• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Leica M240 green shadows, part 2

Leica M240 green shadows, part 2

September 7, 2013 JimK 1 Comment

Even though the pushed M240 images at ISO 200, 400, and 800 have a green cast, it is instructive to look at tight crops of the RX1 and M240 images from the preceding post. You can see how the noise varies with ISO, and compare the RX1 noise to that of the M240. The following images are 300×300 crops. The images were aligned in the cropped region to compensate for the fact that the lenses on the two cameras, though nominally 35mm, actually have slightly different focal lengths. For web presentation, the 300×300 crops have been res’d up to 600×600 using nearest neighbor before JPEG compression is applied.

M240, ISO 3200:

m2403200lc

RX1, ISO 3200:

rx13200lc

M240, ISO 1600, 1 stop push:

m2401600lc

RX1, ISO 1600, 1 stop push:

rx11600lc

M240, ISO 800, 2 stop push:

m240800lc

RX1, ISO 800, 2 stop push:

rx1800lc

M240, ISO 400, 3 stop push:

m240400lc

RX1, ISO 400, 3 stop push:

rx1400lc

M240, ISO 200, 4 stop push:

m240200lc

RX1, ISO 200, 4 stop push:

rx1200lc

Here’s my interpretation of the above images:

  • The M240 at ISO 3200 is noisier than it is at ISO 1600 pushed one stop in post. Therefore, I’d stop increasing the ISO on the M240 at 1600.
  • The green shadow shift (remember, the brightest part of the images is no brighter than 4 stops below full scale) in the pushed ISO 200, 400, and 800 images is not worth dealing with for any noise reduction that it might offer. Therefore, I wouldn’t plan to push M240 images exposed at these ISOs. In all the above, we are pushing to the equivalent of ISO 3200. ISO 100 M240 images may be just fine if only pushed a stop or two. If there’s interest, I can do some testing.
  • The RX1 has less noise than the M240 at all settings.
  • The banding that showed up on the M240 in the flat-field testing is not visible in these images. Although some have said that banding is a problem in low light with the M240, I wouldn’t say so from my testing.

The Last Word

← Leica M240 green shadows Leica M240 unity gain ISO →

Trackbacks

  1. New LEICA M vs M9 – Daylight picture RAW files comparison - Seite 9 - Leica User Forum says:
    November 4, 2013 at 8:53 am

    […] Re: New LEICA M vs M9 – Daylight picture RAW files comparison Ad There are some articles about the green cast right here Characterizing the Leica M240, part 12 | The Last Word […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.