M240 raw or JPEG and lens advice

[henry_wayne_gardner1]

<p>I am considering buying a new Leica M 240 and have a few comments and questions, some of which might be better answered by Stefan Daniel at Leica Camera AG.</p>

<p>Photography has been a hobby since high school (grad 1955). I still have my first camera, Nikon SP, plus Nikonos, M2, M4, Hasselblad 500 cm, and Nikon D7000. I sold an M3 to fund a Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 lens a year ago.</p>

<p>As my eyesight is red-green color deficient, I did not consider previous Leica digital M cameras because I gleaned from users, mostly on this forum, that you should shoot raw and convert photos yourself. Although I get along ok in everyday life (with wife matching ties and shirts), I cannot see colors well enough to adjust them on a computer. Therefore I usually take JPEGs and rely on D7000 firmware to get colors right.</p>

<p>Typically I shoot environmental and regular portraits, photojournalism-type events, some street photography, and landscapes (I have won a few prizes in local competition). Sports are limited to grandchildren’s games and skiing. I’ve shot a few weddings free for indigents and enjoyed the experience of making people happy and the thrill of capturing the events, but would not want the stress of wedding photography as a business—and a DSLR would be more suitable anyway.</p>

<p>Admittedly the desire for the M 240 is partly to satisfy the sensory experience of shooting Leica M’s, Nikon SP, and even 500 cm film cameras, but the immediacy and quality of digital is an advantage. Current MF digital backs are too costly, and I prefer Leica-size cameras for most shooting.</p>

<p>Current Leica lenses: Voigtländer 15mm, 35mm f2 v. 3, 35mm f2 ASPH, collapsible Summicron 50mm, Summilux 50mm f1.4, 90mm f2.8 Elmarit M (last version), and 135mm f3.4 ASPH. These cover my preferred focal lengths, but might consider a Leica 24mm or Zeiss 25mm, and even perhaps a current 90mm APO ASPH or 50mm f1.4 ASPH. With film, most-used lenses are 35mm f2 ASPH and 90mm f2.8 M. With Nikon SP, most-used lenses were 50mm f1.4 and 105mm f2.5.</p>

<p>Lens recommendations?</p>

<p>Would 90 AA or 50 f1.4 ASPH be a great improvement over what I have?</p>

<p>In your opinion, how do Leica M 240 JPEGs compare to Nikon D7000 or D800 JPEGs?</p>

<p>How hard is it to shoot raw and convert files with the M 240? Granted, a very subjective question, but I prefer shooting to sitting at a computer (currently 13” MacBook Pro).</p>

<p>Does M 240 firmware convert colors in raw files accurately?</p>

<p>Would Lightroom convert batch files with accurate colors?</p>

<p>Finally, is the Leica M 240 such a mature design that future sensors could be installed in a current M 240? Stefan Daniel might better answer this question, unless perhaps you have insight. This, plus firmware updates, would make the M 240 more like Leica M film cameras that can be used for decades. I realize that future sensors would not make the M 240 any less than it is, but it would be nice to keep abreast of technology advances.</p>

<p>S/F Wayne Gardner, Stafford, Virginia</p>

 

[tom_higgins3]

Henry, I can offer an opinion on some of your questions

 

First off with the 240 I've found you need a separate VF for anything wider than 35mm- the 28mm frame lines are really

not much use. You have a lovely lens selection there, I wouldn't change a thing- there is no real world discernible

difference between the 90 f2.8 and f2, and I can't see the 50 asph making much of a difference either. The 15mm is a

great lens, but will cause vignetting and colour shift around the edges of your files, however, there's a free program called

cornerfix that will take care of that. As to jpegs, they're accurate and nice right out of the camera, but really, raw is the

way to go. Leica M raw files are DNGs, and easily convertible/workable with any editing software. I've found the color

output from the 240 to be accurate and perfectly usable. Hope any of this helps.

[john_shriver]

<p>I think your key is to turn off auto white balance, and set it correctly based on the type of light you're shooting in, since you're not likely to be able to accurately correct it in post processing.</p>

[Troll]

<p>I hate posts that completely ignore the OP's original question and recommend some other camera or lens, etc, completely foreign to the intent of the thread, BUT...I'm an old Leica shooter (apparently at least two years older than Henry), and I was just shown the new Sony A7r which is a full-frame mirrorless camera which uses Leica M lenses with an adapter. If you're shooting B&W then that's what you see in the viewfinder! <br>

Suggest that you look at these before spending big-bucks on a Leica M.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks to John for the advice about white balance. I don't have the new Leica digital and therefore cannot answer all the OPs questions, but the auto WB issue is one I often have and it seems more important with the older Leica digital bodies. I seriously doubt any manufacturer will offer upgrades of future sensors in an existing camera body, but that door may have been left open slightly by the decision of Leica not to give the M a number. Bill's suggestion is not so out of context, as the A7r may be a wake up call to Leica regarding the price one can put on technology that is not the latest (a good example I think is the reticence of Leica to greatly improve the resolution of their monitor in going from the M8 to M9 when the technology to do that existed at low price). The A7r has a lot of innovation in a small body at a relatively low price that makes it a compulsory question if one is considering the M240.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Henry, the M 240 is a fine camera. Its virtues are many. For your purposes let me list these. It is very good in monochrome. You can shoot both DNG and JPEG fine. Using live view you can use your SLR lenses on it via adapters. You can also use Nikon S lenses that don't have protruding rear elements with an adapter..</p>

<p> It is, however, expensive. </p>

[philip_wilson]

I like my new M 240 but it is a bit different from my old m8. I prefer the look of the M8 images and the fact that you can

just use the M8 like a film camera (on the new M you do have to play with the digital bits more). In terms of DNG vs

JPEG the New M is much better in JPEG than the old M8 but I still find RAW is better. Just like on the M8 I find just

shooting in daylight and correcting later works well. The white balance on the new M is much better and many shots don't

need any correction - in addition auto correction in Photoshop works quite well on the new M. While not a complete

solution I suspect most of you colour issues will only occur in difficult conditions such as tungsten lights.

 

In terms of lenses you selection looks fine. Even my 12mm F5.6 CV lens works pretty well and the pink fringe issue only

tends to occur when you have flare or lighting from the side. In this respect I find the M240 is better than the M8. I do

have the EVF but I am not a great fan of it (or live view on the New M). I think it is because it detracts from the Leica feel.

With the 12mm I will use it quickly to frame but I will focus and shoot with the rangefinder. I like the CV 21mm f4 on the

new M and find it works quite well and is a cheap and compact lens. I would be wary of the collapsible corn as it may

contact the sensor (I do not have this lens so I am not sure). My from works well and I also like the look of my 50 F1.5

Zeiss on the new M

[henry_wayne_gardner1]

<p>Thanks very much to all who answered my questions. You are restoring my faith in Photo.net. I was lamenting the lack of Leica information, but now I see one must just ask questions. When I first came across this site over thirteen years ago, it was so lively I would spend several hours a week soaking up information and being in awe of the technical expertise of so many of you. I wonder if the digital age is changing this website?<br>

I am seriously considering sending an almost-mint M2 and a beater M4 w/ 35mm f/2 to Rich Pinto for evaluation as possible trade-ins for an M typ 240. I would be without a functioning 35mm film camera, and would have to rely on 500cm or preferably SWC-M for film, but I rarely shoot film anymore.<br>

S/F Wayne Gardner</p>

[phil_brown3]

<p>Don't trade the M4. You won't reduce the cost of the 240 by much and you will reap the benefits of a backup camera that can shoot film.</p>