Discovering the amazing image files of the Leica M9, the darkhorse of digital photography

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Adam Bonn Maybe M9 pop is a combination of incomplete IR filtration and lower dynamic range? I have numerous small sensor cameras with the usual poor dynamic range, and they certainly don't pop like the M9. The only cameras I know of which seem to come close are the original Sigma DP1 and DP2, and the Ricoh GXR M module. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Adam Bonn]

On 10/16/2025 at 6:59 AM, Archiver said:

@Adam Bonn Maybe M9 pop is a combination of incomplete IR filtration and lower dynamic range? I have numerous small sensor cameras with the usual poor dynamic range, and they certainly don't pop like the M9. The only cameras I know of which seem to come close are the original Sigma DP1 and DP2, and the Ricoh GXR M module. 

I don’t know, IIRC the 240 wasn’t great with IR either and that doesn’t really render like the M9

It will depend a bit on the software used to develop the RAW files too, for example adobe’s DCP files work a little differently these last few years than they did back in the M9 day.

As a highly woolly analogy…

A motorbike with a 50cc engine can’t reach 70mph and doesn’t feel exciting 

A motorbike with a 125cc engine feels exciting at 70mph, top gear, throttle open wide, engine on song

A motorbike with a 1000cc engine feels boring at 70mph (well in top gear), the revs are low and the engine isn’t stretching its legs

The M9 is like the 125cc bike, in a lot of everyday DR scenes it makes an ‘exciting’ image as the native DR is ‘on song’

The modern sensors are like the 1000, in a lot of everyday DR scenes the files are quite flat and need editing, but most RAW edits are global adjustments which removes the little nuances that the lower DR/big sensor cameras have natively 

[Archiver]

4 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

I don’t know, IIRC the 240 wasn’t great with IR either and that doesn’t really render like the M9

It will depend a bit on the software used to develop the RAW files too, for example adobe’s DCP files work a little differently these last few years than they did back in the M9 day.

That makes a lot of sense. I'm still using Lightroom 4.4 because I refuse to pay Adobe any more subscription money than I must. LR4 seems to give M9 files extra sparkle. I've used other raw editors like Raw Therapee, Capture One and ON1, and none of them give M9 files quite the same pop. Given this, I'll continue to use LR4 with the M9 for as long as I have systems that allow it.

4 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

As a highly woolly analogy…

A motorbike with a 50cc engine can’t reach 70mph and doesn’t feel exciting 

A motorbike with a 125cc engine feels exciting at 70mph, top gear, throttle open wide, engine on song

A motorbike with a 1000cc engine feels boring at 70mph (well in top gear), the revs are low and the engine isn’t stretching its legs

The M9 is like the 125cc bike, in a lot of everyday DR scenes it makes an ‘exciting’ image as the native DR is ‘on song’

The modern sensors are like the 1000, in a lot of everyday DR scenes the files are quite flat and need editing, but most RAW edits are global adjustments which removes the little nuances that the lower DR/big sensor cameras have natively 

Very woolly, but understood. All I know is that the M9 (with LR4) gives results that I'm very hard put to produce with any other gear. Even my SL2S doesn't behave the same way.

[Adam Bonn]

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!

M10-R and M9-P

Zero edits*, AWB

of course there's differences, but close enough for me. OWMV

It does have to be said that the 240/M10/M10-R are all cameras that I feel I've improved by creative profiling, whereas the M9 I've never managed to be happier than what it does natively. That probably says something

 

*Yes I usually edit my photos, it's just easier here to make a comparison when they're the same. FWIW.. I feel that if I have a need to shoot M9/10-R side by side I can get them close enough in post, and if I'm shooting just the 10-R then in post wishing it had the M9 vibe (but without an M9 ref photo) then it's a mute point what the M9 would have really looked like and I can just go with my gut

[Adam Bonn]

26 minutes ago, Archiver said:

That makes a lot of sense. I'm still using Lightroom 4.4 because I refuse to pay Adobe any more subscription money than I must. LR4 seems to give M9 files extra sparkle. I've used other raw editors like Raw Therapee, Capture One and ON1, and none of them give M9 files quite the same pop. Given this, I'll continue to use LR4 with the M9 for as long as I have systems that allow it.

well yes that's valid, as the LR process engine gets updated, but what I meant was that the components of the DCP file have changed roles within the adobe ecosystem over the years

The colour profile 'Adobe Standard' (NOT Adobe Color for newer adobe product users. That's something different) is actually a .DCP file.

A DCP file maps the native colours of a RAW file into a known colour space D50.. but let's keep this simple and simply say the DCP gives the RAW a (known) white balance

A DCP file has three components that do this

1. Color Matrices

2. Forward Matrices

3. HSD Tables

Back in the M9 day, a DCP file used the Forward Matrices to do the bulk of the work, and the HSD Tables just kinda tidied things up a bit !! But modern DCP files have quite watered down Forward Matrices and use the HSD Tables to provide the bulk of the colour look.

The adobe M9 DCP is the same as it always way, so even 2025 LR/ACR still uses the original M9 DCP file, but newer DCP files for newer cameras use the newer way of loading for the functions of a DCP file.

Sorry, this is a very technical subject and I've tried to keep it digestible, but I fear it makes little sense because of it!

[Jipster]

38 minutes ago, Archiver said:

That makes a lot of sense. I'm still using Lightroom 4.4 because I refuse to pay Adobe any more subscription money than I must. LR4 seems to give M9 files extra sparkle. I've used other raw editors like Raw Therapee, Capture One and ON1, and none of them give M9 files quite the same pop. Given this, I'll continue to use LR4 with the M9 for as long as I have systems that allow it.

Very woolly, but understood. All I know is that the M9 (with LR4) gives results that I'm very hard put to produce with any other gear. Even my SL2S doesn't behave the same way.

But you own Leica gear? Technology has gone leaps and bounds on demosaicing and dodging and burning (through selections) since LR 4. I am puzzled why you don’t want to improve your photography output, since money is not the issue given Leica prices. I am not trying to be inflammatory, I am genuinely puzzled.

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, Jipster said:

But you own Leica gear? Technology has gone leaps and bounds on demosaicing and dodging and burning (through selections) since LR 4. I am puzzled why you don’t want to improve your photography output, since money is not the issue given Leica prices. I am not trying to be inflammatory, I am genuinely puzzled.

As I said, I do not want to give Adobe (or anyone) any more subscription money than I have to. If other raw processors with perpetual licenses had the same kind of output as LR, I would have moved on from LR already. 

[Archiver]

@Adam Bonn I'm still working towards getting SL2S files to look like what the M9 seems to do with very little adjustment. Just when I think I've got it, another shooting/lighting situation arises and it doesn't quite look right. Sometimes, my SL2S processing has overly saturated 'candy' colours that the M9 would never do, but has more in common with Panasonic S1 and S5 files. Not that the look is bad, but it's just not like the M9.

[Jipster]

14 hours ago, Archiver said:

As I said, I do not want to give Adobe (or anyone) any more subscription money than I have to. If other raw processors with perpetual licenses had the same kind of output as LR, I would have moved on from LR already. 

I don't understand the reasoning (although you are not alone, I must admit, to hold that view). I look at it as I pay for things I care about (like when I rent, I give subscription money every month; I pay the person mowing my lawn every month) and I really like the improvements LR has done (specially w.r.t. selection tools, broadly speaking, in the last couple of years, but also noise reduction and ...). I don't know in Europe but here in the US LR+Photoshop used to be $10 a month and I think it's now $20 and $12 for just LR. Greatest deal on earth. I believe services need to be paid for and they provide a service with their at least twice a year meaningful updates. To each their own, of course, that's what makes the world a great place! I am glad LR 4 satisfies you.