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

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/14/2025 at 6:50 PM, insomnia said:

It's easy to remember. So far we have encountered a Windows-like rhythm, every second major release was meh.

M8 - meh

M9 - yay!

M240 - meh

M10 - yay!

M11 - meh

Looking forward to the M12 then. It seems to be a yay! 😄 

Edited May 16 by evikne

[costa43]

14 hours ago, lct said:

And the M8.2 is a yay-yay with IR-cut filters on.

Absolutely agree! I still think it has the nicest colour to my eyes (adobe converted dng) with the IR cut on from any M. The acutance is also higher due to the thinner filter. 

I think all the M digital bodies are a ‘yay’. 

[setuporg]

I've used Edition 60 for a long time and added M-P 240 last year for the movies, after reviving M246 with B&W movies.  The images indeed look more artisanal than M11.  The M10R has a similar look but a bit colder.  I like the M9P and M-P 240 look, but perhaps it's conditioned by knowing their origins.

An important part of the look is exposure, which is governed by metering.  The way every M underexposes blacks before M11 is a part of the Leica look.  In that way M11 is an outlier.

[Martin B]

My M-E 240 camera is certainly one I won't let go! I love its color output already in the DNG files without much PP needed! And yes, it is more film-like. Below a few selected photos from my trip to Germany and France earlier this May. All taken with the M-E 240 and Leica 35/2.4 M-lens. 

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!

 

[Martin B]

20 hours ago, setuporg said:

I've used Edition 60 for a long time and added M-P 240 last year for the movies, after reviving M246 with B&W movies.  The images indeed look more artisanal than M11.  The M10R has a similar look but a bit colder.  I like the M9P and M-P 240 look, but perhaps it's conditioned by knowing their origins.

An important part of the look is exposure, which is governed by metering.  The way every M underexposes blacks before M11 is a part of the Leica look.  In that way M11 is an outlier.

I have no experience with newer M models than the M-E 240 and my MM 246. But I am using an older type of Sony-sensor based A7R camera, and I can second you statement of flatter/colder images with newer higher DR sensors. You can get the same results but it needs more PP starting with the RAW file. It takes me a while to get a similar color output from my Sony images compared to my M 240-based ones. I personally prefer the color gamut from the older M 240 sensor. And yes, I am also underexposing images half a stop on my M-E 240 - the image shows as too dark on the older back screen of the camera, but the histogram view reveals it's okay. And I am always amazed how well the DNG files look on my computer screen later!

[Martin B]

On 5/14/2025 at 10:17 AM, pedaes said:

I never got comfortable with video in a 'M' body and as soon as it was dropped I leapt. There was certainly no 'filmic look', but the colours were very good and it was  reliable.

Subjective matter of taste - I personally never objected that the M 240 series included video. I rarely use it but I don't mind having the option at least! I guess the "Das Wesentliche" advertisement slogan is a bit lost on me. I really enjoy my M 240 based cameras (M-E 240 and MM 246) and won't let them go. 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Whilst any question like this relies on people appreciating what is meant by 'filmic', the most 'filmic' (IMO) digital Leica is the M9. This is because it is a CCD sensor camera and this sensor is surprisingly tolerant of extracting detail from the shadows, and even when it becomes slightly noisy (within limits), that noise has a more 'traditional' look which is not too dis-similar to film (analogue) noise. I'm sure that the concept of 'filmic' looks has been exlored and the mathematics behind both film imaging and digital imaging is pretty well understood. So whilst there are a few similarities I am equally sure that there are substantial differences which make anything other than a quite superficial comparison very difficult.

[cnguyen]

I owned 2 m240p and an m10. I love the colors from my M240p. The m240p is unique because it allows you to set b&w filters  in the menu if you want to shoot in b&w. No Leica m cameras allows you to do this. Also video - I can turn my m240p into a digital Leicina movie camera if I want to . No other M can do this. M240 also has excellent battery life - not M10

The M10 colors are cooler and worse with M11. M10 is better for low light with a more sensitive chip.

Leica decided back then to make m240 with a black paint option only which is a wonderful thing for leica users. For M10, M11 black body means black chrome - If you want black paint M10R prepare to pay $15000 usd for it.

Look at the m240 , M10 pics on this web site and decide for yourself.

Check out Thorsten Overgaard web site for anything Leica . Enjoy your purchase.

[lct]

All this is subjective. I own both an M11 and M240 and prefer the colors from the former. Not that i dislike the M240 but it tends to clip reds and i spend more time adjusting colors in post with it. The so-called magenta cast of the M11 is a joke as comparison.

[steve edmunds]

the OP has stated its a "myth" so the whole thread is pointless.

 

[jdlaing]

No thread is ever pointless.

[Martin B]

On 6/3/2025 at 7:33 PM, lct said:

All this is subjective. I own both an M11 and M240 and prefer the colors from the former. Not that i dislike the M240 but it tends to clip reds and i spend more time adjusting colors in post with it. The so-called magenta cast of the M11 is a joke as comparison.

Agreed that the colors from the M 240 have a warmer cast towards orange - I personally like this a lot! But I can also see that it can mean a debit of this sensor for others since color reception is very subjective and how we see color. Another benefit of the M 240 for me is that slightly underexposed the sky keeps a nice cyan cast I also like which no other digital camera I have (Canon 5D MkII, Sony A7R) does in a similar way. Even the M 240 sensor can't compete with modern high DR sensors, its limited DR still allows to get all the information within one DNG file within shadow to milder highlights with slight shadow and contrast pushing in PP. Main issue I have with the M 240 sensor is the easy-to-do highlight clipping if not being careful. My MM 246 on the other hand is much better retaining highlight structures - about 1 stop more leverage there which is useful. 

[lct]

2 hours ago, Martin B said:

Agreed that the colors from the M 240 have a warmer cast towards orange[...]

I seem to see a yellow cast personally. Who said it is subjective? 😄

[steve edmunds]

I prefer the colours from my M262 over my Q2 , both cameras are great but i like the leaf shutter and at certain times the EVF on the Q but the rendering from the M262 i much prefer.

Edited June 6 by steve edmunds

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, lct said:

I seem to see a yellow cast personally. Who said it is subjective? 😄

I once had to convert a whole series shot at noon in a desert area to B&W  because of a non-correctable yellow cast - caused by the strong IR. 

[mottykytu]

6 hours ago, steve edmunds said:

I prefer the colours from my M262 over my Q2 , both cameras are great but i like the leaf shutter and at certain times the EVF on the Q but the rendering from the M262 i much prefer.

you can always get that combo by using EVF on the M262

yes it will be a litte bit lag, but the result will be good !

[steve edmunds]

17 hours ago, mottykytu said:

you can always get that combo by using EVF on the M262

yes it will be a litte bit lag, but the result will be good !

i very much doubt that putting an EVF on my M262 will be all that useful.

[Jean-Michel]

It is true that the colours from different sensors are somewhat different from each other after the basic raw processing. What shows up on your screen is the result of the demosaicing of the Bayer pattern as calculated and chosen by the camera manufacturer and the engineers of the raw processing engine — AdobeRaw/ Lightroom in my case. That colour image is just a starting point.  To begin with, depending on how you calibrate, or do not calibrate, your screen your image may look quite different if seen on some other device. As you start processing your image, in LR, you first get to pick a profile: Adobe color, landscape, portrait, neutral, vivid, or adaptive. That is yet another beginning stage. You then can process at will. And you may also choose to adjust the Calibration of the red, green  and blue primaries. Then soft-proof for your chosen combination of paper and printer (if you do not print it, it does not exist). 

The 'basic' differences are really unimportant. Assuming that you have exposed your image correctly, you can produce the end product that you wish others to see.

[mottykytu]

4 hours ago, Jean-Michel said:

It is true that the colours from different sensors are somewhat different from each other after the basic raw processing. What shows up on your screen is the result of the demosaicing of the Bayer pattern as calculated and chosen by the camera manufacturer and the engineers of the raw processing engine — AdobeRaw/ Lightroom in my case. That colour image is just a starting point.  To begin with, depending on how you calibrate, or do not calibrate, your screen your image may look quite different if seen on some other device. As you start processing your image, in LR, you first get to pick a profile: Adobe color, landscape, portrait, neutral, vivid, or adaptive. That is yet another beginning stage. You then can process at will. And you may also choose to adjust the Calibration of the red, green  and blue primaries. Then soft-proof for your chosen combination of paper and printer (if you do not print it, it does not exist). 

The 'basic' differences are really unimportant. Assuming that you have exposed your image correctly, you can produce the end product that you wish others to see.

I don't think so, there are many things the Post Process cannot bring back or achieve like the micro constrast, cast on people skin, sky-rendering...

Many other things as well,

 

if you could really do all that thing in post , any SONY A7 RAW can become Leica Color after PP ! Which is not true

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[3D-Kraft.com]

Am 8.6.2025 um 07:00 schrieb mottykytu:

if you could really do all that thing in post , any SONY A7 RAW can become Leica Color after PP ! Which is not true

Sony used lots of different sensors over the years for the A7, A9 and A1 series, each delivering slightly different colors as a RAW starting point. Same for Leica digital cameras (you propably know, from whom Leica acquires the M11/Q3/SL3 Sensor?), so I neither see "Sony colors" nor "Leica colors" - and when you see them, you should be more specific about the model you are talking about.

I see a rather specific look (even when developing from DNG raws) most clearly with the Leica M9, but even this I wouldn't call a "Leica look." Even then, the differences after processing the raw files aren't particularly noticeable: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/291126-m9-colors/#comment-5815396