Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As a matter of interest I contacted Vanbar here in Oz about what the 240 may be worth as a trade on an MM. I'm not really considering it now because my jets have cooled and I'll persist with finding the 240's sweet spot on way or another.
Not to mention they were talking about $3000.00 on a new MM which near made me fall out of my chair!
I don't think so ... back to normal service!
Not to mention they were talking about $3000.00 on a new MM which near made me fall out of my chair!
I don't think so ... back to normal service!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
One thing I have noticed about the camera is the tendency to create overly warm images in all lights. Easy to adjust of course but why the hell do digital camera manufacturers do this ... is it what they think people want to see?
I've noticed that some lenses skew my white balance as well. Not specifically speaking to the M240, but in general. On my Nikon Df... the 50mm 1.4g is spot on WB wise while the 85mm 1.8g tends to be a bit warm and magenta (in lightroom).
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
It might be my weary middle-aged eyes, but I cannot see any difference in the above flowerbed photos. I'm using a Macbook Pro with Retina screen, and it usually reveals any subtle differences.
I'm in agreement about the M 240 jpeg images producing overly warm skin tones. And sometimes the WB is skewed as well, but I had that same problem with my Canon dSLR.
I also find the contrast on the M 240 jpegs to be always too high for my liking, even when contrast is set to 'LOW' in the menus. The difference between 'HIGH' and 'LOW' menu settings seem to be minimal.
As a result, my workflow tends to revolve around the DNG files, which are usually much better than the Leica JPEG algorithms. I think Leica if Leica put their minds to it, they could come out with a firmware update that provided better JPEG quality. But I'm not going to make any assumptions that they'll do so.
Just when I feel like the M 240 is driving me crazy with all its idiosyncrasies, I'll examine my DNG files at the end of the day and inevitably I find a couple images that really impress me. That makes owning the M 240 worthwhile, IMHO.
For comparison, I recently borrowed a Fuji X100T. I shot the same scene with the Fuji X100T and my Leica M 240. Sensor differences aside, once the images were scaled for comparison I noticed much more micro-contrast and detail in the Leica image. The X100T is a great camera, but the Leica still won in terms of overall IQ.
I'm in agreement about the M 240 jpeg images producing overly warm skin tones. And sometimes the WB is skewed as well, but I had that same problem with my Canon dSLR.
I also find the contrast on the M 240 jpegs to be always too high for my liking, even when contrast is set to 'LOW' in the menus. The difference between 'HIGH' and 'LOW' menu settings seem to be minimal.
As a result, my workflow tends to revolve around the DNG files, which are usually much better than the Leica JPEG algorithms. I think Leica if Leica put their minds to it, they could come out with a firmware update that provided better JPEG quality. But I'm not going to make any assumptions that they'll do so.
Just when I feel like the M 240 is driving me crazy with all its idiosyncrasies, I'll examine my DNG files at the end of the day and inevitably I find a couple images that really impress me. That makes owning the M 240 worthwhile, IMHO.
For comparison, I recently borrowed a Fuji X100T. I shot the same scene with the Fuji X100T and my Leica M 240. Sensor differences aside, once the images were scaled for comparison I noticed much more micro-contrast and detail in the Leica image. The X100T is a great camera, but the Leica still won in terms of overall IQ.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
A Retina screen is rather limited for subtle differences as it is geared to boost contrast and colour (and does not even render sRGB fully) I cannot see the difference on my Macbook either - but I sure can on my Eizo CG screens at home.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Calibrate the Retina display against some more softer targets. I use 110 CDm^2, 1.8 gamma, and 5600K white point. That way you can see much finer distinctions.
G
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes, but you are still limited by the restricted colour space, especially in the greens. Obviously not for sRGB web shots, those are fine, but for serios editing an Adobe RGB monitor is far preferable.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Adobe RGB (1998) was specifically designed to model the CMYK gamut of a web press printing engine. If that's the output you're working with when doing serious editing, then you're absolutely right.
If I were doing motion picture post processing, I'd also want to have a wide gamut display to do my editing and proofing on—in motion work, very tiny variations frame to frame make a big difference.
Most inkjet papers/RGB (inkjet) printers cannot achieve the color gamut available in sRGB. Since I do my image rendering for output to inkjet printers and compatible high-quality papers, the standard 8bit displays are really good enough IMO. Set the calibration targets appropriately, and the range of visible adjustability is actually a very close match.
An EIZO would be a nice display regardless. Maybe when I'm rich(er) and more (in)famous. ;-)
G
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually I do a lot of colour editing in LAB. A wide gamut monitor is essential in that case. I wish Prophoto monitors were available...
It is not just the colour space though, it is also consistency in various sections of the display, which can partly negate the benefit of calibrating.
It is not just the colour space though, it is also consistency in various sections of the display, which can partly negate the benefit of calibrating.
willie_901
Veteran
Exactly.
Yet at my, and my clients', level (bottom of the ladder) art and marketing directors want sRGB – even for prints. Even decent printing labs want sRGB. I ask them if they wouldn't prefer Adobe RGB and they say "no". Maybe the first threshold for choosing a printing lab is if they use Adobe RGB (1998).
At least it really is easy to get a reasonable match for color and tonality (contrast).
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, I print myself (up to A3+ at any rate) and my printer (Canon 9500Pro ii) performs best in my experience in Adobe RGB. The ink pattern of printers is CMYK, of course, for obvious reasons, although they connect as RGB devices.
agoglanian
Reconnected.
Keith,
I have a radical idea
Try your hand at making very short (15-20 seconds max) films that have color as its main subject with your M240. You may find yourself enjoying the new medium and appreciating the M240s color palette for what it is if you take away your ability to compare it to the Merrills.
This is an awesome thought, I'm going to look into it myself
gunston
Established
sell it if you don't like it.