Jump to content

New Leica M 240 follow-up in 2017 : The speculations.


Paulus

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The one thing that's kept me from the 240 is the RAW setting. They use the DNG format and I'd have to buy Lightroom in order to "decipher" the RAW file, do PP and then a jpeg as no doubt shooting in jpeg would not give the same quality and is not a lossless format.

 

Not having Photoshop where you could plug in ACR I'd have to start from scratch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that's kept me from the 240 is the RAW setting. They use the DNG format and I'd have to buy Lightroom in order to "decipher" the RAW file, do PP and then a jpeg as no doubt shooting in jpeg would not give the same quality and is not a lossless format.

 

Not having Photoshop where you could plug in ACR I'd have to start from scratch.

 

 

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.

 

Leica uses Adobe's digital negative (DNG) format, which is relatively standard.  While you can use an Adobe product (PhotoShop and LightRoom), you can also use Apple's Photos (not sure why, it's crap, but I guess it's free), you can also use CaptureOne from PhaseOne, which many here highly rate (if you wish to avoid using an Adobe product).  To be honest, if you're serious about image quality, you should really come to grips with using a good raw converter/image processor like either PhotoShop/Light/Room or CaptureOne.

 

If you don't want to do this, then you can simply use the Jpegs straight from the M(240) - they are very good, though like any Jpeg straight from the camera, they represent the camera maker's idea of the average acceptable output.

 

I certainly wouldn't say that Leica makes either its Jpegs any worse or its post processing any more difficult than other camera makers.  Until recently, you got LightRoom free with your camera.  Conversely, I have found Nikon & Sony a pain with their proprietary raw formats.  I wouldn't let the M(240) output hold you back - if you don't like the M(240), LightRoom will still work with the output from almost all other camera makers, as will CaptureOne.

 

Cheers

John

Edited by IkarusJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone wants every tweak. Most people want the M plus just the particular tweak they "need" to make it perfect.

 

I agree with Paul (pgk) that the M is what it is, and there is a limit to how much more clever it can be made because of the simplicity of the M mount.

But Leica is a commercial company that will continue the M and its derivatives as long as, but only as long as it is profitable ( however they measure that internally). When the M, defined by the M-mount, is no longer profitable, they now have a ready made successor in the wings: the SL mount, which could be used as the basis for a small but digitally cleverer system. TBH, I'd be surprised if they introduced such a system while the M is viable, but is anyone willing to bet they haven't been through such a design exercise already?

 

Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, I am not hoping for the demise of the M, but suggesting what might happen if that comes about.

Could you define: " but only as long as it's profitable" regarding the M. How profitable must it be and stay? Is the MP profitable? Could the M 240...7...M-D stay in the same way profitable like the MP ?  Low developement costs and some revenue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that's kept me from the 240 is the RAW setting. They use the DNG format and I'd have to buy Lightroom in order to "decipher" the RAW file, do PP and then a jpeg as no doubt shooting in jpeg would not give the same quality and is not a lossless format.

 

Not having Photoshop where you could plug in ACR I'd have to start from scratch.

I believe you get software free with an M-240.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that's kept me from the 240 is the RAW setting. They use the DNG format and I'd have to buy Lightroom in order to "decipher" the RAW file, do PP and then a jpeg as no doubt shooting in jpeg would not give the same quality and is not a lossless format.

 

Not having Photoshop where you could plug in ACR I'd have to start from scratch.

 

The Jpg's on the M240  really aren't all that  great...... IMHO

Well worth using the DNG's even if you don't adjust them.

Your spending 7K on a camera ....its Digital and requires a bit more effort to achieve superior results.

There is a free Adobe DNG Converter. And its really not that hard or more work. (10minutes)

Honestly if your shooting with a Hi End camera ,.... Why wouldn't you learn a little Lightroom?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most important of all is that Leica should provide us with their own raw converter. Now that Lightroom isn't included, and with several systems that shoot raw, leica has no excuse.

Their core business is not raw converters. There are two leading suppliers of good ones. To built their own would be lost effort.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turning the focus ring on an M lens affects the camera in two ways, by mechanically moving the rangefinder mechanism and by optically altering the image on the sensor.

 

 

I did not forget, I thought about it and discarded it as method to do what was asked.

 

You'd need a processor and software powerful enough to tell the difference between twisting the focus ring vs simply pointing the camera at a different object at a different distance.   Also, it would have to be attempting to make that distinction whenever the camera was turned on.   Your battery would be dead in hours (assuming it lasted that long).

 

In order to save battery power the camera needs to know when focus is changing.   You either use the existing mechanical linkage or you add a button to the camera that the operator pushes to say "pay attention -- I'm going to twist the focus ring".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Their core business is not raw converters. There are two leading suppliers of good ones. To built their own would be lost effort.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

They have one already in each camera that shoots jpg. Each camera maker has the obligation to provide a raw converter for their clients. Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony... etc all do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that's kept me from the 240 is the RAW setting. They use the DNG format and I'd have to buy Lightroom in order to "decipher" the RAW file, do PP and then a jpeg as no doubt shooting in jpeg would not give the same quality and is not a lossless format.

 

Not having Photoshop where you could plug in ACR I'd have to start from scratch.

One thing that kept me from bringing my negatives to the fotolab , where they instantly printed my pictures, was that I did not have any influence on the, sometimes spectacular bad , results. It all became better, when I started develloping my own negatives and printing my own pictures in the dark room. The print became superiour to  the " one hour prints " after about 28  weeks of trying.

 

When I bought my first M8 I was glad I could develope my own captures in Photoshop and Lightroom, giving the same satisfaction of being able to influence my captures.

 

I am glad we live in a world, where people are different.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you define: " but only as long as it's profitable" regarding the M. How profitable must it be and stay? Is the MP profitable? Could the M 240...7...M-D stay in the same way profitable like the MP ?  Low developement costs and some revenue?

Companies have their own ways of calculating profitability of a product line e.g.

- how much investment is it taking to keep it going.

- how do they write-down previous investment.

- how do they value having the M for the rest of the company (even if they sold no Ms, does it help them sell other cameras by being the company that invented the M?)

- and, of course, sales

etc

 

I don't know how Leica works it out.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

They have one already in each camera that shoots jpg. Each camera maker has the obligation to provide a raw converter for their clients. Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony... etc all do it.

Most are of a kind that nobody wants to actually use the supplied software. If Leica did license Silkypix (as Pentax/Ricoh and Fuji did), for example, would anyone care? And how likely is it that Leica could develop a raw converter rivalling Lightroom or CaptureOne? That money is better spent elsewhere.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most are of a kind that nobody wants to actually use the supplied software. If Leica did license Silkypix (as Pentax/Ricoh and Fuji did), for example, would anyone care? And how likely is it that Leica could develop a raw converter rivalling Lightroom or CaptureOne? That money is better spent elsewhere.

The Canon and Nikon ones are actually pretty good, and so is reportedly the new converter from Fuji (not silkypix). I would like to make the choice myself to use or not use the manufacturer's converter. Moreover, the converter can be just a simple application that emulates the camera jpg settings. I really like the jpgs from my M262 but there is no way to get the same colors and rendering in Lightroom. On the top of that, since it is not free anymore but only a trial licence, I find it inexcusable that a camera that shoots raw is not delivered with a converter. Probably anyone who is serious about photography has the latest Lightroom or C1 version, but that's not an excuse not to include one in the package. Just my two cents.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canon and Nikon ones are actually pretty good, and so is reportedly the new converter from Fuji (not silkypix). I would like to make the choice myself to use or not use the manufacturer's converter. Moreover, the converter can be just a simple application that emulates the camera jpg settings. I really like the jpgs from my M262 but there is no way to get the same colors and rendering in Lightroom. On the top of that, since it is not free anymore but only a trial licence, I find it inexcusable that a camera that shoots raw is not delivered with a converter. Probably anyone who is serious about photography has the latest Lightroom or C1 version, but that's not an excuse not to include one in the package. Just my two cents.

Raw converters are readily available just like developing tanks and enlargers are, or used to be. I don't understand why Leica should be obliged to provide one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regarding the raw converter I am still not convinced it is Leica task to built heir own. But I am of the opinion that they should feel obliged to provide the required camera profiles for Lightroom an capture one to deliver consistent colours across the different cameras they produce!

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] I find it inexcusable that a camera that shoots raw is not delivered with a converter. Probably anyone who is serious about photography has the latest Lightroom or C1 version, but that's not an excuse not to include one in the package. Just my two cents.

 

+1 and Silkypix that i still use from time to time is much better than nothing. I have discovered Capture One in my M8.2 package BTW. Was a light "LE" version then but not a trial version. Narrow mindness? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Leica cameras shipped after April 1, 2016 have included only a 90 day trial of Adobe CC.

 

Jeff

 

That is correct. Free Lightroom is a thing of the past. Processing software is essential for using serious digital cameras. Not having it is like using film and not having access to a darkroom or a film lab. As for whether there will be another M, one should appear if Leica feels that a market for the model exists. The camera market has changed a lot over the past 10 years.

 

William

Edited by willeica
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Raw converters are readily available just like developing tanks and enlargers are, or used to be. I don't understand why Leica should be obliged to provide one.

Because all the manufacturers do and always did since day one. To my knowledge Leica is currently the only brand that does not provide a raw converter with their cameras. It is no big deal, I already have a favorite converter, but it's a matter of principle.

Edited by edwardkaraa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...