Zenny Posted March 29, 2013 Share #1 Posted March 29, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just found: Comparison of Leica M typ240 & Leica M9 - a set on Flickr Very helpful comparison. Zenny 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Hi Zenny, Take a look here Comparison of M9 and M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
photomeme Posted March 29, 2013 Share #2 Posted March 29, 2013 Just found: Comparison of Leica M typ240 & Leica M9 - a set on Flickr Very helpful comparison. Zenny You think so? Exposures and white balance are all over the place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 29, 2013 Share #3 Posted March 29, 2013 The white bal of the M is out as most know I assume a fix will be out before new owners get bored of adjusting in PP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 29, 2013 Share #4 Posted March 29, 2013 I would be ashamed to put such technically bad M9 shots on the Internet... 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted March 29, 2013 Share #5 Posted March 29, 2013 Even though most here seem to have made up their mind about the M10 image quality (even though half of it, i.e. color handling and white balance, still has to be delivered by a firmware upgrade), I appreciate these comparisons very much. For me image quality and overal drawing of images is still one of the most important aspects of the new M, and I can't say that I'm convinced yet. I'm kinda glad my dealer hasn't called me up yet, because I'd like to see more from the camera in it's supposedly final form before committing my hard-earned money to this camera. Sadly the amount of pictures available from the M10 has been lacking imo. With quite a lot of people having the camera for weeks now, it still is quite hard to find enough pictures. The fact that WB and color is way off in many pictures make them almost useless to judge overal "feel" from. And where are the reviews? I enjoyed Huff's review, but his enthusiasm alone is hardly enough to warrant my unconditional surrender of money to an unknown camera with a upcoming firmware that still has to deliver the goods. Anyway, I'd like more discussion about image quality and comparisons. But then again, I seem to be the only one, while most others are simply very content with the files from the new M. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 29, 2013 Share #6 Posted March 29, 2013 Exactly my point. To compare one needs optimum files from both cameras . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted March 30, 2013 Share #7 Posted March 30, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I guess I'm just glad with any comparison-crumbs I can get. But you're right, Jaap. A real comparison would consist of dng's. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted March 30, 2013 Share #8 Posted March 30, 2013 You can at least make something decent of his Starbucks M9 interior [022] in LR4 with: exposure +0.65; Temperature +18; Tint +20; decrease Shadows/Blacks. If I could afford the 50 APO Summicron and the M240, I'd hope to be able to get a Starbucks takeaway cup in sharper focus! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zenny Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share #9 Posted March 30, 2013 Mmmmh; all the pics in the comparison are made with the Apo-Summicron f2 50mm asph. When You're Smiling 君微笑めば :-) Zenny Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 30, 2013 Share #10 Posted March 30, 2013 Exactly my point. To compare one needs optimum files from both cameras . I look forward to you posting them when you get yours. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 30, 2013 Share #11 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) For me image quality and overal drawing of images is still one of the most important aspects of the new M, and I can't say that I'm convinced yet... And where are the reviews? If your dealer calls and your back is up against the wall to decide, pony up for Sean Reid's site. For me, the M240 was the Leica M to skip. (I did so this week). The image quality is not there for a meaningful upgrade, not with what I believe to be the prospects for a much improved successor as early as calendar year 2014. Note, my kit includes an M9-P, an MM and recent pro Nikon gear. Edited March 30, 2013 by photomeme 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 30, 2013 Share #12 Posted March 30, 2013 You can at least make something decent of his Starbucks M9 interior [022] in LR4 with: exposure +0.65; Temperature +18; Tint +20; decrease Shadows/Blacks. Seriously, editing a 8 bit jpg? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zenny Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share #13 Posted March 30, 2013 There are no RAW's, but 12MB / 5976x3992 jpg's is not bad Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegoldenberg Posted March 30, 2013 Share #14 Posted March 30, 2013 For me' date=' the M240 was the Leica M to skip. [/quote'] This camera is sweet. SO sweet. If you think it's worth skipping, you need to shoot with one. It's outstanding. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted March 30, 2013 Share #15 Posted March 30, 2013 For me, the M240 was the Leica M to skip. (I did so this week). The image quality is not there for a meaningful upgrade, not with what I believe to be the prospects for a much improved successor as early as calendar year 2014. Note, my kit includes an M9-P, an MM and recent pro Nikon gear. I agree that you can happily shoot with the M9-P instead of the M240, but you should expect to be shooting that M9-P until late 2015 or early 2016. There is no way Leica is going to roll out another M next year. Just like the S2 there are substantial R&D expenditures in the M240 which need to be recaptured before the next M is launched. And when a successor is launched I would not be surprised to see it as a minor revision, just like the S. I was like you in that I felt the M240 would not be enough of an "upgrade" over the M9-P, but Jono convinced me otherwise, and he was right. Sure the WB needs a firmware revision, but so did the S2 and the M9. When you work with your own M240 files and then compare to your own M9-P files it's easy to see the advantages. A quick edit session in Lightroom followed by some A3 sized prints absolutely sold me that the M240 is an improvement in every way, especially IQ. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 30, 2013 Share #16 Posted March 30, 2013 For me, the M240 was the Leica M to skip. (I did so this week). The image quality is not there for a meaningful upgrade, not with what I believe to be the prospects for a much improved successor as early as calendar year 2014. You do realize that we understand that you have no idea what you are talking about? This has to be the most incorrect statement you have posted to date. There will be no new successor to the M in 2014. How much would you like to bet. Pick a number...:p 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 30, 2013 Share #17 Posted March 30, 2013 You do realize that we understand that you have no idea what you are talking about? This has to be the most incorrect statement you have posted to date. There will be no new successor to the M in 2014. How much would you like to bet. Pick a number...:p Maybe he meant the white leather version! It could be a significant upgraded successor to someone! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 30, 2013 Share #18 Posted March 30, 2013 Hi macjonny1 - Maybe, it is the Panda that will be the spoiler to this bet. I guess we better define successor. I heard this before, The M8 was better than the M9. Now the M9 is better than the M. A is greater than B, B is greater than C, and before you know it the M8 is better than the M. That means the M should sell for $1,5000 and the M8 should sell for $7,000. The market doesn't seem to agree with that, but what does the market know. Leica is evolving backwards. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 30, 2013 Share #19 Posted March 30, 2013 And where are the reviews? Smart reviewers like Puts are waiting until there's something sufficiently ready for review and comparison. As he says... "My report will be split in two parts: the first part is a reflection on the status, philosophy and direction of the digital rangefinder, now in its latest incarnation, the M. The second part will look at the performance, but this part will be completed when the real production version is ready and relevant RAW developers are available." Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted March 30, 2013 Share #20 Posted March 30, 2013 Hi macjonny1 - Maybe, it is the Panda that will be the spoiler to this bet. I guess we better define successor. I heard this before, The M8 was better than the M9. Now the M9 is better than the M. A is greater than B, B is greater than C, and before you know it the M8 is better than the M. That means the M should sell for $1,5000 and the M8 should sell for $7,000. The market doesn't seem to agree with that, but what does the market know. Leica is evolving backwards. I could follow the first half of your math, but you lost me with the USD 15k pricing for a M.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.