Check this out... 90mm at ISO 400. They focused on the wrong eye but check out the detail in her sleeve and bracelet. Very impressive.
Check this out... 90mm at ISO 400. They focused on the wrong eye but check out the detail in her sleeve and bracelet. Very impressive.
Good find... Looks promising!
Thanks for sharing!
I distinctly do not find it impressive, not even ordinary, as a picture or in terms of image quality.
2 Member(s) liked this post
How about a nice, deep DOF 200 ISO outdoor, daylight , with some texture and such; maybe water, trees, a subject etc.
The issue is that most images have been lacking the 'pop' of the M9. Without the light and a subject that is comparable, seeing an isolated image does not help.
The first DMR, M8, etc. all suffered from the "what's it really like" challenge. At least the Leica M(240) shares that with its ancestors!
I must agree, less than impressive. The transitions of the shadows on her face are not what one would desire. I that were the standard I would cancel my order...
The colours of my generation are black and white.
surrounding light is yellow green.
take magenta out and everything else goes wrong.
At least leica is consistent.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Doesn't make me want to jump at spending a small fortune on the body. Don't be offended, but it seems as if this might be a case of Leica trying to dress up a pig in a tutu.
I have the feeling the ME is going to go up in demand. Maybe I should get one soon.
M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
One image, poorly exposed and processed, a camera does not make ... although, as Victor pointed out, I also am grateful for any and all images posted from the new M. It allows those who ordered one to mentally prepare for personal interpretation of the files. I downloaded this image and it wasn't all that difficult to make better.
I'd be less inclined to be impressed by the detail as there is not a huge leap in acuity between full frame 18 meg and 24 meg. Perhaps there is an improvement due to a new sensor design, but that'll reveal itself to the comparative pixel peepers in future.
As others have mentioned, I also have noted a tendency toward "Piglet Pink" skin tones (even in the images printed in the recent issue of LFI), However, I didn't see that in Jono's images except maybe a touch of pink in the blond guy with camera image (that has a ruddy complexion anyway):
LeicaM240 - Page 1
Like Victor, my main concern (for now and subject to change), is the lack of "POP!" that I have become accustomed to from a M9 shot.
To my eye, the M9 secret lies in the rich rendering of the blacks, and the subtile tonal gradations in the dark end of the scale that enhances contrast without obliterating the shadow detail. Images from this new M that have that more contrasty impact seem to get too graphic and shorten the tonal scale on the dark end. In short, they seem to be trying to hard to get that look that is fairly natural from the M9.
It may be that we do not yet know what the look and feel is for this camera. We keep looking to past experiences when evaluating it, but maybe it has its own magic that will reveal itself as we experiment and explore?
In every case, a new Leica offering is taken up, and we find a way. I'm sure this camera will be no different.
Technically assessing cameras and lenses by photos on the web? And worse, not even a photo you have taken and incorporated into your own personal print workflow? Might as well use an iPhone.
8 Member(s) liked this post
Algrove, you hit me where it hurts.
My comments in part sort of reflect those of Marc and others. I've seen a fair number of images from the M240, most web sized, some crops and of course those that were available as full rez images (and examined those that were available for downloading).
In a nutshell, and for myself personally, it's a bit too hard to pigeonhole the M240 images to a specific classification, whether that be a camera which matches or exceeds image quality of a M9, mearly equals it, or is disappointing on certain levels...and that's based not only at images taken at base ISO. Based on what I both saw and examined with the obvious constraints of not having profiles for the camera and the often times limited ability to examine certain images in-depth, I could make a preliminary case for the M240 images falling into all three of the categories I just mentioned. A few were outstanding and/or impressive, some were quite similar to the M9 and there was little to distinguish the M240 images from the M9, and then lastly a group of images, mostly skin tones, that on more than one occasion were disappointing.
I feel there are not only too few images that in most cases are "one-offs" or randomly taken, but the absence of actually having camera in hand and photographing subjects under conditions and settings that I am most familiar with, which would also include post processing of the images myself, is a big hinderance to making any sort of definitive statement.
It takes time, even for the most experienced photographer to dial in a camera's best settings and become familiar with it's image output and situations that require attention to with regards to in-camera settings and metering, not to mention the most efficient use of chosen raw processor for processing and adjusting it's images. I feel when this is accomplished, we'll have a better handle on how we feel about the image quality from this camera. I suspect there might be some tradeoffs with regards for portrait use and skin reproduction or possibly landscape images and/or use at either base or high ISo's when compared to the M9 It may do some things better shooting certain types of subjects and other things maybe not so much or possibly worse.
Then there is tweaking of the firmware by Leica as it relates specifically to image quality output and how that might address certain issues.
I think the one thing most of us can agree on, is how exceptional the M9 is in terms of image quality. Now we're assessing if the new M240 can meet or exceed that great picture taking machine in some or most areas that we felt made the M9 so desirable. If nothing else we are aready starting with high expectations due to the accomplishments and capabilities of the M9 and that in itself I believe is a good thing. Wanting the M240 to raise the bar is also understandable.
Preliminary assessment with the new "M" is fine and most welcomed but I cannot hang my hat on any one sided view of the M240 until a lot more work with regards to well thought out image taking and processing prevails and is done in depth and over a reasonable length of time. Eventually I believe an accurate consensus will be reached.
Last edited by D&A; 3rd March 2013 at 06:36.
An impressive (and ultimately unflattering) amount of sharpness and detail in the plane of focus (including the 'reassuring' Leica digital moire in the hair) but the colour is dodgy to say the least. The subject's arm and hand looks sunburnt (maybe it was?).
Dave- This sounds like you are setting yourself up for purchase so you can "personally" assess IQ of the M. Did I read too much between the lines.
For now, I get my best b/w results from an M8.2, not an M9, having tested the latter. The M9 sometimes helped to yield better color results, but that wasn't universal.
I won't make any judgments, let alone any purchase, of the new M until everything is finalized, any potential bugs are sorted, and I've had time to test (probably rental) by making my own prints based on my own pics. What's the rush? The world is full of pics that I can take now with cameras that nobody but me knows I use.
My hope is that the b/w and color output from the new M allows me to at least achieve the quality of results I get now. If so, the fact that it may be weather sealed (allowing more flexibility actually capturing pics), have a quieter shutter (allowing more access and and a more film-M-like experience), have 2m frame lines (like my M8.2, allowing for more accurate framing for my typical subjects), and allow for use of longer lenses, will all be gravy. So, too, might I appreciate the faster processing and longer battery life.
None of those additional benefits will matter, though, if the IQ isn't adequate for my needs. But I sure don't need any internet consensus to inform my decision.
Apologize for the delay in responding (swamped with work obligations). To be honest, I'm not at this point contemplating obtaining the new M...but the reasoning is not solely for the initial and "way too early" assessment of it's output. I do though plan at the earliest possible date to evaluate both cameras simultaneously and evaluate their respective output in terms of images characteristcs, in a wide variety of image taking settings.
I've been at this for a very long time and probably longer than most and my experience has taught me that what might look good on paper, doesn't always "translate" or materialize.....such the original D1 and it's NTSC color space and magenta skin tones to the D2H with it's JFET-LBCAST sensor and Ir contaminating sensitivity similar to the Leica M8, to cite a few examples of unrelaized potential. The JFET-LBCAST sensor had terrific readouts for it's time but no one suspected the issues that might ensue as a direct or indirect consequence of it's use.
I suspect I'm going to find some things I like better with one camera or the other when comparing the M9 and M240, as this will be as much dependent on subject matter, lighting conditions, ISO settings etc. as anything else.
As indicated on one of the other M240 threads here on Getdpi, the output of the new camera I suspect will change over time, not only with additional firmware updates and use of profiles in Raw processors, but the knowledge gained by working with the camera and it's images and how to extract the best possible files from it, while minimizing it's initial weaknesses. It's that way with almost any highly anticipated camera, especially one where intitial output, isn't universally praised.
Even when all is said and done, the salient features of this particular new model vs. the M9 and M8.s etc., will in itself provide enough reason for some to accept it as their primary/only M digital body. For the traditional rangefinder user who eschews EVF, focus peaking etc., the choice may come down to whether the output of the new M for their specific type of imagery or expectations, meets a certain threshhold that makes its consideration as a serious candidate for upgrade.
Lots will be discussed I suspect long before many make a final decision one way or another.
Will of course truly look forward to your experiences with the M240.
Last edited by D&A; 4th March 2013 at 07:56.
Jeff Wrote>>>"I'm not concerned with consensus, much less try to define what an 'accurate' consensus is.".<<<
Jeff, I don't think any well versed photographer simply plops down $7,000 for a new camera simply based on a "consensus" and in that regard my statement and meaning was somewhat taken out of the context in which it was originally stated in.
Reading about a well informed consensus about a camera and especially it's output is a baseline for which one can gather preliminary experiences of others and often times informative information about the positives and not so positives that others might have encountered. Sometimes it's even a rare shooting scenario that illustrates a trait that might be undesirable and it's that characteristic that is one in which to keep a lookout for. Exceptional examples of output under well defined conditions, also provides me a baseline to strive for, if my initial attempts with the RAW files falls short. It tell me something!
Is a consensus a substitute for actually having the camera in hand and performing the requisite number of important tests one would conduct before committing to such a pricy instrument, I'd think not and to imply otherwise, would be incorrect.
My opinion though is relegating the findings and observations that others with a M240 make as being irrelevant to making an informative decision to purchase or not, would be truly unfortunate. I respect though if that is how someone determines if a camera is right for them or not. I personally though value the opinions of those whom I trust and who have the ability and knowledge to put forth their findings and examples in lucid way that is added to the volumes of information that I acquire during my own evaluations.
I'm often "team" oriented and know that even those with similar capabilities and knowledge base, often differ in their opinions, and I like to hear and learn from both sides where disagreements may ensue. That's just me though and it certainly doesn't minimize or dilute my ultimate judgement, nor imply I am unsure of my abilities to evaluate a camera or system. In fact I feel it makes the whole decision making process a stronger one, including myself as a photographer.
I haven't read any reviews yet, but the images I've seen on the web have not enthused me thus far.It's not that they're not good, it's just that it seems like the price of entry is boatloads for improvements, bells, and whistles that don't necessarily improve significantly on the output we've come to know from the M8/M9. Of course, M8's and M9's, and M-E's don't have LED lit framelines etc, hinting at a radical shift in product design. For what it's worth though, and if you've been yearning for a high tech LCD, EVF, and R-mount, the new M may be the best M yet!
image looks like it came from a canon DSLR.
In fact, I'm amused by the dozens I've seen in various forums already who think that a few web shots (or any web shot, for that matter) is determinative. I'm not even sure how many people print their pics these days, content to post on public sites, and most of them could save $7k and buy other inexpensive cameras IMHO.
Apologies for addressing you personally; I was using one of your sentences to more broadly vent (again, as in post #13).
For my needs, then and now, I had wished it was upgraded to 18MP and maybe Leica in their own way now thinks the current MM is just such a camera...albeit without the IR sensitivity. For the average image maker that doesn't need to often go beyond 12x18, 13x19 and sometimes a bit larger, the M8/M8.2 is a very capable camera with the ability for extremely high quality output, especially to print, and that would be for color, traditional B&W and also IR imagery. Not a lot of cameras can boast doing all three exceptionally well.
As a side note, I can't help feeling, we haven't seen the last of what I'll refer to as an M10 and may be another reason why the M240 is referred to as simply a "M". It's the modern (not traditional) way of labeling higher tech products. By that I mean, the new M and it's lineage will be based on a state of the art rangefinder for those that desire to bring the Leica rangefinder into the 21st century with EVF, focus peaking, good high ISO performance and a variety of accessories extending the use of the camera with such things as other brand lenses, true macro and telephoto capability etc. Then down the road, possibly a M10 (the M-E being a slight interim economy model)...that will keep the more traditional M8/M9 type body..possibly a updated CCD with slightly better high ISO performance, faster processor, longer battery life, etc..image output that's quite familiar to those that use the M8/M9, and refinement to the size and resolution of the LCD screen etc. Two diverse lines of the Leica digital rangefinders will co-exist. Something tells me there is a market for both...especially from those commenting about the M240, just shortly after it was announced. I could detect two distinct camps of users.
Last edited by D&A; 4th March 2013 at 11:39.
I never minded the crop, having used 8 or more formats up to 8x10 over the years; one gets used to a FOV quickly IMO. And filters never mattered either; I put them on and forgot them. As I've said elsewhere, I find the filter issue amusing, now that some of the same former 'complainers' fully embrace the MM, with its potential to need both color and ND filters on a changing basis. Plus, I got a standard sapphire screen, chrome finish and top display, without having to pay for a 'P' version.
I don't print huge, don't shoot super wide, and don't shoot high ISO (400 ASA was fine for 4 decades). As such I would have been happy to get an M8.3, or M10 for that matter, that was weather sealed, with a quieter shutter, with a Maestro processor and longer battery life, (and still with 2m frame lines), without all the other features. But that's just me.
It definitely shows a lot of promise -- that is assuming the person driving it actually can operate it properly
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."1 Member(s) liked this post
My observation is that the amount of detail is similar to the M9, maybe even a bit more due to the higher megapixel count. The small hairs on her chin for example, might be a lot less distinct if there were an AA filter.
The other thing I noticed is possibly the same UV problem with blacks that the m8 and m9 have. Her shirt and neck band are what i assume to be black, but on closer inspection they have a hint of magenta. Her eyelashes are what i assume to be black also, but on closer inspection, they too have a very slight magenta tint. It is hard to say definitively since many "black" shirts are actually deep purple or blue dyes.
The colors seem to be different than the M9's for sure. To my eyes, not necessarily better or worse, but different.
With that said. Almost all cameras have slight nuances that I don't like. I am going to hold on to my M9 for now and might one day move to the new M for its otehr technical improvements.
Last edited by jabberwocky; 4th March 2013 at 12:47.