Question on the IQ of Leica M240

[Ronald M]

It is 90 % digital manipulation, unseen in camera or in post .

I can make Nikons look like Leica M9 CD sensor.

Out of focus quality varies and can be difficult to change in post. Same oof quality changes with Leica lens in use.

Pick the camera on what they are best use. Tele, macro, reportage, size, weight, auto focus or not.

 

[Lss]

I never said any of what you mentioned... I'm just saying that people buy a M for different reasons than pure specs. If you knew me at all, you would now I don't care about tests.

I don't understand your reply. I was pretty much saying the same thing.

 

[KM-25]

When shooting digital jobs ( I still prefer and shoot film ) like the ones I did this week, I use my M240, D750 and D810 together. This morning I had a 35 FLE on the Leica, 20mm 1.8 on the 750 and 85mm 1.8 on the 810.

The M240 photos don't need as much sharpening and have a bit more pop and inherent contrast than the Nikon ones. I set the cameras up to look close, out of camera too, I just don't believe in much post if any at all. As far as spending 7K on a Leica digi body, no way man, I bought mine used in super clean shape from the RFF ads for 4k.

In my experience with regards to image quality, only 10-20% of that falls on the camera, the other 80-90% is on me, the photographer.

Anyone can take a platinum pearl handled hammer and hit their thumb while aiming for the nail....

 

[jsrockit]

I don't understand your reply. I was pretty much saying the same thing.

I thought you implied that I was referring to lab results because I said it might not be the best camera.

 

[Lss]

I thought you implied that I was referring to lab results because I said it might not be the best camera.

No, I meant "best results" can be understood in many ways. One person may look at lab results to pick their camera, another person may look at the photographs they make themselves with different cameras, and so on.

 

[jsrockit]

True, but I think my point was more in the fact that we buy Ms because they tick a box that no other camera ticks.

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks Godfrey, I too own the D750, a few classic primes like the 45/2.8P, 55/3.5 Micro, 105/2.5, 25-50/4 but lately mainly shoot with AF-S lenses like the 70-200/4, 300/4 and 600/4. I also use the Fuji XE-2 for lighter weight shooting with their 14/2.8 and 18-135. Assuming output of a D750 and M-P are similar, I agree that the factors you mentioned will have more of a bearing on the image. Expense of course is the biggest drawback in acquiring Leica gear given the body alone is around 7K. I was just wondering if there any noticeable difference in the image to justify revisiting Leica down the road.

To my eye, Leica RF lenses produce photos that are different from other excellent lenses, and these results appeal to me enough to be worth the price when I want that look and feel in my photos. I like the smaller form factor and the rangefinder focusing/framing that the M provides compared to the DSLR, particularly for the "walking about" focal lengths between 24 and 75 mm. The simple ergonomics and controls of the M along with its quiet operation are also very appealing.

It adds up to enough of a preference that I shoot with the M-P probably 2-4x more than I shoot with the D750. Whether that's worth it to others for the cost of the gear is something that only they can evaluate for themselves.

G

 

[Dektol Dan]

Much-a-do-about don't

Much-a-do-about don't

buy newer.

Digital photography progresses; along the way are high points, (more like wonderful combinations). However, most of these progressions are at the expense of one thing (like features) over another, like image quality. Image quality isn't bigger is better.

Generally higher pixel count is for the ability to shoot in lower light, much the same way a faster lens does. This does not mean that the faster lens is always better than a slower one. Likewise, an older camera's sensor may still make a better image than a newer one. For example, an older sensor may make for a better color balance and a more painterly look, not clinical like most modern sensors.

I favor my old Canon 5D over a Mark III model. I favor CCD over CMOS. And although this does not apply to this thread, I prefer the look of film over digital.

There are plenty of places to look at the images from all these ancient 5 year old cameras. If you do your homework you will find an old Nikon plenty damn good, and the investment is a song!

 

[awilder]

I appreciate all the great comments and input. It confirms that most of it is due to the superiority of Leica lenses, something I've always considered a given. You can probably get a similar result with the Zeiss OTUS or Sigma ART lenses but the size and weight on an SLR would be a deal killer for me.

 

[raid]

Do we have users of M9 and M240? Do you see major differences?

 

[Keith]

I compare files from my 240 and D4 Nikon occasionally and truthfully see little difference ... not to mention they all exit lightroom looking how I want them to look, not how they came out of the camera.

 

[Godfrey]

Do we have users of M9 and M240? Do you see major differences?

I used the M9 for three years and replaced it with the M-P typ 240 early this year. I've made a similar number of exposures with both ... testimony to how much more I like shooting with the M-P, I guess.

Regards the raw files: The M-P files show less moire and greater detail. The M-P sensor is approximately two and a half stops more sensitive than the M9 so ISO 3200 and 6400 produce results that are very usable, where I only rarely found myself using ISO 1600 or greater with the M9.

Overall color calibration between the two cameras is quite different by default and in the Adobe Standard calibration. However, you can more easily recalibrate the M-P to produce output identical to the M9 than vice versa. I have a set of customized camera calibration files for either when I'm doing color work that needs more critically accurate rendering, generated under different kinds of lighting with a Color Checker and the Xrite Passport software.

Regards the JPEG files: I never found the M9 JPEG files to be useful to me. To my eye, they have odd white balance values and show color shifts and tinting, reminding me of poorly exposed Fuji Velvia. M-P JPEG files are much more accurate in color balance and other characteristics; in particular, M-P JPEG files set to B&W rendering are very clean and almost perfectly rendered straight out of the camera.

G

 

[raid]

Thank you for the comparison, Godfrey. This is helpful.

 

[Lss]

True, but I think my point was more in the fact that we buy Ms because they tick a box that no other camera ticks.

Yes, I understand. My comment built on top of that saying that this box may very well be quality of results, when the quality of results is something else than lab results or simple comparison shots of the same scene with the same settings.

In other words, it's not about the specs but rather about how the experience (another term that can be understood in many ways) brings about results.

 

[awilder]

I finally had a chance to take just a few images on the same SD card with a lightly used M240 and 35/2 ASPH comparing it to my Nikon D750 with a 45/2.8 Ai-P and Fuji E-X2 with a Touit 32/1.8. All images were taken on an overcast day, at f/2.8, 4 and 5.6. The cameras were set for ISO 200, DNG or RAW, standard image setting. The images were downloaded on my laptop using LR5. Without any post processing at 100%, the M240 shots were clearly superior to the D750 and the E-X2 did better and was about midway between the D750 and M240. The 35/2 ASPH had the "bite" missing in the 45/2.8 and less so with the 32/1.8 Touit. Color was less vibrant/saturated and contrast was muddier in the D750. To a lesser extent it was also true of the E-X2 compared to the M240. To be fair, I'm going to revisit the location on another overcast day to re-shoot with the D750 and a 35/2.8 Ai Nikkor for better comparison to the 35/2 ASPH but it's unlikely to change color depth and contrast. Based on these results, I would certainly be inclined to acquire a modest kit down the road with a 21/35/90 lens kit if I ever get enough funds together. My biggest concern is with reliability of the M240 body given issues like sensor delamination. When I use to own cameras like the M6 or MP there were annoying mechanical issues (shutter speed accuracy, shutter release trip point, etc.) that needed periodic servicing every few years that never occurred with my Nikons. Do those using the latest digital M bodies find them less prone to needing service than Leica M film bodies? Attached are images from the 3 cameras (image order from left to right is D750 with 45/2.8 Ai-P Nikkor, E-X2 with 32/1.8 Touit, M240 with 35/2 ASPH), center cropped at 100%, all taken at f/4.

 

[awilder]

Lastly another group with a tight 100% crop to better illustrate IQ differences. All were shot at f/5.6. Image order from left to right is D750 with 45/2.8 Ai-P Nikkor, E-X2 with 32/1.8 Touit and M240 with 35/2 ASPH. Softness of the Nikkor may be due to slight manual focus error as it's electronic rangefinder confirmation dot is not as exacting as the Leica's RF or Fuji's AF system.

 

[Stephen G]

I have had the M240 for about 2 years now, and the A7rII since it recently came out (after an A7s).

It's hard to compare, really.
Leica M lenses on Sony A7* bodies work OK, some great, many not.. corners can be problematic even in the 35-50mm range.
So can't compare same lens on both fairly, and I don't really have comparable native lenses for each.

Sony Pros-
The A7* bodies are more ergonomic and lightweight for me, and my right hand has a ligament injury so for me this is a huge deal.

I also dabble in video a lot now, so A7rII has become my all-around camera when I want to go out and do a stills & video mix.

With the A7rII they seem to have finally figured out AF. I've shot MF for most of my photographic life, and mostly felt AF got in my way. With face & eye tracking, I'm now finding it convenient.

Popping into APS-C crop mode and still getting 18MP is cool.

Leica Pros-
I'd say pixel-level sharpness is probably higher. Also remember 42MP vs 24MP is not 75% more resolution, but 75% more pixels. Linear resolution is like 30-40% higher. Arguably 15% is needed to even be noticeable.

The files are just easier to process. Half the time I import into LR and am just adjusting on the margins with my Leica M 240 files. I have consistently found Sony files more work to post process. Whoever complained about M 240 color/white balance has not had to deal with A7rII files.

MF user experience cannot be beat. OVF has huge advantages for my shooting style, especially in 50mm. Watching outside frame lines to see subjects moving toward the frame, controlling my framing better, etc. Focus peaking and magnification and all the the other gizmos on EVF cameras are fine, but nothing like a Leica OVF.

The UI is just simple. First of all, the ISO/shutter/aperture controls are simple and predictable. Sony UI is a mess. Tabs of tabs of menus with sub menus. Stuff scattered all over the place, I have to remember the myriad locations of my commonly changed settings. Oh and the dials/layout on the Sony.. the wheel on the back is easily hit by your body while camera is on strap, and there's no easy lock/unlock.. so I had to just disable it entirely. Oh and for a movie focussed camera, they put the movie record button in the dumbest place possible, guaranteeing the first seconds/last seconds of every clip are a jittery shake-fest.

Leica has a nice methodical product management with history. Sony I feel like I am constantly being half-tempted by 95% great but often highly compromised products.. which are going to be superseded in weeks/months. The A7sII timing after the A7rII rollout was really bizarre.

Leica M mount has many great lenses at a variety of price points, speeds and weight from multiple makers. Sony FE lens line drives me kinda nuts. OK zooms, some good AF primes, some nice Zeiss Loxia, some nice Zeiss Batis.. all at staggered focal lengths & speeds so as not to compete.. but also to give less choice at each focal length. Yes I can adapt A-mount or Canon EF-mount, but that's suboptimal.

Leica M 240 battery is great. I bought a second one when I got the camera, but if you don't use live view, you really don't need it. I leave the camera to stay awake max time (5min?) before napping, and I can walk around with camera "on" taking shots for a full active shooting day and come home with 500 frames and 40% left on the battery. Sony I have 3 batteries. They actually ship the camera with 2 batteries, which says something. I've burned through 2 batteries in much lighter shooting. I swear in video mode you can basically watch the battery % tick down in real time as the record time ticks up..


Did I mention I love both cameras?

Oh people are doing that constantly.

If you do not crop the M240 with good lenses wins hands down I think.

But once you start really peeping all sorts of variables come into play. The Sony can only play with the other two at 25mm, 35mm, 55mm and 90mm where there are natives designed for the thickly covered sensor.

With those lenses the Sony will win any crop contest.

The D810 is the mature pro machine, and offers the only complete system of the three.

Now....what will Cosina come up with? 😉

 

[chaospress]

Not a fair comparison I suppose, but my M240 images are much more saturated and solid looking than those from my 1st version Canon 5D. The best description I can think of color wise is that the RAW files out of the M240 look like Provia slide film with generally better color accuracy than the film, while the 5D can often be compared to Portra.

As for black and white, both are capable if not consistently impressive depending on the image, with the M240 again winning out.

Of course the Leica is sharp as a tack. I've never found the need or desire to add sharpening to any of the images.

The character of images on both cameras are certainly dependent on the particular lens used as well.

 

[willie_901]

...

Of course the Leica is sharp as a tack. I've never found the need or desire to add sharpening to any of the images.
...

In digital imaging capture sharpening improves all images. Capture sharpening compensates for the affect of AA filters and imperfections in the Bayer demosaicing model (interpolation errors).

The first is irrelevant to the M240... the second occurs. As far as I know all mathematical models that represent continuous information as discontinuous data are imperfect. Photography is just a subset of this problem. The imperfections are often trivial and appropriate capture sharpening is one of the reasons why.

Of course the M240 would require less capture sharpening than a camera with an AA filter. Also the optimum sharpening parameters would be different. It's possible the improvements would only be noticed in extreme crops or rather large prints.

All digital images benefit from output sharpening.

 

[Godfrey]

...My biggest concern is with reliability of the M240 body given issues like sensor delamination. When I use to own cameras like the M6 or MP there were annoying mechanical issues (shutter speed accuracy, shutter release trip point, etc.) that needed periodic servicing every few years that never occurred with my Nikons. Do those using the latest digital M bodies find them less prone to needing service than Leica M film bodies? ...

The digital Ms all have electronic shutters and releases so should be just as reliable as electronic shutter Nikon SLRs and DSLRs. There is no more a history of sensor delamination with the M typ 240 than with any Nikon DSLR either; you should be good to go on those counts.

G