from the MM and M246 images. At ISO 320 there is not a lot of difference in the prints. The MM needed less contrast and more shadows. The crop here is 8x8cm in print. Maybe one can see the difference in MP, 207ppi for MM and 238ppi for M246 here (that is for a 17" print with borders). Default sharpening before resampling, highest sharpening for print. Minimum radius for sharpening and some masking might have given less artefacts.

 

1. MM

2. M246

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!

[Nordvik]

I also made som prints from ISO 10000/12500. In addition to lower contrast and more shadows, the MM needed less exposure and whites. Sharpening radius 0,5 and masking 85. No noise reduction (I tried some prints with it, but could not get any satisfying results).

 

1. MM

2. M246

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!

[adamdewilde]

You do realize this test is bias against the M246 right? You cannot set the shutter speed higher (faster) on the M246. Just because the M246 is more sensitive to light gives it a clear half stop advantage over what you've tested thus far. Who cares what the numbers are, you have to take into consideration the exposure.

 

Based on the way you setup your tests, I suggest everyone here looks at a ISO:3200 M246 sample compared against a ISO:6400 MM9 sample to be fair to the M246. That'll give you a real idea of the high ISO power of the M246... 

 

I can't believe I have to even write in and explain this!

 

Thank you however, for running the tests, and posting samples.. It's very useful if measured fairly. 

 

 

 

EDIT: I take that back.. I just checked all your EXIF info, it's all over the place. You should (if you're so incline to do a fair comarison) redo all the shots using the same lens/f-stop and same shutter speed, but set the ISO to the eye for brightness... So if the MM9 happens to need 6400 iso to be as bright as the M246 at 3200 iso then so be it. Really you only need the upper end of the ISO, so I'd start with the camera that exposes darkest at given ISO, set that one to 6400 then work my way backwards from there. Post your images and mention the ISO used to get equivalent brightness in an image.

[Solidfuel]

I don't get it. It seems that the MM has poor contrast and blacks in these comparisons. My MM post processing sure doesn't look like these.

 

My first impression is that the 246's images look the same as my Leica X 1's in black and white mode. To my eyes the M8 makes better B&W than the 246.

 

The old MM has the look of Tri X, especially when the ISO is jacked. The 246 looks like Verichrome Pan, but in higher ISO like Plus X. Panatomic X? Never!

 

If you are old enough to remember what I am referring to you will well get the idea. If Verichrome Pan is you idea of art media, well then buy the 246!

[BerndReini]

 

 

       when I use digital I always check the histogram. I've heard quite a lot about highlight clipping when using the Monochrom but not having used one, I don't know just how easily the highlights blow out. Like you, I don't want to have to torture my files. Do monochrom files need a lot of P.P.?

What I can tell you about the old MM at least is that the highlights just clip at a certain point, where they are fine and contained and the histogram might be toward the left and a third stop increase all of a sudden will clip the whites in the RAW histogram. Now the good new is that the MM files respond very well to torture compared to files from the color cameras. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adamdewilde]

I don't get it. It seems that the MM has poor contrast and blacks in these comparisons. My MM post processing sure doesn't look like these.

 

My first impression is that the 246's images look the same as my Leica X 1's in black and white mode. To my eyes the M8 makes better B&W than the 246.

 

The old MM has the look of Tri X, especially when the ISO is jacked. The 246 looks like Verichrome Pan, but in higher ISO like Plus X. Panatomic X? Never!

 

If you are old enough to remember what I am referring to you will well get the idea. If Verichrome Pan is you idea of art media, well then buy the 246!

 

The increase in DR gives it that look. Easily corrected in LR or with filters. Also, it's lens dependant. I was playing with a close friends a few days back, liked the results, blacks were fine. I'm on the fence about purchasing, as I'm not really into B&W shooting.