Huss
Veteran
aka why I do not want an M240.
I was in the Leica Store LA, and sampled the M240, alongside my M-E and took a couple of snaps with each using a Summicron Asph 35 lens.
Shot at f2.0, metered on auto pointed at the floor in order to get the highlighted look that I use in my work. I then imported them to LR, and made them look as close to each other as possible. All I did was make sure the white balance was the same (3400, +16), increased the shadow brightness to match and decreased the highlight slider to -100.
And here is the big surprise. I was able to recover far more information in the highlights with the M-E than the M240. I did notice that while the skin tones were the same, the cabinets were slightly blue in the M-E shot, while more neutral in the M240 shot. Maybe I could have played with the colour sliders to adjust that, but I wanted to do as little to these images as possible while still getting a result that I would consider satisfactory for a comparison.
I asked a couple of people to judge which photo they preferred without telling them what camera took what picture and all of them picked the M-E image.
Yes, the M240 has a deeper ISO range, but for the majority of my shooting that is not needed. Yes the M240 has a nicer screen, video and quieter shutter. But that matters not one bit for the final image.
Note. All this is purely subjective. If you prefer the M240 image, great. But for me, I do not.
M-E image is on top. Excuse the lousy photo bucket compression of the images.
I was in the Leica Store LA, and sampled the M240, alongside my M-E and took a couple of snaps with each using a Summicron Asph 35 lens.
Shot at f2.0, metered on auto pointed at the floor in order to get the highlighted look that I use in my work. I then imported them to LR, and made them look as close to each other as possible. All I did was make sure the white balance was the same (3400, +16), increased the shadow brightness to match and decreased the highlight slider to -100.
And here is the big surprise. I was able to recover far more information in the highlights with the M-E than the M240. I did notice that while the skin tones were the same, the cabinets were slightly blue in the M-E shot, while more neutral in the M240 shot. Maybe I could have played with the colour sliders to adjust that, but I wanted to do as little to these images as possible while still getting a result that I would consider satisfactory for a comparison.
I asked a couple of people to judge which photo they preferred without telling them what camera took what picture and all of them picked the M-E image.
Yes, the M240 has a deeper ISO range, but for the majority of my shooting that is not needed. Yes the M240 has a nicer screen, video and quieter shutter. But that matters not one bit for the final image.
Note. All this is purely subjective. If you prefer the M240 image, great. But for me, I do not.
M-E image is on top. Excuse the lousy photo bucket compression of the images.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
do you think maybe the first picture was more interesting ? just a thought. nice shots though.
Landberg
Well-known
I don't really get the comparison. The photos looks a bit weird with low image quality (almost "HDR") and not that sharp. It's really hard for me to compare because they both look bad (in image quality, not the photo itself). Why show the results with "lousy photo bucket compression of the images."? 
It could be my iPad that shows the photos completely wrong and if so I apologize.
It could be my iPad that shows the photos completely wrong and if so I apologize.
Huss
Veteran
Not really as they were meant to be test snaps. But if you look behind the right shoulder (our left) of the first image you can see there is far more detail in the highlights. Plus the rendering of the image just seems more pleasing (to my eye).
Landberg - the photo bucket compression that I used to post has taken away sharpness. But it has done so equally for both, so the idea of a straight comparison of a test shot is still valid.
xavoy
Established
In controlled lighting (ie, a shopping mall with constant lighting) shouldn't you set the aperture, shutter speed, and iso manually to get a fair comparison? If the M240 overexposed because of a different metering mode, then the comparison isn't fair to begin with (given that you seem to be most interested in highlight recovery)
But I'm procrastinating and should be doing other things and likely missed some important detail in your post.
But I'm procrastinating and should be doing other things and likely missed some important detail in your post.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Yeah, I agree with the above. This doesn't seem like a well done test at all.
Pioneer
Veteran
I don't even bother doing tests any longer except for my own purposes. Everyone seem to be an expert on how best they should be done and the entire exercise turns into manifesto on how to do tests. Particularly when the test appears to show something that runs counter to what the forum "experts" believe should have happened.
Besides, I've learned that the camera, film/sensor and lens mean far less than what I myself am able to do with them...or not.
Besides, I've learned that the camera, film/sensor and lens mean far less than what I myself am able to do with them...or not.
Huss
Veteran
I agree with the comments that I should have made sure the ISO/shutter speed/fstop should have been the same for an exacting test. As it was very impromptu, I just used the same lens on both cameras, shot them both at f2, and let the camera choose the ISO and shutter speed.
But.. that is how I shoot normally, away from this pseudo test. I have my camera set at auto ISO with top ISO set at 1250, min shutter speed lens dependent so what I am controlling 'directly' is aperture and focus. Of course there would be times where I would deviate from this but usually I do not.
So, for me, this comparison is valid in as much as that is how I would pick up and use the cameras in a real world situation. There's my girl, grab camera, pick f stop, focus, shoot. Grab other camera, put same lens on it, focus, shoot.
If that was not satisfying for some on a technical level, then so be it. I'm sure there are those out there happy to mount the camera on a tripod and take a static shot of an arbitrary target.
But.. that is how I shoot normally, away from this pseudo test. I have my camera set at auto ISO with top ISO set at 1250, min shutter speed lens dependent so what I am controlling 'directly' is aperture and focus. Of course there would be times where I would deviate from this but usually I do not.
So, for me, this comparison is valid in as much as that is how I would pick up and use the cameras in a real world situation. There's my girl, grab camera, pick f stop, focus, shoot. Grab other camera, put same lens on it, focus, shoot.
If that was not satisfying for some on a technical level, then so be it. I'm sure there are those out there happy to mount the camera on a tripod and take a static shot of an arbitrary target.
uhoh7
Veteran
I think you qualified the parameters, which some won't bother to read or respect.
however: while I love the M9 and don't want a 240, I would not expect to be able to get proper result with it without quite a bit of practice. So I'm not sure you are really fair to the 240 here.
Next, making shots from 240 look like M9 and viceversa is perilous. That kind of pushing and pulling is bound to muddy waters, and of course add to that photobucket, which seems inferior to flickr in my experience.
All that said: I think you make some really valid points which a lot of folks don't realize. Mainly the M9 RAW can take some major pushing before noise appears. Regarding highlights: I'd be surprised if the M9 can really recover better than the 240, because it recovers way worse than the Sony A7: but again the blacks push way better than A7. I often shoot in A with exposure -2/3 and don't blow highlights except with extremes.
But I've never shot with 240 so for all I know you may be right.
I do know the M9 has a very touchy meter and WB is hyper sensitive to light angle. M240 is meant to be less so.
Nevertheless I think it's an interesting exercise.
however: while I love the M9 and don't want a 240, I would not expect to be able to get proper result with it without quite a bit of practice. So I'm not sure you are really fair to the 240 here.
Next, making shots from 240 look like M9 and viceversa is perilous. That kind of pushing and pulling is bound to muddy waters, and of course add to that photobucket, which seems inferior to flickr in my experience.
All that said: I think you make some really valid points which a lot of folks don't realize. Mainly the M9 RAW can take some major pushing before noise appears. Regarding highlights: I'd be surprised if the M9 can really recover better than the 240, because it recovers way worse than the Sony A7: but again the blacks push way better than A7. I often shoot in A with exposure -2/3 and don't blow highlights except with extremes.
But I've never shot with 240 so for all I know you may be right.
I do know the M9 has a very touchy meter and WB is hyper sensitive to light angle. M240 is meant to be less so.
Nevertheless I think it's an interesting exercise.
Addy101
Well-known
Your test is okay - the best you could do in the circumstances of a shop. It mimics your shooting style, so, if anything, it is a good test for you.
Like the others I was wondering if the settings of the M240 did result in this look. The EXIF isn't in the pictures, so that makes it difficult to make definitive conclusions from this test. But lloking at these two pictures, I must agree with you, the M-E shot looks better. Looking at the DXO Mark measurements the dynamic range difference between the M-E and M240 isn't earth shattering, and this is a test of dynamic range imo. Slight lighting difference will negate the difference.
This all doesn't matter btw, if you consider the M-E to be better for you, it will be better for you as it will make you more confident.
Like the others I was wondering if the settings of the M240 did result in this look. The EXIF isn't in the pictures, so that makes it difficult to make definitive conclusions from this test. But lloking at these two pictures, I must agree with you, the M-E shot looks better. Looking at the DXO Mark measurements the dynamic range difference between the M-E and M240 isn't earth shattering, and this is a test of dynamic range imo. Slight lighting difference will negate the difference.
This all doesn't matter btw, if you consider the M-E to be better for you, it will be better for you as it will make you more confident.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I would guess that your audience picked the M-E image because it's a more compelling image in respect to its content, not because of the camera used.
This nitpicking of gear is pretty much a futile exercise, imho. People like to look at photographs because of what's in the frame and not just its surface. Granted, one needs to attract the attention of the audience in the first place which is why photographers are competent with the basic technique and know what's considered visually acceptable. But after that, it's all about content and context. Just look at the most compelling photographs throughout history. They were taken with a wide range of cameras/lenses/media, etc.. And a lot of it was cheap whatever gear that the photographer could get their hands on (most weren't wealthy.) In the end nobody really cares (except for maybe the gear fanatics.) We know this but never seem to be able to accept it. So instead we keep on trying to rationalize the equipment itself.
This nitpicking of gear is pretty much a futile exercise, imho. People like to look at photographs because of what's in the frame and not just its surface. Granted, one needs to attract the attention of the audience in the first place which is why photographers are competent with the basic technique and know what's considered visually acceptable. But after that, it's all about content and context. Just look at the most compelling photographs throughout history. They were taken with a wide range of cameras/lenses/media, etc.. And a lot of it was cheap whatever gear that the photographer could get their hands on (most weren't wealthy.) In the end nobody really cares (except for maybe the gear fanatics.) We know this but never seem to be able to accept it. So instead we keep on trying to rationalize the equipment itself.
Addy101
Well-known
What makes you say that? Why is it a more compelling image in your opinion? Isn't that because it doesn't have blown highlights? And that means were full circle....
xavoy
Established
What makes you say that? Why is it a more compelling image in your opinion? Isn't that because it doesn't have blown highlights? And that means were full circle....
Not really. Get exposure wrong and you can blow highlights with any camera.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
What makes you say that? Why is it a more compelling image in your opinion? Isn't that because it doesn't have blown highlights? And that means were full circle....
Better overall composition; the woman's face is titled at an angle and fills the frame. Not concerned about the highlights, just looking at the content. Audiences aren't going to be concerned either, unless it's extreme to be annoying and distracts from the content. You're way too concerned with the surface of the image and the technique. Audiences get excited by the image's content (and context.) Trust me on that one.....
Jack Conrad
Well-known
The brighter highlights in the M240 image could be explained by something as simple as a car passing by outside the window that reflected a glint of sunlight at that particular moment in time.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Thanks for the comparison.
I don't own either, and with my budget, probably never will. But if I were to buy one, it would be the M-E. I already have my Nikon work cameras that have CMOS sensors and I can make CMOS images. The M-E has the CCD sensor, and from my experience, it just has a different "look" compared to a CMOS. Some think better, some think worse. I happened to like the CCD look, especially when mated to my Leica glass.
Best,
-Tim
I don't own either, and with my budget, probably never will. But if I were to buy one, it would be the M-E. I already have my Nikon work cameras that have CMOS sensors and I can make CMOS images. The M-E has the CCD sensor, and from my experience, it just has a different "look" compared to a CMOS. Some think better, some think worse. I happened to like the CCD look, especially when mated to my Leica glass.
Best,
-Tim
Interesting comparison, but one shot is not really enough to make it a valid test.
The first photo is much preferable for composition.
Not really a fan of trendy overexposure...
The first photo is much preferable for composition.
Not really a fan of trendy overexposure...
MCTuomey
Veteran
Thanks for posting. I've seen a number of competent shooters indicate a preference for the skin tones and range of the CCD-based digi M's versus the M240, even some who have considerable post-processing skills, so no surprise for me here. Out of respect for your conditions, I've tried to ignore the compositional difference, and find the color and contrast from the M-E file preferable. I'm sure we could get different results from different workflows, but it's your workflow, not mine, and in your shoes I'd choose the M-E on this basis too.
Addy101
Well-known
I don't have to trust you on that, I know that most people are more into content and context. The problem with the M240 picture is that a part of the surroundings is gone while it is there with the M-E, making the M-E picture better. This effect is bigger imho then the slight difference in composition. When you say that I'm "way too concerned with the surface of the image and the technique" you're not aware enough of the impact technical quality can have on look and feel of a picture. Just MHO of course. The truth probably is somewhere in the middle...
borge
Established
Did you clone/heal the white sensor spots from the M-E photos before you posted them?