M240 - M262, really? Does the M262 have better color science?

[boojum]

OK, I have an M240 which has become my workhorse with a Thypoch 50 1.4 on it. It's a nice combo. And I do like the color a lot as it is toned down a bit from the M9. I have recently been in a discussion with a camera geek, a knowledgeable one, who has the M262 and says he prefers it to the M240 for its better color science. The M240 and M262 have different firmware. Is that just because the M262 does not do video and has no live view or does it have enhanced color science? Does anyone know, or better, has anyone tested them side by side??

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Unless they changed the color dye used in the Mosaic Filter for the CMOS sensor, or used a different sensor- you could replicate colors using a raw processor.

The Nikon Df uses the same sensor as the D4, but has lower noise because the readout rate is lower. There might be a similar improvement for the M262, but you would need to shoot side-by-side.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... The M240 and M262 have different firmware. Is that just because the M262 does not do video and has no live view or does it have enhanced color science? ...

AFAIK, the two cameras have the same sensor. If there are any differences in color output I doubt it was intentional by Leica engineers. Neither should there be any differences between the M11 and M11-D, for example. I find it hard to imagine how removing the video function and/or the rear screen would affect color output.

 

[boojum]

Unless they changed the color dye used in the Mosaic Filter for the CMOS sensor, or used a different sensor- you could replicate colors using a raw processor.

The Nikon Df uses the same sensor as the D4, but has lower noise because the readout rate is lower. There might be a similar improvement for the M262, but you would need to shoot side-by-side.

I am a lazy lout and live by SOOC JPG. I can get into editors but prefer not to. The fellow who is speaking with me is sure the 262 is the better. I understand that they could have sensor differences and also firmware differences. But different does not mean better.

I was just fantasizing someone might have done actual physical tests. I like the M240 a lot, it is a trusted machine. If there is a difference is it significant? Sometimes I believe that I should have been happy with my Baby Box Brownie.

 

[boojum]

AFAIK, the two cameras have the same sensor. If there are any differences in color output I doubt it was intentional by Leica engineers. Neither should there be any differences between the M11 and M11-D, for example. I find it hard to imagine how removing the video function and/or the rear screen would affect color output.

Agreed, but in reworking the firmware were there color science changes? Having coded for 20 years I know that sometimes when modifying/upgrading code enhancements may be added "while we have it open." These code changes of any size are never simple, often include groups to discuss, brainstorm, plan and mull whether to enhance. The fellow talking to me very much prefers the M262. This is what set me off on this quest, the difference. Real? Great?

If there is a definitive answer for this bit of Leica obscurity I'd like to learn it.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

The Leica Forum ...
Look here -
And here

 

[boojum]

The Leica Forum ...
Look here -
And here

I had already followed the first thread, thanks for the second. The second seems to be degenerating into the classic "How many angels can stand in the head of a pin?" argument. I take that to mean that there is no real significant difference in the camera or angels arguments. But I will follow it to the end and thank you for the link.

So far it seems there is a perceived difference. Demonstrable one is up for debate. I just recently posted some YT links to William Albert Allard, NatGeo photographer who is deft with color. I think he is great with color but even better with the picture. I know he shoots a Q, one of the 28mm ones, and what looks like an M9. And a later M body. He is comfortable with Leicas. But at the end-up the picture trumps all. And that is, of course, the perrenial problem. We cannot purchase our way to greatness. But we can collect a bunch of fun toys.

The differences, real or perceived, between these two workhorses are an interesting inquiry. Hopefully there is not difference enough to delude me into thinking I need a 262.

 

[boojum]

I do not think I am unlike most folks on the board: I shoot great stuff and the rest of you shoot crap. LOL, just joking. Anyway, here are a couple on my M240 with the Thypoch Simera 50 1.4. they are both at f/2.0 IIRC. I like how the color came out. And while the pics are not great the color does help it some, and as always, YMMV.

M2400261 M240 + Thypoch Simera 50mm f/1.4 @f/2.0 by West Phalia, on Flickr

M2400285 M240 + Thypoch Simera 50mm f/1.4 @f/2.0 by West Phalia, on Flickr
​

So color science means a lot to me and also the lenses which enhance what is in the camera. I will poke around about the M240 - M262 differences some more just to find out. Thanks for your help.

 

[brusby]

I'm sure it would be easy to find people who will swear there are differences between the two cameras. But no matter how well meaning they are and how good or bad a photographer they might be, those kinds of claims I find almost meaningless absent some rigorous testing such as detailed measurements of sensor output or controlled, double blind tests of images. Human perception is just way too variable and fallible to rely on it alone for a final determination if it's not in a controlled test environment..

 

[boojum]

I'm sure it would be easy to find people who will swear there are differences between the two cameras. But no matter how well meaning they are and how good or bad a photographer they might be, those kinds of claims I find almost meaningless absent some rigorous testing such as detailed measurements of sensor output or controlled, double blind tests of images. Human perception is just way too variable and fallible to rely on it alone for a final determination.

Well put and I agree 100%. Thinking of Abbot and all those who can conjure a good image into the camera, it is the picture not the pixels. I am interested in these fine points and always willing to get an edge. But it is, again, the picture not the pixels, drat.

 

[Godfrey]

I've had the M9, the M-P 240, the M-D 262, and now the M10-R. I see very little that I could not have obtained from any of them, other than the increased resolution and dynamic range of the later sensors.

But then, I never capture to JPEG files, I exclusively use raw capture, and have all my own developed presets for doing the basic raw to RGB conversions.

G

 

[pvdhaar]

... I have recently been in a discussion with a camera geek, a knowledgeable one, ...

You should have had a discussion with a photography geek.

 

[boojum]

You should have had a discussion with a photography geek.

That's quibbling, But, since you have made the distinction, who is better qualified to understand an automobile, the mechanic or the driver? We are not talking about a person taking photographs but how the mechanism itself takes the photographs independent of the user/operator.

FWIW the fellow I was talking with is both. I hope this helps.

 

[pvdhaar]

That's quibbling, But, since you have made the distinction, who is better qualified to understand an automobile, the mechanic or the driver? We are not talking about a person taking photographs but how the mechanism itself takes the photographs independent of the user/operator.

FWIW the fellow I was talking with is both. I hope this helps.

It raises the question what is better? Better objectively or subjectively? Is it in terms of how accurately the camera reproduces a color chart, or how the camera output matches what the eye sees, or even what the eye wants to see?

All assuming of course that the complete imaging pipeline from scene to final print or screen is perfectly ideal and transparent, and there's no compression, gamma correction, dithering, rendering, a-linearity, noise, white balance, or color space matching involved.

In the 240 vs 246 comparison, that may result in one of them looking better on screens/prints of brand A and the other on screens/prints of brand B, and there not being an overall 'winner'.

 

[boojum]

It raises the question what is better? Better objectively or subjectively? Is it in terms of how accurately the camera reproduces a color chart, or how the camera output matches what the eye sees, or even what the eye wants to see?

All assuming of course that the complete imaging pipeline from scene to final print or screen is perfectly ideal and transparent, and there's no compression, gamma correction, dithering, rendering, a-linearity, noise, white balance, or color space matching involved.

In the 240 vs 246 comparison, that may result in one of them looking better on screens/prints of brand A and the other on screens/prints of brand B, and there not being an overall 'winner'.

As has been suggested this is hard to do without both cameras side by side with the same lenses at the same time. And even then it would be difficult. The fellow who suggested the difference is well-schooled in cameras and how to use them and has been at it for some years. IIRC he has a technical background, too. So he is not some wild-eyed LibArts fellow such as myself. And it is an interesting question. There are false leads: different hardware and firmware, same sensor. So did Leica just peel out the Video and Live View code or clean up what they could while they worked on the firmware?

The 262 has fabs for its more purist self. I figure if you do not use Liveview and video you are in the same place. Or are you not?

 

[wlewisiii]

I have a 240. I have very very rarely used live view, almost never chimp, and have never made any videos. That said, it was the cheapest digital camera Leica available at the time and it still took all of my inheritance, my savings and a small loan at a pawn shop to buy it from the fellow in South Africa. 😱 I can't get too worried about if X model might be better than Y when I know this one is the only one I'll have 😀 But I seriously doubt that Leica did very much more to the firmware than strip the un-needed functionality out when the stripped down the hardware to make the 262 out of the 240. It would cost too much to do more than that.

As for the 240, I have learned, mostly with help from Sonnar_Brian, how to tweak the RAW output to what I like (using the Adobe M240 DCP file & RawTherapee) so that's good enough for me. The milage always varies...

 

[Godfrey]

As has been suggested this is hard to do without both cameras side by side with the same lenses at the same time. And even then it would be difficult. The fellow who suggested the difference is well-schooled in cameras and how to use them and has been at it for some years. IIRC he has a technical background, too. So he is not some wild-eyed LibArts fellow such as myself. And it is an interesting question. There are false leads: different hardware and firmware, same sensor. So did Leica just peel out the Video and Live View code or clean up what they could while they worked on the firmware?

The 262 has fabs for its more purist self. I figure if you do not use Liveview and video you are in the same place. Or are you not?

I had both the M-P 240 and M-D 262 at the same time and occasionally would have both out shooting together, swapping lenses back and forth between them. As said before, I capture with raw-only; never saw much different between the two cameras with respect to color/tonality/etc based on the raw files. If the JPEG varied... I have no idea. Irrelevant to me.

G