Color rendition of M 240 vs M 262

[fotomas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Cobram:

Now about 240 vs 262. There is a difference in color rendering. M262 color palette is much more similar to M10 than M240.

Interesting. Are there some examples pics around to proof this?

[Adam Bonn]

So which one are you going to buy @Cobram ? 🙂

[Advertisement]

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

[Cobram]

Citing Vogelius explanation:

 There is one additional nuance to the image quality of the M 262 that feels relevant to bring up, and that’s color rendition and potential changes between the M 240 and 262. 
Researching the M 240 I was never quite sold on the color rendition I was seeing in a lot of the samples. But getting the M 262 I was positively surprised. The output signature felt more balanced and appealing than I’d anticipated*.

 

I will not post photos, because the photos I tested through C1 were not mine... And most important I really do encourage you to test it by yourself. I read many comments, opened this thread (my mistake, sorry😅) etc... but at the end the best info I got was by post processing photos by myself. We have different post processing skills, softwares, we look differently at colors and...

What I can say is (JMHO) and information relevant to my post processing:

M 240 - pronounced redish, pink 

M 262 - pronounced brown and orange. Especially in highlights.

One (post processed photo by yourself) is better than 1000 words😅

[jaapv]

The pronounced red and pink on the M240 was resolved with a firmware update.

[Cobram]

10 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

So which one are you going to buy @Cobram ? 🙂

I will stick with M-E220 for few months and than I will see:

 - if Leica will introduce SL-Summicron 28, than I will stick with M-E220 and upgrade my SL 601 to SL2-S + SL Summicron. Beautiful color rendition

 - if rumors about SL 28 are just rumors, than I will upgrade to 262. 

Both SL and M-E exhibit beautiful color rendition (little efforts in post processing). 

SL line problems is lack of wide angle primes.  As explained in different threads I now use M Lux 50 on SL and Cron 28 + Color Skopar 21 on M-E.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Cobram

[fotomas]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Cobram:

One (post processed photo by yourself) is better than 1000 words

For sure. Unfortunately I'm missing a M 262 to compare. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

[Cobram]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, fotomas said:

For sure. Unfortunately I'm missing a M 262 to compare. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

@Adam Bonn maybe Adam can help you... 

Again, thank you Adam for all your help. Much appreciated.

[fotomas]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Cobram:

@Adam Bonn maybe Adam can help you... 

Again, thank you Adam for all your help. Much appreciated.

Thanks. But I think a comparison could only make sense with pictures of the same subject under the same conditions. Just some file could be anything.

[martinot]

On 2/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, Cobram said:

Dear All,

Yesterday I performed a very interesting experiment. I downloaded M10 dng files from Dpreview and added some M 240 files I found online plus my own M-E220 and SL files. Need more M240 files to throughly judge this camera performance as well as M 262 files are needed. If anyone knows where I can find 262 DNG files online please paste link.

Now to my very personal observations (again one photo is better than 1000 words 🙂 😞

 - M10 vs M 240 low light performance is incredible. Really. Very impressed by M10.

 - M 240 low light performance is better than M220 but not by big margin.

 - Malleability of files in Capture one: M10 very good, SL similar to M10, M 240 behind M10, M220 behind M10 and M 240

 - Colors: M10 vs SL, similar but VERY important to me - SL exhibit much better skin tones. M 240 too yellow, pink, worst skin tones, difficult to correct without damaging other photo areas. M220 shines. SL vs M220: SL is better than M220, more "rounded" colors, perfect skin tones. M10 vs M220: M220 skin tones are still better, but on other aspects I think M10 wins. 

 - POP (very personal opinion 🙂 😞 all DNG files from any camera can pop it is just a matter of time and effort in post processing of dng files. M10, SL and M220 need much less time in Capture one to make photos pop.

 - B&W conversions: see POP (similar conclusion).

 

My humble personal conclusions: 

 - best camera for people and general photography: Leica SL 

 - best rangefinder for people shots: ME220 (M9)

 - best  rangefinder for general photography (travel, low light, people, family, landscape): M10

 

As I use rangefinder mostly for family / people photography I will wait until Leica improves skin tones 🙂 It is a shame they failed to reproduce SL skin tones in M10 (just my opinion 🙂 ) but I understand they wanted to achieve different look between SL vs M series. 

Still I must admit M10 is very capable camera with nice colors, very nice BW rendering and very good low light performance. I agree skin tones can be improved in post processing but still they are behind SL and M9.

In next weeks I will perform similar experiment in Lightroom and I will try color checker. Maybe brownish or redish skin tones are related more to Capture One than M10... who knows 🙂

 

Thank you all for your contributions. Again M 262 dng files are wanted 🙂

I can really recommend you to read these series of articles:

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-2/

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/03/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-3/

 

In addition, the M 240 and 262 have the exactly same both sensor and processor. If there is any small difference (which I have not seen) it is all in camera software or profiling on your computer.

 

 

 

 

[Adam Bonn]

17 hours ago, martinot said:

I can really recommend you to read these series of articles:

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-2/

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/03/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-3/

 

In addition, the M 240 and 262 have the exactly same both sensor and processor. If there is any small difference (which I have not seen) it is all in camera software or profiling on your computer.

 

 

 

 

IMHO the problem with "the great CCD vs CMOS debate" is that really people are saying, the great M9 vs M240 pleasing image debate

 

IMHO This comparison is exasperated by rather more complex things than the cyan-y blue of the M9 vs the purple-y blue of the M240 and such like... not to mention over a decade of the M9 IQ hyperbole (it really can be beautiful though, but not every image) combined with about 7 years of the M240 sucks for IQ rhetoric.

 

Also Leica have released FW updates to these cameras since launch and the RAW convertors are better today than they were in 2009 and 2013.

 

The main difference between each camera is IMHO (and I do own both and have shot them back to back with the same lenses and exposure settings) the amount of DR and resultant effect on the tonality of each image

 

David Farkas kindly (very kindly in my book) makes the preset he used for the articles linked above available FOC.

 

The preset works by opening the shadows, pulling down the highlights, then adding contrast back into the image. (along with some colour adjustments)

 

If one finds M240 images flat and boring the Farkas preset will certainly change that for you!

 

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!

(this the M240 and the M9 with the same lens and exposure settings and both white balanced to the same spot on the image. The 240 image has the Farkas preset applied)

 

Next up...

The same two images, only this time all I've done is the white balanced to the same spot and matched(ish) the histogram of the M240 to the M9 by doing nothing more  than bumping up the shadow slider and pulling down the highlight slider

 

I do not offer these as proof that the two cameras are identical. They are not identical, anyone can see that!

 

The main difference in each native file is the tonality and it is this (IMHO) that one should focus on if one finds M240 images unpleasing

 

oh and just a personal opinion but if anyone wishes to avail themselves to the Farkas preset... personally I think (for whatever that's worth) that +20 vibrance and +17 saturation isn't something I need to have together in many of my images but YMMV

 

and of course this whole M9 v M240 thing is pretty much de gustibus non est disputandum anyway

 

 

[boojum]

They both render a nice image.  I will be trying to improve the content of the image as a primary goal.  And while I incline towards to the fineness of the M-9 image over the M-240 the discussions have taken on the characteristics of the Medieval arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin. 

And you have shown how the image can be improved in post.  I'd not be surprised if my Sony Alpha can be tuned up similarly.  

[Adam Bonn]

what I'm trying to demonstrate is that all this M9 colours, colours, COLOURS stuff is more about the tonality (the contrast) difference.

If one finds the M240 somehow lacking then IMHO try adding contrast into the midtones of the image and it will start to look a lot more like an M9 image.

(and sure if one thinks that an image doesn't work unless it exactly mimics the m9 colours then shift red towards magenta, blue towards cyan and green away from yellow. But doing that on its own won't make the 240 more M9-a-like)

[adan]

2 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

what I'm trying to demonstrate is that all this M9 colours, colours, COLOURS stuff is more about the tonality (the contrast) difference.

Yep.

The 240 inherently has more dynamic range than the M9. Not necessarily because one is CCD and the other is CMOS, but because one was a repurposed 2002 sensor design, while the other was a brand new 2011 sensor design. And sensor technology advanced quite a bit in 9 years.

And more DR inherently squeezes in more brightness levels - but they are closer together in brightness, and thus contrast less with one another. And color saturation is essentially just a form of contrast. (Contrast within each color channel, as well as global black-to-white contrast).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_(vision)#/media/File:Contrast_change_photoshop.jpg

It's interesting to go back now and look at my M9 files, and notice how much I had hand-modifed (and saved as a "new" default) both the color profile (either Adobe or Embedded) and the other default settings (saturation, contrast, black, white sliders, etc). The "beautiful M9" colors I enjoyed were quite different from the "native M9" colors.

With the M10, one of the things Leica did was "add contrast in the midtones" right out of the box, with a steeper embedded tone S-curve. To simulate less DR (although it is still there if one brightens the shadows a lot with the shadows slider).

More contrast = more punchy colors than the 240. And therefore a bit more M9-like.

Note the lower (i.e. "darker") tones of the M10 in the mid-range, which then shoot up steeply to catch up with the M240 at the high end of the curve. = mid-tone contrast.

(Sorry I've never had an M262 in hand to test with my DR/tone test scene and add to this graph. Nor an M8 or M9 - but I'm always on the look-out!)

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!

[Gregm61]

On 1/29/2021 at 3:46 AM, Cobram said:

As a ME-220 owner I'm thinking to try M262 as M-E220 is not supported any more.

M262 seems reliable (quality wise) and color rendition, I don't know why, seems to sit between M240 and M10. I was just looking through flickr photos and I'm aware that by specification M240 and M262 color rendition should be the same. But browsing Flickr I can detect some variation... Just me?

Having owned my M262 since new, the only M body, digital or film, I've ever bought new, and having used it alongside second-hand M240's and M246's (M262 is the only one of the three I still own today) and one M9P since, the one thing for sure the M262 IS, is considerably lighter without that heavy duty brass top plate. Certainly does not seem to cost in terms of overall quality/stability.

"Colors"-wise, well, how do you process your files? If you capture a subject using the dng file format of any of these cameras you can make them looks pretty much just about any way you want. Note I didn't say IDENTICAL but then my M9 files probably don't look anything like someone else's M9 files and M9 raw files offer much less flexibility in the shadows in terms of being able to extend the dynamic range on that low-end of the range and you need that ability as the highlights cut off pretty darn abruptly in M262/M240/M246 files. You HAVE to expose files from the M240 family of cameras for the highlights and make the shadows work in post-processing which, fortunately, can work extremely well.

I process M262 raw files in Adobe Camera raw and find the "Adobe Landscape" profile the perfect STARTING POINT for outdoor image files from the M262, but after manipulating the various sliders in the basic, color mixer/color grading panels, I can make pretty much any image look the way I want. What else should anyone really need or want?

What I have noticed the past year using the M262 alongside a CL outfit, the CL's one generation-newer sensor gives me a pretty darn good indication of what the newer M10 model series sensor offers in better high ISO (above ISO 3200), as good as M262 shadows are to work with, the dynamic range/flexibility of CL raw files is on a higher level, even in terms of highlights head room. The higher ISO limitation of the M262 is partially offset in the speed of the lenses with the 35/1.4 FLE, 75mm f2 APO, 135mm f3.4 APO and the outstanding super-wide image quality of the 21mm Super Elmar. 

I also sent my M262 and the 135mm f3.4 APO Telyt to DAG and had him set the cam on the Telyt to focus dead-accurately on my camera and also had him check the 75mm Summicron APO so my full range of lenses focus consistently well on my camera and just love shooting it with that 4 lens setup.

 

[Cobram]

21 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

IMHO the problem with "the great CCD vs CMOS debate" is that really people are saying, the great M9 vs M240 pleasing image debate

 

IMHO This comparison is exasperated by rather more complex things than the cyan-y blue of the M9 vs the purple-y blue of the M240 and such like... not to mention over a decade of the M9 IQ hyperbole (it really can be beautiful though, but not every image) combined with about 7 years of the M240 sucks for IQ rhetoric.

 

Also Leica have released FW updates to these cameras since launch and the RAW convertors are better today than they were in 2009 and 2013.

 

The main difference between each camera is IMHO (and I do own both and have shot them back to back with the same lenses and exposure settings) the amount of DR and resultant effect on the tonality of each image

 

David Farkas kindly (very kindly in my book) makes the preset he used for the articles linked above available FOC.

 

The preset works by opening the shadows, pulling down the highlights, then adding contrast back into the image. (along with some colour adjustments)

 

If one finds M240 images flat and boring the Farkas preset will certainly change that for you!

 

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!

(this the M240 and the M9 with the same lens and exposure settings and both white balanced to the same spot on the image. The 240 image has the Farkas preset applied)

 

Next up...

The same two images, only this time all I've done is the white balanced to the same spot and matched(ish) the histogram of the M240 to the M9 by doing nothing more  than bumping up the shadow slider and pulling down the highlight slider

 

I do not offer these as proof that the two cameras are identical. They are not identical, anyone can see that!

 

The main difference in each native file is the tonality and it is this (IMHO) that one should focus on if one finds M240 images unpleasing

 

oh and just a personal opinion but if anyone wishes to avail themselves to the Farkas preset... personally I think (for whatever that's worth) that +20 vibrance and +17 saturation isn't something I need to have together in many of my images but YMMV

 

and of course this whole M9 v M240 thing is pretty much de gustibus non est disputandum anyway

 

 

Thank you Adam for your comment. I agree with you, I'm also more and more thinking tonality is the key.

My non-scientific research led me to another conclusion: while I find Zeiss ZM lenses rendering not so pleasant (comparing to Leica) they tend to produce best tonality on M 240 bodies.

But again, this is just feeling, no evidence here.

As you Adam correctly commented in one of your previous answers to this topic - some lenses seems to play better on M9 and other on M240 camera...

[Adam Bonn]

59 minutes ago, Cobram said:

Thank you Adam for your comment. I agree with you, I'm also more and more thinking tonality is the key.

My non-scientific research led me to another conclusion: while I find Zeiss ZM lenses rendering not so pleasant (comparing to Leica) they tend to produce best tonality on M 240 bodies.

But again, this is just feeling, no evidence here.

As you Adam correctly commented in one of your previous answers to this topic - some lenses seems to play better on M9 and other on M240 camera...

My single Zeiss lens (a 21/2.8) is the only M lens I own (out of 5, three of which are Leica) where I feel like turning the sharpening down.

To my eye it also renders cooler than my other glass, which does seem play nicely with the natively quite warm rendering of the 240

I wasn’t (just) being flippant with de gustibus non est disputandum - you only have to look at the m9 image thread... the m9 might have an unique signature, but many people interpret and present that signature in many different ways...

Then of course there’s one’s choice of raw software, the 240 files look quite different in say capture one than they do Lightroom... and even with adobe does one prefer ‘adobe standard’ or ‘embedded’ each can often have a completely different look

IMHO the look of the m9 is the lack of dynamic range (depending on who you ask it’s about 8.5 stops vs 11) and the resultant contrast the m9 has in the midtones (see Andy’s post above for a far better description than I could manage)

The rest of the m9 look is the choices made by the photographer both at time of capture and later in post.

In my personal final analysis (I bet it isn’t 😅) 

We get a new camera, a new lens, a new software, whatever and it’s our job to make it work for us, if we’re not happy then we must look to ourselves for the improvement (be that a new way of editing or whatever)

 

 

[Peter K]

On 1/29/2021 at 3:37 PM, jaapv said:

I was very happy with the colour rendition of the 240 but is was a camera that really needed setting up to give its best.  With that in mind I would strongly recommend getting a ColorChecker Passport and using that (very simple) system to set up profiles for all your cameras. If you need help you can PM me. 

Hi jaapv,

I'm analyzing a bunch of .dng's from my 240 these days and saw your post above. So I'm just curious.

You mention that It needs a lot of setting up to perform at its best. What did you find needed to be tweaked with this camera (just in broad terms)?

Thanks,
Peter.

P.S. I read the whole thread through. But if I missed an answer to the above somewhere, I apologize in advance 🙂 

[jaapv]

First I neutralized the colour by making a camera profile using a Greta-Macbeth colour chart and then I pulled down the reds and the yellows a bit more, saved as a profile again.

[Paco]

12 hours ago, jaapv said:

First I neutralized the colour by making a camera profile using a Greta-Macbeth colour chart and then I pulled down the reds and the yellows a bit more, saved as a profile again.

Good idea, I will try to do it with my X-rite for Capture One. 

Do you create a profile for each light type (shade, sunlight, etc.)? And also a profile for each lens?

Do you know if there is a systematic way to match the colours of one camera with other? I want to “match” the colours of my SL with the M240. 

Thanks for the help!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Partly, I created a dual-illuminant one for general use (I think that colour profiles by lens are overkill) and a dedicated one for use on shots with a (medium-)high IR content. The camera can produce a horrible yellow-orange cast in that case and a good profile can help - but is not ideal. An IR-cut filter was mandatory for my Safari photography.

 

19 minutes ago, Paco said:

Do you know if there is a systematic way to match the colours of one camera with other? I want to “match” the colours of my SL with the M240. 

Yes, use the Xrite Passport at the first shot of both cameras when using side by side. It is fully explained in the instructions by Xrite.