vladik Posted January 3, 2016 Share #1 Posted January 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have recently return to photos taken a few years ago by my then M9P and process them in Lr. I have been pleasantly surprise by the quality and especially the colour. That is compering it to my now M (240) using the same lenses on both cameras. The M files looks to me somewhat clinical. I now it is a difference in sensor most likely or would it have something to do with my M file processing? I thing not. Has any one of you members noticed similar differences? Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Happy 2016! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Hi vladik, Take a look here M9P v M (240)?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted January 3, 2016 Share #2 Posted January 3, 2016 The CCD vs CMOS issue, and the M9 vs M240 specifically, has been debated ad nauseam here.....you'll finds hundreds if not thousands of posts. There's even a thread with a petition dedicated to having Leica continue with the CCD. Bottom line, like Nikon vs Canon, there are folks in both camps.....and others who don't care and take advantage of whatever the camera offers. As part of the debate, many state that they can achieve the same color rendering with either camera with proper profiling and with PP.....others say that's not possible. Again, myriad posts. I've owned the M8.2 (CCD) and the M240 (CMOS).....and I've been able to make wonderful prints....b/w and color....with both. For me, there are far too many important variables in the total workflow (from camera to print to lighting and display) that influence my final result, with the sensor type being among the least of the issues. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Miller Posted January 3, 2016 Share #3 Posted January 3, 2016 I have to concur with Jeff. I just replaced my M9 with a M-240 and have processed a couple of sessions from it using Lightroom . I did not care for the Lightroom M9 profile and so created my own by photographing a gretagmacbeth ColorChecker card and using Adobe DNG Profile Editor to create an more pleasing (and accurate) M9 profile. I did the same with my M-240 and see little difference between the images from both cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boy_lah Posted January 3, 2016 Share #4 Posted January 3, 2016 Just google. A lot of people prefer the m9 files, myself included. It's old old news and divides people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted January 3, 2016 Author Share #5 Posted January 3, 2016 Just google. A lot of people prefer the m9 files, myself included. It's old old news and divides people. Must be a very serious issue as two previous replies to my post disappeared without a trace, promise I will not go there again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted January 3, 2016 Share #6 Posted January 3, 2016 have a read: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229885-did-anyone-go-back-to-m9-after-m240/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 3, 2016 Share #7 Posted January 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Must be a very serious issue as two previous replies to my post disappeared without a trace, promise I will not go there again. They would not if you did not start two identical threads, now merged and cleaned up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 3, 2016 Share #8 Posted January 3, 2016 It took me indeed some time to process the M (Typ240) files to my satisfaction. Now I cannot find a preference of one over the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted January 3, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted January 3, 2016 They would not if you did not start two identical threads, now merged and cleaned up. Thank you Jaapv my apologies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 4, 2016 Share #10 Posted January 4, 2016 CMOS is the future at Leica. Leica feels the difference is in the processing and CMOS has more advantages over CCD. A would doubt that Leica will ever go back to CCD. "Many people think there is a big difference in the touch and feel and the look and feel of the CCD vs CMOS. We think a pixel just renders light or transforms light into electricity. And the look and feel is done in the image processing. On the other hand, the CMOS sensors have a lot of advantages such as video and live view and we therefore think that the CMOS have the future at Leica." - Stefen Daniel, February, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUfTNWs4w4FSxIJ61WIKk1mw&v=760QtM_GvdI Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodoleica Posted January 4, 2016 Share #11 Posted January 4, 2016 Just google. A lot of people prefer the m9 files, myself included. It's old old news and divides people. I completely agree with Luke-Miller and Boy-lah: after a good pp you will not see a substantial difference between The M8 and the M240 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted January 5, 2016 Share #12 Posted January 5, 2016 It took me indeed some time to process the M (Typ240) files to my satisfaction. Now I cannot find a preference of one over the other. Can You tell us a bit more detail about what You do with the files? Thanks Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 5, 2016 Share #13 Posted January 5, 2016 Mainly making proper profiles and tweaking red and orange. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted January 5, 2016 Share #14 Posted January 5, 2016 Thank You. I had the M 240 for a few weeks, while my M9 got a new sensor. And it was my impression, that this colors need adjustment but that there is (at base ISO) apart from this no big difference in color rendering or other aspects of picture quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted January 5, 2016 Share #15 Posted January 5, 2016 Not to confuse you, just to add another view: I prefer the look of the pictures from the new SL compared to the M Typ 240. The SL is a real alternative: the superior low-light capability of the SL compared to the M 240 and the EVF is much better (the EVF of the M 240 is dreadful IMHO) If you look at the camera-size: remember the M 240 with the EVF and hand-grip is about the same size as the SL, and the SL is cheaper. You will need the EVF if you want to shoot wide open with 50mm lenses or above. If you aim for wide angle only, I would prefer the M9, but this may be due to the fact that I'm more used to process M9 files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 6, 2016 Share #16 Posted January 6, 2016 saxo, on 05 Jan 2016 - 17:27, said:the EVF is much better (the EVF of the M 240 is dreadful IMHO) I'll happily give you that the SL EVF is far superior to the M240 but then on the M it is just an auxiliary accessory. The OVF of the M is a whole lot better again than the EVF on the SL, which is as it should be, as the M is an optical viewfinder camera and the SL is an EVF camera...( which, BTW, does not even have an auxiliary OVF/RF ) And you don't need the EVF to focus lenses up to 135 on the M... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.