Kwesi
Well-known
You chose a great time of day for your shoot! Both images are very inviting.
Dez.
Member
I find the M9/M-E is perfectly fine at higher ISO levels, so long as you expose correctly. It you're sloppy with your exposure, or rely on auto settings, it can bite you but otherwise it works well.
I haven't shot much with the M240, but I would expect it to have more dynamic range in the shadows and the M9 to have more in the highlights.
CMOS sensors are also much more "linear" than CCD sensors, so they capture a flatter image, then the camera embeds a contrast curve in the raw file. CCD sensors by nature are a little less linear, having a bit of a natural contrast curve already, which is then enhanced the camera's software.
I think far too much is made of high ISO noise levels, even with cameras that aren't great at higher ISO it's still worlds better than trying to push color film into those ranges.
Anyways, here's an example from my M9 shot at ISO 1250, with fairly heavy-handed sharpening making the grain stand out even more. This is with the default color noise setting of "25".
I haven't shot much with the M240, but I would expect it to have more dynamic range in the shadows and the M9 to have more in the highlights.
CMOS sensors are also much more "linear" than CCD sensors, so they capture a flatter image, then the camera embeds a contrast curve in the raw file. CCD sensors by nature are a little less linear, having a bit of a natural contrast curve already, which is then enhanced the camera's software.
I think far too much is made of high ISO noise levels, even with cameras that aren't great at higher ISO it's still worlds better than trying to push color film into those ranges.
Anyways, here's an example from my M9 shot at ISO 1250, with fairly heavy-handed sharpening making the grain stand out even more. This is with the default color noise setting of "25".
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for the illustration above.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Dez. wrote: "I would post a link to my personal blog here, but apparently that's not allowed.
"Rule No. 5 - No Self-Promotion
5) Members will not post any messages anywhere on this site that are primarily for the promotion or advertising of any website, forums, email address, business, MLM, activity, or other entities that you have an affiliation with (ie. no self-promotion). Additionally Self-Promotion links will no longer be allowed in your signature." "
Man, I would hope the spirit of that rule is against self-promotion for commercial purposes. Any RFF authorities want to chime in?
"Rule No. 5 - No Self-Promotion
5) Members will not post any messages anywhere on this site that are primarily for the promotion or advertising of any website, forums, email address, business, MLM, activity, or other entities that you have an affiliation with (ie. no self-promotion). Additionally Self-Promotion links will no longer be allowed in your signature." "
Man, I would hope the spirit of that rule is against self-promotion for commercial purposes. Any RFF authorities want to chime in?
Dez.
Member
I got into it with one of the mods a while back, essentially I'm not allowed to post any links to my blog because some articles have Amazon links. So even if I post to something on my site that doesn't have an Amazon link, it's still forbidden because there's amazon links scattered sporadically though out other articles.
They have a pretty broad definition of "commercial".
Manuel Patino
Established
LOL! might as well ban everything and shut the forum down. *Everything* posted here is a form of self promotion!
neonart
Established
Totally agree on exposing correctly and knowing the gear. However, the photo included is a well illuminated photo at f2, 1/90th, ISO1250.
But when high ISO is needed just to "get the shot" it's a whole different ball game. I shoot so much in super dim environments that often ƒ1.4, 1/30th, and ISO4000 barely get the shot.
Here one at ISO4000 & 1/45th, so I could use about ƒ3 for DOF.
And it's crop
Again, I am not saying anything bad about the M9/ME. And high ISO performance does not make a camera better on it's own.
But IMO, the M240 is a more versatile camera because of it's ISO performance, live view, and battery life.
Manuel Patino
Established
I definitely notice that the M240 is quite usable at even the highest ISO settings. I don't have experience with the M8 or M9 so I cannot opine on them from first hand experience. But didn't you have the M8 and M9 before you got your M240?
neonart
Established
M8. Loved the "film-like" color. Great for B&W. Low ISO was outstanding. Definitely understand the LOW ISO CCD attraction. After ISO640 things got iffy though.
Jim Evidon
Jim
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.
As has been commented previously, not great shots, but the M-E seems to be a bit more saturated.
MCTuomey
Veteran
I resemble that diss:
20150131-054-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
20141210-009-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
20141210-037-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
Some folks need high iso for capturing, well, whatever they shoot in dark places. Some folks don't because they just don't go there. If you don't, great. Easier choices in gear. Those who do will care about a stop or two of higher iso ability, less banding, and so forth.
Re Duane's comparison shots, minor tweaks in LR to WB, hue, and saturation would resolve 95%+ of the differences. I can't believe folks are making judgments on the desirability of these two cameras from such comparisons. What might be useful is a controlled comparison of something challenging, say Asian skin tones in mixed lighting, between the two.
Manuel Patino
Established
I don't understand. Does this mean that the M240 is an inferior camera with a poor sensor and only a high ISO advantage? I wonder why Leica would do such a thing..... And personally, I see nothing wrong or beneath contempt with taking photographs in dimly lit clubs. Different strokes for different folks.. I enjoy taking pictures of musicians and dancers in dimly lit venues. Many of them play and sing quite on key
And not all sweat either....Corran
Well-known
I shoot a lot of stuff in dim interiors, including live music venues. I would just like to say that in most cases, the solution is not higher ISO, but correct usage of flash. Yes, sometimes that's not allowed or possible, but that usually results in better photos than just cranking up the ISO, at least in my experience.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Of course. More light, and better yet more controlled light, is wonderful. Not to be argumentative, but very few places I shoot permit flash. And the few that do permit it don't seem too successful. So your solution is what - be the xxxx and try to get away with it? Me, it's 6400, f/1.4, and try to get a decent shutter speed. And not get my unsightly self thrown out.
Corran
Well-known
Sorry, perhaps I was assuming some things or not being clear.
Most of the time that I'm shooting at a live venue or event I'm being paid to be there. Flash being allowed or not generally doesn't apply then, though sometimes if there is also video being done I won't/can't use flash.
Samouraï
Well-known
I guess it looks as though you have more information in the highlights in the first capture, but I don't know how that could be (does that make sense?). Did you shoot these really hot and bring them down, losing that info in the highlights?
More importantly, the first picture is indeed the more interesting capture (as a poster noted in the first reply to this thread...or at least hypothesized something to that effect).
And even more importantly, these captures are way too low quality due to compression or something or other to get a good idea of what is going on. Post a couple of decent versions, as these are some of the worst I've seen on this forum as far as acuity is concerned.
And yeah, I prefer a CCD to a CMOS sensor any day with good light. I'm sure the M-E offers the better looking image, but you haven't given us a lot to go on.
More importantly, the first picture is indeed the more interesting capture (as a poster noted in the first reply to this thread...or at least hypothesized something to that effect).
And even more importantly, these captures are way too low quality due to compression or something or other to get a good idea of what is going on. Post a couple of decent versions, as these are some of the worst I've seen on this forum as far as acuity is concerned.
And yeah, I prefer a CCD to a CMOS sensor any day with good light. I'm sure the M-E offers the better looking image, but you haven't given us a lot to go on.
Manuel Patino
Established
I respect your predilection, whatever works for you is fine. For me using flash is a huge hassle, a bore and just plain annoying to people. My shooting is more along the lines of "stealth" if you wish. I don't want to shoot flash in people's faces. Frankly, I hate the flash of the cell phones, let alone a big professional flash.
Anyway, I don't even have a flash unit for my Leica. I bought a good, Olympus flash for my Olympus O-MD E-M1 and I used it about 3 times just to try it. The M240 will capture very good images (for me) at high ISO without the need for the flash. I shoot the Lux wide open and use whatever ambient light exists. I'm not a purist or any such thing, it's just that flash for me sucks. I feel that a camera that won't do well in higher ISO than 1200, is severely handicapped for my particular shooting predilection. It would do me no good to have the best quality images if I need to only shoot in good light situations.
chaospress
Established
One shot in crappy lighting is enough for you to draw conclusions?
I've had both cameras and see no significant difference other than that the M240 does better with higher ISO. Aside from the fact it adds live view, focus peaking, etc..
I've had both cameras and see no significant difference other than that the M240 does better with higher ISO. Aside from the fact it adds live view, focus peaking, etc..
chaospress
Established
Yeah well, not really.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Exactly. I would go as far as to say that blown highlights are ALWAYS operator error.Not really. Get exposure wrong and you can blow highlights with any camera.
The way to judge a camera is to shoot identical exposure to hug the highlights and then judge shadow recovery. (and no, identical settings on different cameras will NOT result in identical exposure. ISO value in digital cameras is a judgement call by the designer, not an absolute value. ( as it was on film as well, despite a more stringent norm than for sensors)) Use exposure bracketing and the histogram in LR to test.
Some camera makers like Sony like to push exposure to the left to make it appear they hold highlights better. More fool us.