Jump to content
Kwesi

M10, the new M9?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Over the span of about six years I went from an M9-P to an M240-P and recently an M10-P. What struck me immediately was how similar the M10 and M9 files were in terms of color and contrast. The M240 files reminded me of Kodak Portra film whereas the M10 output just reminded of the M9. I thought i was alone in this observation until i read this article today.

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/7/29/the-myth-of-the-leica-m9-ccd-vs-cmos-sensors

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, pedaes said:

This was done to death when the M(240) came out - eg https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/03/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-3/

That article was really about tweaking M240 files to look like M9 files.

This article just confirms my feeling that Leica listened to its customer base and did what they could to make the CMOS M10 files look like the CCD M9 files

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kwesi said:

That article was really about tweaking M240 files to look like M9 files.

This article just confirms my feeling that Leica listened to its customer base and did what they could to make the CMOS M10 files look like the CCD M9 files

 

I agree. Files are more contrasty and colors a little more saturated on M10, similar to M9 and different than M240.

M240 images always reminded me of Canon 5D images, which isn't a bad thing either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the article Kwesi was referring to quite interesting and a vindication of my position with Leica.

My M10P was with Leica for 3 months and I argued that M10 cannot handle sunlight resulting on images appearing yellowish brown, I best described it as if photos taken by a film that was out of date for a year or two - Old photographers will know what I mean! For example in photos I took at Seven Sisters, the sea wasn't blue, cliffs weren't white and the grass wasn't green! I didn't have same problem with my M240P taking same photos at the same time. 

Unfortunately Leica at Germany doesn't listen these days and the case remains unresolved. M10P is an excellent camera and takes fantastic photos but not in a bright daylight. Indeed when handling my M240, it feels quite old and bulky but I would have to keep it as M10 is not a substitute for M10 when it comes to landscape photography on sunny days!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I smell a postprocessing problem here. Different cameras require different postprocessing to get the best (colour) out of them. It took me months to get the M240 right when coming from the M9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am what some might call a purist and consider post processing a fakery, never needed or done it for over 30 years and not going to start now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, nejad_b said:

I am what some might call a purist and consider post processing a fakery, never needed or done it for over 30 years and not going to start now

I would not go that far but I don't use it a great deal except perhaps to get rid of the very occasional dust mark on scans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Matlock said:

I would not go that far but I don't use it a great deal except perhaps to get rid of the very occasional dust mark on scans.

That's quite understandable. With the new generation of M, if you have the EVF then you control the result by making decision on combination of speed, aperture and EV. You have the subject and your take at the same place. I don’t think M is a point and shoot camera, that's a trend left for most of the DSLR users and the only thing they use is the trigger followed by Photoshop. The result may look very good but is it real!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 3:11 AM, Kwesi said:

Over the span of about six years I went from an M9-P to an M240-P and recently an M10-P. What struck me immediately was how similar the M10 and M9 files were in terms of color and contrast. The M240 files reminded me of Kodak Portra film whereas the M10 output just reminded of the M9. I thought i was alone in this observation until i read this article today.

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/7/29/the-myth-of-the-leica-m9-ccd-vs-cmos-sensors

Thoughts?

Similar to yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nejad_b said:

images appearing yellowish brown

I can only agree with that. I swapped my M10 for an SL for that reason. It seemed a bit better. My problem was more with Tungsten light at the start though, this seemed better with the SL. However,  later on I traveled to Patagonia with my son, he worked with the SL, and I mostly with my M9. The SL shots are all too warm, yellow-brownish, but a bit oversaturated too. This combination is very hard if not impossible to beat, in spite of studies and comparisons in LFI that think lightly about this. Just not my cup of tea. So I cannot follow OP in this respect, which is a pity because I would love the M10 as a camera as such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nejad_b said:

images appearing yellowish brown

I can only agree with that. I swapped my M10 for an SL for that reason. It seemed a bit better. My problem was more with Tungsten light at the start though, this seemed better with the SL. However,  later on I traveled to Patagonia with my son, he worked with the SL, and I mostly with my M9. The SL shots are all too warm, yellow-brownish, but a bit oversaturated too. This combination is very hard if not impossible to beat, in spite of studies and comparisons in LFI that think lightly about this. Just not my cup of tea. So I cannot follow OP in this respect, which is a pity because I would love the M10 as a camera as such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, otto.f said:

This combination is very hard if not impossible to beat

So true, I tried changing saturation or contrast setting, used polarising filter and none made slightest difference. Jimmy Hughes at UK Leica that I quite respect keep saying that I should try manual white balance, although setting WB to daylight setting has made no difference. I will, one day try grey card but if it works then Leica would be the one and only digital camera requiring manual WB for natural light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nejad_b said:

So true, I tried changing saturation or contrast setting, used polarising filter and none made slightest difference. Jimmy Hughes at UK Leica that I quite respect keep saying that I should try manual white balance, although setting WB to daylight setting has made no difference. I will, one day try grey card but if it works then Leica would be the one and only digital camera requiring manual WB for natural light

Can you post a daytime image that you would have liked had the color been what you were expecting? If you post an image please post settings and lens used  

also, are you up to date on firmware? The OG firmware had some color cast issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nejad_b said:

I am what some might call a purist and consider post processing a fakery, never needed or done it for over 30 years and not going to start now

Sounds a bit hopeless. Post processing is three quarters of the image. Nothing different from film. Or Daguerrotype for that matter. I fear we cannot help you in that case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3/4 of the image only when you can’t get it right when capturing the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dkmoore said:

Can you post a daytime image that you would have liked had the color been what you were expecting? If you post an image please post settings and lens used  

also, are you up to date on firmware? The OG firmware had some color cast issues. 

These two images are taken using APO 75 f2. not an extreme condition (hazy with some clouds masking the sun). Unfortunately file size limit in here make the images grainy. Yes the firmware is the latest, after all Leica had it for 3 months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

3/4 of the image only when you can’t get it right when capturing the image.

But the last 10% of print adjustment (and display lighting) can make ALL the difference between a mediocre print and a print that ‘sings’, even assuming it’s a worthy picture to start.  It takes a good eye as much as technique, which can be more easily learned.  Judging when, where and to what degree to apply that technique is the difficult, and critical, part.  

That’s why, in darkroom days, there were far more fine photographers than printers.  Same today with digital prints; only the tools have changed.  I don’t think I’ve ever made a final display print without some form of important post processing, film or digital.  A worthy picture is another matter.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Sounds a bit hopeless. Post processing is three quarters of the image. Nothing different from film. Or Daguerrotype for that matter. I fear we cannot help you in that case. 

There is a big difference between then (film) and now. With film you complete the work in the darkroom. You only guessed the result at the time of taking the picture but with digital if you use an electronic viewfinder then aperture and EV setting combination are the tools you have. I am not saying using Lightroom is wrong, its just the question of one camera producing better result than the other. Let say if the fish & chips you get is cooked enough, you eat it and you don’t think of cooking it again

Share this post


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.

Loading...

  • Similar Content

    • By BjarniM
      I’ve got some dust on my sensor, and I’ve already tried with the VSGO Sensor Cleaning Swab (dry), but there are still some spots on the sensor.
      I’ve read somewhere that it’s possible to apply cleaning fluid - alcohol? - on the swabs to get rid of tougher spots on the M10-sensor.
      I’m living in the Faroe Islands some 1,300 kilometers from the european continent. Therefore I can’t just go to the local photo dealer or Leica store - because there isn’t any near.
      I have to order ‘something’ from some dealer in Europe and get it sent to me - hence my doubt and questions about best practice M10-sensor cleaning.
       
      - Could I apply ’some kind’ of fluid to the swabs to clean the sensor?
      - What is your best practice tip how to clean the sensor?
       
      Really hoping for some constructive answers on this thread since I’m 1,300 kilometers from help and have to fix this myself. And also order the required cleaning items on the web.
      Thanks in advance.
       
    • By Think!
      I am looking for an off camera flash solution for my M10 (which would possibly also work for my M240)
      Is there any chance that my Nikon Flashes or Fuji Flashes (Nissin) would work? Otherwise I am looking for a good solution with a controller that may also manage more than one flash lights. Is there a Godox Solution that fits? Thank you for your advice
       
    • By camalogica
      Hi everybody,
      I’m a computer science engineer who has been working, as a hobby, the last three years in a new, more precise, way of recreating film look with digital cameras.
      I’m posting here for feedback, in case anybody of you would like to test the application (with the M9) and show the results and your opinions.
      I usually shoot film photography but also I like the comfort of digital. The problem is that I’ve never been happy with existing film emulations. Mainly because of that, because they are emulations instead of simulations.

      METHOD USED
      For doing so, instead of doing a generic conversion for every camera, I’ve done a specialised conversion for the Leica M9 based on simulating the chemical process and spectrum response, instead of applying curves and other stuff.
      In the end, I thought, if analog and digital are just two instruments which capture light, I thought, maybe is there any mathematical conversion to make the digital to look like film?
      I mean, if I take the same photo with analog and digital, under exact same conditions (light / aperture / exposition /…) could I make them look exactly the same?
      It’s based on chemical simulation and the Leica M9’s response to spectrum. Then LUTs and finally some extra calibration. I think that it could be improved because I’ve used home made or open source tools for calibrating and so on, which are far from perfect.
      EXAMPLES (Analog vs Converted Digital)
      Following are some examples of Superia 200 and TriX 400.
      Click in each photo to see high resolution.
      DNGs shoots taken with Leica M9 (left), and FILM shoots taken with Minolta CLE (right) at same conditions (aperture / exposition / ISO).
      All shoots taken with Zeiss Biogon T* ZM 35mm f/2.
      The examples show several photos, which are the following:
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      original DNG      |                        |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      converted DNG     |     scanned FILM       |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      developed DNG     |     developed FILM     |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      For the generated simulated negative TIFF file and the scanned TIFF file I’ve applied exactly the same develop parameters.
      TriX 400 - 1
      TriX 400 - 2
      TriX 400 - 3
      Superia 200 - 1
      Superia 200 - 2
      Superia 200 - 3
      Superia 200 - 4
      Superia 200 - 5
      Superia 200 - 6

      CONCLUSIONS
      Tonal range - Biggest difference between digital and film
      Dynamic range - Digital is faaar more detailed in the blacks, film never gets burnt, meanwhile digital gets burn quite fast.
      Film has more microcontrast, it's more sharpen
      Digital is a little bit more contrast after developing, I imagine it’s because it reach white level faster, then, when doing autolevels with the developing program, as a result, it’s a more contrast image.

      DOWNLOAD
      I'm having a console application ready, if interest is shown it will be ready quite soon!
      CAVEHEATS / LIMITATIONS
      The program only accept DNG, because I need all the light captured by the camera, instead of a JPG already converted and really dependent on camera self made adjustments.
      The program only accepts photos taken at the ISO of the certain film that is gonna be used. For example, for TriX400 it will accept only Leica M9 DNGs at 400 ISO. I’ve also done tests with ISO 200 and 800, and the results were quite satisfactory but, for complexity reasons, I prefer to let it be native film ISO for the moment.
      Highlights are not always correct, and sometimes they look weird, mainly in color film. This is due to bayer sensor pattern and its different intensity response (for Red, Green and Blue channels).
      FUTURE (& PAST) WORK
      Leica M10-D
      Leica M8.2

      THANKS
      Super thanks to the creator of LibRaw, a wonderful C++ library for working with RAW files.
      Any questions I’m open to answer 🙂
      Best regards everybody.
      Tomás AKA “Camalogica”
       
    • By kuzco9x
      I just firgure out that my Leica M10, the DNG files opened and exported to JPG by photoshop are always brighter and less contrast than the original JPG generated by M10 body.
      Is there something wrong?
      This is the jpg exported from dng.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! And this is original jpg by body

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By R6M6
      Ist es heute nicht zehn Jahre her, dass in NY die M9 vorgestellt wurde!
      Meine begeistert mich noch heute durch Form, Funktion und Bildqualität. Sie besitzt den 3. Sensor, allerdings war der Leica Service beim Tausch immer sehr gut.
      Ich hoffe auf weitere zehn Jahre!🤫
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy