M240 for a different look?

[dugballs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone, I’m on the verge of purchasing my first Leica M and like many here, I’m leaning towards getting the M240 over the M10. 
 

However…

For my professional work I shoot with a Sony A1, and from what I see from different M10 images, they both offer a more modern look in comparison to the M240. Am I making the wrong assumption or is it indeed a common consensus that the M10 provides a more modern look over the M240?

Thank you!

Edited October 31 by dugballs
Typo error.

[Advertisement]

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

[ECohen]

For fun could you define modern look? I have a 240 and I tend to agree with you. Although I have not seen the files of an M10 to compare

A few seconds of sliders in LR makes out of the camera images “modern” or anything you like.

[dugballs]

15 minutes ago, ECohen said:

For fun could you define modern look? I have a 240 and I tend to agree with you. Although I have not seen the files of an M10 to compare

A few seconds of sliders in LR makes out of the camera images “modern” or anything you like.

Your question is exactly what’s been making me lose sleep the past few days. What is a modern look? How much different can RAW files be between brands/sensors/cameras especially with how good everything is nowadays.

But I digress, I think what I’m searching for is something less clinical, more of a unique feel and “look” to an image without having to do so much post processing. 

[a.noctilux]

For me the lens in use is the most important part in rendering.

The sensor (and post prod) rendering can be "touched" but the lens rendering can hardly be "touched"( possible but much harder).

As M10 and M240 family user, If I use same lens on each, the whole rendering is from the lens.

[jaapv]

If processed properly to the camera output the difference between the end results will be more a matter of taste than anything else. However I struggle with the concept of a “ modern “ look. If you mean high resolution the M10R or M11 should be more to your taste. I never really liked the colour I got from the M240; to adjust to my standard cost me the most effort of any M camera. The M9 and SL ( and hopefully SL2S soon) produce the files most to my taste. 

As Arnaud says, the lens is far more important. For you I would advise the APO lenses. They render the most precisely. Clinical or modern, if you want. 

[Einst_Stein]

I have S3 and SL and M240. All are “modern classical”. The major difference is MP and the larger format focus transience appearance 

I guess your “modern look” might be the “Leica look” in contrast of “Sony Look”. 

I also have Contax C645, which gives distinctive “Zeiss look”. I had Sony A7R 2, when use C645 lens on it, it kept somewhat the Zeiss look but not the same as on C645 with Hasselblad digital back cf39. But using Sony Zeiss lens on A7R2, the image got the  Sony look. I found Sony has its own image rendering algorithm and color science.  

I sold Sony.  I suspect you would not be happy with either M240, nor M10 , M11.  Stay with Sony might be what you will be happy with. 

Edited October 31 by Einst_Stein

[jaeger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Use your A1 shoot RAW.  When editing your photos, unsharpe, add vignettes, and add a little touch of vintage colors, now you have a M240.  

[LocalHero1953]

Mods: please retitle this thread "Defining looks: nailing jelly to the wall"

[3D-Kraft.com]

I was propably in a similar situation beginning this year (also getting a bit bored of the "too perfect" Sony A1) and decided to add an M9 with ID15 (corrosion free) sensor.

I agree most with @jaapv here. Never really liked the colors from the M240 (too much work on the raws to get acceptible skin tones and blue sky at the same time...) and it also was already too chunky for me. The M9 delivers a more pleasing look (to my personal taste), closer to analog film, but you must accept the challenge to work without live view (just rangefinder focussing) and keep ISO below or at 800.

Edited October 31 by 3D-Kraft.com

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

I was propably in a similar situation beginning this year (also getting a bit bored of the "too perfect" Sony A1) and decided to add an M9 with ID15 (corrosion free) sensor.

I agree most with @jaapv here. Never really liked the colors from the M240 (too much work on the raws to get acceptible skin tones and blue sky at the same time...) and it also was already too chunky for me. The M9 delivers a more pleasing look (to my personal taste), closer to analog film, but you must accept the challenge to work without live view (just rangefinder focussing) and keep ISO below or at 800.

The IsO performance has been significantly improved with modern software. Developed in PureRaw I would use an M8 up to ISO 3300 without hesitation.  

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

The IsO performance has been significantly improved with modern software. Developed in PureRaw I would use an M8 up to ISO 3300 without hesitation.  

I assume, you mean DxO PureRaw 4?

It may provide better noise reduction but it cannot recover the reduced dynamic range and as far as i remember, the highest ISO setting of the M8 is 2500.

Edited October 31 by 3D-Kraft.com

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

I assume, you mean DxO PureRaw 4?

It may provide better noise reduction but it cannot recover the reduced dynamic range and as far as i remember, the highest ISO setting of the M8 is 2500.

That was the  max camera setting. But, as the sensor is ISO invariant, one can obtain higher values in postprocessing.  In any case, at the time I had no issues with ISO 1250, provided one utilized ETTR. Dynamic range was quite limited, but then, the slide film I used (Ektachrome) before had a DR of 5-7 stops, Kodachrome even less, so that did not feel as a hardship at the time. It just called for precise exposing. The noise behaviour and colour at high ISO were a lot better than the Canon 10D that was my DSLR preceding the M8.

But OK, make that ISO 2500 for argument's sake - it is nearly two decades ago anyway.

[Quarterpounder]

I wonder how long it will take for people to glorify the "warm" and "authentic" IQ of the M11, compared to the more "clinical" M14.

[3D-Kraft.com]

From the initial post of the thread-opener, I assume, he is looking for a "different look" and may be for some kind of "challenge". That's, where M8 and M9 come into the game. The M240 and M262 also have a different look but with much less appeal. The only reason, I would choose an M240 again would be it's price tag and if a live view is mandatory (even if it can only zoom into the center). It's all based on personal opinions but that's what the TO was asking for.

[Dazzajl]

1 hour ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

From the initial post of the thread-opener, I assume, he is looking for a "different look" and may be for some kind of "challenge". That's, where M8 and M9 come into the game. The M240 and M262 also have a different look but with much less appeal. The only reason, I would choose an M240 again would be it's price tag and if a live view is mandatory (even if it can only zoom into the center). It's all based on personal opinions but that's what the TO was asking for.

I think this nails it perfectly. If you're looking for something that going to take you away from the feel of shooting with Sony* then then M8 or M9 are probably the right place to start looking. They both have much stronger signature looks baked into their processors and a much more analog feel in use. The M8 has an insanely warm look that I personally find to be very charming, the M9 seems to verge on being quite cool. So maybe you really need both.

[ECohen]

To the original poster
FYI I did not like the clinical look of Sony. I think Nikon hits very natural color. My 240 files are quite pretty, unique and warm. Sometimes I struggle on the with flesh tones and the 240 but it’s really not that big a deal. The warmth of the 240 has a very nice look and out of the camera it is different and quite pleasing unless you’re looking for something else.

And as I said, everything can be fixed with a couple of sliders.

 

[JJP]

Huh. I have to do very little work on my M240 RAW files. I shoot with a 1953 Summaron 35 and a 1946 Summitar 50 and I think the color and IQ is gorgeous. Different strokes I guess.

[Jean-Michel]

Yes, files from different cameras will open up looking somewhat different from each other, so what? They all will need to be processed and there you can make the image into a huge number of variations. With not much effort you can even homogenize these called "look: of just about any camera.

The file, raw or DNG of course and not jpg is just the beginning. If you use Lightroom, you can make yourself a number of presets to get started, not forgetting that you have a basic choice of Adobe color, neutral, landscape … monochrome …  And all the other panels

For the M9 and M-P(240), I found that a basic tweak in calibration is required for my images.

I consider myself rather competent with Lightroom and printing, but do now have the time to look for short tutorials that may add to what i already know. 

One interesting person with a good set of examples of what masking can do is Christian Möhrle. Recently he posted a video showing how 7 "pros" processed the same raw file.

One file, seven very different outputs. Same can be done with any Leica files, each with your very own "Leica look"

See Chistian's video at: 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

It's worrying that a professional photograph has to ask this question and has no insight into processing the Sony image different ways, symptomatic of amateurs wanting to spend thousands of dollars on a new camera rather than an hour learning what all the adjustments in ACR do. 

[Al Brown]

You will surely love the heavy green hues in the shadows and the amazing 8 image buffer of M240.
If there is one favor you can do for yourself it's buying the M10. It will still give you incredibly similar results to M240, but without the above PLUS the bigger OVF.
M10 is namely the first digital M where Leica got it right.

Edited November 2 by Al Brown