Comparison of M9 and M240

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I could follow the first half of your math, but you lost me with the USD 15k pricing for a M....

 

Oops, drop a zero, huh. It is all just silly entertainment while I wait for my M. My dealer hasn't even received one camera yet. I'm beginning to think my dealer is the Rodney Dangerfield of Leica dealers.

[pieterpronk]

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

 

Oh, by that same logic I would like to wait with buying a 6000 euro camera until there's something sufficiently ready for review and comparison.

 

And my worry isn't so much if it is a significant leap from the M9. As I don't own one. But at the moment I have not seen any photography coming from the M10 that has made me want it. That worries me.

To my eyes, the files still look flat and exactly like Canon or Nikon. Also I find it to look less crisp and sharp than the M9 (megapixels can't make up the loss of sharpness imo). I see horrendous faults when it deals with blown out colored lights (watercolor effects). And the colors and the WB arent even done yet. To be honest, I don't think it matches the M9 colors at all. Or the M8 colors. And let me add that the B&W that I have seen all look very digital to my eyes. Much more so than the M8 (or the M9).

 

Really, the ergonomics are very nice. I'd like the 1.3 iso upgrade (which isn't much), the battery increase, the quiet shutter, and the better screen. And LV and the other stuff, while I feel they aren't too well implemented, I don't care about.

But up until now I see flatness, weird skin colors, boring colors without any subtlety, a lack of sharpness (which some try to cover with excessive sharpening). I dislike the way it puts too much emphasis on reflections (it looks glossy to my eyes) and I find basically no real character.

 

I just don't think the ergonomics are enough. "Wait until you handle one" seems to be what many of owners are saying, as if that's the main reason for the purchase. Well for me, handling is not enough. I need to feel inspired by the camera "Let's see what the M10 sees today!" but right now it seems quite a boring partner to viewing the world.

 

Basically I'd like to be impressed a little more by the camera. But hey, with the MM it took me a long time to see it as well, so it can still happen. Every camera has it's own character (even the M8 is different from the M9), and I'm waiting to see the character of the M10. So I need more information. That means reviews and more pictures. And a "sufficiently ready camera for review".

 

Lastly, let me add that when I consider a lens, I just put the flickr group of that lens on play. And for a long while I watch countless of pictures slide by. And after a long while I start to see patterns and characteristics. I start to see what the lens is good at.

But for the M10 the Flickrstream is just too short, so to speak. I find pictures everywhere, but the noise is still to high, with some hideous straight ooc jpegs thrown in, some using older firmware and LR profiles. Other using newer. Some reviewers (like Ming Thein) using too much postprocessing to show anything of the real power of the M10. I just can't lock into the "feeling" of the M10, and I'm afraid it might not really have any.

 

To turn my point into a positive one: Maybe we should share a story about which picture(s) sold you on the camera? Which picture(s) said "YES! I want to make pictures like that." to you, and made you put down the money for one?

[StephenPatterson]

I'd like the 1.3 iso upgrade (which isn't much), the battery increase, the quiet shutter, and the better screen...

 

To turn my point into a positive one: Maybe we should share a story about which picture(s) sold you on the camera? Which picture(s) said "YES! I want to make pictures like that." to you, and made you put down the money for one?

 

The ISO improvement over the M9 is closer to 2 full stops, IMHO. With the M9 I never liked going over 1000, but with the M(240) ISO3200 is very good.

 

Jono Slack's images from the ski trip to Italy, as well as his commentary, convinced me that this camera is a winner and that I didn't want to pass up the opportunity to get one. The greater dynamic range is amazing, as are the files. The ergonomics overall are an improvement over the M9, and while I would like the option to reprogram some buttons and features (The M button for movies, for instance) it's easy to pick up an M(240) and shoot it exactly like an M9. However if you want LV, focus peaking and the rest it's all there.

[don daniel]

And my worry isn't so much if it is a significant leap from the M9. As I don't own one. But at the moment I have not seen any photography coming from the M10 that has made me want it. That worries me.

To my eyes, the files still look flat and exactly like Canon or Nikon. Also I find it to look less crisp and sharp than the M9 (megapixels can't make up the loss of sharpness imo). I see horrendous faults when it deals with blown out colored lights (watercolor effects). And the colors and the WB arent even done yet. To be honest, I don't think it matches the M9 colors at all.

 

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I was just about to ask you to post some more convincing pics out of your M9 than those from Ming Thein's review of the the new M when I read that you don't have an M9 but seem to compare the sharpness and the colors of the files to those of the new M that you do not really know either.

 

I have used the M9, a wonderful camera, and own now the new M. The colors of these two cameras are different in Lightroom, but they need both some additional work. If new ISO performance is worth an upgrade you'll have to decide on your own. But I can assure you that the files of the new M don't need more sharpening than those of the M9 and in addition to that they don't show as much noise.

[pieterpronk]

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I was just about to ask you to post some more convincing pics out of your M9 than those from Ming Thein's review of the the new M when I read that you don't have an M9 but seem to compare the sharpness and the colors of the files to those of the new M that you do not really know either.

.

 

So on the one hand you would like to compare my pictures with the low/medium resolution jpgs that Ming Thein has posted with my own M9 produced jpgs, and somehow even at low res this comparison is perfectly valid. While on the other hand you tell me I can't compare my preferences (or the full M9 DNG files) with the full M10 DNG files that I have downloaded because I don't own the camera?

Why can you compare jpgs from me and Ming Thein and somehow discern if my opinions about the M10 are valid (how these two relate eludes me btw), while I cannot make up my own preferences by comparing dng's from different camera's in Lightroom, just because I don't own them?

 

Anyway, we digress. This isn't about me. Let's get back to comparing M9 and M10 image quality. And I'm perfectly fine with leaving this up to people that make better pictures than Ming Thein, or people who own both camera's, but please let's have some more comparisons!

[IWC Doppel]

I have tried the M twice, but only a few snaps. The 'extra's' for me would need time to assess (EVF, LV etc), but don't attract me. I have zero interest in video, I know that as I have a dedicated video camera that gets zero use and my old GF1 has been used about twice for this, when I first got it..... however many years ago. My interest was to look at how the new M, the M10 performs, the analogy being 'I want to test drive the new M3, the new 911 GT3 even if I can only really justify changing in 12+ months time'. So for me I may be less objective, subconsciously looking for reasons for my M9 to be better, as I needed to be blown away to be purchasing in 2013 in any event.

 

But.....

 

For me the handling, shutter noise is not of significant interest. The M9 is fine for me in this respect, its all about the IQ and rendering. The AWB of the new M is a little embarrassing, but who cares I am sure Leica will sort this. The 'look' and rendering in good light is seemingly more different than in low light. I have looked at the images in LR4 and endeavoured to match and you can get close, but again for me with the very, very limited assessment the M9 has a look I like, the M somehow misses this. There are a lot of processed, unprocessed images out there that show this, in a fashion. I don't need the M, or perhaps even want the M to look like the M9, I have one of those, I want it to look better, more enchanting more 'real' more 'inspirational'. the fact that my starting point is to see what I might do to get the files to look like the M9 says a lot to me personally.

 

I look forward to Erwin's analysis and Thorsten's ongoing review and of course members feedback. But I don't think I will be getting the M in 2014 or 2015.

 

My gut on this, is that the M for me will be as good in low light (not high ISO), better at high ISO (obvious, I know, seemingly 1.5 stops or so), but will lose some of the magic of the M9 and sensor/processing qualities.

 

I also look forward to more reviews and particularly B&W comparisons to the M9 and MM (And possible M8). I so want this camera to be a big success, I don't want to listen to the non Lieca fraternity pigeonholing the new M as a rich-mans toy.

[Don Morley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think some of you have more money than sense. I.E. Like big kids MUST have whatever is latest maybe rather than on just concentrating on taking better pictures with whatever camera you already have. Happens every time Leica brings out something new and good luck to them for they must rubb hands with glee in knowing all they only have to do is bring out another one in a different colour to con, sorry, loosen your purses strings yet again!

[Hicks]

I think it's difficult to make judgement based on a relatively small number of pictures available at the moment and the fact that there is clearly some rough edges to be polished.

 

Not every picture I take has that Leica magic or is truly representative of what the camera is capable of. With the new M i have seen a number of comparisons where I prefer the M9 but then again there are pictures where I prefer the M.

 

I'll set my stall out. I'm in the market for a new Leica M mount rangefinder. Having started wiith a Leica M6 on film I then moved into the Canon world for digital. However about a year ago I bought an M8 to see if the hype was true and have hardly picked up my 5D2 since!

 

Since i started loving the M8's handling and image look I've been looking at something that will improve on its less impressive aspects. So I want the new M to be amazing, to deliver the image look of the m8/9 but bring it up to date in terms of screen, speed, battery life, etc.

 

However so far it's a big HMmmmmmmm!

 

For me image look is most important (note I use the word 'look' not 'quality', other cameras like my 5D2 deliver quality images, it's just that I have grown to dislike their look). I don't need to see high resolution images either to make judgements. I think the things that make Leica images special can be seen without pixel peeping, if you need to look that close you are not seeing the big picture

 

So I will watch and give the new M time to develop but I don't need another Canon so if it doesn't I will buy an M9P.

 

JEREMY HICKS

[pieterpronk]

Let's not go into the psychology of buying a Leica, or the psychology of deciding not to buy a Leica, or even the psychology of making remarks about other people deciding to buy a Leica. I doubt any of us know each other enough to analyse each other in that way.

[Guest malland]

...but please let's have some more comparisons!

No point in more comparisons until there are good M240 profiles for LR4 and, perhaps, the firmware is improved, for better color rendering. Almost everything I've seen from the M240 DNG files is so weirdly yellowish.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[don daniel]

So on the one hand you would like to compare my pictures with the low/medium resolution jpgs that Ming Thein has posted with my own M9 produced jpgs, and somehow even at low res this comparison is perfectly valid. While on the other hand you tell me I can't compare my preferences (or the full M9 DNG files) with the full M10 DNG files that I have downloaded because I don't own the camera?

Why can you compare jpgs from me and Ming Thein and somehow discern if my opinions about the M10 are valid (how these two relate eludes me btw), while I cannot make up my own preferences by comparing dng's from different camera's in Lightroom, just because I don't own them?

 

Anyway, we digress. This isn't about me. Let's get back to comparing M9 and M10 image quality. And I'm perfectly fine with leaving this up to people that make better pictures than Ming Thein, or people who own both camera's, but please let's have some more comparisons!

 

Don't only look at the pictures on Ming Thein's site but read what he and others have written who already had the chance to use a new M extensively. Let me put it this way: There is a difference between looking at your own shots which were taken under circumstances you know and files provided by others. But you can choose which way is really reliable for your decisions.

[rirakuma]

Mitch I strongly agree with you on this, many people are complaining about AWB but I think the problem with color profile is much more serious. AWB can be corrected in RAW but if corrected pictures are still stained with yellows and pinks its very disappointing.

 

There's not many reviews or pictures of the new M and I'd much rather see a set of impressive images from the M rather than comparisons of it against the M9. There's only been a few images from the M that has really impressed me and I think John Buckley's picture of the three scout girl is probably on top of my list.

 

Btw pieterpronk, you mentioned the M's pictures are not as crisp as M9 and I agree with you on this. It does make a hint of difference even without pixel peeping but I believe this is a character of the new sensor and is not "fixable" via firmware. I'm still keen for the new M though and I personally think the ergonomics upgrades are very important. Many of the changes are very welcomed including the bigger LCD and quieter shutter.

 

No point in more comparisons until there are good M240 profiles for LR4 and, perhaps, the firmware is improved, for better color rendering. Almost everything I've seen from the M240 DNG files is so weirdly yellowish.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[Jeff S]

Oh, by that same logic I would like to wait with buying a 6000 euro camera until there's something sufficiently ready for review and comparison.

 

I wouldn't judge a camera, regardless of price, based on ANY review. When the camera, and related software/firmware, is ready, I'll rent or borrow one to make my own prints using my own subject matter and draw my own conclusions.

 

The rest makes for interesting web entertainment. I do appreciate, though, that there are early adopters, because my approach wouldn't work without them.

 

BYW, your comment about Ming Thein using too much PP is especially amusing. I wouldn't know how to make a wonderful print without making myriad decisions throughout the entire chain from camera to print, including countless PP decisions. And you'd have no idea about the camera used, let alone all the other factors and decisions that went into the final print. Digital Ms (from the M8 to the MM) have robust enough files to allow broad flexibility for extremely varied print interpretations. And that's true even without considering subject matter, lighting conditions, lens choice, papers, inks, profiles, etc, etc.

 

Jeff

[BerndReini]

The ISO improvement over the M9 is closer to 2 full stops, IMHO. With the M9 I never liked going over 1000, but with the M(240) ISO3200 is very good.

 

I would say that the 1.3 improvement in ISO is accurate if you want to be objective. I think ISO 1000 on the M9 is pretty good and 1600 ok in perfect circumstances. It seems that with the M ISO 2500 is good and 3200 can show banding unless everything is just right, so that comes out to 1.3 stops.

 

A 2 stop improvement would be like saying that the M at ISO 4000 is as reliably "good" as the M9 at ISO 1000, and I doubt that is the case.

 

Btw. after handling an M, I can honestly say that I would pay $2,000 if I could get my M9 upgraded to the new frame lines, screen, and shutter. I think I could then happily shoot with my M9 for a couple more years without even thinking about the M.

[StephenPatterson]

I believe ISO3200 is very comparable to ISO800 in the M9, hence my two stop observation. YMMV.

[macjonny1]

I believe ISO3200 is very comparable to ISO800 in the M9' date=' hence my two stop observation. YMMV.[/quote']

 

It's closer to 1.3 if you want to look at objective reviews is what he was saying (e.g Sean Reid etc) where side by side data is available. For me, ISO 2500 is fine on the m9 and I'm sure I'd be happy with 6400 on the M but my standards are lower than others.

[algrove]

Lastly, let me add that when I consider a lens, I just put the flickr group of that lens on play. And for a long while I watch countless of pictures slide by. And after a long while I start to see patterns and characteristics. I start to see what the lens is good at.

But for the M10 the Flickrstream is just too short, so to speak. I find pictures everywhere, but the noise is still to high, with some hideous straight ooc jpegs thrown in, some using older firmware and LR profiles. Other using newer. Some reviewers (like Ming Thein) using too much postprocessing to show anything of the real power of the M10. I just can't lock into the "feeling" of the M10, and I'm afraid it might not really have any.

 

I have never looked at Flicker and would not post my best photos ANYWHERE on line. Good gosh, some guy found one of my Leica R-M adapter Photokina images on a "dealers" website without my copyright symbol and name. That was just an info shot in B&W.

 

s---RGB is IMHO no way to judge anything. It is S--t. Go to a dealer with an M demo, take an SD card, shoot DNG, go back home, download and then judge for yourself with YOUR own images, not someone else's. You may find after all the effort, you saved yourself Euros6K. On the other hand you may have opened your mind up a little to the real world.

[algrove]

I think some of you have more money than sense. I.E. Like big kids MUST have whatever is latest maybe rather than on just concentrating on taking better pictures with whatever camera you already have. Happens every time Leica brings out something new and good luck to them for they must rubb hands with glee in knowing all they only have to do is bring out another one in a different colour to con, sorry, loosen your purses strings yet again!

 

So BIG KIDS are people who have kept their R lenses? Horses for courses.

 

Did it ever dawn on you that some people might have eye problems and prefer the small form factor of the M (whatever model)? Upon noticing that the RF is better (I am not sure in which way, but it is for me) plus being able to easily use my treasured KIDS TOYS called R lenses on a Leica does not even come close to having the "whatever is latest", but instead whatever is the most useful for me is what I consider is important. I did not buy the M8 and only bought the M9 because of FF, which was my first digital camera after nearly 50 years of traveling the world and photographing the world. Horses for courses.

 

I think the KID in us shows one's real self every day in these posts, like the one quoted above.

[Jeff S]

s---RGB is IMHO no way to judge anything. It is S--t. Go to a dealer with an M demo, take an SD card, shoot DNG, go back home, download and then judge for yourself with YOUR own images, not someone else's. You may find after all the effort, you saved yourself Euros6K. On the other hand you may have opened your mind up a little to the real world.

 

+1

 

And then one can spend years learning and developing an overall print workflow to show how camera changes contribute relatively small distinctions, in many circumstances, compared to the other relevant variables.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[photomeme]

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

 

If you think the Blackstone investment won't mean significant changes in Leica's business practices, you don't know what you're talking about. I speak as someone who's done business deals with the Blackstone Group.

 

I'd take that bet, the winner buying the camera for the other, but I'm precluded by contract, sorry.

 

Look for a 2014 calendar announcement of a sensor upgraded Leica M. That means up to two years and a couple of months after the M240 announcement.

 

If you think that's so unlikely you'd bet $6000+ against it, you don't know Blackstone.