M10, the new M9?

[Kwesi]

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?

[pedaes]

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/

[Advertisement]

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

[Kwesi]

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

 

[dkmoore]

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. 

[albertknappmd]

They listened to us!

How refreshing and clever!

Albert

[nejad_b]

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sunlight resulting on images appearing yellowish brown, I best described it as if photos taken by a film that was out of date for a year or two - Old photographers will know what I mean!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!

[jaapv]

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.

[nejad_b]

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

[Matlock]

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.

[nejad_b]

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!?

[MarkP]

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.

[otto.f]

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. 

[otto.f]

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. 

[nejad_b]

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

[dkmoore]

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. 

[jaapv]

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. 

[jdlaing]

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

[nejad_b]

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

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!

[Jeff S]

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

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nejad_b]

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