M-240 samples and dng!

pieter said:
How about we get back to discussing the image quality of these newly released files? I appreciate everybody's viewpoints about these files as it's easy enough to open the same files and find out if you agree or not.

I was impressed at first glance, but have to admit to now seeing some of problems that others have pointed out. I wish I could put words to what I like about the files, but I'm not quite sure yet. Maybe some of you could pinpoint the strength of this new sensor, besides better iso noise than the m9 (which admittedly is not much of a feat)?
My first feeling is that the colour is more realistic and less romantic than the m9, which I think is a good thing if only because it would be silly to want another m9.
Click to expand...


My position on that: those images suck. Not only from artistic prospective, that goes without saying, but from pure "IQ", whatever it means to each one of us...
And if it was said to be produced by Canon Digital Rebel, people would not give them another glance.
Sorry for being frank, what do I know 🙂
 
MIkhail said:
My position on that: those images suck. Not only from artistic prospective, that goes without saying, but from pure "IQ", whatever it means to each one of us...
And if it was said to be produced by Canon Digital Rebel, people would not give them another glance.
Sorry for being frank, what do I know 🙂
Click to expand...

Hi Mikhail - I think the important thing for keeping this discussion on track is presenting exactly what it is you don't like about the image quality. We should leave aside any discussion of "artistic perspective" because these weren't meant as "artistic" shots.

I agree with you that they look much more similar to 'mainstream' sensors than previous digital-M iterations, though. A lot of people seem to think this is a good thing. I think it's a real pity.
 
mani said:
I agree with you that they look much more similar to 'mainstream' sensors than previous digital-M iterations, though. A lot of people seem to think this is a good thing. I think it's a real pity.
Click to expand...

You can add noise or clip the shadows in Photoshop, if you want to. 😛
 
MIkhail said:
My position on that: those images suck. Not only from artistic prospective, that goes without saying, but from pure "IQ", whatever it means to each one of us...
And if it was said to be produced by Canon Digital Rebel, people would not give them another glance.
Sorry for being frank, what do I know 🙂
Click to expand...

Hi Mikhail
I have a gentle muse, which is perhaps not well represented by 'out of camera' shots, so I think we can leave the artistic failure as read.
From an IQ point of view, (apart from the obvious guilt of the executor with respect to dirty sensors, badly chosen aperture and camera shake). I'm confused. You've dismissed the files, but haven't given your reasons?
Pretty Please?
 
Hi Mani
mani said:
Anyway, to get back to the point - I really don't see the hardship in being a Leica beta-tester who then voluntarily posts some images to the net. I'm sure Jono Slack doesn't feel like a damsel in distress, and I fail to understand why so many knights in shining armour feel the need to ride to his rescue.
Click to expand...

No. I don't feel like a damsel in distress. I understand the territory. On the other hand, nobody enjoys an Internet bashing, whether its deserved or not. I very much appreciate a little support from the more rational members of the community. So. Thank you to all the knights in shining armour (seriously, it's very much appreciated).
I'm intrigued by how absurdly rude people can be. Not personally, but if you go look at the comments on Leica Rumors about Thorsten Overgaard's cheerful and witty interview with m. Kaufman.
mani said:
Whether we like the apparent quality of the images or not like them is up to each and every one of us, and as far as I'm concerned a photography forum is about airing different opinions.
.
Click to expand...
I quite agree. Your points about colour balance and tartan when pushing files are relevant and observant. But of course, this is pre-production firmware, and there will be changes to both colour balance and noise in the final firmware (of course Lightroom etc, will also have profiles then.)
Whether Leica should have produced files with pre-production firmware is moot. Personally I really like the files, and I think that the considered responses were almost universally positive.
mani said:
God forbid this place should get like the leica-camera-forum, where any dissenting voice is hounded down by a rabid pack of dogs.
Click to expand...
Didn't seem like that to me. Plenty of dissenting voices (mostly rational rather than emotional). Don't you post there these days?

The reason I'm answering at length is that your post was intelligent and challenging. My answer in short boils down to two points:
1. It's good to have shining knights (thank you)
2. IQ is in the eyes of the beholder, but if you have to push it three stops to find a problem you screwed that snap!
All the very best
 
Back to the files - I've had a 2nd short go with three of them (DNGs). I ran a couple LR4 presets I use for flower shots with my 5DII and ts-e on the flower file after noting the "Canon-like" comments. The presets worked well with some tweaking and the Elmarit-R Macro flower shot stood up nicely to some dodging and burning. I thought the high iso peacock file did process like high iso 5DII files in decent-to-good light, not a bad thing imho. The DR in the bread picture seems quite good and the file didn't need much work. I like what I see and would like to see some prints.
 
Thanks a lot for posting photos and sharing experiences! Its much appreciated.

Is there any current side-by-side comparison of M and M9 photos? Sorry if this is a bit OT.

I'm trying to keep track of the info coming, but its hard for me to filter out the useful information due to the noise from those trying to fault Leica and generally bashing those that contributes. We truly lives in the age of consumers, where some consumers believe negative destructive feedback is contributing.
 
Last edited:
flyalf said:
Thanks a lot for posting photos and sharing experiences! Its much appreciated.

Is there any current side-by-side comparison of M and M9 photos? Sorry if this is a bit OT.
Click to expand...
Hi there
I'd have thought it was quite ONTopic. as far as I know nobody has published any such comparison. Personally I've long since given up posting any kind of comparison because of the emotional firestorm which always ensues🙂
Obviously I've looked, I'd say that the files are different, but that the M files are still closer to the M9 than to Canikon. FWIW!
Mani. Leica are not going to pile on the on chip noise reduction as far as I'm aware (personally I don't think it's needed). But I think you've hit the nail on the head with respect to the "CMOS look".
All the best
 
I would argue that corporations need independent reviewers for the products, for the same reason that editorial articles in trade publications are believed to be more objective than straight ad copy. Consumers are so inundated by all these magical fantastical new product hyperbole, they are looking for more independent views.

In Jono's case he simply took some photos and posted them. It's up to the consumer at that point; that eliminates any personal bias on the part of Jono, or whoever created the images. The Cuba photos that Leica produced for their previous campaign, on the other hand, were designed to emphasize the best aspects of the products and de-emphasize the lesser...which is exactly what a corporation pitching a product is expected to do.
 
If everybody only cared about image quality and the look from a ccd, everybody would all be shooting MFDB.

Leica is trying to address many reasons why M is not used/considered widely as an alternative Pro FF camera.

Am I the only person who thinks that the high iso and live view is the real draw/upgrade of this camera? This means I only need one system, I can enjoy the RF experience that I value, and just pop on any zoom, tele, macro lenses without another body. Isn't it why people want a FF NEX camera? To not to have to give up RF focusing and OVF is all the better!

I feel like the people who don't feel like buying/upgrading to this camera are never the target audience anyways. Last time I checked, you can still buy the M-E...
 
BMacW said:
Am I the only person who thinks that the high iso and live view is the real draw/upgrade of this camera? This means I only need one system, I can enjoy the RF experience that I value, and just pop on any zoom, tele, macro lenses without another body.
Click to expand...

There are at least two of us ... and if you add the other stuff: faster buffer, better resolution, weather-sealing, and better frameline accuracy, functionality is overall much improved. Still want to see and work with more files, that's all.
 
Assuming the sensor is up to snuff, and I have no reason to think that it won't be (and no I have not played with the posted images; I just don't think Leica would release a camera that did not have sufficient sensor quality) the real value is as stated above.

But if I were in the market for an M (and I'm not) I would hesitate to think that one system would be sufficient for my needs. Yes, live view and EVF, focus peaking are all good features, but they are not the be-all, end-all. There are many situations where other cameras are much better suited.

Anyone who has used adapted manual focus lenses on micro 4/3 or NEX knows what I'm speaking of...focus peaking does work, but not in all situations. Focus assist magnification under live view also works, but not in all situations. A short tele with focus assist without in body stabilization becomes a shaky mess, and the field of view is lost during focus, and perhaps the subject and the photo as well...it can become an exercise in frustration. For ocassional use, those features are nice to have. But if I were to shoot with telephotos regularly, for example, I'd get a Sony A99 or some other DSLR, rather than live with the inherent limitations of the M.

As for weather sealing, I haven't figured out the value of a weather sealed body without having weather sealed lenses.

Yes, one can pop on any zoom, tele or macro but capability is one thing; practicality of use is another.
 
semilog said:
Speaking only for myself, I made two critical comments about technical aspects of the files, one about moiré and one about poor WB in a JPEG. Please note that I balanced these comments with very positive comments about high-ISO noise and low-ISO dynamic range.

To the extent that I found several images disappointing, that was because I was surprised that Leica would show pictures that are not particularly good (motion blur, poor WB, dirt on sensor etcl) as -- to use their word -- "proofs" of the camera's performance. There was one spectacular image, the snow landscape.

The camera is going to be -- by far -- the best digital M, in every important respect. That much is already clear. If I was willing to spend >$2k on a fast-depreciating digital body (I emphatically am not), the 240 is what I'd get, without hesitation.

That does not mean that the device's limitations should be ignored. Every camera has limitations and (part of) a good photographer's job is to understand and work with (or around) those limitations.
Click to expand...

I agree on the part that Leica did not choose the best images for the advertisement of the new Leica M, but I got to say that some of the images are really nice. Well, maybe that is just to simply show to us that this is as good as the new sensor in this "new" Leica M can get?
 
Hey Guys
It's been nice dropping in, but the conversation is drifting away from the images, so I guess my presence isn't needed any more. Many thanks to those who've made interesting and challenging observations - I always enjoy coming here, even if it sometimes requires a little self control.
I'll keep an eye on this thread until Monday night, then I'd better do some work to save up for my M bodies!

all the very best
 
digitalintrigue said:
Yes, one can pop on any zoom, tele or macro but capability is one thing; practicality of use is another.
Click to expand...

It's very practical for landscape photographers. The weight saving, and ability to use many different lens and still have precise framing.

I'm not saying I want the M240 to be the 5D MkIII. But I want to be able to use a camera at 7k for more than one type of photography I enjoy.
 
The last time I was out with my M2 and 50 Elmar I was laughed at by a photographer wondering why I was persisting with such a ridiculous old camera set-up. Outside of RFF and the world of celebrity there is no "status symbol" associated with Leica. If I enjoyed using my OM system as much as my Leica system I wouldn't keep the latter. I think it's far cooler to be walking around with the OM system.
Pete
 
Another RFF Leica thread that started out with some interesting observations then veered wildly off track. I love it when photographers who have actually handled the camera under discussion show up, and then spend their time defending themselves against accusations that they are marketing shills, the world's worst photographer, a rich dentist, etc. Rather than, you know, answering questions about handling, their thoughts about post, etc. Seriously, this is the third time I've seen this play out the exact same way in the past six months or so. I can't believe I read five pages of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom