35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Leica's M offerings cost the amount of a new Rolex--the Rolex advantage however is depreciation measured in decades. Today even as exec I still buy on the rebound to leave $ for my kid's college tuition.
icebear
Veteran
Hello Dante,
thanks a lot for sharing you observations with the M.
Is there a particular reason why you don't use manual WB ? At least you only mention Auto WB.
I use an Expodisc with my M9 and I am fairly OK
with the results even under strange (mixed & low) light conditions. For most of my stuff I use the MM anyway and the M9 stays in the bag. No need to upgrade to the M for me. As far as focussing a 90 lens on a digital full frame RF: I think having the camera sensor position and RF checked and then the lens adjusted to that body is crucial. I love the results of my pre-asph. 2/90 on the MM. Concert shots in low light (wide open) at 2-3m distance come out great.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Year-by-year, though, Leicas depreciate less than other cameras.
Rolexes depreciate too (I heard they make more than 1 million units a year), and Rolex's model is that when it comes to regular service with factory parts, it's their way or the highway. So whatever you thought you were saving in depreciation, you are making up in cost of ownership. By the way, what new Rolex worth owning/maintaining costs less than an M? A grey market Oyster Perpetual (which is the base-model BMW 3-series of Rolexes) still clocks in at close to seven grand.
And affording things is mainly a function of savings - I'm sure that plenty of M240 people (as were M9) were not super-rich. A lot of us saw this camera coming and started saving for it a long time ago.
Dante
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
No need to use manual or custom WB yet - the camera doesn't seem to miss much if at all (unlike its predecessors). And with any of these cameras, I have found that if you are shooting DNG, it's easier to make any final fine adjustments in LR.
Dante
srtiwari
Daktari
Hi Dante, Really liked the ongoing review.
Like many, for me, the issue re: MM vs M240 seems to hinge on how well the M240 will render Black and white images.
I have read your earlier comments, but still have this related question-
Accepting the Tonal and ISO headroom differences, all else being equal, at what (Print/image) magnification will one begin to see the MM pull ahead in IQ ? The reason I ask is that my interest in making prints is limited to about 20x30. If one can discern differences between the two at that level, perhaps the MM isa valid consideration.
I agree... I always wonder about this when I hear people say never use auto WB.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Hi Dante,
Its a question of priorities, isn't it. My stainless Rolex cost me $1600 in 1990. Earlier this year I was offered $4K as trade in value. CLA costs $250-500 every 10 years, or you may get lucky and go longer.
As a businessman I work with folks who have gear into the multi-millions of dollars. Comparatively speaking, as a working photog I had about $10K into my gear back in the day --pair of M4-P and a few lenses. Its a pretty good deal when you think about it.
Paul
airfrogusmc
Veteran
According to the tests I've seen the MM has more DR and is better at high ISO. I know the 6400 ISO images from my MM are more desirable to me than 6400 from my 5DII.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Dante
Thank you for your reports and your earlier reply to my question in your recent advert.
I've been through a related thought process to you recently, but starting from an M9 rather than M8, and am now waiting the arrival of a secondhand Monochrom. I am sure that as a single camera I would prefer the M240 to the M9 - largely because of the M9's lack of electronic speed, which always makes it feel a much less responsive camera than my film RF's. For this reason I am avoiding trying an M240 for a few months at least - not hard given there aren't any actually available.
The real reasons for the MM in addition over replacing the M9 with an M were that:
- I am 'at home' shooting 35mm black and white film in an rf, but '35mm volume' makes it too time consuming to deal with developing and scanning effectively as well as earn a living etc. I hope the MM will help with this. medium and large format film is fine as I don;t expose as many frames.
- I prefer the restriction to mono and the need to work within the parameter set.
- The MM cost me materially less than an M240 and I expect that I could manage a two for one swap in a few months or a year's time if I want too.
It strikes me that none of the reasons are about technical image quality, and I am confident that your assessment of the difference between the M9 and M240 is accurate. I do not see how photon counters can render differently based on the underlying technology
I am sure that if I had started with he M8 I would have moved to the M240.
Thanks again for your thoughtful writing and I'm looking forward to seeing more of your pictures, whatever camera you are using at the time.
Mike
Thank you for your reports and your earlier reply to my question in your recent advert.
I've been through a related thought process to you recently, but starting from an M9 rather than M8, and am now waiting the arrival of a secondhand Monochrom. I am sure that as a single camera I would prefer the M240 to the M9 - largely because of the M9's lack of electronic speed, which always makes it feel a much less responsive camera than my film RF's. For this reason I am avoiding trying an M240 for a few months at least - not hard given there aren't any actually available.
The real reasons for the MM in addition over replacing the M9 with an M were that:
- I am 'at home' shooting 35mm black and white film in an rf, but '35mm volume' makes it too time consuming to deal with developing and scanning effectively as well as earn a living etc. I hope the MM will help with this. medium and large format film is fine as I don;t expose as many frames.
- I prefer the restriction to mono and the need to work within the parameter set.
- The MM cost me materially less than an M240 and I expect that I could manage a two for one swap in a few months or a year's time if I want too.
It strikes me that none of the reasons are about technical image quality, and I am confident that your assessment of the difference between the M9 and M240 is accurate. I do not see how photon counters can render differently based on the underlying technology
I am sure that if I had started with he M8 I would have moved to the M240.
Thanks again for your thoughtful writing and I'm looking forward to seeing more of your pictures, whatever camera you are using at the time.
Mike
srtiwari
Daktari
I understand that. Since Dante's blog refers to marginal difference between the M and the MM in that regard, I wondered if one would only those differences only above a certain magnification. And the differences, particularly in high ISO noise, might be reversed (to some extent) by the downsampling possibility with a 24MP sensor.
BTW, love your black and white work, as seen here on RFF.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Thanks. I have a very good buddy that recently took delivery of his M 240 and it is an amazing camera.
I see in B&W and the MM is the perfect combo for the way I see and work when it comes to my personal vision. I usually work on the street at 1600-6400 ISO and I usually print fairly large and the MM is just amazing in low light.
I think I will be dumping all of my Canon gear and switching completely over to Leica M for my professional work in the next few years. I have totally become addicted to the rangefinder shooting experience.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Simple b/w conversion here (I happened upon a protest). I would take a look at the size of the details and how they come out. This does not have any fancy channel-mixing or anything other than the default LR settings and conversion process. Unfortunately, JPG compression from web degrades the shadow detail and brightness of the highlights slightly. But I think you'll get the picture.
http://wp.me/p2RAff-2of
Dante
http://wp.me/p2RAff-2of
Dante
__--
Well-known
Dante, very interesting on the resolution of the M240 vs the limited resolution of lenses made before the late-1990s. However, you don't deal with color rendition vs the M9, which is the point on which the M240 leaves me unconvinced. Most M240 owners don't accept this and claim that this is not an issue after the recent firmware upgrdde. But, from what I see produced with the M240, it seems to me that the results in terms of color rendition are more like those of other CMOS cameras (Canon, Nikon, etc.) amd less like the M9.
While M240 owners generally claim that it's just a matter of processing, this is not what my eyes see. Before getting the M9-P, I had a Ricoh GXR M-Module, which I think is a great camera, although I didn't like the EVF (somewhat antiquated now) or focus peaking (though it worked). On the color rendition, I found that only using Raw Photo Processor could I get near the type of color I liked — and that required a lot of care on each image to get results that were still short of what I like and get so easily with the M9.
The trouble with judging color rendition is that it's not only a matter of taste but that people also see color differently. Or, from quote from George Braque that I came across: "The only thing that matters in art is what cannot be explained...How is one to talk about colour? ... Those who have eyes know just how irrelevant words are to what they see...To define a thing is to substitute the definition for the thing."
Nevertheless, I am not the only one who is not convinced about the M40 color rendition: some photographers whose color sense I admire in their work have said similar things about the M240. Here is a quote from Charles Peterson, an excellent color photographer, that resonates with my own views: I do think that the higher iso's on the M9 are vastly underrated, and in general much prefer the image quality of the M9 to the M240. The M9 (and Monochrom by de facto) IMO are truly two of the most unique digital cameras out there when it comes to the quality of the image. Not the "best" on paper but they have a look, an "umami" as the Japanese might say, that no other 35mm digital camera comes close to.
Incidentally, Charles was reacting to a thread that I started on LUF and here on RFF conctradicting the conventional wisdom that the M9 is useless for high-iSO. Using the "Shoot at ISO 640 and push in LR4/LR5" technique, I found that the M9 makes for a very good camera for high-ISO night photography, particulalry considering the color rendition that I don't see coming from the M240 with it's better hight-ISO performance.
—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]
hugivza
Well-known
Dante, thanks for your informative posts. I bought an MM some 4 months ago and am still playing with it, but am loving the experience. I must admit that I am at a different stage in my life from many: where school and fees are a thing of the past and I am limited to occasional handouts for children and grandchildren. I can thus indulge in hobbies to a certain extent, subject as ever to domestic financial approval, and my continuing to work, which I still enjoy. The major difficulty for me with all RF's is focussing in low light conditions which will always remain a challenge, despite 1.4x adaptors.
I think that Leica continues to maintain its status as the premium brand. I found the comparison with Rolex curious, as I would have considered Breguet, Patek, or Hublot more worthy comparators. More taxi drivers in Singapore own Rolexes than probably any other brand based on my casual observations, and they are definitely a mass market watch.
I think that Leica continues to maintain its status as the premium brand. I found the comparison with Rolex curious, as I would have considered Breguet, Patek, or Hublot more worthy comparators. More taxi drivers in Singapore own Rolexes than probably any other brand based on my casual observations, and they are definitely a mass market watch.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I do prefer the look of the B&W files by a lot from the MM.
pieter
Established
While the specs and facts may suggest that the M240 b&w conversions should rival the MM, I don't see it.
I prefer even my M8 b&w over the b&w of the M240.
When pushed to say why, I would say the tonality just isn't that good with the M240, and I dislike how it handles the highlights (they might not blow out, but even then they seem wrong). And the file from the M240 looks mushy compared to crispness of the resolving power of the MM.
That said, it obviously can make great b&w, just like most high end CMOS cameras can, but the MM is just at another level.
I prefer even my M8 b&w over the b&w of the M240.
When pushed to say why, I would say the tonality just isn't that good with the M240, and I dislike how it handles the highlights (they might not blow out, but even then they seem wrong). And the file from the M240 looks mushy compared to crispness of the resolving power of the MM.
That said, it obviously can make great b&w, just like most high end CMOS cameras can, but the MM is just at another level.
2WK
Rangefinder User
^1. Monochrom for me. And, keeping my eyes peeled for a nice M9P that people are "unloading" for the M240.
Has anyone else been reading Peter Prosophos's take on the M9 vs 240?
Has anyone else been reading Peter Prosophos's take on the M9 vs 240?
__--
Well-known
Yes, his view is essentially similar to that of my post #34 above.
—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]
NazgulKing
Established
There are times where I wonder what people mean by great color. Fundamentally, both CMOS and CCD use silicon, with all the usual color response curves that go with it. The only issue is how much silicon, how big is the photosite relative to the pixel size, the quality of the color filter and whatever is on top of the sensor, how much thermal noise there is in the circuitry, and how the data is extracted from the sensor etc. etc. Half the ball game is the interpolation algorithms. In fact, the more fundamental question to ask is not so much "how much bite" the image has, but rather what the photosite to pixel ratio is because that sets the upper most bound on the sensor MTF/resolution curve. Theoretically, CCDs can have larger photosites, but that's because there's less circuitry and thus they can achieve much lower read noise. So sometimes I have to wonder what is it about Leica sensors that results in the rather noise output that they get? Or did they opt for a commercial grade sensor instead of a scientific one?