Seriously, has anybody had any luck using IR filters to try and reign in the hideous colour signature of the M240?
—Peter.
Related
44 thoughts on “About the M240 and its colours…”
I’m surprised you went back with the M240 Peter. Why did you end up choosing it?
It’s the only new digital rangefinder out there. I didn’t want to go back to the M9 (because of frustrations with reliability).
Ah. Make sense.
Imagine, reliability problems and Leica in the same sentence. I solved most of my Leica problems with an X100 and now an X100s, the kind of camera concept Leica had when it came out with the A, an innovation that led to legions of people carrying cameras everywhere and photographing everything.
Got to give Fuji credit, but I haven’t been tempted by one yet. I suspect I wouldn’t take to the ergonomics. Maybe I’m wrong.
I just bought the xRite Color Checker that I will use to improve the color out of my M-E. Don’t know if this could help you.
Let me know how it goes Duane.
Bought an xRite colour checker for the M240, and I can tell you the colours are MUCH better.. Wish Leica would adjust something in a future firmware update. One thing though, I think your images looked better more due to the lower DR of the M9 more so then the funny colours of the M240. Just a thought.
I have feeling “MUCH better” may not good enough for me. Unfortunately, there is something whacky about the M240 sensor, and I’ve studied this thing more than most, and have documented my findings with actual images.
Either way, if it’s working for you Adam, that’s the important part… so forget about my opinion.
I hope you understand where I’m coming from…
Sorry to hear your frustration Peter. Ashwin Rao has been working on this as he recently took the plunge. He’s been getting some assistance from a few people. It might be worth dropping him an email.
Once it does get sorted then I’ll spend the money. At this stage though I’ll be waiting until the next M (most likely Photokina after this one) is released. Frustrating indeed.
There are 2 or 3 cameras that produce nice colours but none of them a rangefinder. The XT 1, Df and dare I say it Leica T. It will be interesting to see what they do with the MM. I prefer the MM over M240 for B&Ws as to me I still see the CMOS output. Dynamic range is better though in M240….I prefer tonal range though in MM and micro contrast. But yes I agree the M240 does make some nice B&Ws.
I agree with everything you wrote Andrew, except the part about being frustrated. I’m not frustrated, just exploring the possibilities.
And yes, I know about Ashwin… he had contacted me ahead of his purchase.
Spoke with Kristian Dowling today. He no longer has 240 though what he used to do was reduced saturation in the orange channel and at times lower the temp a small amount. He didn’t us IR filters. I’m sure it’s what you are already doing though thought I’d pass this on.
Thanks Andrew.. I’m lowering saturation in the orange, red, and magenta channels.
It’s interesting that he no longer has his M240…
Not sure why but may be seeing him tomorrow. I think it’s to do with him changing his pro kit from Nikon to Canon and investing in new lenses, etc. He’s been using the Vario and T a bit as his casual camera. I’d say he’ll go back one day.
Hi, Peter, have you ever tried the Leica Monochrom? If you want to have a play with filters of all sorts, it is more than cool. I did sell all my digital stuff to get one. Now she is the youngest sister of her m3…This MM is the most astonishing digital cam I’ve ever seen. Now the girls are expecting a new sister…a MF cam. Still seecking which one could suit me best…have to say that lots of possibilities it will be a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II.
Have a lovely remain of the day!
Teresa.
Hi Teresa, I tried the Monochrom over a year ago. Great B&W output… best digital B&W anyway, but I still perform B&W film.
Hi Peter,
Although there are no absolutes, I can say with a degree of confidence that the Leica M-E is probably the most reliable of the M9 lineage camera’s…having all the latest circuit and parts. If you prefer the color output of the M9 over the M240 as I do and want to stay with a rangefinder, I strongly urge and recommend a M-E.
As mentioned in a post above, the Nikon Df HS some of the best color output I’ve ever encountered from a Nikon DSLR.
Dave (D&A)
Dave, my friend, I was sorely tempted by the M-E: same sensor as my beloved M9, so what’s not to love?
However, as I wrote when I was going through my game of “equipment musical chairs”, I decided to take up the challenge of the M240. It’s a like a switch went off in my head and I decided that I would make it work for me.
Now, having written all of the above… back to my original question: is there anybody out there who has some experience with using IR filters on the M240? I’ve seen the IR contamination, and I’ve seen before-and-after IR filter images on the web (involving black nylon bags), but so far I haven’t seen whether IR filters make a difference to skin tones.
—Peter.
Thank you for your reply Peter. I too have been tempted on many occasions to switch over to the M240 and make it work for color imagery. Yet I stop myself each time when I think of those who have the same predilection for the M9 color, fail to be satisfied with the M240 after acquiring one. At some point either with a firewire update, new rofiles in RAW converters or possibly by some other means, the M240 and it’s color output will evolve suffiently. That’s why I eagerly await your postings and experikentation. Of course if you’re successful, you going to cost me a pretty penny :).
Dave (D&A)
Have you tried any VSCO presets? I think they work well for color adjustments. What’s best is that you can make additional adjustments in Lightroom or remove adjustments that you don’t like.
Also, vsco has created presets specific for camera models/manufacturers which I believe make better renders.
Gage
Great suggestion Gage. Yes I have tried them, but I find the colour presets a little “too much”. I realize you can customize the adjustments but I like to micro-manage all of the real estate on an image frame with my own eye.
LOL. The spell check on my cell phone made a complete mess of the last paragraph in my prior post and it certainly didn’t make much sense. Here it is again with the appropriate corrections:
At some point either with a firmware update, new profiles in RAW converters or possibly by some other means, the M240 and it’s color output will evolve sufficiently. That’s why I eagerly await your postings and experimentation Peter. Of course if you’re successful, you going to cost me a pretty penny when I contemplate purchase of an M240 :).
Dave (D&A)
Or just shoot colour film and save hours at the computer fiddling….
🙂
I guess I’m kind of hmmm. The Leica M has always had its colour signature and to my mind it looks like slide film (i.e. exaggerated reds and greens, like kodachrome or velvia) and it is beyond excellent for scenes with foliage. It doesn’t work so well with skin under non-natural light. Whether that’s exaggerated by the IR sensitivity of the camera, well, it is what it is. I have no issue with skin tones in natural light, but I do find I need to tailor WB in fluorescent light in particular (there’s too much red and magenta in fluorescent or halogen lighting). That said, I had issues with my M9 in fluorescent light. I’m not sure this is a super surprising trait.
The D800E I also own is the same as was the D600 I used to own – perhaps the extra difficulty is the IR sensitivity of the M plus one’s own choice of subjects (I can’t say I’m anything other than happy with the results in natural light). The Df is not a problem from a colour accuracy/aesthetics point of view (colour performance at high ISO is off the scale on the Df sensor) and it has surprisingly subtle colour transitions. I admit I would kill for a Leica M with the Df sensor. That said, I prefer the M for street, candids and environmental scenes.
If the M240 doesn’t do it for you – move on. I like it, but that doesn’t mean you have to.
Thanks for the detailed response.
I’d have to disagree with you on the skin tones — they are “off” in natural light too, but not as “off” as they are in artificial light.
I’ve started to “crack the code” tonight however, so I guess I won’t “move on” just yet… 🙂
Fair enough – I don’t see an issue in natural light. I actually prefer it to the rendition of the M9 ( 🙂 ) , but to each his own. If you don’t like it though, don’t hang on with it.
By the way, what software are you using for the RAW processing?
Agree with you Peter…skin tones with the M240 are also off in natural lighr, especially bright sunlight. Issue is even when particular settings help in part to address this, another lighting situation comes along where the previous solution doesn’t apply. If ypu can cracked the code…I and am sure many others are all ears.
Dave (D&A)
i think that once someone has found a liking in the way the M9 renders, its very hard to get used to other cameras. thats one of the reasons why i sold m A7R again, which i bought as a backup for my M9.
Agreed, it’s very difficult to forget that Kodak (now Truesense) 18 MP CCD sensor!
Peter: Have you had any contact with Overgaard? In following his blog on the M240, to me at least his flesh tones seem to be good with the M. I do have issues with the M in mix lighting situations. I have no flesh tone issues when using the M and strobes. I know that many strobe light output tends towards blue (especially speedlights), which might hint at the path you could take when applying your corrections to your available light portraits?
Funny you should write that… I’ve been playing with both the blue and yellow channels this morning (I’ve been working on an image all weekend, not because it’s fantastic, but because I want to improve the skin tones!).
As for Overgaard, I tried contacting him a while ago about an unrelated manner, but he never responded.
Back to the colours… When I look at Kodak Portra 400 (the film, not emulation software) I appreciate how far digital has to go….
—Peter.
By the way Chris, thanks for your help.
Peter, on a pure technical ground I agree with you about the M skin tone reproduction. Maybe you are on to something with IR. For sure Leica is struggling a lot with the filter stack thickness on their sensors be it CCD or CMOS. I will start some experiments as soon as my time permits. Now just another thought.
I know a thing or two about audio reproduction. For some people the human voice is the starting point. If the human voice is not reproduced in a convincing manner, nothing else matters regarding the system performance. I see an analogy here. For some people in photography the reproduction of the human skin is the starting point. If you can’t get this right nothing else matters.
You are a man who would probably prefer a Quad ESL63 or BBC school loudspeaker that will reproduce the voices of your wife and children really believable. And there sure is something in the M9 sensor that provides you a comparable visual experience.
Speakers who do voices really well are hard to find nowadays because of fashion and fixation on high band wide, high power handling and high dynamics. Again an analogy with the present day camera industry.
To end positive, in audio more and more people are discovering what they have been missing in recent years. And there are signs that some people in the industry are listening. I am sure this will happen also with our camera’s.
Herb
Herb, thank you for a very delightful and intelligent commentary.
You’re correct, in my case correct skin tone rendering is essential. Hence my efforts to tame this camera.
Whether I’m able to do it or not, it’s a shame that this level of effort is required for a device from company renown for building cameras that facilitate the recording of the human condition.
—Peter.
Comparisons with audio equipment is quite interesting. I fondly recall the ELS63’s and never forgotten their natural reproduction of the human voice. Ever since that 1st listen I have gravitated to equipment that closely emulated their particular sound. They may not be the most accurate speakersbut definitely the most pleasing and that is very much like the color imagery from the M9. In other words the M9 like the ELS63’s may be have an identifiable signature as opposed to being accurate and neutral, but it’s one that very satisfying. Even if the M240 skin tones can be tamed, I wonder if the resulting imagery will provide the same visceral response as many experience with M9 images. I honestly can’t say and that’s why I’m interested in Peters work.
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A) wrote:
“In other words the M9… may be have an identifiable signature as opposed to being accurate and neutral, but it’s one that very satisfying. Even if the M240 skin tones can be tamed, I wonder if the resulting imagery will provide the same visceral response as many experience with M9 images. I honestly can’t say…”
I honestly can’t say either Dave. Hopefully the visceral response in any photograph is independent of a given sensor’s rendering. However, I know that’s not quite true, in that film images provide me with a visceral response that I can’t seem to get with digital. It’s literally the case that my best digital images seem contrived to me, whereas even my worst film images seem “real”. It might seem silly to some (or many), but that’s how I feel.
Either way, I know one thing (which I’ve stated again and again): M240 images cannot be made to emulate M9 images.
—Peter.
Hi Peter,
I completely agree with your comments on film vs digital, less so on M9 vs M240. I haven’t had a chance to sell my M9 yet, but since getting my M240 last August I have barely shot 5 frames with the M9 while I have taken thousands of images with the M240. For me it’s a far better camera – especially given its far better shutter low latency response and sheer speed between shots (which are big deals for me for those moments) just wish it was a little smaller and lighter, more M6classic-like in dimensions…
Re colours I actually don’t see much of a difference between the M9 and the M240, the 240 is less contrasty and saturated out of the camera but with a bit of Lightroom meddling the M9 look is not too hard to repro. M240 has far better colour graduations and the files look a lot richer to me and with potential for further editing, more malleable.
Still I often yearn for that organic film look that is just so completely different… it’s like switching off my digital streamer and putting on a Vinyl pressing of an analog recording on the LP12 and suddenly the music is ‘HERE’.
Love your site, thanks for sharing your wonderful work and thoughts with us.
Very much agree Peter and that’s sort of my point. Based on my limited experience with the M240 files when I compared and worked with them vs.similar M9 Files, I personally found I couldn’t emulate the look of the respective files no matter how much I adjusted and tweaked the images. It’s not to say the M240 files didn’t look extremely good for thr most part but simply that the look was different from those of the M9 which I much prefered.
Other than that, the M240 is a very seductive rangefinder operationally and that’s why it difficult to let go and remain with the M9. If I only consider image output alone as the sole criteria, the M9 wins hands down.
Dave (D&A)
Hello,
I have not had experience with IR filters for the M; however, for what its worth I prefer to make a custom white balance rather than a camera’s auto or preset white balance, using the X-rite colour checker for that purpose. It takes but a few seconds to adjust the balance when needed. I find the colors are certainly more accurate and have made for richer prints. The Leica’s inherent colors left a lot to be desired; though the camera did a good job on the custom side.
Again, for what its worth, I had nothing but frustration with the neanderthal M240 interface which ultimately had a definite negative impact on my first-time rangefinder experience, as much as I wanted to like the camera. The straw that eventually broke the camel’s back for me was that once I had set a custom white balance and then went back to one of the presets, the camera produced the worst colors, clearly having decided the custom white balance was there to stay. I had to reset the camera back to factory settings to get rid of the problem. After a period of two weeks testing the camera and with a mixture of sadness and frustration, I returned it to the dealer, the jury, as far as I’m concerned, still out on a digital Leica. In the meantime, thanks for your wonderful images and your thoughts.
Frederic, thank you for providing your experience.
This is the 2nd time I’ve attempted to ‘like” the M240, so I understand your sentiments. Ergonomically, the M is a dream, but effort is required to love the images that it produces, which — after all — is what a camera is all about.
Ideally a CCD sensor and color response similar to the M9 in a M240 like body. Maybe even a more purist, simplified camera without many of the extraneous features of the M240…but if necessary, I can live with them.
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A)
So Peter, NOw that you are working again on these files. Do you think the m240 is a ‘better’ BW camera then the M9/ME. Do the files with the more DR behave very different in conversion. In other words would the M240 be an option for BW shooters in stead of the M/ME/MM? (It would give the occasional color image if needed.)
Prosophos 
I’m surprised you went back with the M240 Peter. Why did you end up choosing it?
It’s the only new digital rangefinder out there. I didn’t want to go back to the M9 (because of frustrations with reliability).
Ah. Make sense.
Imagine, reliability problems and Leica in the same sentence. I solved most of my Leica problems with an X100 and now an X100s, the kind of camera concept Leica had when it came out with the A, an innovation that led to legions of people carrying cameras everywhere and photographing everything.
Got to give Fuji credit, but I haven’t been tempted by one yet. I suspect I wouldn’t take to the ergonomics. Maybe I’m wrong.
I just bought the xRite Color Checker that I will use to improve the color out of my M-E. Don’t know if this could help you.
Let me know how it goes Duane.
Bought an xRite colour checker for the M240, and I can tell you the colours are MUCH better.. Wish Leica would adjust something in a future firmware update. One thing though, I think your images looked better more due to the lower DR of the M9 more so then the funny colours of the M240. Just a thought.
I have feeling “MUCH better” may not good enough for me. Unfortunately, there is something whacky about the M240 sensor, and I’ve studied this thing more than most, and have documented my findings with actual images.
Either way, if it’s working for you Adam, that’s the important part… so forget about my opinion.
I hope you understand where I’m coming from…
Sorry to hear your frustration Peter. Ashwin Rao has been working on this as he recently took the plunge. He’s been getting some assistance from a few people. It might be worth dropping him an email.
Once it does get sorted then I’ll spend the money. At this stage though I’ll be waiting until the next M (most likely Photokina after this one) is released. Frustrating indeed.
There are 2 or 3 cameras that produce nice colours but none of them a rangefinder. The XT 1, Df and dare I say it Leica T. It will be interesting to see what they do with the MM. I prefer the MM over M240 for B&Ws as to me I still see the CMOS output. Dynamic range is better though in M240….I prefer tonal range though in MM and micro contrast. But yes I agree the M240 does make some nice B&Ws.
I agree with everything you wrote Andrew, except the part about being frustrated. I’m not frustrated, just exploring the possibilities.
And yes, I know about Ashwin… he had contacted me ahead of his purchase.
Spoke with Kristian Dowling today. He no longer has 240 though what he used to do was reduced saturation in the orange channel and at times lower the temp a small amount. He didn’t us IR filters. I’m sure it’s what you are already doing though thought I’d pass this on.
Thanks Andrew.. I’m lowering saturation in the orange, red, and magenta channels.
It’s interesting that he no longer has his M240…
Not sure why but may be seeing him tomorrow. I think it’s to do with him changing his pro kit from Nikon to Canon and investing in new lenses, etc. He’s been using the Vario and T a bit as his casual camera. I’d say he’ll go back one day.
Thanks Andrew. Give my regards. As you know, he was gracious enough to participate in a Guest Post here (http://photographsbypeter.com/2013/04/26/featured-photographer-kristian-dowling/). More than that, he is a gentleman through-and-through.
Hi, Peter, have you ever tried the Leica Monochrom? If you want to have a play with filters of all sorts, it is more than cool. I did sell all my digital stuff to get one. Now she is the youngest sister of her m3…This MM is the most astonishing digital cam I’ve ever seen. Now the girls are expecting a new sister…a MF cam. Still seecking which one could suit me best…have to say that lots of possibilities it will be a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II.
Have a lovely remain of the day!
Teresa.
Hi Teresa, I tried the Monochrom over a year ago. Great B&W output… best digital B&W anyway, but I still perform B&W film.
Hi Peter,
Although there are no absolutes, I can say with a degree of confidence that the Leica M-E is probably the most reliable of the M9 lineage camera’s…having all the latest circuit and parts. If you prefer the color output of the M9 over the M240 as I do and want to stay with a rangefinder, I strongly urge and recommend a M-E.
As mentioned in a post above, the Nikon Df HS some of the best color output I’ve ever encountered from a Nikon DSLR.
Dave (D&A)
Dave, my friend, I was sorely tempted by the M-E: same sensor as my beloved M9, so what’s not to love?
However, as I wrote when I was going through my game of “equipment musical chairs”, I decided to take up the challenge of the M240. It’s a like a switch went off in my head and I decided that I would make it work for me.
Now, having written all of the above… back to my original question: is there anybody out there who has some experience with using IR filters on the M240? I’ve seen the IR contamination, and I’ve seen before-and-after IR filter images on the web (involving black nylon bags), but so far I haven’t seen whether IR filters make a difference to skin tones.
—Peter.
Thank you for your reply Peter. I too have been tempted on many occasions to switch over to the M240 and make it work for color imagery. Yet I stop myself each time when I think of those who have the same predilection for the M9 color, fail to be satisfied with the M240 after acquiring one. At some point either with a firewire update, new rofiles in RAW converters or possibly by some other means, the M240 and it’s color output will evolve suffiently. That’s why I eagerly await your postings and experikentation. Of course if you’re successful, you going to cost me a pretty penny :).
Dave (D&A)
Have you tried any VSCO presets? I think they work well for color adjustments. What’s best is that you can make additional adjustments in Lightroom or remove adjustments that you don’t like.
Also, vsco has created presets specific for camera models/manufacturers which I believe make better renders.
Gage
Great suggestion Gage. Yes I have tried them, but I find the colour presets a little “too much”. I realize you can customize the adjustments but I like to micro-manage all of the real estate on an image frame with my own eye.
LOL. The spell check on my cell phone made a complete mess of the last paragraph in my prior post and it certainly didn’t make much sense. Here it is again with the appropriate corrections:
At some point either with a firmware update, new profiles in RAW converters or possibly by some other means, the M240 and it’s color output will evolve sufficiently. That’s why I eagerly await your postings and experimentation Peter. Of course if you’re successful, you going to cost me a pretty penny when I contemplate purchase of an M240 :).
Dave (D&A)
Or just shoot colour film and save hours at the computer fiddling….
🙂
I guess I’m kind of hmmm. The Leica M has always had its colour signature and to my mind it looks like slide film (i.e. exaggerated reds and greens, like kodachrome or velvia) and it is beyond excellent for scenes with foliage. It doesn’t work so well with skin under non-natural light. Whether that’s exaggerated by the IR sensitivity of the camera, well, it is what it is. I have no issue with skin tones in natural light, but I do find I need to tailor WB in fluorescent light in particular (there’s too much red and magenta in fluorescent or halogen lighting). That said, I had issues with my M9 in fluorescent light. I’m not sure this is a super surprising trait.
The D800E I also own is the same as was the D600 I used to own – perhaps the extra difficulty is the IR sensitivity of the M plus one’s own choice of subjects (I can’t say I’m anything other than happy with the results in natural light). The Df is not a problem from a colour accuracy/aesthetics point of view (colour performance at high ISO is off the scale on the Df sensor) and it has surprisingly subtle colour transitions. I admit I would kill for a Leica M with the Df sensor. That said, I prefer the M for street, candids and environmental scenes.
If the M240 doesn’t do it for you – move on. I like it, but that doesn’t mean you have to.
Thanks for the detailed response.
I’d have to disagree with you on the skin tones — they are “off” in natural light too, but not as “off” as they are in artificial light.
I’ve started to “crack the code” tonight however, so I guess I won’t “move on” just yet… 🙂
Fair enough – I don’t see an issue in natural light. I actually prefer it to the rendition of the M9 ( 🙂 ) , but to each his own. If you don’t like it though, don’t hang on with it.
By the way, what software are you using for the RAW processing?
Agree with you Peter…skin tones with the M240 are also off in natural lighr, especially bright sunlight. Issue is even when particular settings help in part to address this, another lighting situation comes along where the previous solution doesn’t apply. If ypu can cracked the code…I and am sure many others are all ears.
Dave (D&A)
i think that once someone has found a liking in the way the M9 renders, its very hard to get used to other cameras. thats one of the reasons why i sold m A7R again, which i bought as a backup for my M9.
Agreed, it’s very difficult to forget that Kodak (now Truesense) 18 MP CCD sensor!
Peter: Have you had any contact with Overgaard? In following his blog on the M240, to me at least his flesh tones seem to be good with the M. I do have issues with the M in mix lighting situations. I have no flesh tone issues when using the M and strobes. I know that many strobe light output tends towards blue (especially speedlights), which might hint at the path you could take when applying your corrections to your available light portraits?
Funny you should write that… I’ve been playing with both the blue and yellow channels this morning (I’ve been working on an image all weekend, not because it’s fantastic, but because I want to improve the skin tones!).
As for Overgaard, I tried contacting him a while ago about an unrelated manner, but he never responded.
Back to the colours… When I look at Kodak Portra 400 (the film, not emulation software) I appreciate how far digital has to go….
—Peter.
By the way Chris, thanks for your help.
Peter, on a pure technical ground I agree with you about the M skin tone reproduction. Maybe you are on to something with IR. For sure Leica is struggling a lot with the filter stack thickness on their sensors be it CCD or CMOS. I will start some experiments as soon as my time permits. Now just another thought.
I know a thing or two about audio reproduction. For some people the human voice is the starting point. If the human voice is not reproduced in a convincing manner, nothing else matters regarding the system performance. I see an analogy here. For some people in photography the reproduction of the human skin is the starting point. If you can’t get this right nothing else matters.
You are a man who would probably prefer a Quad ESL63 or BBC school loudspeaker that will reproduce the voices of your wife and children really believable. And there sure is something in the M9 sensor that provides you a comparable visual experience.
Speakers who do voices really well are hard to find nowadays because of fashion and fixation on high band wide, high power handling and high dynamics. Again an analogy with the present day camera industry.
To end positive, in audio more and more people are discovering what they have been missing in recent years. And there are signs that some people in the industry are listening. I am sure this will happen also with our camera’s.
Herb
Herb, thank you for a very delightful and intelligent commentary.
You’re correct, in my case correct skin tone rendering is essential. Hence my efforts to tame this camera.
Whether I’m able to do it or not, it’s a shame that this level of effort is required for a device from company renown for building cameras that facilitate the recording of the human condition.
—Peter.
Comparisons with audio equipment is quite interesting. I fondly recall the ELS63’s and never forgotten their natural reproduction of the human voice. Ever since that 1st listen I have gravitated to equipment that closely emulated their particular sound. They may not be the most accurate speakersbut definitely the most pleasing and that is very much like the color imagery from the M9. In other words the M9 like the ELS63’s may be have an identifiable signature as opposed to being accurate and neutral, but it’s one that very satisfying. Even if the M240 skin tones can be tamed, I wonder if the resulting imagery will provide the same visceral response as many experience with M9 images. I honestly can’t say and that’s why I’m interested in Peters work.
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A) wrote:
“In other words the M9… may be have an identifiable signature as opposed to being accurate and neutral, but it’s one that very satisfying. Even if the M240 skin tones can be tamed, I wonder if the resulting imagery will provide the same visceral response as many experience with M9 images. I honestly can’t say…”
I honestly can’t say either Dave. Hopefully the visceral response in any photograph is independent of a given sensor’s rendering. However, I know that’s not quite true, in that film images provide me with a visceral response that I can’t seem to get with digital. It’s literally the case that my best digital images seem contrived to me, whereas even my worst film images seem “real”. It might seem silly to some (or many), but that’s how I feel.
Either way, I know one thing (which I’ve stated again and again): M240 images cannot be made to emulate M9 images.
—Peter.
Hi Peter,
I completely agree with your comments on film vs digital, less so on M9 vs M240. I haven’t had a chance to sell my M9 yet, but since getting my M240 last August I have barely shot 5 frames with the M9 while I have taken thousands of images with the M240. For me it’s a far better camera – especially given its far better shutter low latency response and sheer speed between shots (which are big deals for me for those moments) just wish it was a little smaller and lighter, more M6classic-like in dimensions…
Re colours I actually don’t see much of a difference between the M9 and the M240, the 240 is less contrasty and saturated out of the camera but with a bit of Lightroom meddling the M9 look is not too hard to repro. M240 has far better colour graduations and the files look a lot richer to me and with potential for further editing, more malleable.
Still I often yearn for that organic film look that is just so completely different… it’s like switching off my digital streamer and putting on a Vinyl pressing of an analog recording on the LP12 and suddenly the music is ‘HERE’.
Love your site, thanks for sharing your wonderful work and thoughts with us.
Very much agree Peter and that’s sort of my point. Based on my limited experience with the M240 files when I compared and worked with them vs.similar M9 Files, I personally found I couldn’t emulate the look of the respective files no matter how much I adjusted and tweaked the images. It’s not to say the M240 files didn’t look extremely good for thr most part but simply that the look was different from those of the M9 which I much prefered.
Other than that, the M240 is a very seductive rangefinder operationally and that’s why it difficult to let go and remain with the M9. If I only consider image output alone as the sole criteria, the M9 wins hands down.
Dave (D&A)
Hello,
I have not had experience with IR filters for the M; however, for what its worth I prefer to make a custom white balance rather than a camera’s auto or preset white balance, using the X-rite colour checker for that purpose. It takes but a few seconds to adjust the balance when needed. I find the colors are certainly more accurate and have made for richer prints. The Leica’s inherent colors left a lot to be desired; though the camera did a good job on the custom side.
Again, for what its worth, I had nothing but frustration with the neanderthal M240 interface which ultimately had a definite negative impact on my first-time rangefinder experience, as much as I wanted to like the camera. The straw that eventually broke the camel’s back for me was that once I had set a custom white balance and then went back to one of the presets, the camera produced the worst colors, clearly having decided the custom white balance was there to stay. I had to reset the camera back to factory settings to get rid of the problem. After a period of two weeks testing the camera and with a mixture of sadness and frustration, I returned it to the dealer, the jury, as far as I’m concerned, still out on a digital Leica. In the meantime, thanks for your wonderful images and your thoughts.
Frederic, thank you for providing your experience.
This is the 2nd time I’ve attempted to ‘like” the M240, so I understand your sentiments. Ergonomically, the M is a dream, but effort is required to love the images that it produces, which — after all — is what a camera is all about.
Interestingly, while I tinker with the M240, my Open Letter to Leica asking for a state-of-the-art CCD sensor in a future M body continues to garner more signatures (http://photographsbypeter.com/2013/11/16/an-open-letter-to-leica/).
—Peter.
Ideally a CCD sensor and color response similar to the M9 in a M240 like body. Maybe even a more purist, simplified camera without many of the extraneous features of the M240…but if necessary, I can live with them.
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A)
So Peter, NOw that you are working again on these files. Do you think the m240 is a ‘better’ BW camera then the M9/ME. Do the files with the more DR behave very different in conversion. In other words would the M240 be an option for BW shooters in stead of the M/ME/MM? (It would give the occasional color image if needed.)