Godfrey
somewhat colored
Raid,
Are you talking about JPEGs out of the camera or DNGs that you process? If the latter, what are you using to process them? And what sorts of process operations are you doing?
I had M9, M-P 240, now M-D 262. JPEGs out of the M9 were terrible, far as I'm concerned. Wonky color palette, etc. Out of the M240, better. But I never bothered with JPEGs out of either.
Raw files from all three are fine and I can get whatever I wanted from them. The raw files out of the M-D are the easiest to process to my taste. This is more likely the result of a better camera calibration profile in LR or Photos than anything else.
G
Are you talking about JPEGs out of the camera or DNGs that you process? If the latter, what are you using to process them? And what sorts of process operations are you doing?
I had M9, M-P 240, now M-D 262. JPEGs out of the M9 were terrible, far as I'm concerned. Wonky color palette, etc. Out of the M240, better. But I never bothered with JPEGs out of either.
Raw files from all three are fine and I can get whatever I wanted from them. The raw files out of the M-D are the easiest to process to my taste. This is more likely the result of a better camera calibration profile in LR or Photos than anything else.
G
raid
Dad Photographer
I got DNG files that I then without any extra processing output as jpg files. I observed such files and I prefer the files from the M8. My M9 is still with Leica for repair, but I like files from it.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
M9 has compressed DNG files in very decent size. No need for JPEG1, IMO.
M9 sensor still catches IR sometimes. I wonder if new one is better.
M9 sensor still catches IR sometimes. I wonder if new one is better.
raid
Dad Photographer
I ask for uncompressed DNG. You need jpg for web display. Right?
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I also output only DNG files from my Leicas. Into Lightroom (sometimes a little Photoshop and/or Nik Software) and exported from Lightroom as JPG most often (if sharing digital). I think this is what most people do.
raid. Did you hear from Leica any news when to expect your M9 back? We sent ours in roughly the same time...
mcfly_2nd
Member
I own both the M8 and the M240.
I have been owning and using the M8 for a longer time and while I'm impressed by the mere (technical) possibilities and the sturdiness (!) of the M240 in comparison to the M8 I can easily say that I like the pictures I get from the M8 better. That's for color and b/w and of course highly subjective. I'm using LR5 to process the (DNG-)files.
Raid, upon reading your post here, I made a quick and simple check: I browsed through a few of my pictures and the ones that made me smile the most were taken with the M8. No facts and figures here, just my honest impression.
As a final note: the M240 clearly is the more advanced, sturdier, and of course quieter (!!!) camera. In my opinion and for my purposes as a hobbyist though, it's not the camera "producing" the "better" pictures.
I have been owning and using the M8 for a longer time and while I'm impressed by the mere (technical) possibilities and the sturdiness (!) of the M240 in comparison to the M8 I can easily say that I like the pictures I get from the M8 better. That's for color and b/w and of course highly subjective. I'm using LR5 to process the (DNG-)files.
Raid, upon reading your post here, I made a quick and simple check: I browsed through a few of my pictures and the ones that made me smile the most were taken with the M8. No facts and figures here, just my honest impression.
As a final note: the M240 clearly is the more advanced, sturdier, and of course quieter (!!!) camera. In my opinion and for my purposes as a hobbyist though, it's not the camera "producing" the "better" pictures.
faris
Well-known
I don't own any Leicas after the M9.
I don't feel the need to.
I use the M8 extensively. It is as relevant to me today as it was when I bought it in 2006.
I traveled across Canada one Canadian winter. Just for fun...
M8, cron 28 asph.
I don't feel the need to.
I use the M8 extensively. It is as relevant to me today as it was when I bought it in 2006.
I traveled across Canada one Canadian winter. Just for fun...
M8, cron 28 asph.
presspass
filmshooter
Bought the M8 when it first came out and used it for a trip to Prague for a wedding. Once I learned not to use jpeg, I was more than satisfied with it and continue to use it. It stays in my rangefinder bag in case I need color. If I'm working, I use Canon 7D Mark IIs because it is obviously a better camera for sports. But the M8 continues to work well and produces sharper images right out of the camera than the Canons. I have not seen a need to upgrade it and am thinking about another M8, preferably an original model with the 8,000 shutter speed. I know this is off the comparison topic, but it does speak to the durability and continued usefulness of the M8.
raid
Dad Photographer
Leica told me on FEB 24 that my M9 has been repaired and that I can expect it back "within a week". I am still waiting. I told Leica that I will use the same box in which my M9 will arrive back to me for sending back the M240. They sent me a USPS label for sending back their M240.
raid
Dad Photographer
I am expecting to get back my M9 from Leica any day now, after which I will return their M240 to them. Yes, the M240 feels very solid and it can do some things that I cannot do with the M9 or M8 such as taking very quickly back to back photos or use the M240 for a very long time without having to change batteries or use the M240 with LiveView to focus correctly with lenses that need shimming.
Still, the M9 with a new sensor will be better suited for my photography, with the M8 as the second camera. I prefer the colors from the M9 over the colors from the M240 when using DNG --> LR5 --> JPG. Subtle gradation of pink and red (for sunsets) can be captured with the M8 and the M9 but not with the M240 from which the images look different.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Raid, when your M9 comes back please do not forget to post the first picture you'll take with it! I'm curious, you know!
robert
robert
raid
Dad Photographer
Hi Robert,
I am also curious if the new sensor will perform just like the damaged sensor it replaced.
I want to bring with me to Europe the M9 and M8 when we meet. The M240 feels "too bulky" to me. I think of "elegance" when I think of the M9. The M240 makes me think of "brute force".
Of course, I will post the first images with the M9!
I am also curious if the new sensor will perform just like the damaged sensor it replaced.
I want to bring with me to Europe the M9 and M8 when we meet. The M240 feels "too bulky" to me. I think of "elegance" when I think of the M9. The M240 makes me think of "brute force".
Of course, I will post the first images with the M9!
willie_901
Veteran
Why Did Leica Provide Free On-Lens IR Filters?
Why Did Leica Provide Free On-Lens IR Filters?
It can be impossible to level out or reverse caused by differences in the IR filter layer and CFA filter frequency responses.
The issue is the photon count for each R,G and B photo sites affected by differences in the IR and, or CFA frequency responses.
Consider a set of R, G, and B photosites located at the center of each sensor assembly. The final electrical charge density for each of these three photo-diodes will depend on the the sum of the filters' frequency responses. If the green CFA has significant contributions from frequencies other than green, the photon count will be in error. It will be too high. Since the correct photon count is unknown, there is no way to compute a correction. For different scenes the errors will be different because each scene will have different levels of IR, R, G and B light at these three photosites.
This is why the only complete solution to the original M8 IR contamination problem was to to supply free on-lens IR filters. The true, but unknown, amount of IR signal contamination for a given phototsite could not be computed because the spatial distribution of IR light when the shutter was open was unknowable. So, a PS Action or in-camera firmware solution was not possible.
It is true the demosaicking algorithms are designed to account for known CFA contamination effects (the overlap of R, G and B frequencies). The goal is for the demosaicking mathematical model to map onto to the data in a one-to-one fashion. When you have to correct for two different sensor assemblies the problem is complex.[1] Part of what you pay for when you license third-party raw rendering software is the R&D effort required to compute a demosaicking model that maps onto your camera's raw data.
For in-camera JPGs the issue of leveling or reversing rendering differences is moot. Besides potential in-camera demosaicking modeling differences, the JPEG compression destroys most of the original data required to level or reverse the differences.
[1] Leica deserves credit for absorbing the R&D costs required for the matching the original and replacement M9 sensor assemblies. Even so, the problem was simpler because only the IR layer filter response was different and the frequency response differences were mall and well known.
Why Did Leica Provide Free On-Lens IR Filters?
It can be impossible to level out or reverse caused by differences in the IR filter layer and CFA filter frequency responses.
The issue is the photon count for each R,G and B photo sites affected by differences in the IR and, or CFA frequency responses.
Consider a set of R, G, and B photosites located at the center of each sensor assembly. The final electrical charge density for each of these three photo-diodes will depend on the the sum of the filters' frequency responses. If the green CFA has significant contributions from frequencies other than green, the photon count will be in error. It will be too high. Since the correct photon count is unknown, there is no way to compute a correction. For different scenes the errors will be different because each scene will have different levels of IR, R, G and B light at these three photosites.
This is why the only complete solution to the original M8 IR contamination problem was to to supply free on-lens IR filters. The true, but unknown, amount of IR signal contamination for a given phototsite could not be computed because the spatial distribution of IR light when the shutter was open was unknowable. So, a PS Action or in-camera firmware solution was not possible.
It is true the demosaicking algorithms are designed to account for known CFA contamination effects (the overlap of R, G and B frequencies). The goal is for the demosaicking mathematical model to map onto to the data in a one-to-one fashion. When you have to correct for two different sensor assemblies the problem is complex.[1] Part of what you pay for when you license third-party raw rendering software is the R&D effort required to compute a demosaicking model that maps onto your camera's raw data.
For in-camera JPGs the issue of leveling or reversing rendering differences is moot. Besides potential in-camera demosaicking modeling differences, the JPEG compression destroys most of the original data required to level or reverse the differences.
[1] Leica deserves credit for absorbing the R&D costs required for the matching the original and replacement M9 sensor assemblies. Even so, the problem was simpler because only the IR layer filter response was different and the frequency response differences were mall and well known.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
That's exciting!
I do miss my M9. I will also be watching to see if the images look similar with the new sensor as the old sensor. Even if they aren't the same, I think of the slimmer M9 body every time I pick up the 240. Its probably an exacerbated perception because I'm using a couple film M bodies these days as well. Now those are nicely sized and proportioned.
Maybe my M9 is soon to come home as well....
raid
Dad Photographer
Did you buy the M 240?