markforce Posted March 6, 2017 Share #1 Posted March 6, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Local Leica store called and offered i) free M9 sensor replacement due to you-know-what or ii) upgrade to M-P 240 @ $4150. Inquired about M10 upgrade. According to Leica the upgrade program *won't* be extended to the M10, not in the foreseeable future. Have the M246 and therefore used to the 240 platform (camera itself is amazing, too), no major concerns with it. Granted, it is the M10's high ISO that would attract me at this stage so toying with the idea. The M-P's 2GB processor mitigates some of the performance concerns I suppose... so it kinda comes down to approx. 2 stops ISO, all things being equal (yes, I know, there's more, but the ISO wheel for instance isn't the screaming buy for me, however nice). Never really considered an M9-M240 upgrade -- the offer is pretty decent though now isn't it? Mark 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 Hi markforce, Take a look here Upgrade offer (program will not be extended to M10). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FeralCoton Posted March 9, 2017 Share #2 Posted March 9, 2017 Seems pretty decent. I think the M10 viewfinder is a bit nicer, but it all goes back to how much you like the extra $2k or so... I love my M-P and would likely love the 10, but it's too soon to upgrade for me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted March 9, 2017 Share #3 Posted March 9, 2017 When my M9 sensor needed replacement, they proposed me such an upgrade. I was not really interested anyway, but I did not find a good deal: if you get the M9 fixed as part of the repair programme, sell it, and get a low actuation count M240, then you should spare at least $1.5k, and let someone enjoy that M9 for years to come! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markforce Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share #4 Posted March 9, 2017 Seems pretty decent. I think the M10 viewfinder is a bit nicer, but it all goes back to how much you like the extra $2k or so... I love my M-P and would likely love the 10, but it's too soon to upgrade for me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Ended up deciding in favor of the sensor replacement. The upgrade can wait, who knows what the M11 will have in pocket... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted March 10, 2017 Share #5 Posted March 10, 2017 I had the chance to use my M240 movie capabilities to shoot some films for a documentary a friend is working on. I was amazed (and my friend as well) by the cinematic quality of the M movies. This is why I'm not interested in M10. I sure intend to develop this movie thing of my camera. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 10, 2017 Share #6 Posted March 10, 2017 Ask them what a straight trade in on the M10 would be. M9s seem to be listed on eBay for around $2,500.00. A new M10 is $6,500.00 which leaves a $4,000.00 price difference. Even if I only got $2,000.00 for my M9, I know what I would do - I'd get the sensor replaced and I'd sell it, then buy an M10. Actually, I'd buy the M10, send the M9 off for sensor replacement, and I'd then sell the M9 ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markforce Posted March 11, 2017 Author Share #7 Posted March 11, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ask them what a straight trade in on the M10 would be. M9s seem to be listed on eBay for around $2,500.00. A new M10 is $6,500.00 which leaves a $4,000.00 price difference. Even if I only got $2,000.00 for my M9, I know what I would do - I'd get the sensor replaced and I'd sell it, then buy an M10. Actually, I'd buy the M10, send the M9 off for sensor replacement, and I'd then sell the M9 ... That may well be the avenue I'll be going down once the M9 with new sensor is back. In the meantime the M246 is on full time duty. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 11, 2017 Share #8 Posted March 11, 2017 Ask them what a straight trade in on the M10 would be. M9s seem to be listed on eBay for around $2,500.00. A new M10 is $6,500.00 which leaves a $4,000.00 price difference. Even if I only got $2,000.00 for my M9, I know what I would do - I'd get the sensor replaced and I'd sell it, then buy an M10. Actually, I'd buy the M10, send the M9 off for sensor replacement, and I'd then sell the M9 ... I would do that too I don't understand what OP means with "pretty decent" for a swap of $4150 for a 240. I would never do that. The ISO is not the only advantage of the M10 over the M240, the colors are much much better and the noise/grain is in itself much more esthetic than what I've seen from any digital camera thus far 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted March 11, 2017 Share #9 Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) You're stretching my credulity beyond breaking point here. I've accepted Leica glow and bokeh (my eyes aren't the best) but differences in the quality of noise is not something I can swallow. Please prove it. I mean, can you find nicer looking noise than this http://www.l-camera-forum.com/uploads/monthly_12_2016/post-35907-0-26106000-1482079715.jpg M typ 240, 1600 ISO, no noise reduction in Lightroom. Edited March 11, 2017 by Exodies Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 11, 2017 Share #10 Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) You're stretching my credulity beyond breaking point here. I've accepted Leica glow and bokeh (my eyes aren't the best) but differences in the quality of noise is not something I can swallow. Please prove it. I mean, can you find nicer looking noise than this http://www.l-camera-forum.com/uploads/monthly_12_2016/post-35907-0-26106000-1482079715.jpg M typ 240, 1600 ISO, no noise reduction in Lightroom. This sounds like a paradox: your eyes aren't that good, (thus) you can't swallow differences in quality of noise, and in the end I'm invited to prove these differences.... But here's an example: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268528-m10-the-image-thread/page-11?do=findComment&comment=3205240 #216 and #217 Edited March 11, 2017 by otto.f 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted March 11, 2017 Share #11 Posted March 11, 2017 Here's M 240 noise at ISO 3200, colour noise reduction set to 25 in Lightroom. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! We're comparing it to M10 noise, but at 6400 ISO. post-22399-0-64056100-1486309298.jpg The scenes and processing are too different to say anything about the noise; or my eyes aren't up to the job. Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! We're comparing it to M10 noise, but at 6400 ISO. post-22399-0-64056100-1486309298.jpg The scenes and processing are too different to say anything about the noise; or my eyes aren't up to the job. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/270072-upgrade-offer-program-will-not-be-extended-to-m10/?do=findComment&comment=3231737'>More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 12, 2017 Share #12 Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) This is incomparable. I was talking about beautiful noise here. What you show is no noise after pp Edited March 12, 2017 by otto.f Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted March 12, 2017 Share #13 Posted March 12, 2017 My viewpoint is that the sensor designers can change the onset of noise (allow lower light to be cleaner) but the appearance/look of noise is unavoidable mathematics. I realise my picture hasn't contributed much to the discussion, but to call it incomparable - wow, thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 12, 2017 Share #14 Posted March 12, 2017 My viewpoint is that the sensor designers can change the onset of noise (allow lower light to be cleaner) but the appearance/look of noise is unavoidable mathematics. I realise my picture hasn't contributed much to the discussion, but to call it incomparable - wow, thanks! Please allow me a simile: Music reproduced off a vinyl record will contain noise. So will music reproduced off a tape recorder, a CD or an MP3 file. The noise produced by each of those media is dictated by unavoidable mathematics. Yet each medium produces noise that sounds different. Some prefer the noise produced by the vinyl record over the noise produced by the MP3 file. Some do not perceive any difference at all, be it due to a poor reproduction apparatus or due to the listener not being able to tell noise from signal. The discussion was about noise in images made with different cameras looking more or less pleasant. The noise in an image which has the noise removed can not be compared to the noise straight out of a - say - Leica M10. It is incomparable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted March 12, 2017 Share #15 Posted March 12, 2017 I adjusted the colour noise setting because otto.f said he had manipulated the noise in his colour image. The noise is still present in my picture. The simile doesn't help much because both cameras use the same recording technology - a CMOS sensor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 12, 2017 Share #16 Posted March 12, 2017 My viewpoint is that the sensor designers can change the onset of noise (allow lower light to be cleaner) but the appearance/look of noise is unavoidable mathematics. I realise my picture hasn't contributed much to the discussion, but to call it incomparable - wow, thanks! Two photo's being not comparable is nothing personal Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 12, 2017 Share #17 Posted March 12, 2017 I adjusted the colour noise setting because otto.f said he had manipulated the noise in his colour image. The noise is still present in my picture. The simile doesn't help much because both cameras use the same recording technology - a CMOS sensor. Ah. You seem to think that the noise produced by every CMOS sensor looks the same. You also seem to think that the sensor is the only component in a camera which contributes to the noise in an image. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justj Posted March 12, 2017 Share #18 Posted March 12, 2017 What is also incomparable is high ISO noise under plenty of light during daylight hours and high ISO noise in the dark at night. Even M240 can produce "aesthetically pleasing" high ISO in day light, especially in black and white, provided exposure is done correctly. Back to the topic of trade in value of M240. I was offered £1300 and £2000 by some online retailers when enquiry about Fji 50S, so I decided to keep the M. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted March 12, 2017 Share #19 Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) Back to the topic; my M9M sensor came down with the "affliction" in late '16 and when I mentioned the predicament to the dealer I work with, he offered up a little-publicized Leica scheme to swap it for a new 246 at a cost of ~US$3200. If the offer extended to a 262, I may very well have gone for it. But alas, not. I'll wait a bit longer for a QM2 M10. I've grown accustomed to the M9M in a classic-car sort of way. Edited March 12, 2017 by james.liam 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.