The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

jonoslack

Active member
HI There
Sean Reid has put up his piece on the file quality of the new M compared to both the M9 and the MM - it makes interesting reading.

Well worth the price of entry if you are considering buying the new Leica (there will be more coming, including comparisons with the Sony RX1 and Merill cameras)

Reid Reviews

all the best
 

fotografz

Well-known member
+1.

This is such an important decision going forward, that I broke down and paid the subscription fee to read Reid's review to add to the mix of sources.

I particularly like the very controlled studio test that eliminates variables going in ... with field work to follow. IMO, Sean was very even-handed in is interpretive analysis. Well done.

I still preferred the M9 rendering up to 640/800, but concede that final LR profiles may change that. I am 100% with him regarding the banding at 3200 and 6400 because in practice the light source temperatures at those ISOs tends to be less than stellar. Hopefully, at least 3200 can be dealt with before full production.

The notion of a M240 1.3 stop gain in ISO performance over the M9 after ISO 800 (give or take), poses a serious question for those that may, or may not, have the need. Personal applications for a rangefinder is the guide for that, and whether one has other low light options in their gear box. Or whether (like me), one prefers B&W and has a MM for that.

-Marc
 

jffielde

New member
I've been on the waiting list from Day 1, and I'm still not quite sure that I'm all in.

Sean's review really shows how great the M9 (still) is and how great the MM is at B&W. I prefer the look of the M9 from base ISO - 640 or so, but the noise from the M240 is acceptable to me through ISO 4000 or 5000 -- assuming no banding.

I have always disregarded banding if it wasn't visible with a 1-shop push, and I've always considered an image (and an ISO) unusable if the banding is visible without push.

That leaves the M240 in an awkward spot for me, at least right now. If the banding is sometimes visible at 3200, I would consider the real maximum ISO of this camera to be something less than that, which really doesn't improve the maximum setting over the M9 much (if any). Granted, the files are cleaner at ISO 1250-2000, which I very much appreciate and highly value, but I really need to go to 3200-4000 regularly.

There's much to like about the new camera, but the banding matters to me a good bit. I guess we'll see.
 

jonoslack

Active member
That leaves the M240 in an awkward spot for me, at least right now. If the banding is sometimes visible at 3200, I would consider the real maximum ISO of this camera to be something less than that, which really doesn't improve the maximum setting over the M9 much (if any). Granted, the files are cleaner at ISO 1250-2000, which I very much appreciate and highly value, but I really need to go to 3200-4000 regularly.

There's much to like about the new camera, but the banding matters to me a good bit. I guess we'll see.
Hi there. I think everyone is being very cautious here(good thing too). I've been setting the camera at 3200 for gigs and parties and I've not had one shot spoiled by banding. And that's with earlier firmware.
I've also quite happily used 4000 and 6400 in reasonably contrasty light and got good results.
 

250swb

Member
I think this is one of the few realistic reviews so far. It has put a hatchet through some of the hype and manages to place the M240 in context. I'm sure some potential buyers will be disappointed and some even more keen.

Steve
 

Jeff S

New member
I'm encouraged by the b/w potential, preferring my M8.2 over the M9, but reluctant to buy an MM. This might be very close to the MM (and I'd actually welcome a bit more 'grain'), with the potential added advantages of weather sealing, 2m frame lines and much better flexibility in PP using color channels. Plus, still being able to shoot color, which almost assuredly will beat the M8.2, and perhaps the M9. So far, so good.

Jeff
 

jffielde

New member
Hi there. I think everyone is being very cautious here(good thing too). I've been setting the camera at 3200 for gigs and parties and I've not had one shot spoiled by banding. And that's with earlier firmware.
I've also quite happily used 4000 and 6400 in reasonably contrasty light and got good results.
Thank you for your reply. May I assume that you would regard an image as "spoiled" if you saw banding in it?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thank you for your reply. May I assume that you would regard an image as "spoiled" if you saw banding in it?
probably, but not necessarily - if it were in oof shadow areas I'd probably just darken the area- but certainly if it were in the subject.
 

John Black

Active member
Hi there. I think everyone is being very cautious here(good thing too). I've been setting the camera at 3200 for gigs and parties and I've not had one shot spoiled by banding. And that's with earlier firmware.
I've also quite happily used 4000 and 6400 in reasonably contrasty light and got good results.
Hi Jono - I might not have these firmware revision perfectly formatted... The firmware revision is visible in the DNG via C1. I've noticed that images with firmware 0.1.0.0 had very visible banding - even at ISO 200. Then somewhere around firmware 0.1.8.0 things got much better. I've seen firmwares 0.1.8.0, 0.1.8.1, 0.1.9.0 and 0.1.10.0. Images from those levels have looked MUCH better (in terms of banding). Are you at liberty of offering some insights?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono - I might not have these firmware revision perfectly formatted... The firmware revision is visible in the DNG via C1. I've noticed that images with firmware 0.1.0.0 had very visible banding - even at ISO 200. Then somewhere around firmware 0.1.8.0 things got much better. I've seen firmwares 0.1.8.0, 0.1.8.1, 0.1.9.0 and 0.1.10.0. Images from those levels have looked MUCH better (in terms of banding). Are you at liberty of offering some insights?
HI There John
They haven't finished improving it yet (but as you've noted, it has been incremental) - but the next firmware upgrade required a recalibration - so none of us had it in time for the these posts.

It's unfortunate that Lloyd Chambers chose an image from the earliest firmware to do his criticism. Such is the danger of posting images before shipping, but my personal opinion is that the advantages are more than the disadvantages.

So there should be an improvement in both noise and banding in the shipping camera.
 

John Black

Active member
Hi Jono - the recalibration is EXCELLENT news because that means they are tuning the hardware. Some of timing parameters and voltage levels can be controlled at the software level (ie - firmware parameter settings), whereas other components are hardware only. So, if Leica is re-calibrating that means they are digging into the hardware (most likely). Getting the baseline hardware as good as possible ensures a good foundation, then firmware can optimize. The more Leica does at the hardware level (in terms of "fixing" things), the happier I am. A month or two delay is nothing compared to us living with the product for 2-3-4-5 years.

If I were the Leica product manager, I would not have released image for public consumption that were with earlier variants. It can led people to incorrect conclusions. I feel that I've seen big improvements in the DNG noise / banding with the latest firmwares. So if Leica can get it even better, who knows, maybe even ISO 3200-6400 will be better. Fingers crossed :) Thank you for the info.
 

jonoslack

Active member
If I were the Leica product manager, I would not have released image for public consumption that were with earlier variants. It can led people to incorrect conclusions. I feel that I've seen big improvements in the DNG noise / banding with the latest firmwares. So if Leica can get it even better, who knows, maybe even ISO 3200-6400 will be better. Fingers crossed :) Thank you for the info.
Hi John
The releasing of images and subsequent discussion is a sort of double edged sword. I think that any camera will suffer a bit when an image deliberately exposed to the left to block shadows is pushed by 4 stops. If you don't post any images then, true, nobody will push them by four stops! But nobody will talk about them either. Maybe it's better to get all this stuff out of the way before it ships,so that people know what they're buying.

It seems to me that Ming and Sean's reports have really clarified in most people's minds that the IQ Is pretty good as it is. When it's even better at release time, then everyone will be happy with their new cameras! :chug:

In terms of actual use I've often set the ISO to 3200 and just left it there. I've also used 4000,6400 on lots of occasions.
All the best
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I know my opinion will not be very popular, but I think Leica should have stuck to the original plan:

M10 classic RF with higher pixel CCD, improved high iso and LCD screen, faster processor, resolved card compatibility issues, 2m frames, improved RF mechanism, improved WA corner performance.

M mirrorless body without RF, APS-H or FF CMOS sensor, LV, video, 3" high resolution screen, R lens adapter, focus peaking, scrollable magnified view, high refresh rate EVF.

I surely would get the 1st one, and most probably the 2nd one too.

I'm not feeling so confident about the 2 in 1 solution which seems to have many quirks.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
If I understood it correctly from Ming Thein review, and the comments on Sean Reid comparisons, the M9 seems to be still the king of low iso IQ with its special CCD sparkle and color rendering. Ming Thein places the M between the M9 and the D800E in this regard, but closer to the M9. It seems to me Leica has decidedly sacrificed some of the low iso IQ in order to get the other benefits of the CMOS sensor. Just my thoughts on this matter, and that is not intended as criticism, just a matter of fact observation.
 
I couldn't agree with you more, Edward.

Leica, unfortunately in my opinion, is going the route of all other camera manufacturers in their quest for cleaner high iso at the expense of low iso. I can't think of a single exception, except Leica, until it's migration to CMOS. I'd love to see Dalsa make a high megapixel 35mm CCD chip for a 35mm camera that takes R glass.

I think it's safe to say that with respect to low iso output there's still nothing in 35mm format that can match the DMR's 100 iso output. And unfortunately there's no way forward (in 35mm) with Leica in an upgrade path for R owners.

A lot of us want a camera for landscapes that can use R lenses. The D800E doesn't have that per pixel "sparkle" of the CCD sensor. I think Rob Stevens and Guy would both agree... given their extensive use of the DMR.

Why is it that no camera manufacturer will fill the very real need for a high quality low iso camera that is acceptable up to 800 iso but outstanding at 100 iso? I'm so tired of the mush I'm seeing at 1600 and 3200 that nothing grabs my interest any longer (apart from the Sigma DP2M when a 45mm focal length will do).

Just another opinion...

Lawrence
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
This is pure speculation ...but it appeared that Leica was considering two paths with new M sensor . At one point speculation was that they would use the Dalsa 23MP CCD sensor . But after a while it became obvious that they would go with CMOS (plenty of quotes from Leica management) . Plenty of evidence that they understand the trade offs and are working to have the new M perform better in every way .

HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE.......After 10 s of thousands of photographs with digital M cameras ...I know the one most important specification to me ..for street and travel is better ISO performance in the 800-3200 range . At low ISO and in good light ..the M9 s CCD performs as well as I might ever need . This extends the hours that the M camera can be effectively used for street photography . ISO1600 is enough for most requirements I have encountered and the M9 loses to much IQ for my requirements . I ve not seen any CCD solution that really pushes into this area without unacceptable loss of DR and color saturation .

R SOLUTION .....since I handled the new M last OCT in NYC at PRO PHOTO ...I ve pushed that the new M is not an effective solution for the R lenses . The EVF is a poor substitute for a Leica SLR and the longer lenses balance poorly on the new M . (You can test this with any number of small format cameras that use EVF and can be adapted to use R lenses..this is a me too feature not an advancement ). But it does increase the flexibility of the system and provide a way to effectively use the 135APO M and in very low light utilize focus peaking with fast lenses . I miss having a 180 APO lens in my travel kit and for this ..the EVF will be appreciated .

DMR Color ....I miss it and agree ..haven t seen anything that matches it at base ISO. My experience DMR, D3x,D800E and S2. Have adapted the best Leica R lenses to the Nikon mount . The best solution for landscape is the S2 by a wide margin (but of course it doesn t use the R glass) . (You have 40MP CCD ,better in camera processor and the best lenses Leica has ever made(the Leica position on lenses).

OTHER SPECIFICATIONS ....I do give Leica full credit for addresses all the smaller attributes of the M9 that limit its effectiveness in the field/street etc. More accurate frame lines,better battery ,larger faster cards , larger buffer ,weather sealing , better menu and controls . These will be appreciated more once the camera is out .

Remember the crappy DMR batteries ...I was getting only 100 shots at the end per battery . Sd cards limited to 4GB and slow . Iso that feel apart starting at 400. Electrical system that becomes unreliable if you get a damp day .......

But I totally concur that losing the "sparkle " is the concern . Everything else seems better .
 

fotografz

Well-known member
In a sense, this is another instance where one has to step back and evaluate the gain and loss of a new offering based on very personal criteria.

A friend and I were just discussing this yesterday. In some cases, a new offering presents a clear alternative rather than an incremental one. At the rarified price category of many new Leica offerings, it is a serious consideration.

I think the MM presented a clear demarcation, an easy one-of-a-kind decision for those more dedicated B&W rangefinder shooters with the means. I saw the S2 as also being a clear "yes or no" decision based on personal applications because the form factor, dual shutter, and all new, ground up S lenses ... also made it a one-of-a-kind solution. Similarly, upgrading my Hasselbald H3D-II to a H4 was made easier because of the addition of the remarkable True Focus innovation, and a Dalsa based 60meg CCD with its delicious skin tones.

In the case of the new Leica S camera, the gains are incremental at best with little evidence that one's photography will obviously be impacted. Same for the New Hasselblad H5. Incremental at best. Neither represent inexpensive decisions.

For some, The new M is as revolutionary as one could expect from their flagship rangefinder camera. For others, the demarcation from CCD capture, to CMOS and its attendant added versatility, is a loss that worries them based on personal criteria, and IQ expectations they formed with the M9/M9P.

In addition, I personally do not subscribe to the M's size creep to cram in more e-features. Personally, I would have loved a new CCD dedicated rangefinder M that was smaller than the M9. For performance, there is no reason that the Maestro Processor couldn't have been used with CCD, (the S2 with Maestro is CCD). I also think more high ISO IQ could still have been squeezed out of CCD. Weather proofing, and all the other little tweaks? Sure.

-Marc
 
Top