DandA123
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: M9 color | |
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was completely taken by the M9 sensor when I first got it and I shot with it for years. Over time though, my taste changed and I started to feel differently about its color rendering. These days the colors look a bit limited to me and the overall palette just does not feel as rich or natural as I once thought. I am not only talking about accuracy, which was never the M9's strength, but the overall look. This is just my personal taste, and I know plenty of people absolutely love the M9 output. For my eye though, the M240 and M10 have a color and tonality I connect with much more now.
I have owned & shot with the M9 since its inception up till the present, including having used or owned other M digital models and here are a few random thoughts.
I too have always been taken with the M9's output (always working with the raw files) and although many have tried to emulate the look of the raw output of the M9 with those from other model digital M's, the success of doing so varies. It depends on a lot of factors, including color, lighting (including color temp, shadow, highlight, contrast etc.) of the scene, skin tones of individuals in the frame and no doubt other factors. Sometimes the resulting two images look extremely close and doesn't take a lot of work to achieve this and sometimes the differences are readily evident. Which image is liked or preferred more, or even more accurate and representative of the actual scene is subjective. The same goes to which image one finds more pleasing, whether its color, tonality etc. is accurate or not.
When the M240 first came out, I (and others) found its output too warm, skin tones too yellow etc. yet as time went on and maybe with successive firmware updates, it seems to an extent to have mellowed out in this regard. Either that or as Fred has suggested, taste change over time.
Lastly, one thing I have a gut feeling about and have subsequently heard from others regarding the output of the M9. This pertains to the replacement of corroded cover glass of M9's specifically done by Leica. From the moment two of my color M9's were returned by Leica from the cover glass replacement program, I have felt their output (Raw) was somewhat different. I can't put my finger on it, but many of the resulting images are a bit more neutral and although I would often use the term Magical in the M9 output prior to cover glass replacement (for whatever that term might mean), I found myself saying it with somewhat less frequency immediately after cover glass replacement. This feeling continued when I compared images taken prior to cover glass/sensor replacement vs those taken after.
My gut tells me something had changed and I believe it's been confirmed, since Leica actually replaced not just the cover glass but the entire sensor/cover glass assembly, which has been noted as "slightly" different in its spectral response from the original.
How this might compare to those M9's that simply addressed corrosion by having only the cover glass itself replaced, (which also effectively addresses the issue) by such firms as Kolari, I can't say or how it compares to leica replacing the sensor/cover glass assembly when repairing corrosion.
So, one of my questions to Fred was if it was possible that your feelings about the M9's output over time having changed, possibly coincided around the time you had sensor corrosion addressed by Leica (if you had done so) and thus its slightly changed output as described? This is aside from other unrelated factors regarding changed taste in M digital camera output in general.
Just some thoughts.
|
