trickness Posted September 2, 2017 Share #1 Â Posted September 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello! Just got my SL three days ago, really loving this camera. I've used a MP 240 for the past two years, primarily with a 50 Lux Asph 1.4 and obviously know that camera quite well. Did a full day shoot with the SL & the M Lux on Wednesday, and was blown away by how much easier it was to focus, how much more accurate the colors are, the white balance is better, as is the resolution. Â The images straight out of the camera are a little bit flatter, I was expecting this from reviews, and the DNG files are quite malleable. I'm still getting used to what the files look like relative to the 240 - but I am feeling that the SL files are a bit less 3-D than those from the 240. They seem to have a bit less pop and dimensionality then the M240 files with the same lens. I'm not sure if this is me just having to learn how to process the DNG files more effectively, or if M lenses used natively on a rangefinder body just render differently. Has anyone else noticed this? Again, I'm just getting used to the SL, it's unbelievably impressive and my hit rate on focused, perfectly framed images is like 95% - I'm just missing a little bit of that "cinematic look" that the 240 seems to nail. Â Any feedback appreciated. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 Hi trickness, Take a look here Question for M 240 Owners Who Also Have SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Lazytiger Posted September 2, 2017 Share #2 Â Posted September 2, 2017 Owned the 240 and switched to SL a year and a half ago. Noticed no such thing. Results are better in any concern. Might have to do with the individual lighting situation on your first shootings? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 2, 2017 Share #3 Â Posted September 2, 2017 I find SL raw images flatter SOOC than M240 images, and I found the same moving from M9 to M240. I think it is to do with the wider Dr in the newer cameras. Any difference disappears after post processing. JMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacksinner Posted September 2, 2017 Share #4 Â Posted September 2, 2017 I think SL provide more true color to be adjust later on. Use S shape in the curve section. You will get similiar result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankojanko Posted September 2, 2017 Share #5 Â Posted September 2, 2017 I think the colors on the SL certainly pop less but it feels more natural. Not sure about the 3d. When it comes to noise the SL kills the m240. Way much better handling in that department. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted September 2, 2017 Share #6  Posted September 2, 2017 how much more accurate the colors are, the white balance is better, as is the resolution.    .... errr ..... you have just answered the question yourself ......  there was the same complaint about the M240 compared with the M9. photos taken under identical conditions corrected for slight differences in exposure and white balance end up identical when processed in LR.  Leica try to keep their colour profile consistent throughout the range. I get the impression a lot has to do with DR ..... the more compressed, the more 'poppy' the images tend to be.  I suggest you try an accurate comparison as above if you can ...... and even if you don't after a few weeks the SL images will look 'normal' and the M240 ones garish and odd .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 2, 2017 Share #7  Posted September 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Isn't this at the heart of the CMOS vs CCD debates that we had when the 240 came out, to be replaced by the M10 and extended by the SL?  The glory of the older CCD images, by default, could be a simple consequence of using their lower dynamic range to the max.  I've recently been comparing images taken with an almost 10 year-old CCD digital back (P45+) and a Zeiss APO 120 Makro with results still to come with an S APO Macro 120 on my SL.  The old lens is living up to its reputation, but the biggest impact comes from the strong color contrast that the CCD contributes.  I could get that kind of color out towards the edge of my contrast, saturation, and clarity sliders with CMOS images, but I don't find them realistic any more...  But here's an example of the old CCD style informal portrait:  CF001273 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr  See what I mean?  scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted September 2, 2017 Share #8 Â Posted September 2, 2017 Â See what I mean? Not without a side by side comparisson I don't but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted September 2, 2017 Author Share #9 Â Posted September 2, 2017 .... errr ..... you have just answered the question yourself ...... Â there was the same complaint about the M240 compared with the M9. photos taken under identical conditions corrected for slight differences in exposure and white balance end up identical when processed in LR. Â Leica try to keep their colour profile consistent throughout the range. I get the impression a lot has to do with DR ..... the more compressed, the more 'poppy' the images tend to be. Â I suggest you try an accurate comparison as above if you can ...... and even if you don't after a few weeks the SL images will look 'normal' and the M240 ones garish and odd .... I'm actually not focused on the color or the contrast, it just seems that especially at 1.4, the main subject seems almost etched against the background on the M240, while on the SL in the same lighting conditions with the same lens & the same white balance, the subject is flatter, and the image is more of a cohesive whole. It would be wonderful if this was just a post processing challenge. I'm just wondering if on the M because the lens is so close to the sensor, and because these are lenses designed for a rangefinder, if there is some additional aspect of dimensionality that the rangefinder imparts. Â The SL images are stunning, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them. Just that they are flatter than the M images using the same glass and all the same settings. Of course, I'm only three days in, there is still much I have to learn about getting the best out of the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 2, 2017 Share #10 Â Posted September 2, 2017 I'm actually not focused on the color or the contrast, it just seems that especially at 1.4, the main subject seems almost etched against the background on the M240, while on the SL in the same lighting conditions with the same lens & the same white balance, the subject is flatter, and the image is more of a cohesive whole. It would be wonderful if this was just a post processing challenge. I'm just wondering if on the M because the lens is so close to the sensor, and because these are lenses designed for a rangefinder, if there is some additional aspect of dimensionality that the rangefinder imparts. Â The SL images are stunning, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them. Just that they are flatter than the M images using the same glass and all the same settings. Of course, I'm only three days in, there is still much I have to learn about getting the best out of the SL. It's exactly the same distance from the SL's sensor! Those who have looked hard see M wide angles performing better on the M because of the M sensor microlenses, but this is strictly a wide angle issue and not at 50mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted September 2, 2017 Author Share #11 Â Posted September 2, 2017 It's exactly the same distance from the SL's sensor! Those who have looked hard see M wide angles performing better on the M because of the M sensor microlenses, but this is strictly a wide angle issue and not at 50mm. Really, even with the adapter stuck between the body & the lens? That's surprising but I guess it makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 2, 2017 Share #12 Â Posted September 2, 2017 Really, even with the adapter stuck between the body & the lens? That's surprising but I guess it makes sense. i hope it makes sense, else we'll have to rewrite the laws of physics! The SL's body is thinner than the M's, with the adapter it adds up to the same distance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted September 5, 2017 Share #13  Posted September 5, 2017  Really, even with the adapter stuck between the body & the lens? That's surprising but I guess it makes sense. As above, the entire reason that adapters exist is because you need something to space the lens out to the correct distance from the sensor. That you can also use that adapter to fit non-native lenses is a huge bonus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share #14  Posted September 5, 2017 As above, the entire reason that adapters exist is because you need something to space the lens out to the correct distance from the sensor. That you can also use that adapter to fit non-native lenses is a huge bonus.  Yeah, I get it now. Didn't have any experience with mirrorless before this camera, it's an education. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share #15 Â Posted September 5, 2017 Owned the 240 and switched to SL a year and a half ago. Noticed no such thing. Results are better in any concern. Might have to do with the individual lighting situation on your first shootings? Â After shooting a bit more with the SL, I'm inclined to say that yes, the lighting situation contributed to the lack of a "3-D look". I've shot another 100 photos since last week in mixed lighting and have been very satisfied. It's been very tough to go back to the 240, I love the form factor, but the image quality of the SL especially color rendition absolutely kills the 240. The SL files require little or no color correction compared to the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 5, 2017 Share #16 Â Posted September 5, 2017 Hmm, I don't think I see things in quite the same extremist way. Yes, I think the DR, WB and colour of the SL are better than the M240, but if you think that the SL "absolutely kills" the M240, I suggest you need to try a few other cameras. I'm happy to continue using the M240 and the SL in parallel for different practical applications where both produce high quality images! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share #17  Posted September 5, 2017 Hmm, I don't think I see things in quite the same extremist way. Yes, I think the DR, WB and colour of the SL are better than the M240, but if you think that the SL "absolutely kills" the M240, I suggest you need to try a few other cameras. I'm happy to continue using the M240 and the SL in parallel for different practical applications where both produce high quality images!   Paul I'll forgive the condescension and just say I've used pro body cameras for twenty + years. I am looking at images shot of the same subject, same lens, same lighting, same time, and the SL images are cleaner, sharper, have better DR and color rendition - a generation ahead of the 240. I LOVE my 240 and yes, it can take high quality images, but the SL is superior in every way except (and this is passion over logic) the tactile interface. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 5, 2017 Share #18 Â Posted September 5, 2017 OK, I'll withdraw my condescension, and also agree you're right. I just disagree with the "absolutely kills" terminology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted September 6, 2017 Share #19 Â Posted September 6, 2017 I note the above comments about the perceived superiority of SL files over the M240. As an aside, any views if the M10 closed that gap of the SL being better? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share #20 Â Posted September 7, 2017 I note the above comments about the perceived superiority of SL files over the M240. As an aside, any views if the M10 closed that gap of the SL being better? Â Â I'd be curious about this too. Certainly the reviews have said the M10 has improved color, DR and less noise than the 240, and the sensor is the latest generation. But would be curious to hear from any 240 & SL owners who have an M10 how the files compare. There are some comparisons on this website between the M10 and the SL, and the M10 color while more neutral than the 240 is still warmer & saturated than the SL to my eyes: http://www.streetsilhouettes.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.