Even More (just added) additional M240 files now on Leica's Website

[D&A]

Hi All,

I haven't downloaded or looked at any of them yet, except the first Jpeg from Chris Tribble...but there appears to be a set of DNG's and JPegs on the Leica site available for downloading inclusing some higher ISO files . Again I haven't looked to see if any of Jono's files are included. The link for downloading is:

Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA M


PLEASE NOTE! (P.S.) **** I just now added an addtional response (below), that in addition to the Leica website posting proof M240 images (link directly above)...Chris Tribble has now posted on the Leica blog a set of his M240 images. The link to them and his thoughts are:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/2013/02/leica-m-240-sample-images-chris-tribble/

Dave (D&A)

 

[barjohn]

Re: Additional M240 files now on Leica's Website

It includes many of Jono's images. While the photographer did fine, the images are lacking IMHO. The ISO 6400 shot labeled Leica M Push 6400 is really unusable with a lot of noise, banding and detail is lacking. Skin tone is off and not smooth. The Canon 5D Mk III looks much cleaner and better at ISO 8000 and even 16000.

 

[D&A]

Re: Additional M240 files now on Leica's Website

When I saw them posted on Leica's site, it was extremely late in the evening and only had time to download and open 1st image and it wasn't one of Jono's, so I assumed all "7"of these "proof" posted images were all "new" and did not include any of Jono's previous images. I believe though the higher ISO images are new. I'll have a look at them later today to evaluate.

Dave (D&A)

 

[glenerrolrd]

Re: Additional M240 files now on Leica's Website

I commented on the other thread but I thought the proof images were excellent representations of performance (at 3200/6400) . The 3200 was good light and you could see that it still retained color saturation and did not suffer from a complete loss of DR . The 6400 image(building) was awful light ....with deep shadows that were under exposed and bright highlights that were burned out . Exactly as you would expect shooting against window light at night .

Processing both in LR4 and comparing to a series I was working on from the South Florida Fair (D800E and Leica R glass) ....I feel I had a nice benchmark as I needed 3200 and occasionally 6400 after dark . I sure had plenty of bright lights against dark skies .

In evaluating high ISO I think you have to factor in the impact of under exposed shadows . The 6400 file has shadows areas that are completely gone ...probably under exposed by 2 EV . The DR is inadequate to cover this photograph at 6400 . Processing in LR4 worked pretty well and while the image lost fine detail it cleaned up .

My POV is that the M is a excellent CMOS set up aimed first at maximizing performance at base ISO and then holding that performance through a normal slope (dXO) to 6400. 3200 is the maximum for critical work and really 1600 is probably it . But that beats the heck out of 640 for the M9 .

When comparing against Nikon or Canon for example you have to factor in the decisions on in camera noise reduction . Process the files to the best you can get and then compare ..right out of the camera is apples and oranges . (not saying others are t doing this but its an important distinction ). Bottom line I would give the D800E a 1 EV better rating and also consider that if you sized the files by downsizing the 36mp to the 23Mp of the M you might gain another 1/2 to 1 EV in appearance .

Much better than the M9 at ISO1600 with an ability to do 3200 .. not quite as good as the Nikon/Canon DSLR .

I will look again at the skin tone I must have missed that sample ..but I just worked a D800E file shot at 3200 and the skin tone was really difficult and I had to try different profiles ..so I appreciate that issue .

 

[D&A]

Re: Additional M240 files now on Leica's Website

Thanks Roger!

As I previously mentioned, commitment to work and a deadline for processing files has delayed my carefully looking over these newly posted M240 files. Combined with the ones Jon's posted, it allows a good start is assessing the quality of the new M files with regards to a key # of different but important image characteristics...most notably color reproduction, skin tones and higher ISO performance. For me, those areas are key to determining what and how much advantage there is over comparable M9 files.

Of course head to head comparisons with both cameras will be most ideal and I suspect once the new M is released, there will be a multitude of matched pairs from each camera to examine carefully. Since the new M is CMOS, I almost think if one was going to compare it's output to a Nikon DSLR, then the D600 might be a better comparison than the D800/e, for obvious reasons, even though the D800/e files can be downsized. Besides similar file sizes (D600 and M240), with the D600 being a smaller sized DSLR, I think a secondary consideration for a few might be in comparing two relatively small 24MP systems...but again that's secondary.

Dave (D&A)

 

[jlm]

Re: Additional M240 files now on Leica's Website

anyone know if capture one can work with the M raw files?

 

[Knorp]

Re: Additional M240 files now on Leica's Website

anyone know if capture one can work with the M raw files?

Yes - it can, but obviously there's no proper ICC profile.

Kind regards.

 

[Knorp]

Re: Additional M240 files now on Leica's Website

Also notice the different firmware versions (0.0.0.3, 0.1.0.0 and 0.1.10.0)

 

[D&A]

I just changed the title of this thread to indicate that Chris Tribble posted on the Leica blog some of his M240 images...which includes images of his that weren't previous posted in the link provided in the 1st posting of this thread. They also include some ISO 6400 images!

Here is the link to Chris Tribble's M240 images and some of his thoughts:

Leica M (240) Sample Images - Chris Tribble - Leica Forum Blog

Dave (D&A)

 

[ptomsu]

All,

not sure if anyone cares, but I did lot of comparisons (also with the latest published M240 DNGs), comparing back and forth to my old M8 files as well as some D800E files and I need to revise my impression from yesterday -

THE COLORS OOC FROM THE Leica M LOOK PRETTY GOOD! All compared in Aperture, which seems to deliver pretty much the same results as LR4.

So my initial feeling of green cast turned out to be NOT TRUE!

Just wanted everybody here to know and sorry for my hastily conclusions.

In fact I really like the colors from the M much better than from the M8 and also better than from the D800E, which I have fine tuned.

Looking forward to more great samples and even more to the Leica M in my hands

 

[animefx]

I had mentioned several months ago that my primary concerns with the new M were banding at higher isos, and not having the leica m8 or m9 "biting sharpness"

As you can see the dynamic range is certainly and improvement over the Canon 5D2, Canon 5D3, 1DX, and 6D. High ISO usable at 3200, and I think if Leica can work some magic and get rid of the banding then 6400 (which is currently pretty bad) will also be usable. It's possible banding is showing itself because shadow areas are simply underexposed.

 

[animefx]

The colors exceed the M9 for accuracy, but are not quite M8 level in my opinion.

All,

not sure if anyone cares, but I did lot of comparisons (also with the latest published M240 DNGs), comparing back and forth to my old M8 files as well as some D800E files and I need to revise my impression from yesterday -

THE COLORS OOC FROM THE Leica M LOOK PRETTY GOOD! All compared in Aperture, which seems to deliver pretty much the same results as LR4.

So my initial feeling of green cast turned out to be NOT TRUE!

Just wanted everybody here to know and sorry for my hastily conclusions.

In fact I really like the colors from the M much better than from the M8 and also better than from the M8.

Looking forward to more great samples and even more to the Leica M in my hands

 

[ptomsu]

The colors exceed the M9 for accuracy, but are not quite M8 level in my opinion.

I think we are discussing here on a VERY HIGH level and tastes are obviously different ....

 

[Gary Clennan]

My personal experience is that the color rendition of the M8 is very poor. I have seen much better results from M9 files. The M8 files often take so much work adjusting colors it can be frustrating at times.

 

[animefx]

I respectfully disagree. The grays are often contain a blue hue to them (look at almost any M9 photo that has a sidewalk in it). Foliage is a bit too neon at times there is almost like this greenish / yellow cast I was never able to fully get rid of.

The M8 requires the UV/IR filter to get good color and careful white balance, but after that you will be fine.

Having said that, I've seen plenty of beautiful M9 photos and would still love to own one again. Color is mostly is a matter of taste I agree.

My personal experience is that the color rendition of the M8 is very poor. I have seen much better results from M9 files. The M8 files often take so much work adjusting colors it can be frustrating at times.

 

[D&A]

As mentioned, ISO 6400 banding is quite noticable but it has to be kept in mind that some of these ISO 6400 shots were taken with pre-production cameras and earlier firmware. It's also hard to know exactly what differences changes in both exposure and ultimately post processing of the files might have on this. I have to say in general, the M240 files look extemely promising.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Godfrey]

As mentioned, ISO 6400 banding is quite noticable but it has to be kept in mind that some of these ISO 6400 shots were taken with pre-production cameras and earlier firmware. It's also hard to know exactly what differences changes in both exposure and ultimately post processing of the files might have on this. I have to say, it initially all (M240 files in general) looks promising.

Just looked at Chris Tribble's ISO 6400 shot again.

The sky areas where the banding is visible are about a stop underexposed. I know he was trying to retain highlights, but a half stop more exposure would have likely eliminated the banding, and wouldn't have changed the highlights by much.

The dynamic range retained at ISO 6400 is fairly impressive as it is, even with pre-release firmware.

No one doing real work on architectural subjects like this shoots at ISO 6400 anyway! Put the camera on a tripod and shoot at ISO 400...

G

 

[D&A]

Quiet agree but it will take an evaluation of many different types of images taken at some of the higher ISO's to get a well rounded assessment on how it fairs. Same thing with other parameters. There may be instances in general (like at base ISO), where the relative look of the files from both the M240 & M9 are more similar than different...but when certain subject and image related characteristics change as well altering the camera's ISO....a very divergent set of images will likely emerge. Will be very interesting as time goes by and both cameras are assesed together to evaluate both real and perceived differences, and of course similarites.

Dave (D&A).

 

[Double Negative]

I think these new M images suffer from the same "issue" as the new Monochrom images did... People just haven't worked out their post-processing recipe(s) yet. Remember how dull, flat and lifeless the first MM images were? Not to mention we're still seeing prelim firmware; Leica's still tweaking. Give it time.

 

[iiiNelson]

I think these new M images suffer from the same "issue" as the new Monochrom images did... People just haven't worked out their post-processing recipe(s) yet. Remember how dull, flat and lifeless the first MM images were? Not to mention we're still seeing prelim firmware; Leica's still tweaking. Give it time.

I actually agree and I think Leica is moving to more malleable files given the feedback I've read on the images and PP. I think this is a testament to working with a truly customized sensor, Adobe, and software engineers getting more mature in their craft.

Again this is preproduction (though probably pretty close to final) stuff still and no profiles exist for the camera so I have reasonably high hopes of what this camera will be able to do over the 3 year lifespan.