Images of original M9 sensor vs. newest replacement images

[zoar]

If this question has been posted elsewhere, my apologies.

I'm hearing two opinions regarding the rendering of the replacement sensors of the M9 vs the original sensor. Some say it's pretty much the same, while others say there's a difference (the replacement is a little disappointing). I suppose it would be the 'non-corroding' sensor (2015 onward) vs the original. Have any of you compared files with similar subjects? Would you mind posting them (if it's not a lot of trouble)? If not, can you describe the differences?

I began a thread about buying the M9 in 2021, but I thought this was a tangent that was worth its own thread.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In 2015 Leica Camera AG was still making M-E 220 with faulty glass.
They started replacement with non faulty glass in 2016 and ditched it in 2020. Offering some trade off still. More like rip-off.
My 2015 M-E 220 from late 2015 was purchased new in late 2016 and sensor glass failed within one year or so.
Colors and WB were OK. Like scans of E6 film. Not actual projection. I know because, I did, seen both.
New sensor often gives too cold WB outdoors. White is bluesh. I have to select WB manually to avoid shifting to blue. Custom WB helps less.
Old and new sensors are over saturating colours in red spectrum.
And I'm not big fan of Kodakchrome of which many comparing M9 sensor. I'd rather get Kodak Gold from E-PL1 🙂

 

[Corran]

Sorry I don't have comparisons nor do I have my M9 anymore.

But - I felt like the M9 was too blue in daylight on the original AND replacement sensor.

And oversaturation in red spectrum is a problem with digital sensors in general. So I find the above comments applicable to both sensors. In my limited use of the replacement sensor M9 I saw no difference in practical use.

Whether you should buy one now...well I suppose if it has the new sensor and the price is good, sure why not. But I don't think prices on M9 cameras that I've seen are compelling. If you want to shoot an M, my personal suggestion - get an M6, before they get even more expensive 😉.

 

[View Range]

You realize that the sensor pixels don't record color. A Bayer filter of red/blue/green/green is placed over the pixels so that 25% of them respond to red, 25% of them respond to blue and 50% of them respond to green. Raw files (.dng in Leica's case) record the intensity output from each pixel in a table; a raw file is not an image. Some software, either in the camera or on the computer is needed as a raw converter to de-mosaic the raw table and make an image. It is the software that determines the color on the image you see. Leica .dng files also contain an embedded profile for raw conversion. Your raw conversion software may or may not use the embedded profile. So the question is - are there subtle differences in the original or replacement pixels or Bayer filter that require a different conversion profile?
I found the images produced by the embedded profile on my M9 to be terrible / unusable for red and I was about to return the camera. I made my own profile using an X-Rite color checker and I been using that profile ever since.
My M9 corroded after the Leica replacement program ended. My M9 is now with MaxMax to get the corroded cover glass replaced.

 

[analoged]

My M9 corroded after the Leica replacement program ended. My M9 is now with MaxMax to get the corroded cover glass replaced.

Would be interested in knowing how this turns out and if you are satisfied, cheers

 

[Richard G]

I didn’t notice a difference. Had terrible problems with some reds always with the M9 - never when DR Summicron attached - coincidence no doubt, but often photographing red roses. Might be my roses at home. Otherwise I learnt a lot from this thread. Again.

 

[zleica]

Looking at large batches of images taken before and after the sensor replacement, I didn't notice any difference in color profile/rendering. M9 is still my favorite digital camera for color images.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I didn’t notice a difference. Had terrible problems with some reds always with the M9 - never when DR Summicron attached - coincidence no doubt, but often photographing red roses. Might be my roses at home. Otherwise I learnt a lot from this thread. Again.

DR is less contrast lens. I liked how it was rendering on my M-E 220. Very sharp, not too over saturating, with some color shift, but not ugly.
I also liked V4 ELC on M-E 220. No color shifts, slightly more saturated colors, but red, purple were awesome. With little de-saturation needed.
In fact all older 50 lenses seems to be better on red with this sensor.
I have now J-3 and Canon 50 1.8 ltm. Not ideal, but interesting colors, not too overblown.
But my main lenses are 35 mm modern ones. And this is where colors are overblown and often odd if sun and outside. Maybe I should sell them and use all of the money to get trashed ELC 35 Cron 🙂 .

 

[zoar]

Sorry I don't have comparisons nor do I have my M9 anymore.

But - I felt like the M9 was too blue in daylight on the original AND replacement sensor.

And oversaturation in red spectrum is a problem with digital sensors in general. So I find the above comments applicable to both sensors. In my limited use of the replacement sensor M9 I saw no difference in practical use.

Whether you should buy one now...well I suppose if it has the new sensor and the price is good, sure why not. But I don't think prices on M9 cameras that I've seen are compelling. If you want to shoot an M, my personal suggestion - get an M6, before they get even more expensive 😉.

There is a bluish haze in some very sunny pictures (the beach), I've noticed. Not sure if that can be toned down. Funny you should mention the M6...I'm thinking of funding the M digital purchase by selling one! I do have an M4-P that I'll keep.

 

[zoar]

You realize that the sensor pixels don't record color. A Bayer filter of red/blue/green/green is placed over the pixels so that 25% of them respond to red, 25% of them respond to blue and 50% of them respond to green. Raw files (.dng in Leica's case) record the intensity output from each pixel in a table; a raw file is not an image. Some software, either in the camera or on the computer is needed as a raw converter to de-mosaic the raw table and make an image. It is the software that determines the color on the image you see. Leica .dng files also contain an embedded profile for raw conversion. Your raw conversion software may or may not use the embedded profile. So the question is - are there subtle differences in the original or replacement pixels or Bayer filter that require a different conversion profile?
I found the images produced by the embedded profile on my M9 to be terrible / unusable for red and I was about to return the camera. I made my own profile using an X-Rite color checker and I been using that profile ever since.


My M9 corroded after the Leica replacement program ended. My M9 is now with MaxMax to get the corroded cover glass replaced.

Thanks -- that's as clear an explanation for the conversion process as I've read. I kind of like the in-your-face colors of the M9, but I see your point. And another request to let us know how the MaxMax fix goes.

 

[TR3B]

6 weeks now- any news on your camera repair and outcome.

 

[raid]

Kodachrome versus Ektachrome?

 

[Darthfeeble]

I've had three M9s and an M8.2. I find the M8, the first M9 and my current M9 with the replacement sensor to be a little cooler than the second M9 which developed the sensor corrosion. All show a daylight WB but look just a tad different in the second M9. Purely my perception. As far as clarity goes they all seem the same.