Jump to content

Transition from M9 to M240 - your thoughts


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Friends, after four years with the M9 I am looking at alternatives. Not so much to replace it but to augment the M9 now that I fully recognize its strengths and weaknesses. Specifically, I am looking for a more capable low light camera but one, obviously, that will accept my M lenses.

You know the contender - the Sony a7rii. On paper it looks just splendid with its high ISO flexibility and in-body stabilization. I must confess that there have been more than a few times over the past several weeks, after it became widely available, that my fingers danced across the BH order form. But each time I backed away from the edge for reasons that I can not fully explain from an analytical perspective. Many love it. Many are lukewarm, and there are others that consider it the most technically sophisticated photo device ever to produce "plastic" images. Perhaps, ultimately, what discouraged me from signing onto Sony is what made me signed onto Leica four years ago. The simplicity of the Leica device - one with just enough technical wizardry to make you think you are still shooting a camera with no brain. The Sony is at the opposite end of that spectrum, as I understand it. Self-reflection makes me admit that I would likely never use enough of the programming or other functions of the Sony to offset its opined flaws. The clincher is the ambivalence many M lens shooters express when viewing the images the Sony produces with their beloved glass. The likelihood that i would buy the Sony body only to send it off to someone to put a $500 thinner sensor glass on it just ain't going to happen.

I am again drawn back into the arms of Leica. I have run the gamut, justifying, in my mind, the purchase of virtually every current model it offers. Like many, I am anxiously awaiting the new release. But after four years with the M9, the notion of acclimating to yet another system that may require a new quiver of lenses may just be more titillating than ultimately satisfying, especially if the price of admission is north of $10k. 

After distilling down the options, I keep coming back to the M240 which can be had used and mint for around $4000. For those of you who made the journey from the M9 to its younger sibling, I would be obliged to hear how it fulfilled or even dashed any great expectations that you harbored, and whether you would have made the same move now that the honeymoon is long over and real life has set in.

Regards,

David

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can't address your question specifically, as I went from an M8 to the M240 M-P, I can suggest that your comment regarding higher Sony ISO may be a key factor for you.  I have a Nikon D800e, which is not really a high ISO camera itself, that I use anyway when higher ISO is called for.  (although it otherwise collects dust)  The useable ISO increase of the M240, while real, may not be enough to satisfy your upgrade expectiations.

 

If you KNOW you want an M240 I think prices are very compelling right now, but perhaps even more so after the upcoming introduction of a new body.  In any case, I have a hard time with the idea one would be disappointed with an M240.  Still, I council further restraint until we see the new model.

 

By the way, JDLaing, on this forum, just did the Sony thing and also prefers to ignore some of the Sony advanced functions.  He seems well satisfied and you might like to discuss the issue with him.

Edited by Schrödinger's cat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went from the M9 to the M240 with no regrets other than it is fatter.  If I were in your shoes, would definitely wait and see what the big announcement is before making any moves.  The new camera, likely it will accept M lenses?  I won't be rushing out to buy it as satisfied with what I have for now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

David, I upgraded from the M9 to the M240 2 years ago and have been very happy that I did. The M240 is a more mature and finished product than the M9, has better, though not exceptional, high iso capability, generally quicker response, infinitely better LCD, quiet shutter and of course the versatility of live view and EVF.

 

The forthcoming SL will prabably be bigger than the M though maybe lighter and lacks the optical viewfinder / rangefinder so it will be a very different camera. To justify buying it there will probably be a heavy expense in adding the zoom lenses which will be large and heavy as they are FF lenses with relatively wide apertures F2.8-F4. If as is assumed it has a T mount it would be a very versatile camera as with suitable adapters it could use M and R lenses as well as lenses designed for the T mount.

 

It is likely that the there will be a new M rangefinder released next year which would be a natural upgrade for the M9 and would use existing M lenses and when it is announced there may be a further reduction in M240 prices resulting in a similar drop in second hand prices. I would certainly make no decisions until the revelations on 20th October.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went from M9 to M240 with no regrets.  I use it pretty much like the M9, except I like the EVF for framing wide angles and also long.

You will be pleased, I am sure, with the quiet shutter on the M240 compared to the whiz, clank M9.  It is a better camera overall, assuming you want to stay with RF.  The Sony is a different animal.  Not to my taste but others have raved.  I do highly value the simplicity and intuitiveness of Leica so maybe that is why I keep coming back after having tried several others. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M240 is a truly great camera and its a logical upgrade after the M9

 

As well as the obvious there are many more hidden benefits, such as being able to test the focus precision using LV on a 2nd hand camera or to test new/old lenses, the ability to use telephoto lenses, not needing optical VF for wide angle, quicker, quieter, rock solid reliable (IMHO after 4 cameras) etc.

 

The extra size is a red herring (1mm width). The extra weight is noticeable if you are using a larger lens to start with, but paradoxically much better balanced with heavier lenses (e.g. f1.4s in general)

 

You won't regret it

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd stay clear of Sony (although maybe their second generation of A7 family of cameras have improved).

I use three systems (Leica M, Fuji-X and Sony A7)... well two of them really.

The Leica and Fuji always have sharp focused eyes on my images of people.

The A7 doesn't have focused eyes (either with a native FE55/1.8 or a Leica lens with focus peaking), and maybe this is due to shutter shock (which may have improved in their second generation cameras). Maybe I have a dud with my A7 ?

 

Also, I don't think you can beat the RF experience for most applications if you are used to it.

 

Like others have said, wait a bit and see what Leica announce  :D

Edited by bobbywise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone mentioned the improved RF? I now can focus longer lenses (135mm) which I could never do on my M9 with any level of confidence.

 

I too had improved focus with the M with longer lenses. Until leica actually got the calibration of my M9 right and I got my135APO sorted out. Now I see no functional differences between the two.

 

To the OP:

 

I have the A7R2, A72, A7, M9 and M. I use each interchangeably. I like all the cameras. I'm not anti Sony or pro Sony. I am Leica biased. I must be since I've stuck with them regardless of the service I've received in Australia.

 

Let's start with the A7R2. It's a fantastic camera with a fantastic sensor. Remarkable. And ignoring all the huff and puff about M glass the Sony primes are almost all stellar. Different to the Leica glass but stellar. The Sony lenses are larger but no heavier than most m lenses in real world terms. You'll have a bigger bag but not a heavier one. The Sony has a reasonably mature TTL flash system with wireless OCF, ratios and the like. The silent shutter is great. IBIS is incredible, even if it's a half stop behind the Olympus version. It has a huge selection of glass available. Alpha glass all works great as does the FE lenses. You get the bonus of zooms. You can use many Canon lenses with good but not great AF and hundreds of old lenses. It is picky with M glass. Longer than 50 is fine but wider is on a lens by lens basis. The Sony has a tilty screen which is soooo useful.

 

OTOH. The buttons and dials are fidly. The battery life is less than an M9 and about a 3rd of an M. It's a far more complex camera. You can set it up as you wish (great) but sometimes having so much there is still overwhelming. Who can remember what 15-20 buttons and dials do all the time? Ultra fast wide angles don't exist. And who knows what Sony will do next? It's nicely built by Japanese camera standards but an M it ain't.

 

The M240 is a small step up from the M9 in many areas and this adds up to a noticeably better camera. You can argue over CCD vs CMOS. There's a small difference in the images but I wouldn't say the M is "better" than the M9. But the battery life is outstanding. It's quieter and recocks the shutter quicker. Live View is useful, to me for wide and tele lenses (including R zooms). It's less fussy with SD cards. I like the thumb wheel better than the old one. As you know they're beautifully built. High ISO is way better and really only a stop and a bit behind the best out there up to 1600. Low ISO is as good as anything on the market. And it seems the noise is "nicer" than the Sony. The files need less sharpening because of the thicker sensor cover glass on the Sony. I think the colours are better too than the Sony. M lenses are better on the Leica regardless of the resolution unless you get your Sony modded. The M lenses don't rely on profiles for distortion so when I shoot real estate the M wins hands down.

 

The "bulb" on the M is pathetic. You still can't see the shutter speed in manual mode in the VF and I wish the frame lines were available when the camera is off. You'll need the more expensive M-P to get the frame line selector. I wish the EVF didn't take up the hotshoe as I often need to use flash with a wide lens and the GPS grip/baseplate/TTL adaptor is clunky as all get out. Leica need to let Nissin build TTL flashes for them because the Metz based ones are either huge or too limited for creative use.

 

On paper the Sony is the logical choice and if you're completely governed by logic then buy the Sony. It's technically the better camera. It's three years newer. It should be.

 

But there's something so satisfying about using a Leica that the Sony doesn't have. I'll get flamed for this but the Sony is a great camera without a soul while the M is an imperfect camera with character oozing out every seam. You *want* to take the Leica everywhere while you're happy to leave the Sony at home. The reason you'll love the M is the same as you love your M9. It's a different camera in so many ways but the enjoyment you get using it is the same. For me the process of taking the image is as important as the end result. And the Leica plain and simple more fun to use.

 

For me, the Sony feels like I'm driving an incredibly powerful computer. The M still feels like a camera.

 

I run several camera systems. I use the A7R2 for my personal landscapes (long exposures, flippy screen, huge dynamic range) and commercial work where big files are useful. I use it when I need something really long. And even though I could sell every camera I own and just have a kit built around the A7R2 and A7II for all my work and play, I do 80% of my shooting, including for work, on the M.

 

just my 0.02

 

Gordon

Edited by FlashGordonPhotography
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your M9 must have had a bad rangefinder. Mine focuses perfectly (50mm f1, 75mm 1.4, 90mm f2) without any adjustments in 5 years.

I don't think so. It was spot on with other lenses. The  rangefinder in my M has a perceptibly higher contrast.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M240 is due for an upgrade that should have been implemented in the M-P: the EVF is unusable for what I had hoped to use it for. It is too slow (severe shutter lag) and you can't reframe the magnified view for critical focus on the eyes during portraiture. It was a shame that this wasn't better when the M240 came out, and an embarrassment that it wasn't improved in the camera Leica named the M-P.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two possible reasons have been cited for possible improved RF performance in the M.....

 

1. Stefan Daniel noted (in a video interview with Thorsten) that the RF had improved accuracy compared to the M9   http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/238302-m-a-has-updated-rangefinder/?p=2726500

 

2. The internally lit frame lines may show more contrast compared to the external window-lit lines.

 

The improved RF was a pleasant surprise when I switched from the M8.2 to the M.  Others have noted that they see no difference compared to earlier models.  As it always is on the forum.

 

Jeff

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got my M-P a few days ago to replace my lost M9.

 

The viewfinder improvement was a big pleasant surprise. I have read about it before but just didn’t think it would be such a big impact. With my 50 and 75 lux, in terms of hit rate, most of the time focusing using the rangefinder patch is on par with using the live view with 10x magnification! I used to have a 1.25x magnifier (which I lost together with my M9); I guess I don’t have to buy another one!

 

Shutter sound was an improvement from M9, but I read so much about people raving about it my expectation was high and expected even quieter shutter noises. Good improvement in speed of operation and LCD screen quality is day and light as everyone says.

 

As for the files, I do feel that out of the box they look more like cmos SLR now, but I guess it will take me some time for me to relearn how to process the file. High iso is a lot better; you can also push the files around much more in post compared to the M9 before they start to fall apart…

 

Auto ISO feature is also very handy when you want to the automation, I been using it quite a bit.

I was excited about doing some videos with the leica glasses, but lack of vibration reduction make it rather hard to use without tripod / other stabilization…

 

Overall I’m quite happy. I wish they could have keep the profile and weight same as m9 though, the extra weight does somewhat make it a little less comfortable to carry around and hold. Only if they can make the size / weight like the film M!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros of M240 over M9:

- quieter shutter

- better rear screen for image review and showing to third parties (the M9 screen was embarrassingly bad for the latter).

- EVF/LV for macro and as a check on RF calibration.

- better colour: magenta skin remained a problem with the M9 even after creating a custom profile. Still an occasional issue with the M240, but it is controllable.

- wider DR.

- better high ISO performance.

- much better battery life.

 

Pros of M9 over M240

- faster startup and wake-up - I think. I just don't remember it being the issue i have with it on the M240.

 

Disappointments of the M240

- can't use a radio trigger for strobes, or on-camera flash, at the same time as the EVF. Otherwise I'd use the EVF for studio work

- slower startup and wake-up than i would like.

- shutter speed not shown in VF.

- inaccuracies of framelines: this is not specific to the M240, and is probably an inevitable consequence of a RF, but it is occasionally tiresome

 

What is unimportant to me on the M240

- occasional lock-ups. Too rare to be a problem. But they shouldn't happen.

- lack of movable focus zone, on OVF or LV.

- quality of LV display

- shutter lag with EVF/LV (it's poor, but nothing I do requires better)

- movie mode

- absence of wifi/GPS/tethering facilities.

- absence of frame line preview lever.

- continuous/burst mode

- lack of Bulb mode >60secs

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

....and better weather sealing, frame lines optimized for 2m, smoother shutter release (not just quieter re-cock), better build quality (e.g., tripod socket), improved processor, no corrosion issues,  etc....

 

The M is a better built RF machine, apart from anything to do with LV/EVF or video.

 

Whether these distinctions are meaningful to the photographer is another question....any of the M's are perfectly capable of producing wonderful files....and eventually prints....in the right hands.

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I upgraded from M9 to M240. 

 

Rangefinder/viewfinder: My M9's rangefinder came from the factory in disgustingly poor adjustment, but once I adjusted it to perfection it stayed that way the entire time I owned and used and traveled heavily with it.  I used both cameras side by side until I sold the M9 and could not notice even the slightest improvement in the range/viewfinder.  In fact, the LED framelines of the M240 continue to be a source of aggravation to me.  They are forever too bright, causing my pupils to constrict and thus reducing my visual acuity to focus.  Very slight in bright surroundings, but definitely a noticeable hindrance at night. 

 

EVF:  It's a convenience when I carry more than one wide angle lens for which there is no viewfinder frame, such as 12-15-21.  It also produces a much more realistic view with those lenses than any b/l finder I know of.   Similarly I can slip it on when shooting far-off scenes with my 90 or 135 and see more detail, as well as more accurate framing.  Also is much smaller to travel than a Visoflex when using a 50 or 90 with one or two OURFRO extensions for closeups.  For rapid-sequence shooting, or focusing quickly, the EVF is practically useless to me.  I do have an R and Nikon adapter, but for me it was a mildly interesting gimmick whose novelty wore off quickly.

 

Size:  Comparing the M240's measurements M9's they are nearly identical.  However, the addition and position of the thumb wheel on the rear top plate of the M240 makes a deceptively large ergonomic impact.  Where the thumb falls naturally on a flat surface to grip an M9,  the M240 requires positioning the thumb below it.  For me that causes hand fatigue not present with the M9. 

 

High ISO:  It's better on the M240, but compared with far less expensive cameras of other brands, the increase seems moot to me.  It's like decreasing a car's 0-60 time from 19 seconds to 15 seconds when the majority of similarly-priced cars and even a lot of cheaper ones do it in 10 seconds.  

 

Shutter sound:  Night and day difference.  I could never figure why Leica made M9 to have an aftersound like an old film motor-winder when the cheapest entry-level dSLR's of the day don't.  The M240 finally returns the M to its roots as a quiet camera.

 

JPEG quality:  The M9's jpeg quality was so inconsistent I wondered why they were even there.  I shot everything raw and became quite adept at PP, something I suppose I should thank the M9 for, but was not necessary with any other high-end digital I ever owned.  The M240's jpeg quality is consistent and excellent, in fact I find the skin tones "out of the box" in default jpeg mode more pleasing than what I can get with raw (and believe me, those years with the M9 taught me how to PP!).  Initially I shot raw + jpeg fine, but after a couple months of not needing to use a single raw file I switched entirely to jpeg only.

 

The latter feature I didn't really discover until after I purchased, but the shutter sound was a motivating factor.  So at the time was the corroding sensor issue of the M9, which there was no guarantee would ever be rectified.  In retrospect, for the shutter sound improvement alone it was worth the cost of upgrade  (I bought a demo for far less than a new one).  So much so that when a pre-owned certified one came my way I grabbed it up.  This is the first digital M I bought a second body, because it is the first digital M I have absolutely no quarrel with nor can I imagine anything Leica can likelyl add to a new model that would compel me to upgrade. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...