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!

New M files available from Jono

Ron (Netherlands)

New member
Hi Ron

It's nice to see you here. I actually have nothing to do with Leica advertising, but I am 'working' for Leica (I don't get paid - hence the quote marks). I do it for the fun of it - and it is fun (and it's quite a lot of work).

I also appreciate that I'm part of the marketing machine for the new camera - how could it be otherwise? I've often said that if I find something wrong with a camera I tell Leica, and if I find something right then I tell everyone else - I've never pretended to be a free agent like Sean Reid, Michael Reichman, Ming Thein or other reviewers.

But this doesn't stop me from being honest. It doesn't stop Leica from being honest either, Of course everything I write is seen by them first (but they don't ask me to show it to them), and I can honestly say that they've never asked me to change or add anything at all. . . Nothing. And I'm not given a brief as to what to write either - ever.

If I'm praising the camera, then it's because I think it's praiseworthy - If I didn't like it, then I'd keep my mouth shut; which is absolutely my prerogative.

Does this clarify things?
I do hope so
all the best

PS if anyone finds this post odd, then it's kind of in response to some dialog on RFF.
Thanks for clarifying, hope you continue and forget about any coarseness - wasn't meant to be....sometimes posts aren't quite subtle....
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Hi There Guy
Thanks for the kind words.
I won't be able to do a comparison with dSLR cameras with respect to live view. I will be putting together something over the next few weeks, and of course I'll post it here straight away - Leica are quite careful to make a level playing field, so everyone can post on the same date (I just might not have written it by then!).

all the best to you . . . and also to yours
Yes right now something like that will be a challenge since things are so new and doing that can be tough, no worries there but switching gears here my biggest and should be everyone's question is the switch to CMOS over CCD a mostly positive one. Now I have been a big CCD proponent for quite sometime. Leica DMR,M8, M9 even though I did not own this one but 5 CCD MF backs kind of makes me a CCD guy and even though the D800 is a great camera and a nice sensor device it's not CCD and I can see it. Not that it's a bad thing as I do gain some things better and some things worse . The switch now with Leica is my biggest concern over pretty much everything else with the new cam. Now we really won't know that until we get great profiles out in the raw processors and even than its going to take some very careful testing and some careful evaluation to see these differences in the chips. I suspect like it is today better higher ISO noise and such but good color out of CMOS has always been lacking behind CCD. Even the Nikon takes some serious care in processing and I think we can all agree its a nice new sensor in the market.

It's going to be interesting how this comes about with the M9 and the new M which shooting wise a apple to apple test but until great profiles for processing than we won't know for sure. Folks buying I suggest take your time wait for these results before giving up your CCD's. Now that maybe a bias comment cause I really like CCD sensors over CMOS . Don't get caught up in the Mpx stuff and features. Giving up a CCD sensor in my mind is not easy. I did it a few months back and I'm grinding my teeth some. Just some thoughts
 

douglasf13

New member
I've owned several CCD and CMOS cameras (I'm currently shooting the M9,) but I think that the "look" difference comes down to more than just the type of sensor. Color filters, AA filters (or lack of,) internal processing, raw converter, etc., all play a role in the differences. For example, both Nikon and Canon have been reducing their color filter quality for a while, in order to improve lowlight performance, so simply changing the CFA should make quite a difference.

I'm just not sure that we can isolate differences to simply CCD vs. CMOS, because there are so many elements involved, and Leica may be able to tune the M 240 to look similar to the M9. Granted, I hope that the M9's CCD does prove superior over the M 240 in some ways, so that my M9's value holds, and I'm not tempted to buy the M 240. :ROTFL:

Another thing to consider is that Leica allegedly tuned the M9 sensor to look vaguely like Kodachrome, so, maybe with the M 240, they'll go for some kind of negative film look, like Portra, since the sensor has more DR.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well it's going to be easier to test as well since we are dealing in the same system than comparing different systems and using the same processors. My point if anything is we will have a lot less variables involved. So being neutral from the start will be a easier task
 

jonoslack

Active member
I've owned several CCD and CMOS cameras (I'm currently shooting the M9,) but I think that the "look" difference comes down to more than just the type of sensor. Color filters, AA filters (or lack of,) internal processing, raw converter, etc., all play a role in the differences. For example, both Nikon and Canon have been reducing their color filter quality for a while, in order to improve lowlight performance, so simply changing the CFA should make quite a difference.
Well it's going to be easier to test as well since we are dealing in the same system than comparing different systems and using the same processors. My point if anything is we will have a lot less variables involved. So being neutral from the start will be a easier task
I'm with Douglas here - and it seems to me that a comparison of A900 and D3x files shows this quite well ( the A900 is very inferior in terms of high ISO but much better from a colour point of view). Leica seem to have gone in the direction of less high ISO noise and better colour.

At the moment I'm very happy with the colour I can get from the new M - but as you say Guy - the RAW processors don't have the right profiles yet, so you have to make it right.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I have yet to see any sensor look like Kodachrome. They all do much better, and thankfully with better color. I think we have a very nostalgic view of slide film, especially Kodachrome.
 

douglasf13

New member
I have yet to see any sensor look like Kodachrome. They all do much better, and thankfully with better color. I think we have a very nostalgic view of slide film, especially Kodachrome.
A few sources have mentioned Leica's intent to somewhat simulate Kodachrome with the M9, although I agree that is still pretty far off.

Either way, since I don't shoot product photography or textbooks or whatever, I'm not really interested in accurate color, and I think a lot of different films have a great look to them.
 
Jono, :thumbs: from me, I've said before Leica chose wisely and I have the benefit of having printed some of your images (as is on the threads here).


I'm with Douglas here - and it seems to me that a comparison of A900 and D3x files shows this quite well ( the A900 is very inferior in terms of high ISO but much better from a colour point of view)...
Interestingly I used a very light set of colour filters on the monochrom to produce a colour output, it didn't turn out very well. When I used stronger filters (from colour developing) the colours were amazing. I think this is a difference between Nikon and Sony sensors. My guess is Nikon's desire for high ISO means lighter filters, but drove me crazy with explosive reds and tainted yellows. Sony far better (but still not a good as film). I wanted to do some still life with the Monochrom in colour but have not had time of late.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I think a lot of different films have a great look to them.
I agree. Choose a process for its strength. Having spent a few days recently scanning some old color film, while I might stick to color negative, I am not so sure I want to return to slides. Part of what gave Kodachrome its look was its narrow DR, to use the digital term. But I can totally get why folks like the look. I just don't think folks designing the profiles for the sensors are really interested in imitating film.

I have a theory about how folks ascribe a look to slide films. It come down to packaging. The old thing about Kodachrome being warm, Ektachrome being cool and Fujichrome and its greens, just look at the boxes.
 

douglasf13

New member
I agree. Choose a process for its strength. Having spent a few days recently scanning some old color film, while I might stick to color negative, I am not so sure I want to return to slides. Part of what gave Kodachrome its look was its narrow DR, to use the digital term. But I can totally get why folks like the look. I just don't think folks designing the profiles for the sensors are really interested in imitating film.

I have a theory about how folks ascribe a look to slide films. It come down to packaging. The old thing about Kodachrome being warm, Ektachrome being cool and Fujichrome and its greens, just look at the boxes.
That's basically what Imaging Resource said, in that the M9 has a contrast curve that has a smooth shadow tail with sharp highlights, and it has an unusual (for digital) color profile. They said it seemed to be some kind of combo of Ektachrome and Kodachrome, or something similar.
 
Top