Leica M240 | The Mad Men

<p>It's been a bit more than two weeks that I have my Leica M240 and coming from the M9, this new camera is just amazing.<br>

I started shooting JPEG with the M9 but the ISO capability of the M9 was a bit limited to my liking...<br>

Now I really feel confident to shoot in JPEG with the Leica M240 at ISO 3200 and in JPEG.<br>

Here are some samples shot in Chicago a week ago and some recent work, a fashion shoot with only the Leica M240: <a href="http://nomadphotography.com.au/blog/2013/laurens-mad-men-shot-with-a-leica-m240/">http://nomadphotography.com.au/blog/2013/laurens-mad-men-shot-with-a-leica-m240/</a><br>

<br />This is truly an amazing camera.<br />Feedback and comments welcome</p>

<p>Thank you.<br>

<img src="http://nomadphotography.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/NOMAD-PHOTOGRAPHY-Leica-M-Type-240-001925.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="667" /></p>

 

<p>The aspect ratio is off when viewed with Explorer. They are all tall and thin (compressed horizontally).</p>

<p>No geometric issues with Firefox 22. The color balances are very different from shot to shot -- is this deliberate?</p>

I think there are too many photos on one page. I had to give up loading it (I'm in Europe on a

fast private adsl line).

<p>Very well done & most interesting & intriguing.</p>

<p>But why shoot JPEG's?</p>

<p>Aspect ratios OK on Chrome, still not OK on Explorer. Speed OK for me. Content fine, but perhaps too many similar images? Editing them down may improve their impact.</p>

For its price, it ought to be amazing...

What lens, please? The dynamic range looks awesome.

<p>Aspect Ratio OK on my Macbook. Downloaded pretty fast. I do like that B&W shot!</p>

<p>I have no problems with it, either in aspect ratio or the colour. The use made of colour shifts is obvious and works well. The images have a look about them which is unique. Spectacular lenses, and a well set up sequence. Congrats from another Australian. </p>

<p>What is a Leica M240? (Not listed on B&H)</p>

<p>The double-post bandit strikes again.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your comments.<br>

@Kaj Froling:<br />I set the camera in Jpeg + DNG just to play around and I also wanted to check what in camera processing would do to black & white Jpegs. The results are god enough to use the out of camera files. If there is a need for further process/edit then I can still fall back on the DNG files<br>

@Bill Mitchell:<br />It's the Leica M Ty240 (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893171-USA/Leica_10771_M_Digital_Camera_Silver.html/BI/8556/KBID/9597/">B&H link here</a>)</p>

<p>@Michael Axel:<br>

I used a 35 Summicron ASPH.<br>

Thank you for reading.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The aspect ratio is off when viewed with Explorer. They are all tall and thin (compressed horizontally).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Always happens when viewing on my iPhone. No problems on a computer, though.</p>

<p>Omega: firstly, thanks for posting this thread and giving us your views on the 240. Thorsten Overgaard loves the b&w JPEGs from the M9, and I have every confidence that the M240 is better still. Just looking at the b&w shot in this thread is making me wonder if I really want to shoot b&w film again (I just posted about that in the Film & Processing forum). Back and forth, back and forth...</p>

<p>I totally understand why you'd want to test the JPEG capability. If it's good right out of the camera, that means you don't have to do a thing to the files except backing them up. I do tend to underexpose my digital images, so perhaps JPEGs won't be for me, but I have a lot of testing to do when I get around to buying/borrowing an M9 or M240.</p>

<p>A couple of the images in the portfolio are excellent. But only a couple. The rest: flat lighting, too much filter wanking (compositing software such as Photoshop is like antidepressants - overly desired, over-prescribed, useful for only a few), WB could be tweaked here or there, framing is off, exposure is off on a few... etc. I'll give examples, but I'm warning you that I am not a nice person if you want me to give opinions on your work. Nonetheless, I hope that my criticism is constructive - I'm very tough on my own work and I won't tolerate anything but the highest standards, even if I can't always reach them myself.</p>

<p>Final warning!</p>

<p>1st shot: looks like a snapshot at a wedding taken by a guest with a 35mm compact, standing too far away.</p>

<p>2nd: Same.</p>

<p>3rd: Lighting is not nice. Flat atmosphere.</p>

<p>4th: WB too cool, flat lighting, horizon not straight.</p>

<p>5th: Better colour but looks too filtered.</p>

<p>6th: Passable lighting, girl in green posed awkwardly, horizon just slightly too crooked.</p>

<p>7th: No life at all in this scene. Why are the lights off? Composition not tight enough - the interior is second-rate cheapskate corporate (not your fault!).</p>

<p>8th: Good idea for a shot, but overly filtered and not tight enough.</p>

<p>9th: No drama, despite intent. Where is the light? No life in this image at all.</p>

<p>10th: Crikey. It looks like underexposed Kodak Gold 200 with no grain and no soul, printed at a local discount photo lab. Background distracts from subjects which are not lit at all. Why are the lights (as ugly as they are - man I wish I could use the f- word here) not turned on?</p>

<p>11th: You didn't use on-camera flash for this one, did you? Also, composition not centered (more space on the right than on the left).</p>

<p>12th: Cool idea. Try it again? I love slow-synch flash when it's done right. I did a few at a wedding (of the waiting staff bringing out plates) and the results were not too bad.</p>

<p>13th: Almost perfect composition. The girl's left elbow is too close to the edge of the frame. And those blown highlights add a distracting harshness to an otherwise pleasing shot.</p>

<p>14th: Very nice. The subject's hands are too tense. Mind you, I'd probably not notice until it's too late anyway. Still, one lesson about modelling which took me a while to pick up on: hands are very important. Watch them more closely than the subject's expression (or just as closely). One tip might be, depending on the context, giving the subject something to hold. So they say.</p>

<p>15th: You haven't composed tightly enough. Do I need to see the back of some generic keyboard? The highlights are too harsh. Background too distracting.</p>

<p>16th: Seriously?</p>

<p>17th: Oh, my dear sir, this is excellent. The light on the girl's face is just a touch too direct, though.</p>

<p>18th: Not bad. We'll leave it there and call it a win.</p>

<p>19th: Ugly, overcast, outdoor light? No, thank you. It's like porridge without the cinnamon, salt and honey.</p>

<p>20th: Same. And awkward composition.</p>

<p>21st: Not bad, but not great. It's too much in the middle for my taste.</p>

<p>22nd: I like what you were trying to achieve but there just isn't any life in this photo, either.</p>

<p>23rd: Messy, distracting background. Perhaps some of these need a telephoto, not a standard or a wide. This was with a 50mm?</p>

<p>24th: I don't see any life in this image at all. Your location is just wrong. It lets down your vision for what could have been a great shoot. I see a cheap brass plaque and a plastic light switch.</p>

<p>25th: Not bad at all. Too much headroom, though, compared to how close his feet are to the bottom of the frame.</p>

<p>26th: You framed awkwardly here. And the light is boring (yes, again with the boring light).</p>

 

<p>@Karim,<br>

Thank you so much for taking the time reading the blog and especially thank you for your comments. Love them :o)<br>

Re #10. I wouldn't mind an F-word, here or somewhere else. Sometime we need to go beyond words and say the things we think :o). 'Art' is so subjective.<br>

Please come back visit the blog from times to times as I will be posting some other shoots with this amazing Leica M240.</p>