How many of the M9 shooters are skipping M240

[Shashin]

Metamerism has nothing to do with AWB, or manual white balance for that matter, and could not be addressed in post processing, a firmware upgrade, or a color profile.

It will be interesting to read Puts' take, which is imminent on Tao of Leica blog.

Is there proof that any camera suffers from metamerism? So far all I have seen is random pictures of different scenes. That has nothing to do with metamerism. Actually, the M9 may have a metamerism problem. But who knows--no one has done any test for metamerism.

Actually, since the illuminant is a factor in metamerim, then WB should separate a metametric pair.

Unless you are a product photographer that does studio fabric work or you do reproductions for museums, metamerism is one of those esoteric properties that photographers don't need to worry about--not exactly what you would use a rangefinder for.

 

[Shashin]

Join the M240 Facebook group and you will see plenty of examples and discussion . Leica has acknowledged the AWB issue and reported that it will be corrected in future firm wear releases .

So, it is simply a AWB profile. That is really not an "issue." You can set WB in the RAW processor.

 

[Gary Clennan]

So, it is simply a AWB profile. That is really not an "issue." You can set WB in the RAW processor.

This is mostly true but many people on that thread feel that AWB should be near perfect straight out of camera. My experience is that the M240 files are actually very easy to tweak to one's liking. Yes, they are not perfect but they are pretty close already. JPG output seems to be more accurate than DNG at the moment.

 

[Shashin]

This is mostly true but many people on that thread feel that AWB should be near perfect straight out of camera.

I am always tweaking my WB when I use AWB. The funny thing about automatic solutions is they tend to be a bit of a compromise. I can't understand being really critical, but then letting the machine do the work and expecting it to do it perfectly.

 

[mtsullivan]

I'm on the fence. At first it really didn't interest me. I've been happy with my M9 and recently purchased an M8.2 as back-up. But with the favorable reviews from so many it has sparked my interest more. Although the waiting period is so long who knows when I would ever see one.

As I go back and forth, I feel I would take the Monochrom before I'd take the the M... I just really love black and white!

 

[edwardkaraa]

I have downloaded every M raw file I could find online, and really don't understand all the fuss about the colors. It's actually more neutral than the M9 and tweaking a file takes less than a minute. Any differences in color with the M9 are very subtle and files are almost indistinguishable when adjusted correctly.

 

[fotografz]

I find this an interesting thread. It lets all the nay sayers comment on why they did not get it.

Roger's comment has credibility to me as he knows color, has extensive experience with color, owns current color digital cameras AND tried the M.

I will keep mine even though it will go to Solms for the damn lug nut issue. It's just that I must find the time between planned trips to send it in. Since I mostly use tripod, other than initial shooting with a Gordy's strap, my lugs seem tight, but it must be sent it for a check out.

OK, I'm a besta tester without compensation, but so far I am having so much fun being able to use my R lenses I could care less. I have posted many early shots that I must say, where some skin tones were very red, but one shot that comes to mind was around Spring break time where I wonder if the back of the guys neck was just not sun burned. It's the shot of the couple checking email with a topless wooden statue next to them. Another shot a few days later of a painting in the foreground and that same statue way in the background was pleasing to my eyes.

Bottom line don't get if you don't want it, get it if you can live with it, and do not use others images as your decision points.

Conversely, it allows all the early adopter yeasayers to voice an opinion on those not quite willing to shell out $7,000 on a camera that is being questioned by other reasonably decent photographers whom they respect ... and whom indicate there are, as of now, unresolved questions.

Burned once by the abandoned DMR, burned twice by the M8 IR issue ... burned three times ... shame on me.

It'd be great if Leica provided demo M cameras so I could try it first hand like I did with the S2 ... but I know of none available to do that.

So the option is ... buy it and live with it even if some critics are right, because looking at a number of reviews, studying images posted, downloading RAW files and working with them, corresponding with owners who you respect ... isn't a valid way to at least investigate something new. In short, the only valid homework cost $7,000.

I initially didn't buy a S2 because of unresolved issues, but once resolved I committed to it ... a judgment I was able to make by watching how those issues were resolved by respected photographers working with the camera, and Leica's answers to those issues. I didn't have to demo the camera again.

I still have a M240 on order, and it'll be a race to see if my number comes up before the color is fixed on this camera or not (not just white balance or Auto WB ... but the relationship of one color to the other which could possibly be affected by the bayer filter). If not, I'll just push my name down the list, and wait it out.

Hope it all ends well.

-Marc

 

[glenerrolrd]

Metamerism has nothing to do with AWB, or manual white balance for that matter, and could not be addressed in post processing, a firmware upgrade, or a color profile.

It will be interesting to read Puts' take, which is imminent on Tao of Leica blog.

Where did this discussion of metamerism come from ? there are a ton of examples of AWB and color profiling issues that were discussed at length ,packaged up and sent to leica and acknowledged as requiring correction in future firmware releases .

 

[Godfrey]

... JPG output seems to be more accurate than DNG at the moment.

I am not sure what that means. DNG files have raw data in them which is not yet rendered. What white balance temperature a DNG file has is mostly irrelevant as it is subject to a raw processor's interpretation and calibration curve for the camera.

JPEG files should be "finished" out of the camera, if all the settings are correct for the scene. DNG files are never "finished" directly out of the camera.

G

 

[Gary Clennan]

Yes, you are correct Godfrey - my wording was not the best. I was simply trying to say that OOC JPGs are actually very good and require little adjustment.

 

[Paratom]

...
I still have a M240 on order, and it'll be a race to see if my number comes up before the color is fixed on this camera or not (not just white balance or Auto WB ... but the relationship of one color to the other which could possibly be affected by the bayer filter). If not, I'll just push my name down the list, and wait it out.

Hope it all ends well.

-Marc

I am doing the same. The M9 and MM are too good that I feel any need to rush.
I first need to be sure that the M does give me better or at least as "good" files as the M9.
Tom

 

[Photojazz]

Edward, you are a wise man on "patience in the digital worlld". Also,

I discovered that with the new M, my wallet would suffer from flattenness of image, and the color is not green. Therefore, the M9 that is paid for, and honestly barely broke in would seem sad to relegate to backup duty so soon, or to sell at half what I paid. I put some money into a new piece of glass for my M9, that is the smart money. 35mm Lux. I expect it on Monday.

I will take nothing away from the new. It may be right for me someday if I can find one available. But today, I am ok with an M9. That's the other reason it pays to not get all nutso about new stuff, it saves driving yourself crazy when you can't find it. Wait until it finds you, that's my take...

As to color adjustments, elementary my dear Watson...

Doug

 

[teeraash]

I'm happy with the MM and ME. Changing my mind back and forth many times now on getting the new M or not. In general, I am not impressed with color images of the new M posted here, LUF, and M 240 FB group as much as from the M9 and its derivatives.

 

[jubbaa]

I am not interested in the addition features the M brings so am going to skip it. I could use higher ISO performance so would welcome a M240-E , a sort of stripped down version with better ergenomics and with a better sensor than the M9

James

 

[nowherean]

In regards to the questions on color issues with the new M... There is a long thread on l camera forum where some M photographers discuss their experience with the new M.

Stephen Patterson for examples shares his personal experience...

"I've spent a month with the M(240)...a very frustrating month. During that time I've captured some images that I'm very happy with, but it hasn't been easy. When the files behave they are lovely, but often the issues go well beyond simple WB. Even when corrected to a color temp that is correct, with color sliders adjusted to try and reproduce natural looking skin tones, there is just something that isn't right.

Today I sold my M(240) and I have no regrets. During the months leading up to the release of the M(240) I was very vocal in my criticism of the lack of full res DNG samples, and I openly questioned why anyone would want to buy a camera without knowing if the IQ was superior to it's predecessor. I even warned some individuals who asked my opinion that buying from the first batch was a guarantee to be assigned the honorary position of "beta tester". But of course all that good advice went out the window when my dealer showed me that silver box."

You can read the rest: M Color - Seite 9 - Leica User Forum

I'm just wondering if its the hardware of the software issue. I love the M shooting experience, but I want the hardware that can deliver results on par with the price tag.

 

[teeraash]

Stephen, from the above link, suggested me to wait until the EoF this year or early next year before plonking down money for the M as the camera has many new features in many important areas that Leica may not get them right in production processes. I'm glad I haven't bought the M at a ripoff price of 9k usd here in Thailand (even we have only 3% import tax) and have to send it back for a fix a month later.

 

[jffielde]

I'm torn. So much so that I've canceled my M240 order twice!

I think it's hard to see how Leica could have made any less improvement between these two camera generations than they did, but a few of the features are desirable for me. I would like the exceptionally modest ISO improvements, but the max ISO for me is almost unchanged from the M9 due to banding. Very disappointing, especially given that every $1,000 camera is now superior. The larger buffer and quieter shutter are nice. In fact, if I could pay $2,000 and get those into my M9, I would be happy.

So far, I'm not wild about the output from the M240 (possible color problems aside), but I think I'm biased in favor of the M9. The M9 files were easy for me to pick out of a line up again the CMOS sensors, and I loved the difference / distinction. The M240 files are unremarkable - and I think that could fairly be described as a compliment, but it isn't for me. It's probably a side effect of the increased Dynamic Range, which I would like to have.

On the other hand, I regard the banding issue as simply preposterous. Bigger and heavier are also not on the menu for me. Size and weight are why I complement my big cameras with Leica. If those advantages dwindle, Leica is less attractive to me.

Again, I don't know whether I'll own one or not. We'll see.

 

[teeraash]

I would be happy to pay $2,000 to have my ME with equivalence high iso noise and dynamic range as those of cameras with Sony APS-C.

 

[MikalWGrass]

Arthur - just revisited your West Lake series. Even better than the first time.

 

[Jeff S]

I skipped the early M8 issues and bought an M8.2. Then bought another one.

I skipped the early M9 and rented a 'mature' one to compare against my M8.2s. I decided to stay with the M8.2 given my needs and preferences (not huge print size, not high ISO, and not super wide lenses), preferring it for b/w, and enjoying the 2m frame lines, top LCD, sapphire screen, etc.

Folks remember the M8 issues, but sometimes forget or dismiss the early M9 issues, including color rendering, red edge issues, SD card issues, buffer issues, cracked sensors, etc. Every digital M release has had problems.

So, true to form, I'll wait for the (predictable) M teething issues to sort out (at least we hope these are all resolvable), and then test one against my M8.2 by making prints of my own images.

I hope to be pleased with the print results, since I welcome weather sealing, longer battery life, faster processor, quieter shutter (without that awful motor re-cock sound), 2m frame lines (like the M8.2), etc). I don't care so much about live view, EVF, etc, although those aspects might come in handy for occasional use. I would intend to use it as a more traditional M RF camera, but with the improved characteristics I just listed. Size and weight is still fine with me; in fact my film Ms seem too skinny now in comparison to the M8.2.

No rush. Any of these cameras are quite capable, especially as just one link in the print workflow; sometimes it's the small stuff that matters, and we each have our own ideas on what constitutes the right stuff. Different strokes.

Jeff