Is the myth that M240 have a more "Film Like" , "Leica soul" rendering than M10, M11 actually true?

[leicarox]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 240 white balance is very warm, and the colors I find very saturated. You can turn the saturation to -10 or to taste in Lightroom to correct. I do love the pop from this camera but have found skin tones difficult. I prefer the M9 colors slightly but feel the 240 is the better camera. 

[Advertisement]

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

[F-train]

On 6/5/2025 at 1:36 PM, jdlaing said:

No thread is ever pointless.

All threads are pointless, that’s why we need needles.

 

(Couldn’t help it, it was stronger than me… Sorry!)

Edited July 17 by F-train
Apologies added

[Dazzajl]

2 minutes ago, F-train said:

All threads are pointless, that’s why we need needles.

 

(Couldn’t help it, it was stronger than me…)

Genuinely don't know whether to laugh, thank or like because that deserves all three! 👏

[Dazzajl]

The 240 will definitely be more film like than the M10 or M11. Not because it's been sprinkled with any magic dust but because because 35mm film has always been fairly rubbish. So every new generation of sensors, with it's increase in dynamic range, low light performance, colour capture ability, resolution and power to resolve details takes it further from how film looks. 

On that basis, depending on how much resolution you feel is needed to make a good 12x16 print, the M8 or the M9 would be the most film like M cameras. There is still potentially a large difference between most film like and like film.

[lct]

Funny to hear than the M240 would be film like when it was the first CMOS Leica if memory serves and it was criticized for being less film like than CCD based cameras 15 years ago 😏

 

[Dazzajl]

10 minutes ago, lct said:

Funny to hear than the M240 would be film like when it was the first CMOS Leica if memory serves and it was criticized for being less film like than CCD based cameras 15 years ago 😏

 

It will be less film like than a CCD camera because it's "better". But it's also "worse" than more modern CMOS cameras so could be called more film like than An M10 or newer. The best way to have you're shots look like film is still to use film. Although I suspect that most people chasing the film look might not like the actual look of real film. It all feel svery complicated.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or people don't know what film like means... Neither do i TBH...

[cnguyen]

Bottom line - Enjoy the Leica camera(s) you own - If you don't like it sell it and get something else. 

Here are couple pics from my recently purchased Leica SL shot with the lowly Vario-Elmarit 35-70mm f4 R

Happy chasseur d'images!

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!

[jaapv]

On 6/28/2025 at 6:05 PM, leicarox said:

The 240 white balance is very warm, and the colors I find very saturated. You can turn the saturation to -10 or to taste in Lightroom to correct. I do love the pop from this camera but have found skin tones difficult. I prefer the M9 colors slightly but feel the 240 is the better camera. 

Skin tones are indeed difficult, but that is caused by the fact that, after M8- which is far more so- , the M240 is the most IR sensitive M in the series.  As skin is multilayered and the layers are not evenly distributed,  and for instance blood-rich layers will reflect IR far more (Haemoglobin  is similar to Chlorophyl in this respect) than fatty layers which will absorb IR, Caucasian skin will tend to purple blotches, and African skin to a blue sheen. The solution is to use an IR cut filter like B+W 486, which will save a lot of postprocessing trouble. 

[Alberti]

I have the M10r now (>13K shots) and used the M240-P for >18K pictures. So I have a little experience. 

Still, I look back to my M240:

• M240 always had nice colours - the M10r likes only modern hard coated lenses to give vibrant colours;
• M240 had lower apparent noise - while the M240 had some grain it was pleasant; the larger files size of the M10r at 100% also shows more noise (I de-noise quite often, 1 in 100)
• M240 works great with old lenses -  I have now sold to Delfshaven some 10 'older' lenses that were great on the M240 (Orion-15/28mm, Russar-20, various Sonnars in 50 (3x) and 85mm (2x) .  .); they just did not thrill anymore like they did. The M10r likes apo lenses (whether labeled as such or not)
• the M240 had an easier handling. That is the eye-piece/focussing went like a charm. It is as if the M10 has a magnification which is lower, more like .68 than .72. This is a deal breaker for me. It wears me out. But I am a glass wearer, so be weary of my comments.
• . . . 

[Chris W]

I have an M10 and the images from my vintage Leica lenses are wonderful. I never liked the colours out of the M240.

There seems to be a Leica notion that the older the camera the more 'film like' it's claimed be, perhaps because the images are more fuzzy, have more noise etc.

I come from the film era and I never thought my M8 images looked film like. The nicest looking low resolution images I've ever had were from the Epson RD1-S.

I really like the images from my M10 and I don't think they are too sharp or too clinical, but again I'm using older Leica glass. 

There are plenty of film-like presets you can buy for Lightroom or Capture One.

 

[JaSko]

Before I bought M-P 240 I tested it against M10 and did not find a difference in image quality, I never shoot higher than ISO 1250. WB in M-P 240 is not perfect, but I mostly use grey card to set WB properly already for the DNG (I do not like spending a lot of time for post processing).  M-P240 is very close to M9 in terms of color (some small adaptations needed in temperature and tint).  I like both cameras much more than M11, which I sold. Files coming out of M11 were not according to my expectations.

Are M-P 240 files more close to film? According to my opinion no digital cameras outputs are very close to film. But I like DNG's out of M-P 240 much more than from M11. 

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!

[intermediatic]

And I much prefer the M10, M10R and M11. I disliked so much about the M240, especially that dratted ISO button. Just goes to show, it’s all subjective.

[pippy]

On 7/17/2025 at 6:07 PM, lct said:

Or people don't know what film like means... Neither do i TBH...

Where colour film is concerned it's almost a meaningless concept. Which film does anyone want their colours to replicate?

If we are considering transparency film do we wish to replicate the 'look' from Fuji's Velvia? Provia? Kodak's Kodachrome 25? Kodachrome 64? Ektachrome 100? Ektachrome 200? Agfachrome? Sakurachrome? Orwochrome?...

OK; let's now consider C-41 process emulsions. Where shall we start?......

FWIW the film whose 'colour palette' I preferred came from Sakurachrome 100. Not a very well known stock even back then but, IMO and IMX, results from it were beautiful.

Philip.

[pgk]

6 minutes ago, pippy said:

Orwochrome?...

I'm sure that I remember trying some of the original Orwochrome back in the day - I'm not sure that replicating it would be a good idea if I remember correctly - which had subdued, muddy colours and GRAIN. It has nothing to do with the current products from Orwo by the way (I don't think that they supply a slide film now anyway).

[Stuart Richardson]

I think what people are largely thinking about is that some earlier digital cameras, particularly the M9, had a dynamic range that conformed more closely to slide film, though still being a bit wider. When the camera was also tuned to have rich, saturated and pleasing colors, like the M9 was, then it can really start to look a lot like film. As dynamic range increased, out of camera highlights could have more detail, but also be greyer, and shadows too open up, but also become grayer. The overall look of the default image is flatter. Contrast also increases color saturation, and so digital started to take on more of its own look. C41 films still have a much flatter look by default than digital, so digital kind of looked more different than either types of color film. These things can be addressed in post processing, but it can take a lot of work. Personally, I have never found any film presets that did a good job of replicating color film in a single click in any kind of consistent or reliable way. But I will say that the M9, S2 and S006 were the closest I found to any camera in terms of replicating a good slide film like E100G or Provia. I don't think either looked like Kodachrome, which is pretty distinct for its medium contrast and high saturation in the reds. I never shot the M240, but I evaluated it at the time, and it did not look more like film than the M9 to me. Rather the opposite. I don't think the M10 did either. I don't have the M11, but I imagine that it wouldn't either, because it is even more modern with even wider DR. None of this is to say that they are not capable of looking superb. But if you want straight out of camera results closer to slide film, the M9 and CCD S cameras are the way to go, even if they will not get you fully there. The best way to get a film look in a digital environment is to shoot film and scan it. 

 

[pippy]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think what people are largely thinking about is that some earlier digital cameras, particularly the M9, had a dynamic range that conformed more closely to slide film, though still being a bit wider. When the camera was also tuned to have rich, saturated and pleasing colors, like the M9 was, then it can really start to look a lot like film. As dynamic range increased, out of camera highlights could have more detail, but also be greyer, and shadows too open up, but also become grayer. The overall look of the default image is flatter. Contrast also increases color saturation, and so digital started to take on more of its own look. C41 films still have a much flatter look by default than digital, so digital kind of looked more different than either types of color film. These things can be addressed in post processing, but it can take a lot of work. Personally, I have never found any film presets that did a good job of replicating color film in a single click in any kind of consistent or reliable way. But I will say that the M9, S2 and S006 were the closest I found to any camera in terms of replicating a good slide film like E100G or Provia. I don't think either looked like Kodachrome, which is pretty distinct for its medium contrast and high saturation in the reds. I never shot the M240, but I evaluated it at the time, and it did not look more like film than the M9 to me. Rather the opposite. I don't think the M10 did either. I don't have the M11, but I imagine that it wouldn't either, because it is even more modern with even wider DR. None of this is to say that they are not capable of looking superb. But if you want straight out of camera results closer to slide film, the M9 and CCD S cameras are the way to go, even if they will not get you fully there. The best way to get a film look in a digital environment is to shoot film and scan it. 

 

Pretty good summation of the situation.

I have had an M8.2, an M9-P and now an M240 (generation) and don't really have any great preference for results obtained from one over another. Primarily, I suspect, because my personal snaps are almost always rendered in monochrome...

In my early days as an assistant each box of E-6 transparency sheet-film came with a note from the manufacturer informing us of which colour and strength of Wratten CC filter to use in order to obtain 'neutral' colours (i.e. in essence clean whites) because they could vary quite a bit from one batch of emulsion to the next. This situation could cause headaches if we didn't have enough of one batch for an entire shoot; we would have to buy a whole new batch of filmstock.

On the upside? These 'oddment' boxes of film were given to assistants so we could hone our craft doing test-shots and put together our own portfolios.

Later on, fortunately, the manufacturers got their acts together and there was far less chance of colour-variance between batches which made everyone's lives easier.

Philip.

[evikne]

What I like about all types of film is probably the reduced dynamic range. It simplifies the image, which often makes it look more appealing to me.

Here is an example of reduced dynamics in shadows and highlights from a Kodachrome film simulation profile in LR:

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wizard]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb evikne:

Here is an example of reduced dynamics in shadows and highlights from a Kodachrome film simulation profile in LR

Are you referring to the "empty" parts at either side of the histogram? If so, does that simulation profile simply compress DR? Or does it actually cut off certain image information?

[evikne]

55 minutes ago, wizard said:

Are you referring to the "empty" parts at either side of the histogram? If so, does that simulation profile simply compress DR? Or does it actually cut off certain image information?

Yes, it corresponds to what you would see on the histogram if you scanned a real film image. The "empty parts" give a matte effect, which I really like. I used a film simulation, since I don't have many scanned images, but the result is the same. Image information is cut off at both ends, but of course the profile does much more than that.

You can also create something similar with the Tone Curve adjustments in LR (but the standard Whites and Blacks tone controls in the Basic panel can only compress, not cut off).

Edited September 4 by evikne