BerndReini Posted August 1, 2013 Share #81 Posted August 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Now if they can just leave the sensor of the M Monochrom alone, but change to whatever they did to the M shutter to get that nice dampened sound, that would make me happy. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 1, 2013 Posted August 1, 2013 Hi BerndReini, Take a look here New LEICA M vs M9 – Daylight picture RAW files comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dwbell Posted August 1, 2013 Share #82 Posted August 1, 2013 I loaded both samples into LR, did only some WB and brightness correction to match the images. put them both into Nik pre sharpener (same settings) and saw only minor differences. Would be interested in what the print differences are. Most things look the same at this size on the web. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Allsopp Posted August 1, 2013 Share #83 Posted August 1, 2013 Much appreciated, thank you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuromis Posted August 1, 2013 Share #84 Posted August 1, 2013 You're in Lausanne? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFH1022 Posted August 2, 2013 Share #85 Posted August 2, 2013 Came to this party late but after staring at the directly imported DNG pair into CS6 for a few seconds, it;s pretty clear to me M9's is sharper and far more neutral in color rendition. M9 wins in this comparison. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderin Posted August 17, 2013 Share #86 Posted August 17, 2013 Would be interested in what the print differences are. Most things look the same at this size on the web. that is true. that said, i meant that i saw minor difference looking at both images fullscreen on a 27" Monitor. Did not print the pictures large to compare that. i think it would most likely be a waste of ink. as some mentioned earlier, it does not make sense to upgrade to the new M based on IQ. you do it for the features and convenience that comes with them. or you do it just because you can to most of us photography is a hobby and aquiring new equipment is part of the fun. just my 2 cents. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woorob Posted August 17, 2013 Share #87 Posted August 17, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very helpful, thanks for taking the time to do this! The M files are indeed sharper, as I had hoped/expected. Can't wait for mine to arrive (ordered on Feb. 7). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted August 18, 2013 Share #88 Posted August 18, 2013 Thanks for the rundown. Not much of an improvement with the M over the M9. Too bad. I was expecting more the the $ It would have been great if you also had a MM to add to the show. If any of your rich guys got a MM, M240 and an M9 do a shootout between the 3 when you take a break from counting your $. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted August 18, 2013 Share #89 Posted August 18, 2013 Thanks for the rundown. Not much of an improvement with the M over the M9. Too bad. I was expecting more the the $ It would have been great if you also had a MM to add to the show. If any of your rich guys got a MM, M240 and an M9 do a shootout between the 3 when you take a break from counting your $. Yeah, that's going to happen, seeing as you asked 'them' so nicely and respectfully. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 18, 2013 Share #90 Posted August 18, 2013 If less digital noise, more resolution, less shutter noise and more accurate frame lines are not good reasons to upgrade you'd better keep your M9 folks unless you want to play with LV, video and all those sorts of things. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted August 18, 2013 Share #91 Posted August 18, 2013 If any of your rich guys got a MM, M240 and an M9 do a shootout between the 3 when you take a break from counting your $. Why? My M is for colour, the Monochrom for B&W and the M9 is now a standby camera..... john 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 18, 2013 Share #92 Posted August 18, 2013 Starting with the M9, arguably even the M8, we have definitely reached a point of diminishing returns. When I bought my M8, $4,795 got me the ability to use my M lenses on a digital rangefinder, and since I was an early adopter, a Noctilux f1 from Leica for $2,795. The M9 got me an additional stop of low-light capabilities and a full-frame sensor to use the expensive lenses the way they were intended to be used. The M240, well - I know there are improvements, but $7,000 is a lot of money. If I didn't have an M9, it would be a no-brainer, but as it is, I may wait and see what 2015 will bring. I promised myself that if I buy the M, other cameras will have to go. When I think in those terms, I would have to sell my M9, my M7, and my Hasselblad XPan to make up that sum. I've decided I will do that when a camera comes out that could replace all of them. If I was a black and white shooter, the MM would definitely fit the bill, but since I shoot color and just occasionally black and white, the M9/ film combo is still the better solution. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted August 19, 2013 Share #93 Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) If less digital noise, more resolution, less shutter noise and more accurate frame lines are not good reasons to upgrade you'd better keep your M9 folks unless you want to play with LV, video and all those sorts of things. The shutter, buffer and improved screen is all I really wanted and the they alone do not justify the upgrade premium for me. I will hang on to the M9 until a "must have" successor comes along. Or maybe Leica is releasing a slimmed down M240 reduced to traditional RF shooting and without the bells and whistles as M-E successor? Edited August 19, 2013 by Ecaton Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MirekE Posted August 19, 2013 Share #94 Posted August 19, 2013 I promised myself that if I buy the M, other cameras will have to go. When I think in those terms, I would have to sell my M9, my M7, and my Hasselblad XPan to make up that sum. I've decided I will do that when a camera comes out that could replace all of them. If I was a black and white shooter, the MM would definitely fit the bill, but since I shoot color and just occasionally black and white, the M9/ film combo is still the better solution. I think that from the perspective of finished print, the M240 can do everything that the M9, M7 and XPan can and in some ways, it can do better. Obviously, M240 can't shoot film. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 19, 2013 Share #95 Posted August 19, 2013 ...Or maybe Leica is releasing a slimmed down M240 reduced to traditional RF shooting and without the bells and whistles as M-E successor? Yes why not but i'm not sure it would have a different body then. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philosomatographer Posted October 31, 2013 Share #96 Posted October 31, 2013 Thank you for posting these. I have to say, processing them in RawTherapee with the amaze demosaicing algorithm produces some of the most stupendously sharp and rich images I have seen - what a treat. I don't own a digital leica yet - and my Olympus E-5 files with the SHG lenses easily match this performance "per-pixel" at the "equivalent" f/4.0, but of course only with 12MP and with somewhat less dynamic range and higher noise. The output of a correctly-focused digital M is truly superb... I have to agree with earlier posters that the M9 is easily 80% as good as the M Typ 240 from an image quality perspective, and all colour differences are easily remedied - especially when you process them in the LAB colour space as RawTherapee does (easy to bring certain colour casts under control without affecting other colours). Probably the most amazing of all is that we are here looking at a f/0.95 lens that, at f/8.0, does not force us to deal with a single optical compromise like we had to in the old days - what an engineering feat from Leica! Enjoy your beautifful cameras/lenses, and your beautiful location! All the best. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted November 1, 2013 Share #97 Posted November 1, 2013 Starting with the M9, arguably even the M8, we have definitely reached a point of diminishing returns. When I bought my M8, $4,795 got me the ability to use my M lenses on a digital rangefinder, and since I was an early adopter, a Noctilux f1 from Leica for $2,795. The M9 got me an additional stop of low-light capabilities and a full-frame sensor to use the expensive lenses the way they were intended to be used.The M240, well - I know there are improvements, but $7,000 is a lot of money. If I didn't have an M9, it would be a no-brainer, but as it is, I may wait and see what 2015 will bring. My M9 cost me AUD$9300 in the first half of 2010. The "Australia Tax", plus the terrible exchange rate of the time, made for a ludicrous price. But I've been incredibly happy with the M9, and taken it all over Australia and overseas. Now in its third year, it has therefore cost me $3100 per year to own and enjoy. The longer I keep it, and hold off from buying a M240 or MM, the less it will cost me, so to speak. I'm not keen to upgrade to the next generation M, but I'm very curious as to how a monochrome version would shape up. As Bernd said, we'll see what 2015 brings. And by then the M9 will cost me about $2200 per year to enjoy. Hahaha! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted November 1, 2013 Share #98 Posted November 1, 2013 I think that from the perspective of finished print, the M240 can do everything that the M9, M7 and XPan can and in some ways, it can do better. Obviously, M240 can't shoot film. It can't shoot film. Exactly. I shoot mostly black and white film with the XPan, and if you think for one second that a severely cropped M240 file will look anything than TMax400 with the XPan, you must be talking about wallet size prints. The MM vs. M7 might be a fair contest, but the M240 vs. XPan? Never. Btw. I just saw the new Sumo version of Salgado's "Genesis" at a store. Some of the prints made from 35mm negatives are mind-blowing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
}{B Posted November 1, 2013 Share #99 Posted November 1, 2013 I've been reading this thread with great interest as someone who is still using film but feels that the time is approaching when digital will be the future for my M fit lenses. The DNG files were a great help and confirmed my feeling that paying for the extra features of the M240 over the M-E would not make sense for me. For landscape work I wanted to see what could be brought out in the sky rather than the detail in the buildings and so I've reworked the originals. The treatment is slightly different in that the M240 is warmer while the M9 has a cooler look. 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! M240 M9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! M240 M9 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/200215-new-leica-m-vs-m9-%E2%80%93-daylight-picture-raw-files-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=2455441'>More sharing options...
Leonil Posted November 1, 2013 Share #100 Posted November 1, 2013 I've been reading this thread with great interest as someone who is still using film but feels that the time is approaching when digital will be the future for my M fit lenses. The DNG files were a great help and confirmed my feeling that paying for the extra features of the M240 over the M-E would not make sense for me. For landscape work I wanted to see what could be brought out in the sky rather than the detail in the buildings and so I've reworked the originals. The treatment is slightly different in that the M240 is warmer while the M9 has a cooler look. [ATTACH]406132[/ATTACH] M240 [ATTACH]406133[/ATTACH] M9 I quite like the warm colour of the 240 in the clouds - maybe its just the kind of colour I love seeing. Thanks for sharing the comparison. 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.