M-P Vs Q - Serious doubts

[sergiomarried]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear community friends,

I have some questions which you might be able to help me out and bring some light: I have a Q which I adore, so much that I wanted to extend my toolbox with other lenses and see if an M240 (M-P) could add me similar value, more than anything in the ultimate image quality result one can expect from Leica in general, and more concretely to the level I'm used with my Q.

 

I paired the M-P with a Voigt 40mm f1.4 and the results are very depressing and way below expectations. It's nothing to do with the RF mechanisms and dynamic, which I'm enjoying and taking the challenge. It has to do with the overall image quality I'm seeing in similar scenes compared to what I get with the Q: The highlight detail retention, overall color tones, micro-contrast, high ISO (1600-3200)... In all those variables I have perceived the M performing significantly below the Q. To the point that I'm considering getting rid of it...

The only pending doubt I have is: will all this be because I paired it with a low-quality lens? Will the IQ improve so much with a Leica Summarit 35mm f2.5 for example? I mention this because I can't afford anything better right now...

 

Well, I'd appreciate a lot your feedback and comments, especially from those who have experience both Q and M240 camera sensors and lenses.

Thanks a lot and regards

Sergio

[Peter Kilmister]

I used to own an M240-P. It is a very good camera and is capable of producing excellent photos.  However you can only expect to get great pictures by using the best lenses. The best lenses cost a lot of money. You get what you pay for. 

When I was working out if I wanted a 50mm lens I bought a Voigtlander 50 f/1.5. It produced reasonable results but nothing special. When I tried the Leica Summilux 50 f/1.4 the results were significantly better. In the end I found the best lens for me was the exceptionally fine Leica 50mm Summicron APO f/2.

For 35mm I would recommend the Leica Summicron f/2.0, but the Summarit lenses are very good quality at a lower price.

If there is a dealer near you it would be worth asking them to let you try out various lenses to photograph the same scene. Then compare the results after developing.

Because sunlight can change during the course of a day it could affect the results. It may be best to take test shots inside a well lit room.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mike3996]

I went the same route as you're planning -- love shooting Q and the images it produced, so I bought an MP 240 with a 35 Summicron. And now I'm at a point I kinda want to sell it because M does it for me...

Depending on what you mean by "improvements" be prepared to face the fact that the Q will produce you more perfect images, down to the pixel. No way around it, and it's got much to do with Q's sensor-lens pairing -- there's great synergies to be had when you get to design the two in a same package. The dead-accurate autofocus surely helps tremendously, or the relaxed DOF if you focus manually.

 

6 hours ago, sergiomarried said:

I paired the M-P with a Voigt 40mm f1.4 and the results are very depressing and way below expectations. It's nothing to do with the RF mechanisms and dynamic, which I'm enjoying and taking the challenge. It has to do with the overall image quality I'm seeing in similar scenes compared to what I get with the Q: The highlight detail retention, overall color tones, micro-contrast, high ISO (1600-3200)... In all those variables I have perceived the M performing significantly below the Q. To the point that I'm considering getting rid of it...

The only pending doubt I have is: will all this be because I paired it with a low-quality lens? Will the IQ improve so much with a Leica Summarit 35mm f2.5 for example? I mention this because I can't afford anything better right now... 

I can talk about 35 Summicron ASPH because I've shot it exclusively for 6 months now. The Summicron beats Q handily in microcontrast -- the resulting images have such ethereal clarity compared to the shots with Q. And from what I've read, the 35 Summarit f/2.4 is absurdly amazing lens. I doubt it would perform any worse than Summicron at any aspect even if it's not an ASPH design. I would postulate that if you don't get the quality you're after with an MP240 + 35 Summarit-M, then you can't get it with any lens on the system...

But things like highlight detail, color tones, high ISO performance, they won't get fixed with a lens. Hmm, maybe you *should* sell your MP240 and perhaps save for an M10 which should be a clear improvement over all aspects...

Edited June 9, 2019 by mike3996

[sergiomarried]

Thanks so much for these replies. I’m so confused right now because literal sly don’t know which way to go... For me these are tools that should serve the final purpose of helping you materialize your vision and what you want to produce. I believed that the M could add value to me, and even create a powerful tandem with the Q already have. But... there can’t be no flows, and the most important ones have to do with the image quality overall. I have so many doubts with M Vs. Q that it’s shocking for me that others with same experience (both systems or cameras) don’t worry about: 

- The auto WB seems to be way worse in M. Really sucks. This slows you down later is source of unnecessary headaches

- If you frame same scene with same exposure settings manually, somehow the Q delivers a much more luminous result, brighter and with the highlights under much better control

- Starting at 1600 ISO and above the Q delivers way better detail, and quality

- The raw files seems to be “difficult” to digest for Lr, compared to Q which just fly. I can’t explain why...

- The light meter is literally impossible (to me) to understand... I believed the classic Leica is center weighted but I have people telling it’s actually spot... weird, anyway, it seems to be very sensitive to small changes in frame. That translates in difficulty to anticipate... ending up in manual of course 

- My M-P focus mechanism is off by at least 1-2cm. LV makes it easy to verify this. I can’t tell if this is because of the use of Voigtlander 40mm and perhaps would be accurate using a Leica lens 

- I’d love if anyone has a M240 raw file with a summicron/summilux/ summarit and can send it over for me to see differences... I have a 35mm f2.5 summarit reserved but I’m not sure if closing the deal if results won’t improve significantly in the image quality result compared to the Voigt 40mm

My email is sergio@sergiocasadofoto.com

Thanks so much for all support to everyone!

PS: I haven’t mentioned but I do documentary/reportage type of work mainly.  

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by sergiomarried

[marchyman]

I have a Q and an M 262.   I use a 75mm lens on the M.   I'd not bother with a 40mm or less on the M as I fee the Q would be perfectly adequate for my use at those lower focal lengths, i.e. I don't mind cropping.

I've not had the lightroom slowdown you note.  Out of the camera M DNG files are compressed, Q are uncompressed.  I can see where it might be a touch slower to process the M image depending upon your computer.  My computer was apparently fast enough.  I imagine that if I was using my very old laptop I'd notice differences.

[Fedro]

Hi Sergio, this is a long list of points, and to some extent not necessarily all connected to each other. Some of those I have also experienced (AWB is not very good, Q files are brighter) but not all of them and it seems like you are disappointed with the camera overall.. These are two different cameras and experiences.

If you prefer the Q experience, look of the files, post processing etc I am not sure why you would keep the M240. Perhaps a second hand SL would be a better fit? They work great with all M mount lenses

[sergiomarried]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Fedro said:

Hi Sergio, this is a long list of points, and to some extent not necessarily all connected to each other. Some of those I have also experienced (AWB is not very good, Q files are brighter) but not all of them and it seems like you are disappointed with the camera overall.. These are two different cameras and experiences.

If you prefer the Q experience, look of the files, post processing etc I am not sure why you would keep the M240. Perhaps a second hand SL would be a better fit? They work great with all M mount lenses

Thanks so much for commenting Fedro. If you have yourself experienced both cameras, and only commenting about final image quality you get in diverse conditions, who would settle with nothing less than the Q once you have enjoyed those files? To me, the M is huge disappointment at the moment but my main concern is if it has to do with the use of Voigtlander lenses instead of Leica... Of course these are very different experiences, and I’m loving the M handling, rangefinder is great (although mine is off) but at the end of the day these are tools to me. The goal is the final result, not using the tool. I’m so curious if anyone who can access both the Q and M240 can be happy using both considering the image quality differences found apparently... is the experience or use of other lenses offsetting the balance for them? Am I not seeing what this sensor is really able to deliver when paired with Leica lenses like Summarit?

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, mike3996 said:

I went the same route as you're planning -- love shooting Q and the images it produced, so I bought an MP 240 with a 35 Summicron. And now I'm at a point I kinda want to sell it because M does it for me...

Depending on what you mean by "improvements" be prepared to face the fact that the Q will produce you more perfect images, down to the pixel. No way around it, and it's got much to do with Q's sensor-lens pairing -- there's great synergies to be had when you get to design the two in a same package. The dead-accurate autofocus surely helps tremendously, or the relaxed DOF if you focus manually.

 

I can talk about 35 Summicron ASPH because I've shot it exclusively for 6 months now. The Summicron beats Q handily in microcontrast -- the resulting images have such ethereal clarity compared to the shots with Q. And from what I've read, the 35 Summarit f/2.4 is absurdly amazing lens. I doubt it would perform any worse than Summicron at any aspect even if it's not an ASPH design. I would postulate that if you don't get the quality you're after with an MP240 + 35 Summarit-M, then you can't get it with any lens on the system...

But things like highlight detail, color tones, high ISO performance, they won't get fixed with a lens. Hmm, maybe you *should* sell your MP240 and perhaps save for an M10 which should be a clear improvement over all aspects...

The 35 Summarit is indeed an aspheric lens (both versions). And it exhibits less flare than the 35 Summicron ASPH, without the focus shift. It’s a superb lens, with ‘modern’ rendering.

Jeff

Edited June 9, 2019 by Jeff S

[Fedro]

HI Sergio, I have used the 240 (but not owned one). However I have owned the 262, which was an evolution of the same sensor. I felt that the problems were largely the same. Also on the M10 the AWB - although better - is not perfect, and really challenging in mixed lighting. I find it is a lot more precise with the Q. What I don't like that much about the sensor (but also partially with the Q2 that I now have) is that I find the colours to be way too saturated and regularly have to lower the temperature in LR. The SL, in my opinion, has a more balanced colour rendition. 

I like the handling of the M a lot, like you, and am used to RF from the old film Ms, but with their digital version prefer the files in B&W. For colour I like the SL or even better the X1D a lot more

I am not the best person to comment on those lenses as I have not used them but I heard that the Summarits are very good. I have owned in the past some voigtlander wide angles (21, 15 and 12 mm) which were great (especially the 15mm)

[mike3996]

11 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The 35 Summarit is indeed an aspheric lens (both versions). And it exhibits less flare than the 35 Summicron ASPH, without the focus shift. It’s a superb lens, with ‘modern’ rendering.

Jeff

Not to derail this further but f/2.4 is aspheric, f/2.5 is not. This from Leica's technical datasheets.  And they both perform stellarly with exceptional flare control.

f/2.5: http://us.leica-camera.com/content/download/101887/874641/version/4/file/Summarit-M35-TechnicalData.pdf

Edited June 10, 2019 by mike3996

[mike3996]

Anyway I would sum my experiences with Q and MP240 so far as follows:

• Q's 28/1.7 lens is absurdly stellar, almost APO-like with its excellent rendering at all apertures.
• 35 Summicron ASPH on the other hand gets clearly weaker when wide-open but closed down has excellent clarity, pop to the picture. Overall, it's got more character in a good way.
• Q's color science is very attractive (what drew me into the red dot world in part)
• ...but I prefer M240's. Better reds and skintones OOC.
• I haven't found AWB particularly bad in either camera. Then again, I don't pay much attention to realistic color reproduction...
• Q produces much cleaner files thanks to its native ISO of 100 and the files are cleaner overall.
• While it's more hassle, I like the M's center-weighted metering. It's simple once you learn it and it goes to your muscle memory so you don't have to be thinking about it after a while. This metering also helps ('forces') you learn about the light, thus helping you go manual mode more often when it's the best option.
• Likewise, Q's autofocus is so good that I wouldn't bother with Q's manual focus features. Why would I, Q's AF hardly ever misses. Then again, it's satisfying to work with full manual focus and still get the results you'd get with any modern camera. You're shooting landscapes or buildings, you focus once and meter once and let it shoot. With autofocus cameras you tend to meter and focus for every shot which feels funny once you've shot M for a while. (Q's backbutton AF support is not as good as some other brands)

[sergiomarried]

Thanks all for the comments. I'm still debating myself about what to do... These are working tools for me and should serve well. The most important factor is the image quality, if the experience is gorgeous but the result is not at a decent level (image quality wise) then it all falls apart... Is anyone owing an M240 happy with the file image quality in general? For a camera of this supposed level it's not up there with Q and I'd say not even with my Fuji X-Pro2.... Color, tones, dynamic range, ISO performace, shadow-highlight detail.... All inferior apparently. Again: is the lens or is just that this sensor is way too old technology? Of if you buy an M you just buy it for the RF experience, and that's it perhaps

[Exodies]

My M240 is fine. Dynamic range could be better but it surpasses what print can reproduce. Noise is annoying above 800. Colour is a personal thing, you get what someone else wanted from the camera; you get what you want from development. It’s not the camera which spoils some of my pictures, it’s indoor lighting.

[mike3996]

2 hours ago, sergiomarried said:

The most important factor is the image quality, if the experience is gorgeous but the result is not at a decent level (image quality wise) then it all falls apart... Is anyone owing an M240 happy with the file image quality in general?

If superior IQ is paramount, why not go for the latest Sony then. Or Panasonic S1, it's supposed to be very decent with adapted M lenses? (Although even the lenses have their compromises, read below.*)

I agree that M240 won't beat the latest Fujifilms, you don't buy the camera for the sensor IQ. You buy it for the M lenses! It's been long the fact that to get best corner performance of an M lens you use it on an M body.

(*) And even with the lenses, you don't really buy them for the absolute best numbers out there. Modern, large mirrorless lenses beat the small M lenses handily but they are huge and heavy lenses. But what you get with M lenses in general is very attractive rendering that you can't read from the fact sheets or lab tests. And the M lenses are positively small -- that has got to come with some tradeoffs. There are weaknesses, sure, but the attractive rendering outweighs the drawbacks -- for me. If it doesn't do it for you, then M just isn't the right system for you.

And yes, I'm happy with the IQ in general even if my micro-4/3 Olympus at times would beat my M240 in the numbers game. I like how I can get a wonderfully rendering FF system with lenses smaller than even Fujifilm APS-C equivalents. I like how large is the selection of old-time character lenses out there, even if I'm not particularly fond of soft rendering. The selection is great!

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, mike3996 said:

Not to derail this further but f/2.4 is aspheric, f/2.5 is not. This from Leica's technical datasheets.  And they both perform stellarly with exceptional flare control.

f/2.5: http://us.leica-camera.com/content/download/101887/874641/version/4/file/Summarit-M35-TechnicalData.pdf

Wrong.  Just different marketing.  This has been discussed several times.

Jeff

[sergiomarried]

2 hours ago, mike3996 said:

If superior IQ is paramount, why not go for the latest Sony then. Or Panasonic S1, it's supposed to be very decent with adapted M lenses? (Although even the lenses have their compromises, read below.*)

I agree that M240 won't beat the latest Fujifilms, you don't buy the camera for the sensor IQ. You buy it for the M lenses! It's been long the fact that to get best corner performance of an M lens you use it on an M body.

(*) And even with the lenses, you don't really buy them for the absolute best numbers out there. Modern, large mirrorless lenses beat the small M lenses handily but they are huge and heavy lenses. But what you get with M lenses in general is very attractive rendering that you can't read from the fact sheets or lab tests. And the M lenses are positively small -- that has got to come with some tradeoffs. There are weaknesses, sure, but the attractive rendering outweighs the drawbacks -- for me. If it doesn't do it for you, then M just isn't the right system for you.

And yes, I'm happy with the IQ in general even if my micro-4/3 Olympus at times would beat my M240 in the numbers game. I like how I can get a wonderfully rendering FF system with lenses smaller than even Fujifilm APS-C equivalents. I like how large is the selection of old-time character lenses out there, even if I'm not particularly fond of soft rendering. The selection is great!

Thanks a lot for this valuable input. What Am asking at the end is quite simple: can the quality of Q files get similar in M body? If so, with which lenses? I’ve got the 35mm summarit to try in coming days. I’ll let you know my impressions...

[bags27]

14 minutes ago, sergiomarried said:

What Am asking at the end is quite simple: can the quality of Q files get similar in M body? 

When you speak of "quality"--well, that's entirely relative. The Q (which I own) produces a fantastic modern digital aesthetic. It's really sharp, the colors pop, everything is amazing with little post-processing. That may be what you're looking for, and, if so, you might find it often with an M, but more consistently with the SL (as suggested above).

Others don't always like that aesthetic. They might prefer something a little less clinical and at least somewhat referencing the film aesthetic. That's why there's such a robust market for old (pre-ASPH) M lenses. And that's why I also own a CL with manual lenses, and my Q is now barely used.

It's not so much a question of "quality" but of your artistic vision. Ansel Adams as a teenager took amazing photographs with a Brownie Automatic.

Edited June 10, 2019 by bags27

[sergiomarried]

2 minutes ago, bags27 said:

When you speak of "quality"--well, that's entirely relative. The Q (which I own) produces a fantastic modern digital aesthetic. It's really sharp, the colors pop, everything is amazing with little post-processing. That may be what you're looking for, and, if so, you might find it often with an M, but more consistently with the SL (as suggested above).

Others don't always like that aesthetic. They might prefer something a little less clinical and at least somewhat referencing the film aesthetic. That's why there's such a robust market for old (pre-ASPH) M lenses. And that's why I also own a CL with manual lenses, and my Q is now barely used.

It really depends on your artistic vision. 

You got it quite well I feel 😄

Hope I can get better results with Summarit, otherwise might consider SL indeed. 

[TPatrick]

I've got a Q and also the MP240 and feel they perform more or less the same in the situations I photograph - though perhaps the Q is marginally better since it can go to 100iso and is clean enough for me up to ISO 6400. I'm using the CV 35mm Nokton 1.4 and Nokton 50mm 1.5 with my MP and actually like they way they render a bit more than my Q's 28 1.7 because they're just ever so dreamier. The Q's 28 is fantastic, no doubt, but it's very modern looking to my eyes - sharp, clean, good contrast, and sometimes I just want something different. In any case, I feel the MP240 gets a lot of love from me because it allows me to have an M experience with the convenience of digital. My poor M7 has been used less frequently over the years since I've gotten the MP240. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ernstk]

I think some of the challenges with the 240 are to do with exposure and post processing. You MUST expose for the highlights to preserve detail. The files have a lot of capacity to pull out shadow detail but the highlight exposure must be right.

The files also have a lot of capacity to handle post processing. The DNG files can appear a little flat until they've been processed in Lightroom or similar.

Ernst