david strachan Posted November 15, 2016 Share #141 Posted November 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I notice that from M9 through M240 to SL, colours SOOC have got "blander" as you call it, but actually are more like real world colours, are capable of showing more subtle tonal transitions, and are better in highlight and shadow areas: perhaps just the consequences of wider DR. Certainly I find it easier to get a more pleasing and delicately coloured image from my SL raws than I do from my M240 raws. Looking back at my M9 images, and those of people promoting the qualities of the CCD M9 sensor, I am struck by the strong bright colours: pleasing to some, but I find them unrealistic and unsubtle. I occasionally jump into a film image thread where I find this lack of realism and in-your-face colouring even more noticeable. These are personal preferences, and I'm just giving my opinion, not trying to convince CCD and film lovers that I am right and they are wrong. But I think it is a mistake to draw conclusions about a sensor from a SOOC image. I for one am looking forward to the next M's sensor, which I fully expect to look "blander" than the current one. I agree Paul. I am so over the " modern" rendering with blocked up shadows and high contrast. Particularly with B&W. But colour too. Garish over-processing, in camera, and afterwards. I prefer a bit of subtlety. As much as I love my Fuji cameras...they are like a stick in your eye. I leave all my cameras on "standard" and am usually reasonably happy. all best to you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 15, 2016 Posted November 15, 2016 Hi david strachan, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
microview Posted November 15, 2016 Share #142 Posted November 15, 2016 IkarusJohn: "high tech, carbon bodied, light small, taking all M lenses etc" Now, there's a thought! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 15, 2016 Share #143 Posted November 15, 2016 I too feel that the M9 sensor gave unrealistically saturated colours. Only slightly, and often it was quite pleasing at first sight, but I'd far rather be able to get that result in processing when I want it rather than having it as the default setting. The post-M9 sensors are a definite improvement in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted November 15, 2016 Share #144 Posted November 15, 2016 I'm sure the digital M will stay the same. I tweak her, a tweak there. Higher ISO probably...and some cosmetics. Perhaps another knob, probably unnecessary...but... to keep the upgrade going. A tad thinner, a tad lighter... who cares...it's the same cameras as it was from the M8. We've all just got fatter and heavier.. all best to all.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 15, 2016 Share #145 Posted November 15, 2016 I agree Paul. I am so over the " modern" rendering with blocked up shadows and high contrast. Particularly with B&W. But colour too. Garish over-processing, in camera, and afterwards. I prefer a bit of subtlety. As much as I love my Fuji cameras...they are like a stick in your eye. I leave all my cameras on "standard" and am usually reasonably happy. all best to you Interesting comment about the Fujis. Most of the time I find my X-Pro 2 is more "neutral" than my M. If I want to I can get exceedingly close to replicating the M look with the Fuji, but only by slightly boosting contrast and sometimes saturation or other similar adjustments, or applying a film simulation in PP. That's why I don't agree with people who say the M sensor doesn't need improvement. It's excellent, but could be improved, just as the M was an improvement over the excellent M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted November 15, 2016 Share #146 Posted November 15, 2016 Thank you Peter, your comments always well regarded. A couple of liens...the X-Pro 2 is different sensor from the revered XE-1 (and X pro 1). And we know the M9 is essentially the same as the M8...just bigger. Having got that out of the way... I'm finding the M240 sensor just that little bit more "gentle" with its processing, than either of these cameras.. (Although I don't like it's base ISO for noise...the M8 was flawless). I'm still finding my way, but some things pop out...and it doesn't make much difference to my photography anyway. I like cameras, and photography is a by-product... all best, and good health.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted November 15, 2016 Share #147 Posted November 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Also on the bottom plate it says Type instead of Typ, a common mistake made by non Germans. They then quickly throw in 'Leica maybe moves from Typ to Type to name their camera's' I say it's a nice try, but they made the common non German mistake of calling it a Type xxx rather than Typ xxx. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted November 15, 2016 Share #148 Posted November 15, 2016 I do hope they ditch the baseplate - it should have gone with film. +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pop Posted November 15, 2016 Share #149 Posted November 15, 2016 I think the photo of the 'more protruding lens mount' may be misleading. If you look at the rumour photo, specifically the amount the frameline lever protrudes from the body (the circular part that holds the frameline lever to the body), it is the same depth/thickness in the photo as the lens mount. If I look up close at my MP240...it's exactly the same thickness as the lens mount. As is the thickness of the release button. So unless they've also 'thickened' these in the prototype, so that they match the thickness of the lens mount, I think our eyes are being fooled by what is just simply a very close photo of this new camera. I've attached a photo I took of my own MP240...it looks the same. Just my thoughts...I could be wrong. When I look at the rumoured M10 picture, the machining of the mount looks a bit different than mine (but that could be a result of my lousy flash photo!). If I'm wrong, I'd suggest I'm wrong by about a millimetre at most, so I think hopes that they've really thinned the body by really thickening the lens mount aren't supported by evidence, at this time. Like all things though, we'll see when the time comes! 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/266426-leica-m-10/?do=findComment&comment=3149493'>More sharing options...
Jeffry Abt Posted November 15, 2016 Share #150 Posted November 15, 2016 I like the baseplate...and hope they keep it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted November 15, 2016 Share #151 Posted November 15, 2016 When can we order one? Looking at ISO 50K images from the Q is making me anxious! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted November 15, 2016 Share #152 Posted November 15, 2016 Yes, the baseplate is great. You don't have to keep the camera on the tripod to change the battery or card like ordinary cameras make you do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted November 15, 2016 Share #153 Posted November 15, 2016 :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWW Posted November 15, 2016 Share #154 Posted November 15, 2016 Anybody else come to the conclusion that the new M10 is shorter widthwise, looking from the front? In the M10 frontal picture, the proportion of lens mount width to camera body width (longest dimension) compared to my M240 shows a smaller camera. This could explain why the viewfinder looks bigger (if it's on a smaller body) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 15, 2016 Share #155 Posted November 15, 2016 Anybody else come to the conclusion that the new M10 is shorter widthwise, looking from the front? In the M10 frontal picture, the proportion of lens mount width to camera body width (longest dimension) compared to my M240 shows a smaller camera. This could explain why the viewfinder looks bigger (if it's on a smaller body) Hum... the picture is SO distorted that imho not any conclusion can be drawn... I tried a perspective adjustment (post # 130)... but has been just for fun... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 15, 2016 Share #156 Posted November 15, 2016 It's just the effect of a wide-angle close-up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted November 15, 2016 Share #157 Posted November 15, 2016 I notice that from M9 through M240 to SL, colours SOOC have got "blander" as you call it... perhaps just the consequences of wider DR. I'm convinced this is the case. Added DR is a double edged sword. I found CCD sensors required far more care on the front end, but you were rewarded, assumed you managed not to blow highlights or shadows, with an easier time of it on the back end. The added DR of latest class of CMOS sensors makes the front end exposure easier to accomplish, but you wind up with files with a lot of information that cant be displayed in full glory given the range superiority of the sensor over the display medium. That often translates into more work being required on the back end to produce a satisfactory result, especially if you're looking for more pop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 16, 2016 Share #158 Posted November 16, 2016 Yes, the baseplate is great. You don't have to keep the camera on the tripod to change the battery or card like ordinary cameras make you do. Not on the 240... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted November 16, 2016 Share #159 Posted November 16, 2016 On the models AFTER M9 the tripod afixation point is part of the body intead of the baseplate, this is much sturdier, but you'll also lose that upside you're talking about Exodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 16, 2016 Share #160 Posted November 16, 2016 A small advantage of the baseplate is that it makes the interchangeable grip that replaces it slightly less bulky than if it had to be added to a fixed base. But I don't really care one way or the other about it. All the latest as it happens..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.