So, How is the M?

[mmbma]

Many people in this forum have been using the new M for a while now. How is it? I have a M9 and Mono and I'm pretty happy with the combo. My dealer called and told me a M could be available next week. Should I be making the switch?

Would value comments from experienced users who have upgraded from a M9 to M.

Thank you

 

[gogopix]

It is a good and valid question. The shift from M8 to M9 seemed more 'natural' in terms of the files produced even though the 12>18MP was percentage-wise bigger than the 18>24MP.

It's the CCD>CMOS, duhhhh as the kids say. :deadhorse:

For all the protestations that the difference is irrelevant, many here see and comment on the file difference. I for one have explored the issue and processing makes a big difference. Have others seen this. (you can see some of my PP in the M image thread.)

My hypothesis is that Leica is moving cautiously in FW processing to preserve DR, resolution and lower noise. The "look" issue is likely secondary, and left to the image maker. If you apply a little, and I mean little contrast and clarity (or tone with USM) and adjust the exposure/brightness there is a significant shift to a more M9 3-d look (see attached, courtesy of Jono, any PP mess ups are MINE! )

But the question remains, and I'll put an edge on it;

Does anyone REGRET shifting to the M?

Regards
Victor

 

[photomeme]

metamerism, widely suspected.

Insufficient separation of colors by the pairing of the CMOSIS sensor's color sensitivity and the Bayer array.

This could be among the wages of working with an unproven sensor maker. And the sacrifice of the near century of Kodak's color expertise, particularly as paired with its CCD sensors.

If it's metamerism, unfortunately nothing but a new sensor could make much difference, it's not correctable via color profiles or firmware.

you'll do better with the M9 (which sets the standard for color if you manually adjust white balance), and wait for the next Leica. There are a few dark whispers of a Leica M360, with a new 36mp sensor, announcement coming in late 2014.

Many people in this forum have been using the new M for a while now. How is it? I have a M9 and Mono and I'm pretty happy with the combo. My dealer called and told me a M could be available next week. Should I be making the switch?

Would value comments from experienced users who have upgraded from a M9 to M.

Thank you

 

[Godfrey]

metamerism, widely suspected.

Insufficient separation of colors by the pairing of the CMOSIS sensor's color sensitivity and the Bayer array.

This could be among the wages of working with an unproven sensor maker. And the sacrifice of the near century of Kodak's color expertise, particularly as paired with its CCD sensors.

If it's metamerism, unfortunately nothing but a new sensor could make much difference, it's not correctable via color profiles or firmware.

you'll do better with the M9 (which sets the standard for color if you manually adjust white balance), and wait for the next Leica. There are a few dark whispers of a Leica M360, with a new 36mp sensor, announcement coming in late 2014.

What are you talking about, photomeme?
I haven't seen anything that looks like metamerism from an M raw file.

G

 

[Vivek]

If the M11 is around the corner, it will be worth wait. hope they will offer an a la carte version with integrated EVF.

 

[gogopix]

What are you talking about, photomeme?
I haven't seen anything that looks like metamerism from an M raw file.

G

Actually, if it is metamerism, based on the sensor responding different from the human eye, then it needs to be corrected in the de-matrixing. This would result in the M sensing a different color for an subject in the image, and it would be unsatisfying.
It would NOT affect he 3-d or 'presence' issue that most comment on. It is the latter that tone adjustments and even sharpening can correct (though it would also benefit from better color profiles, since the background color would 'separate' from the subject better, at least as far as human perception is concerned.

Let's face it; all sensors even foveon have problems of bleed; foveon vertically and bayer matrix horizontally. Where green is the sensor filter, the blue (the color that separates best due to higher frequency) and red that spreads out and can bleed, will not be truly 'sensed' at that green pixel point.

I have hypothesized that there IS a difference CMOS to CCD but that there is SO much difference between what a sensor sees and what we see in a DNG file it is not going to show CMOS vs CCD except for some edge effects. (Have you ever seen the actual file output from a sensor? really strange, and the first bayer dematrix step is really bizzare!)

Anyway, who is ready to send their M back (or to MOI!!! )

regards
Victor

 

[photomeme]

What are you talking about, photomeme?
I haven't seen anything that looks like metamerism from an M raw file.

G

I don't know your personal experience, metamerism is an emerging (at least minority) consensus on the technically oriented forums examining severe color problems with the m240, particularly as regards skin tones. Others hold out hope for a firmware fix or magic color profile.

I expect Puts will weigh in, in the not to distant future. His may be a rather harsh judgment, particularly paired with the extremely modest iso/DR gains.

 

[Shashin]

...severe color problems with the m240,...

Perhaps a link to the "severe" color problems would be a help.

 

[Shashin]

BTW, I think the OP wants someone that actually moved from an M9 to M to chime in.

 

[Shashin]

Actually, if it is metamerism, based on the sensor responding different from the human eye, then it needs to be corrected in the de-matrixing. This would result in the M sensing a different color for an subject in the image, and it would be unsatisfying.
It would NOT affect he 3-d or 'presence' issue that most comment on. It is the latter that tone adjustments and even sharpening can correct (though it would also benefit from better color profiles, since the background color would 'separate' from the subject better, at least as far as human perception is concerned.

Let's face it; all sensors even foveon have problems of bleed; foveon vertically and bayer matrix horizontally. Where green is the sensor filter, the blue (the color that separates best due to higher frequency) and red that spreads out and can bleed, will not be truly 'sensed' at that green pixel point.

I have hypothesized that there IS a difference CMOS to CCD but that there is SO much difference between what a sensor sees and what we see in a DNG file it is not going to show CMOS vs CCD except for some edge effects. (Have you ever seen the actual file output from a sensor? really strange, and the first bayer dematrix step is really bizzare!)

Anyway, who is ready to send their M back (or to MOI!!! )

regards
Victor

Metamerism does not mean cameras have different colors. It means that two objects whose color appears to match with one camera, would appear not to match with another. It does not matter that the cameras would render the colors the same between the images. This also needs to be under specific lighting conditions. Random images do not show metamerism.

 

[Godfrey]

Perhaps a link to the "severe" color problems would be a help.

I agree. I haven't seen any 'severe color problems' in any of the samples or examples that have been posted, including the raw files I downloaded and processed myself.

I also think it's a little early to be waiting for the next model, don'tcha think?

G

 

[mmbma]

It seems you got all the latest gear Joe. I ended up passing on the M240 but Ken Hansen needs to pass it down to the next in line, istead of letting me hand over the spot to somebody

 

[algrove]

mmbma

I switched (not the correct term for me as I still have my M9P) and I am pleased in every respect. Sure the next iteration will be better, that's the way the world goes.

To me there is no problem with the M, only the users and the way they PP their images or expose them perhaps.

Sorry, but I am not experienced as I see you want comment from them so disregard my comment as inexperienced.

 

[henningw]

I've been delighted with the M240 as the improvements have been exactly in those areas that the M9 fell flat: Faster electronics mainly, better dynamic range and the decrease in noise that goes with that and all in all a much more refined product.

And where does this 'metamerism' show itself, photomeme? You keep bringing it up without any supporting evidence, just vague mentions of somewhere on the web. I've made a profile for the camera that works for me, and I'm quite happy with the result. I find the files much easier to work with than M9 files overall, mainly due to the increased DR, and that includes getting the colours right.

Henning

 

[thedigitalbean]

I'd be lot happier with the switch if Leica hadn't broken Auto ISO or EC with that stupid little button on the front. AWB wise the new M is considerably more accurate. Color accuracy is IMO better for greens and reds and very mildly worse for the blues. I see no issues with skin tones, IMO it renders them wonderfully.

 

[mmbma]

yeah but i'm sure that can be fixed via firmware, if enough people complain about it

 

[Andrew Gough]

I have shot over fourteen hundred images with my M240, and I haven't seen any metamerism so far... In fact, I have found it remarkably accurate with skin tones - much better than the M9.

Andrew