Jump to content

Reid Reviews M, M9 and Monochrom Files Compared


MarkP

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From Sean's side-by-side studio comparison, I'd say his conclusions are objective and fair.

 

I was expecting the image quality from the M240 to be more of an improvement over the M9 than Sean's results revealed, so was a little disappointed. OK, so the DR and higher iso performance are better, but I would have been Very surprised if they were not.

 

I was also expecting the M240 to be a closer rival to the MM. Sean's review revealed a greater difference between the MM vs. M240 than M240 vs. M9. When the MM was first released, I wasnt sure if it would live up to the hype, but Sean's latest comparison has proved me wrong. If I were to shoot 100% b&w, the MM would be my number one choice

Edited by andyedward
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree. The reviews have made me realize just how good the M9 is! (And the Monochrom is still king of B&W!)

 

Same here.

 

The M240 is simply a sidestep at the start of a new generation, the next one being the one to save up for.

 

You have to wonder who generated the hype for the M240. To my mind it was simply wish list's being treated as fact. In many ways the purest and highest image quality from a Leica M camera is still the MM, and not many people thought that would still be the case a few weeks ago, before true in-depth reviews appeared of the M240.

 

Steve

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here.

 

The M240 is simply a sidestep at the start of a new generation, the next one being the one to save up for.

 

You have to wonder who generated the hype for the M240. To my mind it was simply wish list's being treated as fact. In many ways the purest and highest image quality from a Leica M camera is still the MM, and not many people thought that would still be the case a few weeks ago, before true in-depth reviews appeared of the M240.

 

Steve

 

HI Steve

I think this depends on whether you're interested in the camera solely on the basis of image quality. With respect to image quality the M only offers 1.5 stops ISO advantage over the M9, with a little more dynamic range advantage. Personally I've done a lot of satisfactory 'real life' shots with the M at 4000 ISO and 6400 ISO - I never liked to go over 1250 with the M9.

 

I would have thought that everybody KNEW that the MM would still represent the highest image quality (for black and white) - having removed the Bayer filter and the demosaicing. The idea that a new sensor could sidestep this radical advantage would have been optimistic indeed! I was actually rather surprised that Sean's comparisons between the MM and the M at high ISO in monochrome were so close - I think he was as well.

 

But as well as the ISO and DR advantages there are real and considerable operational advantages in the M240 when shot in rangefinder mode:

 

  • shutter noise (less than an M6 - we tested it)
  • shutter lag
  • buffer
  • LCD
  • write times
  • ergonomics
  • weather-sealing

 

. . . and that's just off the top of my head.

Edited by jonoslack
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • shutter noise (less than an M6 - we tested it)
  • shutter lag
  • buffer
  • LCD
  • write times
  • ergonomics
  • weather-sealing

 

. . . and that's just off the top of my head.

 

Plus extended battery life, 2m frame lines and illuminated frame lines. Not to mention, for b/w work, the flexibility of being able to use color channels with PP.

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reviews have made me realize just how good the M9 is! (And the Monochrom is still king of B&W!)

 

And indeed it is (and the MM is).

 

And for b/w, Sean has discussed the potential advantages of the M8.2 over the M9 for b/w (along with his desired 2m frame lines).

 

I'm encouraged that the M240 may offer potential benefits over the M8.2 b/w output, even though obviously not as technically up to the MM standard, while offering all the other benefits Jono (and I) mention, and that's just for traditional M RF photography, not the other add-ons or the obvious ability to produce color.

 

At the end of the day, though, all of these cameras are capable of producing stellar pics in the right hands, and with a properly dedicated workflow; there is far more to the print than the camera. Kudos to Leica for giving us some terrific choices. Different strokes.

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And indeed it is (and the MM is).

 

And for b/w, Sean has discussed the potential advantages of the M8.2 over the M9 for b/w (along with his desired 2m frame lines).

 

I'm encouraged that the M240 may offer potential benefits over the M8.2 b/w output, even though obviously not as technically up to the MM standard, while offering all the other benefits Jono (and I) mention, and that's just for traditional M RF photography, not the other add-ons or the obvious ability to produce color.

 

At the end of the day, though, all of these cameras are capable of producing stellar pics in the right hands, and with a properly dedicated workflow; there is far more to the print than the camera. Kudos to Leica for giving us some terrific choices. Different strokes.

 

Jeff

 

True Jeff! Even more exciting is that the entry point for Leica is getting less and less. Just 2 years ago M8s were going for $3k which is still quite high for a lot of folks. Now, you are looking at under $1.5k for an M8 plus 3rd party glass and you have some great not-so-expensive options. As long as you don't want to shoot in darkness at high ISO, these are good times for new users of Leica to jump on board!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI Steve

I think this depends on whether you're interested in the camera solely on the basis of image quality. With respect to image quality the M only offers 1.5 stops ISO advantage over the M9, with a little more dynamic range advantage

But as well as the ISO and DR advantages there are real and considerable operational advantages in the M240 when shot in rangefinder mode:

 

  • shutter noise (less than an M6 - we tested it)
  • shutter lag
  • buffer
  • LCD
  • write times
  • ergonomics
  • weather-sealing

 

. . . and that's just off the top of my head.

 

So why change the sensor?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So why change the sensor?

 

Why not change it? CMOS does not seem to have any deleterious effect on IQ. There is better high iso performance. There is the ability to use an EVF and live view. Plus there seems to be more choices for Leica for supply of CMOS. I thought CCD vs CMOS would be a bigger issue. The reviews so far indicate that the change to CMOS is a net gain.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not change it? CMOS does not seem to have any deleterious effect on IQ. There is better high iso performance. There is the ability to use an EVF and live view. Plus there seems to be more choices for Leica for supply of CMOS. I thought CCD vs CMOS would be a bigger issue. The reviews so far indicate that the change to CMOS is a net gain.

 

Curious (because I don't know)...why is medium format CCD only?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be perfectly honest, I let my subscription to Sean's site lapse.

 

I use an iPad for browsing such reports offline. If I pay for content, I expect to be able to read it at my leisure. I had an email exchange with Sean over this, and he is sticking with Flash, which counts me out. His site is so unpleasant to use (slow, black, hard to read), it is a deal killer for me.

 

Now, had the content been better, I might have persisted. This may be unpopular, but I find his flat, murky mid-tone images of the backs of people's heads uninformative. He writes a lot about his testing parameters (which I would skip), then draws conclusions which started to have a bit of sameness about them, from my reading.

 

I have found Jono's, Chris Tribble's and Ming Thein's comments (and Tim Ashley's as well) more informative, with images that better illustrate (to my eye) the point being made, and less bloated with uninformative self congratulation (claiming credit for the philosophy behind the M, or was it the Monochrom, I forget - who cares?).

 

This review sounds interesting in principle, but I know what I would find if I re-subscribed for it - pictures I find lacklustre and text which does not really draw sufficiently informative conclusions. I won't miss it.

 

Cheers

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brett

Well I would have thought that 1.5 stops ISO, noticeably better dynamic range and a much "flatter" design to stop colour shifts with WA lenses was a good enough reason.

 

Wouldn't you?

 

As you said earlier: "I think this depends on whether you're interested in the camera solely on the basis of image quality. With respect to image quality the M only offers 1.5 stops ISO advantage over the M9, with a little more dynamic range advantage." ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said earlier: "I think this depends on whether you're interested in the camera solely on the basis of image quality. With respect to image quality the M only offers 1.5 stops ISO advantage over the M9, with a little more dynamic range advantage." ?

 

Hi Brett

I was being vague as usual. (And possibly a little ironic). I'll be direct:

I think that 1.5 stops ISO higher dynamic range and less colour shifts is reason enough for the new camera.

I think that a much quieter shutter, faster operation, weather sealing and a delicious silky two stage shutter release are also reason enough for the new camera (separately)

I meant that I don't agree with Steve's remark that this is just a sidestep.

I think it's a radical and desirable upgrade.

There! Perhaps I should stop being so oblique :)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it's not just about image quality.

 

Sure, it's great and appreciated that the CMOSIS sensor allows somewhat better high ISO performance, wider dynamic range and is somewhat higher resolution too. Of more interest to me is the apparently much better handling of wide angle lenses and less edge colour shift as a result. But that's me and a primary reason I got into the M system - the wide angle lenses.

 

I semi-reluctantly decided to bite the bullet and upgrade from the Canon 1DIV to the 1DX, despite the drop in pixel density (and therefore loss of reach for my telephoto work). On paper the 1Dx's specs didn't look all that impressive. But I was wrong. In use, the extra 2fps, the responsiveness of the camera, the much deeper buffer, the greatly improved AF array, consistency and accuracy. In the end, for what I need to use that camera for, my production increased about 50%. I had to use the camera to come to this realization.

 

I look at the M240 similarly. On paper it's difficult to quantify the usefulness of the functional differences/improvements. It will come down to actual use. This is where MT's and Jono's recently posted reviews have been very helpful, because they've confirmed that the spec sheet changes are quantifiable improvements to the handling of the camera in real-world situations. That's where I've had the greatest frustrations with the M9, such as hitting the buffer and having to wait seemingly forever for the next shot to clear. I'm actually quite content with 18MP, so additional resolution and other aspects of 'improved image quality' aren't such critical drivers for me. Should these changes instead been in an M9.2 about a year ago? Perhaps, but we'll never get everything we want every time.

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...