Getting back into Leica - M10 or M240 or something else...?

[james.liam]

I’ve only ever resented one other camera as much. It almost made me give up photographing for myself.

Name names....

 

[brusby]

There are lots of good things about the 240 series cameras. The battery among them. I sold my 246 and 240 as soon as the M10 came out, though, to stop perennially fighting with shadow banding when I tried to raise dark areas in underexposed or high ISO photos. It drove me insane. A photo would look great, then I’d print it big, and the pinstripes would be there, staring at me from the shadows. It was worse than the M9/MM corroding sensor for me - at least the M9 or MM worked when they worked. The 240 and 246 they seemed like they were working, but every photo was sabotaged in the shadows, waiting for me to edit. I’m bitter, as you can tell.

When I hear stuff like this I immediately think, wow this photographer is so detail oriented, his/her photos must just be freakin' awesome. But it never seems to work out that way. Usually the photos are no better and often much worse than normal. I'm not commenting on your photos cause I frankly haven't seen enough to make any informed comments. But just in general, I see people bitching and complaining about stuff, usually with nothing in their photos as evidence of a more nunanced than normal technique.

 

[brusby]

For anyone who may not be familiar with the M240 and banding issues, here's a shot I took quite some time ago at sunset with the foreground in almost total darkness. I had to dig pretty deeply into the shadows just to get a print that came close to capturing the feel of being there in person. I'm sure if one looks hard enough there's probably some banding present -- as is the case I've experienced with pushing almost any modern digital sensor pretty hard -- but for most practical uses I never found it to be a real problem.

Straight out of camera - exposing for area around sun so highlight details don't blow out
M2403855 4 by Brusby, on Flickr

Shadows lifted significantly in post to replicate feel of scene in person
M2403855 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[Freakscene]

For anyone who may not be familiar with the M240 and banding issues, here's a shot I took quite some time ago at sunset with the foreground in almost total darkness. I had to dig pretty deeply into the shadows just to get a print that came close to capturing the feel of being there in person. I'm sure if one looks hard enough there's probably some banding present -- as is the case I've experienced with pushing almost any modern digital sensor pretty hard -- but for most practical uses I never found it to be a real problem.

Straight out of camera - exposing for area around sun so highlight details don't blow out
M2403855 4 by Brusby, on Flickr

Shadows lifted significantly in post to replicate feel of scene in person
M2403855 by Brusby, on Flickr

There is too much fine detail here to see the banding. My photos often have substantial areas of flat tone, often out of focus. in this situation the banding shows up very clearly. I use my Leica Ms on microscopes for work often, and the photos are used for publication in scientific journals or for presentations. I didn’t notice the banding until a journal reviewer pointed it out and indicated the image needed to be re-taken - i.e. it was rejected for publication. This had never happened to me before. While I had the 246 I went back to colour conversions for microscope use. I can post some when I’m back at home.

And whatever you think of my photos, you need to remember that a lot of us make our living with cameras documenting things that you might think are boring, or plain, but which have high technical requirements. I mostly don’t photograph normal things, my most common ’subjects’ are small invertebrates and sections of tissue on slides, but it’s not really that different to any other photography. When I started out I spent several years photographing human retinas.

 

[Freakscene]

Name names....

Contax S2.

 

[Freakscene]

When I hear stuff like this I immediately think, wow this photographer is so detail oriented, his/her photos must just be freakin' awesome. But it never seems to work out that way. Usually the photos are no better and often much worse than normal. I'm not commenting on your photos cause I frankly haven't seen enough to make any informed comments. But just in general, I see people bitching and complaining about stuff, usually with nothing in their photos as evidence of a more nunanced than normal technique.

Also, why shouldn’t I be able to make my photos how I want them, irrespective of how ‘good’ I am or what anyone else thinks of my photos???

 

[shawn]

There is too much fine detail here to see the banding. My photos often have substantial areas of flat tone, often out of focus. in this situation the banding shows up very clearly. I use my Leica Ms on microscopes for work often, and the photos are used for publication in scientific journals or for presentations. I didn’t notice the banding until a journal reviewer pointed it out and indicated the image needed to be re-taken - i.e. it was rejected for publication. This had never happened to me before. While I had the 246 I went back to colour conversions for microscope use. I can post some when I’m back at home.

And whatever you think of my photos, you need to remember that a lot of us make our living with cameras documenting things that you might think are boring, or plain, but which have high technical requirements. I mostly don’t photograph normal things, my most common ’subjects’ are small invertebrates and sections of tissue on slides, but it’s not really that different to any other photography. When I started out I spent several years photographing human retinas.

Be interesting to see the DNG. Never saw this on my M240 and I've now gone looking for it. It isn't there in my files. Your use case is different though.

 

[brusby]

Also, why shouldn’t I be able to make my photos how I want them, irrespective of how ‘good’ I am or what anyone else thinks of my photos???

No one said otherwise. I never criticized your photos. In fact I made a point to say that I didn't have enough experience with them to offer any criticism. Only that in general it's been my experience that sometimes the most vociferous critics are the worst photographers. I'm not sure what if any value that statement has, other than a possible explanation of motive for a person to be critical as a way to seem cool when photo skills are not up to par. Again, I'm not directing this at you specifically. Just a general observation I've noticed in the arts, including graphic arts and music.

But you made a statement that "every photo [you took with the M240] was sabotaged in the shadows". You specifically said EVERY PHOTO. You didn't limit your initial criticism to which I responded to scientific stuff or as you later qualified it "photos [which] often have substantial areas of flat tone, often out of focus" . That's a very damning condemnation of the M240 and one I think is completely unwarranted and unsupported by the evidence. I offered my counter opinion that the M240 is capable of producing fine images where, under most normal use, banding is not a problem and I posted at least some anecdotal evidence in support.

As I said earlier, I have no doubt banding can be a problem under some circumstances, as can be artifacts in almost any digital sensor when pushed hard. I just think you went overboard with your initial criticism and made the M240 sound completely unsuited for normal photo work -- which I know from experience it is not.

 

[Freakscene]

No one said otherwise. I never criticized your photos. In fact I made a point to say that I didn't have enough experience with them to offer any criticism. Only that in general it's been my experience that sometimes the most vociferous critics are the worst photographers. I'm not sure what if any value that statement has, other than a possible explanation of motive for a person to be critical as a way to seem cool when photo skills are not up to par. Again, I'm not directing this at you specifically. Just a general observation I've noticed in the arts, including graphic arts and music.

But you made a statement that "every photo [you took with the M240] was sabotaged in the shadows". You specifically said EVERY PHOTO. You didn't limit your initial criticism to which I responded to scientific stuff or as you later qualified it "photos [which] often have substantial areas of flat tone, often out of focus" . That's a very damning condemnation of the M240 and one I think is completely unwarranted and unsupported by the evidence. I offered my counter opinion that the M240 is capable of producing fine images where, under most normal use, banding is not a problem and I posted at least some anecdotal evidence in support.

As I said earlier, I have no doubt banding can be a problem under some circumstances, as can be artifacts in almost any digital sensor when pushed hard. I just think you went overboard with your initial criticism and made the M240 sound completely unsuited for normal photo work -- which I know from experience it is not.

I am the least cool person you may ever meet, and would never pretend I was cool. I am a scientist, and have been firmly labelled as ‘uncool’ basically my whole life. I’m happy to stand by my statements, and have nothing to prove.

The problem is confidence. Once I saw the banding, I knew it was there, or potentially there. Even where it wasn’t materially important, if I found a flat area and zoomed in, it was there once the shadows were lifted. I lost confidence in the camera, and then everything fell apart. I may hate it more than it deserves, but I hate it still. I still have the 246, but was using it only for taking short videos at base iso. I’ll probably sell it now I have the Pentax Monochrome, but I’ll have to check that it doesn’t do anything weird first.

As a total aside, the best way to photograph very even areas of tone was to use Acros sheet film and rotary processing. Inconvenient, and now, extinct.

Marty

 

[brusby]

I am the least cool person you may ever meet, and would never pretend I was cool. I am a scientist, and have been firmly labelled as ‘uncool’ basically my whole life. I’m happy to stand by my statements, and have nothing to prove.

The problem is confidence. Once I saw the banding, I knew it was there, or potentially there. Even where it wasn’t materially important, if I found a flat area and zoomed in, it was there once the shadows were lifted. I lost confidence in the camera, and then everything fell apart. I may hate it more than it deserves, but I hate it still. I still have the 246, but was using it only for taking short videos at base iso. I’ll probably sell it now I have the Pentax Monochrome, but I’ll have to check that it doesn’t do anything weird first.

As a total aside, the best way to photograph very even areas of tone was to use Acros sheet film and rotary processing. Inconvenient, and now, extinct.

Marty

So, are you saying you've found a digital camera or cameras which do not exhibit artifacts or anomalies when the shadows are lifted significantly? I'd be very curios to know which ones.

Or is it just that you find artifacts from other digital sensors less objectionable than the M240?

 

[Freakscene]

So, are you saying you've found a digital camera or cameras which do not exhibit artifacts or anomalies when the shadows are lifted significantly? I'd be very curios to know which ones.

Or is it just that you find artifacts from other digital sensors less objectionable than the M240?

I ended up buying two Zeiss Axiocams, with cooled sensors. One monochrome, one colour. These have no artefacts. Unfortunately, the cost was eye watering and I keep running out of liquid nitrogen.

 

[shawn]

Speaking of 'uncool'.... using a microscope you were likely using live view, right?

That might be the difference....

 

[brusby]

Hardly seems fair to criticize the m240 so harshly when the alternative is a mega dollar specialty sensor.

I don't have any experience with the Zeiss Axiocams, but with my limited knowledge of physics I'd bet the artifacts are not gone, but just at a much lower level and likely expressed in a different way or pattern.

 

[Freakscene]

Speaking of 'uncool'.... using a microscope you were likely using live view, right?

That might be the difference....

I tried both, with subjects that stayed still (some things I photograph are alive) but it was definitely worse with live view. It has occurred to me that some of it might be the overall load too - I often shoot 3-400 frames in an hour or less, which probably let the sensor heat up. Banding was definitely worse later as work sessions went on.

Hardly seems fair to criticize the m240 so harshly when the alternative is a mega dollar specialty sensor.

I don't have any experience with the Zeiss Axiocams, but with my limited knowledge of physics I'd bet the artifacts are not gone, but just at a much lower level and likely expressed in a different way or pattern.

I can push the images from the Axiocams around however I like, and can see nothing in the Axiocam photos I regard as untoward. Global shutter CMOS sensors do better for artefacts than rolling shutter sensors.

 

[brusby]

I can push the images from the Axiocams around however I like, and can see nothing in the Axiocam photos I regard as untoward. Global shutter CMOS sensors do better for artefacts than rolling shutter sensors.

Sounds like they've gotten the noise below the limen for typical use. You can bet it's still there though. Not trying to be argumentative, it's just physics.

 

[filmtwit]

Monochrom: Which ever generation you can afford, get that one

 

[Sonnar Brian]

When I got the M9- experimented with various SD cards and checked banding. M Monochrom- same thing. Got the Nikon Df- also checked highest ISO performance and SD cards. I use Sandisk and PNY 4x cards. Noted banding issues with the high speed cards on all three. Probably buffers not being at a steady state, and power draw through the electronics not being even. 40+ years ago was involved with the development of the first digital IR sensors, and got a first-hand lesson in digital electronics inducing noise in high-performance sensors. The first data acquisition system- the contractor did not properly isolate the digital side from the analog side of the sensor, 9 bits of noise in the 15 bit data. One Million dollars later, the second company building the Data Acquisition System got it down to 1.5 bits. In 1983.
The M Monochrom CCD- At ISO 10,000 with the 4x SD card: I see no banding. The sensor uniformity is amazing, I had a row go low, but wrote software to restore the DC level that was lost. Details were still recorded, it was not dead.

 

[wlewisiii]

Interesting.

I currently have a LEXAR PRO SDXC,633X 64GB,C10,UHS-I,U3 in my M 240 (not sure where I got it as I usually buy SanDisk 16GB Class 4 SDHC Flash Memory Cards) and haven't had any issues with banding. I wonder if it's a) not happening b) I'm not noticing or, most likely, c) I'm not pushing my low light images as hard as some others?

I do have a couple of shots and there's an old auto under a street light I want to try to get tonight. Perhaps I'll try again with the Canon 50/1.4 on my way to work... 😉

 

[Archiver]

There are lots of good things about the 240 series cameras. The battery among them. I sold my 246 and 240 as soon as the M10 came out, though, to stop perennially fighting with shadow banding when I tried to raise dark areas in underexposed or high ISO photos. It drove me insane. A photo would look great, then I’d print it big, and the pinstripes would be there, staring at me from the shadows. It was worse than the M9/MM corroding sensor for me - at least the M9 or MM worked when they worked. The 240 and 246 they seemed like they were working, but every photo was sabotaged in the shadows, waiting for me to edit. I’m bitter, as you can tell.

Reports of M240 banding are one reason why I stayed away from them, despite them becoming more affordable in recent years. As the sensor of the SL is the same or similar to the M240, I wonder if that exhibits banding as well?

As an aside, the 5D Mark II is notorious for shadow banding when shadows are lifted. Shadow banding made several bracketed exposures commercially unusable, and underexposed 5D II images can be a terror. The Nikon D700, which is of the same vintage, reportedly has none or very little of those problems.

My M9 sometimes exhibits odd banding and noise at the same ISO when images are taken a few seconds apart. I cannot explain this. One image will be fairly clean, the next image has visible noise and banding.

 

[Whitten]

I had an M240 for a couple of years. My main issue was an overly warm colour balance, tending towards orange. I spent some time on every shot trying to correct the colour. I love the rangefinder experience, but didn't absolutely love the M240. I recently sold it.