Jump to content

Very late M240 review


indergaard

Recommended Posts

Nice write up.  I too find the WB and skin tones in jpeg to be more pleasing than DNG.  Since I shoot jpeg 100% of the time now, it's no longer an issue. 

 

As to your mention of the "inaccurate" metering, you correctly point out that it takes a concerted effort to learn how it reads, and compensate as necessary.  Centerweighted metering was an archaic attempt at helping inexperienced photographers (or those who didn't want to gain experience) overcome the tendency of full-screen-averaging meters to turn portaits made against light backdrops into silhouettes.  I always found it caused me more work than it saved, compared to narrow-angle spot metering.

 

Nowadays, evaluative/matrix metering is pretty darn accurate, but in the M240 it requires a second open-close actuation of the shutter...leading to a time lag, more noise, more wear-and-tear, and more chance to attract dust onto the sensor.  

 

One quick and effective way to get great accuracy out of the M240 (and other M) metering I found, is to take frame-filling readings of mid-toned (zone v) subjects, either manually or in A with exposure lock.  The blue sky 90 degrees from the sun or a patch of medium-green vegetation are examples.  Or a frame-filling reading off the palm of my hand (not shading it with my body!) and I open up 1.5 stops. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

«  Sadly the skin tones on the M240 tend to have a very red or pink cast with Adobe Lightroom. If you use Capture One Pro as a raw converter, this shifts to a more yellow/orange hue, and in some instances it almost becomes too green looking for my liking »

Did you try  C1 in linear mode? Never got the least problem of skin tone with it. Inaccurate metring is also unknown to me because i use the "archaic" centerweighted metering pethaps... As for the auto WB i could not care less but i'm a 100% raw shooter... YMMV. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great review. I want to read it again and again. You hit the nail on the head and said things I have said and felt about my camera. The Leica inspires me to shoot and that's all I could have asked for. 

 

You have a new subscriber. 

 

Steven 

@5amtoday 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for a great review!  I share a lot of your observations about the camera. Also, it was very helpful for me to learn about how to get rid of banding.

 

BTW. Very nice photographs.

 

Yes, the banding can be frustrating at times. But my method works great, at least for me.

 

Nice write up.  I too find the WB and skin tones in jpeg to be more pleasing than DNG.  Since I shoot jpeg 100% of the time now, it's no longer an issue. 

 

As to your mention of the "inaccurate" metering, you correctly point out that it takes a concerted effort to learn how it reads, and compensate as necessary.  Centerweighted metering was an archaic attempt at helping inexperienced photographers (or those who didn't want to gain experience) overcome the tendency of full-screen-averaging meters to turn portaits made against light backdrops into silhouettes.  I always found it caused me more work than it saved, compared to narrow-angle spot metering.

 

Nowadays, evaluative/matrix metering is pretty darn accurate, but in the M240 it requires a second open-close actuation of the shutter...leading to a time lag, more noise, more wear-and-tear, and more chance to attract dust onto the sensor.  

 

One quick and effective way to get great accuracy out of the M240 (and other M) metering I found, is to take frame-filling readings of mid-toned (zone v) subjects, either manually or in A with exposure lock.  The blue sky 90 degrees from the sun or a patch of medium-green vegetation are examples.  Or a frame-filling reading off the palm of my hand (not shading it with my body!) and I open up 1.5 stops. 

 

I find the color palette overall is better in the jpeg's than in the raw files. Especially skin tones. It doesn't make sense, but it is what it is.

Thanks for your explanation about metering. When I wrote my summary I basically wrote it as a comparison to other modern digital cameras, that I find have more consistant metering options. 

 

«  Sadly the skin tones on the M240 tend to have a very red or pink cast with Adobe Lightroom. If you use Capture One Pro as a raw converter, this shifts to a more yellow/orange hue, and in some instances it almost becomes too green looking for my liking »

Did you try  C1 in linear mode? Never got the least problem of skin tone with it. Inaccurate metring is also unknown to me because i use the "archaic" centerweighted metering pethaps... As for the auto WB i could not care less but i'm a 100% raw shooter... YMMV. 

 

Yes I did. C1 is a great raw converter that I've been using for a long time, but both the M240 v1 and v2 presets doesn't really give me a proper color rendition for all frames. Also, I've experienced certain artifacts in some of my files, especially on the red channel, which is not apparent in the ACR raw conversions of the same images. So while C1 can solve some issues, it also introduces others (the lack of lens correction profiles for Leica lenses is one of biggest issues I have with C1).

 

It's possible to get better skin tones with the embedded profile than with Adobe standard.

 

That's true. I always use the Embedded profile, and I've made a calibration profile that's unique for each of my lens on the M240 with the SpyderCheckr Pro. It helps a lot, but I still find reds and reddish skintones to be an issue at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i have nothing to sell here but there can hardly be reddish (or yellowish...) skintones when using a proper user profile on C1. I used to use one before the firmware updates in 2013 but i don't even need it anymore as i find the C1's linear mode OK for me. Same with my other cams BTW including Fuji but the latter (X-E2) is the one which needs the most color tweakings due to orange, cyan and blue oversaturations. YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Leica could develop its own raw converter that uses the same conversion engine as the camera, kind of like Canon DPP. I get good results with ACR/LR but I always find the camera jpgs to be more pleasing.

 

I wish for the same, and also find the jpeg's color rendition to be more pleasing than what both C1 or ACR/LR gives me, no matter what profile is used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you would get better results with the "Embedded" profile in Lightroom, rather than Adobe Standard.

 

If you would read all the replies you would clearly know that the Embedded profile has been used ever since I got the camera, about two years ago. And that calibration profiles for each lens I use has also been created based on the Embedded profile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Leica could develop its own raw converter that uses the same conversion engine as the camera, kind of like Canon DPP. I get good results with ACR/LR but I always find the camera jpgs to be more pleasing.

 

Ideally, a raw converter that can be used with LR directly on the DNG so you wouldn't need to make TIFF files.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the embedded profile come from? I always assumed it was made by Leica so should match the OOC jpegs.

Theoretically yes, but it seems the demosaicing algorithms and color management are very different between the camera engine and LR, so the default results when shooting dng + jpg are completely different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussions about colors is nonsense if we don't take into account the color gamut.

 

The sad thing is that most people (including several pros) are using crappy sRGB displays tuned by marketing monkeys to grab your attention at the store.

 

I have a good extended gamut display, and I don't shoot JPEG (note that JPEGs are sRGB by default).

I don't have problems quick tuning WB in Lightroom to fix any skin tone issues (unless we are talking about horrible artifical lighting, of course, and in that case I just go B&W).

 

It is funny how many people buy expensive $x000 lenses to capture the best photos, and then display them on a crappy $200 monitor  :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

CheshireCat:- It is funny how many people buy expensive $x000 lenses to capture the best photos, and then display them on a crappy $200 monitor   :wacko:


Maybe they just don't have any dosh left after buying all the latest & greatest Leica cameras & lenses..  :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did. C1 is a great raw converter that I've been using for a long time, but both the M240 v1 and v2 presets doesn't really give me a proper color rendition for all frames. Also, I've experienced certain artifacts in some of my files, especially on the red channel, which is not apparent in the ACR raw conversions of the same images. So while C1 can solve some issues, it also introduces others (the lack of lens correction profiles for Leica lenses is one of biggest issues I have with C1).

 

Have you tried creating LCC profiles for your Lens in C1? If you have I would be curious of your experiences.

 

I just purchased a Universal Lens Calibrator in the hope that I can create a set of unique LCC profiles and see if that helps with some of the artifacts I see as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...