Tim Ashley M(240) Review

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...That comment I made in that review sums up my opinion, and I feel perfectly entitled to share that opinion. ....

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I didn't find any comment here which says you are not.

 

If we read read opinions like yours - and I think they were written down to be read - we have the choice to say: I have read something and so it must be true. We can also take the choice to say: Oh that's interesting; I never heard of it before. And we can ask on which observations and information anything we read about is based.

 

When you wrote about the focus shift of the 35mm Summilux asph years ago, we could read many observations here which said: This is not true because I never observed it. Others said: it is no issue with chrome versions - I have seen it with black versions, but never with any chome one.

 

When there have been new firmware versions for the M8 and M9 in the past, we generally could read the observations here from people who said: response for high ISO has been improved and/or the the display's resolution has been improved.

 

I don't think that those who wrote this were just pretending and I don't ask about their motives for writing about chrome lenses without focus-shift or improvements of the display by firmware. We could only try to ask how they came to their statements and try ourselves if we see the same. With focus-shift for chrome lenses we could also try to explain that this is an effect based on optical laws and has nothing to do with the material of the lens housing. There was never any obligation to take these explanations for granted.

 

So I am looking forward to learn more about the improvements of the rangefinder for the M. I'd be glad if there were any and I am rather sure that I have no motives to conceal them if they exist.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tashley]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I didn't find any comment here which says you are not.

 

If we read read opinions like yours - and I think they were written down to be read - we have the choice to say: I have read something and so it must be true. We can also take the choice to say: Oh that's interesting; I never heard of it before. And we can ask on which observations and information anything we read about is based.

 

When you wrote about the focus shift of the 35mm Summilux asph years ago, we could read many observations here which said: This is not true because I never observed it. Others said: it is no issue with chrome versions - I have seen it with black versions, but never with any chome one.

 

When there have been new firmware versions for the M8 and M9 in the past, we generally could read the observations here from people who said: response for high ISO has been improved and/or the the display's resolution has been improved.

 

I don't think that those who wrote this were just pretending and I don't ask about their motives for writing about chrome lenses without focus-shift or improvements of the display by firmware. We could only try to ask how they came to their statements and try ourselves if we see the same. With focus-shift for chrome lenses we could also try to explain that this is an effect based on optical laws and has nothing to do with the material of the lens housing. There was never any obligation to take these explanations for granted.

 

So I am looking forward to learn more about the improvements of the rangefinder for the M. I'd be glad if there were any and I am rather sure that I have no motives to conceal them if they exist.

 

Uli, I am sorry, no criticism was meant of your response at all and I have no disagreement with you! I was answering user 120, who seemed to be questioning things I had not said, referring to articles I have no intention of writing and miscellaneously seeming to shoot at wrong targets. Yes I do write these things to be read - I realised last year that I was purchasing and testing a lot of gear for my own purposes and then writing about my findings on forums, then not being able to later find what I had written or where! So I decided to put it all in one place and share it with anyone who is interested. It's a good discipline and it is a useful reference source for me, and many people seem to like it because, being totally uncommercial (no subscription, no support, no click-thru revenue) it can be trusted to be independent of any sponsorship or partner considerations. Of course it can't be any more free of bias than I am myself - and I try to be as unbiased as humanly possible.

 

One area where I really have a problem with what 102 wrote is the idea that a reviewer shouldn't write something unless it is verified with the manufacturer. I and many people have spent the past year fighting with the autofocus system on the Nikon D800 and an awful lot of those cameras have been returned for refund or repair, but Nikon has never publicly acknowledged that there is a problem. To me that is a great example of why reviewers, amateur or professional, should voice their opinions and findings, as long as they are raesonable, without having to have them tested against what a manufacturer will or will not admit or confirm...

[pnoble]

Tim,

 

Yours are by far the best reviews that I have read. Insightful and informative, but also bloody well written!

 

Thanks!!

 

Paul

[120]

...please show me where I have stated or implied that it is coupled to anything other than the lens's focus distance via a cam...

 

These statements and others made no sense to me

 

"...the rangefinder knows how to focus this lens so as not to be fooled by its slight residual focus shift--and in a very precise manner..."

 

"...focussing wide open and then stopping down before shooting seems to give better results"

 

and I am not the only one who commented.

 

Again, I will relay that head of Leica service told me there is no new rangefinder.

 

Yes, I read the 35 Summilux thread at the time.

[tashley]

These statements and others made no sense to me

 

"...the rangefinder knows how to focus this lens so as not to be fooled by its slight residual focus shift--and in a very precise manner..."

 

"...focussing wide open and then stopping down before shooting seems to give better results"

 

and I am not the only one who commented.

 

Again, I will relay that head of Leica service told me there is no new rangefinder.

 

Yes, I read the 35 Summilux thread at the time.

 

Yes, I see your point: they seem rather hard to interpret out of context, especially the first one. I Hope however that reading the entire paragraph might help you clarify my meaning, and the extent of the claim I am making. For your convenience I will paste it below:

 

"Another interesting thing about the rangefinder, and this might just be luck rather than RF judgement, but when shooting my normal 'harbourside' series of tests shots, I ran several focus bracketed series on the 35 Lux FLE (against the Sony RX-1 but that is another story for another day) and with the particular set that I focussed once, wide open with the rangefinder and then shot at every full stop from there without changing focus, I got better edges than in the set where I used the EVF to re-focus after every change of aperture. To me this means that the RF 'knows' how to focus this lens so as not to be fooled by its slight residual focus shift - and in a very precise manner; whereas the EVF merely chooses the best focus at each aperture on centre, thereby shifting the field of focus as the lens exhibits slight focus shift. This makes no notable diffence to the sharpness on centre but it does have a bad effect on the edges, probably due to field curvature. I will test more for this with other lenses and report back."

 

You will need to be very familiar with concepts such as field curvature, field of focus and focus shift in order to get my full meaning, and also to be familiar with the language of 'provisional findings' and 'interesting observations that need more investigation'. I am afraid that I do tend, for the sake of brevity, not to explain every concept as I write! The piece was quite long enough already and I am also writing for people who are reasonably expert without having doctorates in optics and sensor design. Mainly because I have neither myself

[k-hawinkler]

Yes, I see your point: they seem rather hard to interpret out of context, especially the first one. I Hope however that reading the entire paragraph might help you clarify my meaning, and the extent of the claim I am making. For your convenience I will paste it below:

 

"Another interesting thing about the rangefinder, and this might just be luck rather than RF judgement, but when shooting my normal 'harbourside' series of tests shots, I ran several focus bracketed series on the 35 Lux FLE (against the Sony RX-1 but that is another story for another day) and with the particular set that I focussed once, wide open with the rangefinder and then shot at every full stop from there without changing focus, I got better edges than in the set where I used the EVF to re-focus after every change of aperture. To me this means that the RF 'knows' how to focus this lens so as not to be fooled by its slight residual focus shift - and in a very precise manner; whereas the EVF merely chooses the best focus at each aperture on centre, thereby shifting the field of focus as the lens exhibits slight focus shift. This makes no notable diffence to the sharpness on centre but it does have a bad effect on the edges, probably due to field curvature. I will test more for this with other lenses and report back."

 

You will need to be very familiar with concepts such as field curvature, field of focus and focus shift in order to get my full meaning, and also to be familiar with the language of 'provisional findings' and 'interesting observations that need more investigation'. I am afraid that I do tend, for the sake of brevity, not to explain every concept as I write! The piece was quite long enough already and I am also writing for people who are reasonably expert without having doctorates in optics and sensor design. Mainly because I have neither myself

 

 

Hi Tim,

 

Thanks.

Hmm, how did you rule out the explanation that the increased DOF with stopping down might not have permitted you to precisely focus with the EVF? You could do the same with the EVF, focus wide open, keep that focus, and stop down. What do you find for that case?

 

Also, how did you focus with the EVF? Using magnification? Or focus peaking? On a tripod I presume.

[tashley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Tim,

 

Thanks.

Hmm, how did you rule out the explanation that the increased DOF with stopping down might not have permitted you to precisely focus with the EVF? You could do the same with the EVF, focus wide open, keep that focus, and stop down. What do you find for that case?

 

I think that is an issue - but actually with the EVF you don't have a choice because assuming that the EVF is perfectly in agreement with the RF (which mine seems to be) then doing as you suggest (which I also did) gives the same result as just using the RF. The usefulness of the EVF should partly be in allowing one to focus at the shooting aperture, thereby avoiding the risk of lenses with slight focus shift that you 'lose' focus as you stop down. But as you say, the increasing DOF makes it hard to get choose focus even when fully magnified and this is especially true on the Olympus (and I assume Leica!) unit which has less resolution than the Sony RX-1 version. However, I am reasonably confident that this is not the only factor because the behaviour was very consistent between frames and series, implying that I was indeed getting 'best' (or close to) central focus at each aperture with the EVF.

 

Even wide open, the lens has some (narrow) DOF and my working hypothesis is that the RF is now so finely calibrated that it chooses that exact point within that DOF (much as I can do with AF Fine Tune on my Nikon lenses) such that as the lens stops down, the known manner in which focus shift and shape and depth of focus field develop at increasingly small apertures is best catered to. It's a very refined piece of engineering if I am right.

 

I am working on the 35 Lux FLE article at the moment and will have some examples. I am sure between all of us, we can work it out!

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Tim, I am looking forward to your more detailed findings and, no doubt, the vigorous discussion that will follow.

 

Well, I have shot quite a bit various M-, V-, and R-lenses with NEX-5N, NEX-7, and OM-D E-M5, the latter two lens groups mostly on tripod.

I prefer focus with magnification wide open and then stopping down if I need more DOF.

BTW, the EVF in the OM-D E-M5 I have set to operate at 120Hz, something that cannot be done with the M240.

[wattsy]

my working hypothesis is that the RF is now so finely calibrated that it chooses that exact point within that DOF ...such that as the lens stops down, the known manner in which focus shift and shape and depth of focus field develop at increasingly small apertures is best catered to. It's a very refined piece of engineering if I am right.

 

It's a nice idea – and would indeed be a refined piece of engineering – but I don't believe Leica grind the lens focussing cam (or shim the lens) to a fine enough tolerance for this to work (at least out of the box). I've owned two 35 FLE lenses and, whilst both have avoided a trip back to Solms for adjustment, they exhibited somewhat different focussing characteristics or adjustment (the first was okay but had the DOF biased behind the point of RF focus, my current example is spot on, with a decent proportion of the DOF in front of the RF focus point). I recently (last week) bought a new 75 Summicron that has immediately gone back to Solms for adjustment (Mayfair client care agreed with me that it was front-focussing). I tried an ex-demo 75 Summicron whilst I was in Café Optik which, whilst not perfect, was better calibrated than the one I had bought. There just seems to be too much variation in these lenses for your theory (if I understand it correctly) to reliably work.

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Tim,

 

I'm a huge fan of your site, and very grateful you take the time to make your observations available to enthusiastic amateurs (without venturing into the vegetable garden in the process).

 

This comment did catch my eye.

 

"Another interesting thing about the rangefinder, and this might just be luck rather than RF judgement, but when shooting my normal 'harbourside' series of tests shots, I ran several focus bracketed series on the 35 Lux FLE (against the Sony RX-1 but that is another story for another day) and with the particular set that I focussed once, wide open with the rangefinder and then shot at every full stop from there without changing focus, I got better edges than in the set where I used the EVF to re-focus after every change of aperture. To me this means that the RF 'knows' how to focus this lens so as not to be fooled by its slight residual focus shift - and in a very precise manner; whereas the EVF merely chooses the best focus at each aperture on centre, thereby shifting the field of focus as the lens exhibits slight focus shift. This makes no notable diffence to the sharpness on centre but it does have a bad effect on the edges, probably due to field curvature. I will test more for this with other lenses and report back."

 

Let's unpick this a little.

 

At its heart, the M has a lens, mounted at a fixed distance from the sensor. We focus it, set the aperture, and take the image. Nothing in the RF or live view affects that simple process.

 

We know that lenses (let's take the 35 Summilux ASPH (non-FLE) as an obvious example) suffer from focus shift as they stop down, particularly in the f/2.8 - 5.6 range; and that the RF coupling is a mechanical link to the focussing mechanism of the lens. The aperture doesn't come into the equation, no matter how finely engineered. There is nothing you can do to the aperture which will have a mechanical impact on the RF coupling or the view finder. If focus is absolutely spot on in the RF, stopping down will shift the plane of best focus - nothing in the RF will change that.

 

Live view would show it, but your observation above is that no change is detectable in the EVF (I know you were using an FLE version of the 35 Summilux).

 

Now, if what you say is true, and I have no doubt in my mind at all it is, then I think you may have stumbled onto another interesting fact for which we should, again, be grateful. Surely this can only be as a result of the sensor? With film, we are told that the thickness of the emulsion hid a lot of defects in lenses; where digital is less forgiving. We are also told that the CCD sensor in the M9 & Monochrom resolves finer detail better than the M - I'm not an M user, so I have not followed this closely, but that is the impression I get from a number of comments; the M9 gives a sharper image with more fine detail at native ISO. Could this be the effect of the new MAX sensor design? With shallower wells, and taller micro lenses, the sensor gives a less crisp image, but is also more forgiving of focus shift?

 

I think you have identified something interesting, Tim; but perhaps it is not the RF as you suspect.

 

Cheers

John

[tashley]

It's a nice idea – and would indeed be a refined piece of engineering – but I don't believe Leica grind the lens focussing cam (or shim the lens) to a fine enough tolerance for this to work (at least out of the box). I've owned two 35 FLE lenses and, whilst both have avoided a trip back to Solms for adjustment, they exhibited somewhat different focussing characteristics or adjustment (the first was okay but had the DOF biased behind the point of RF focus, my current example is spot on, with a decent proportion of the DOF in front of the RF focus point). I recently (last week) bought a new 75 Summicron that has immediately gone back to Solms for adjustment (Mayfair client care agreed with me that it was front-focussing). I tried an ex-demo 75 Summicron whilst I was in Café Optik which, whilst not perfect, was better calibrated than the one I had bought. There just seems to be too much variation in these lenses for your theory (if I understand it correctly) to reliably work.

 

I hear that. My last M9, which was perfectly representative of the breed, had issues with the 35 FLE and one other lens - I thought it was the lenses at fault and was waiting to get the EVF cranked up so as to test the hypothesis. But when the M arrived, both lenses started to behave beautifully.

 

Let's just hypothesise that my lens and my body just happen to be perfectly calibrated for each other and that this is what Leica engineers designed them to do with each other, but due to manufacturing tolerances is a happier marriage than most similar couples. In that case, it really does work very very well indeed - really the quality of engineering one hopes for when spending this much. Alternatively I just (for once!) got lucky. So I will publish my piece and see if other people with the same equipment have similar results.

 

But all my other lenses work perfectly with the new camera, and that's something I have rarely and only transiently achieved before. Oops, I used the word 'transiently'. Hope I haven't broken the spell....

[tashley]

Hi Tim,

 

I'm a huge fan of your site, and very grateful you take the time to make your observations available to enthusiastic amateurs (without venturing into the vegetable garden in the process).

 

This comment did catch my eye.

 

 

 

Let's unpick this a little.

 

At its heart, the M has a lens, mounted at a fixed distance from the sensor. We focus it, set the aperture, and take the image. Nothing in the RF or live view affects that simple process.

 

We know that lenses (let's take the 35 Summilux ASPH (non-FLE) as an obvious example) suffer from focus shift as they stop down, particularly in the f/2.8 - 5.6 range; and that the RF coupling is a mechanical link to the focussing mechanism of the lens. The aperture doesn't come into the equation, no matter how finely engineered. There is nothing you can do to the aperture which will have a mechanical impact on the RF coupling or the view finder. If focus is absolutely spot on in the RF, stopping down will shift the plane of best focus - nothing in the RF will change that.

 

Live view would show it, but your observation above is that no change is detectable in the EVF (I know you were using an FLE version of the 35 Summilux).

 

Now, if what you say is true, and I have no doubt in my mind at all it is, then I think you may have stumbled onto another interesting fact for which we should, again, be grateful. Surely this can only be as a result of the sensor? With film, we are told that the thickness of the emulsion hid a lot of defects in lenses; where digital is less forgiving. We are also told that the CCD sensor in the M9 & Monochrom resolves finer detail better than the M - I'm not an M user, so I have not followed this closely, but that is the impression I get from a number of comments; the M9 gives a sharper image with more fine detail at native ISO. Could this be the effect of the new MAX sensor design? With shallower wells, and taller micro lenses, the sensor gives a less crisp image, but is also more forgiving of focus shift?

 

I think you have identified something interesting, Tim; but perhaps it is not the RF as you suspect.

 

Cheers

John

 

It is certainly complex and open to a variety of possibilities and co-factors but actually I still, stubbornly, think I might be right and that it's not really that difficult.

 

Lenses that suffer focus shift fall into two categories:

 

1) those with shift amounts greater than the DOF can hide (35 Lux previous version)

2) those with shift amounts that can be contained within DOF(35 Lux FLE)

 

if, in a type two lens, there is always, at every realistic aperture and subject distance, a plane of good focus parallel to the sensor that can be achieved, then it is possible that it can be achieved within the DOF, whatever the detailed shape of the DOF.

 

In which case, the RF, if well attuned to the lens, can do the equivalent of what I do when I AF Fine Tune a lens on a DSLR: it can place the POF at the very front of the DOF wide open, and then as the lens is stopped down and focus shifts a little backwards, the plane of focus remains within the DOF.

 

Take a look at what I publish in the next day or two. Many heads are better than one. I am not certain about the reason but I do think that the 'it's the new sensor' theory, though possibly true as a contributing factor, can't explain the more consistent behaviour of the new RF across different lenses and near/far ranges: I believe the improvement is too big...

[IkarusJohn]

Lenses that suffer focus shift fall into two categories:

 

1) those with shift amounts greater than the DOF can hide (35 Lux previous version)

2) those with shift amounts that can be contained within DOF(35 Lux FLE)

 

if, in a type two lens, there is always, at every realistic aperture and subject distance, a plane of good focus parallel to the sensor that can be achieved, then it is possible that it can be achieved within the DOF, whatever the detailed shape of the DOF.

 

In which case, the RF, if well attuned to the lens, can do the equivalent of what I do when I AF Fine Tune a lens on a DSLR: it can place the POF at the very front of the DOF wide open, and then as the lens is stopped down and focus shifts a little backwards, the plane of focus remains within the DOF.

 

That is also highly possible, but far more prosaic than what I was hoping for, and could as easily be explained by you being lucky with an RF calibrated right at the front of the plane of best focus. An increased focal plane tolerance in the sensor "thickness" (for want of a better word) is more appealing, but based on nothing more than speculation on my part ...

 

To truly answer the question, the test would be to take a properly calibrated M9 (you could borrow mine, if you were nearby), and do some comparison tests with one of the more notorious type one lenses - the preFLE 35 Summilux or the Noct f/1. Then we would see evidence of some significant change in the M's focussing tolerance. It would also be interesting to pick up Jaap's point, and try to identify any difference in the thickness of the plane of best focus between the two cameras.

 

Cheers

John

[UliWer]

I'd propose to investigate two different phenomena which might give some more information about the question wether the rangefinder has been changed and what a changement could achieve.

 

First 35mm Summilux asph. (pre FLE). Notorious for focus shift.

My observation with this lens is that the spot of maxiumum focus at f/2.8 is outside the depth of focus at f/1.4. So if the lens is calibrated with the rangefinder to be exact at f/1.4 (not all lenses are), you have to adjust focussing of the lens to achieve maximum focus at f/2.8. If it is calibrated to be exact at f/2.8 (older examples are), you have to adjust focus of the lens to achieve maximum focus at f/1.4.

 

The rangefinder won't help you in both situations. Right or wrong?

 

 

Second: 135mm Apo-Telyt. Leica says, that it cannot be focussed exactly in every situation fully opened as the measurement of the rangefinder and the usual magnification of the viewfinder is not sufficient. One should use it at f/5.6. Mr. Karbe was very explicit about this in a lecture at the "Leica Erlebnistage" in Wetzlar in 2010.

 

I'd propose the following test, which is simple, though it has to be done painstakingly.

Put the lens on a tripod and focus it fully opened on an objekt about 10-15m away. Take a photo. Now change the focussing of the lens for the slightest possible amount. Do you see any difference in the rangefinder? Now second to fifth step in the same way. I needed some training to achieve a minimum difference in focussing (less than a millimeter). And it was necessary to repeat the test several times.

 

What I found out with the M9: you see every step of slightest change of lens focussing on the photos. So the focussing does change effectively, and the mechanism of the lens is very exact. But I did not see the first steps of focus changing in the rangefinder. Only after the third step I could see a very slight difference. This was only possible on the tripod.

 

So if a test of the M9 against the M 240 would show a significant difference, I'd say something has been improved. A significant difference would be if on repeated tests the results would constantly be different for one camera against the other: e.g. every slight change to be seen in the rangefinder of the M 240, only the third step top be seen in the M9.

 

If we had results like this, it would be very astonishing, since we know: measurement distance and magnification of the rangefinder have not changed; the focussing cam of the lens has not changed. It is still a roller (same diameter?) which couples the focussing cam to the rangefinder mechanism.

[k-hawinkler]

Questions:

 

What is the thickness of the light capturing layer in film, say in nanometers nm?

What is the thickness of the light capturing layer in the M9 sensor in nm?

What is the thickness of the light capturing layer in the M240 sensor in nm?

 

This layer should be thinner in the M240 than the M9, assuming the M240 is using an improved process technology and better design.

 

What are the process technologies being used? 65 nm? 45 nm? 32 nm? I doubt it's 22 nm.

 

Could it be that the M240 layer is thin enough to always fit into the DOF,

despite some remaining small amount of residual focus shift for the 35 FLE?

[thighslapper]

 

But all my other lenses work perfectly with the new camera, and that's something I have rarely and only transiently achieved before. Oops, I used the word 'transiently'. Hope I haven't broken the spell....

 

..... well I would have thought the obvious answer is that Leica now have a much more accurate way of adjusting the rangefinder before sending it out ......

 

..... liveview and focus peaking do not lie. You now have a better way of comparing and judging calibration... and I would be surprised if Leica have not utilised this in the checking process......

 

...... which is presumably why so few of us have had focussing issues ...... mine is not perfect .... but well within the limits that make my 75/2 usable at all apertures and distances....

 

My M and my M9p are the only 2 of a total of 6 Leica digital bodies that were OK out of the box.......

[Jager]

My focus hit rate, using the RF (I've only tried LV on a handful of shots), is extremely high on my M-240. But then, it is/was very high as well on my M9 and MM. Even with supposedly hard-to-focus lenses like the Noctilux. I honestly can't tell any difference in that sphere.

 

The M-240 does exude a sense of being mature, finished, and solid. If I had to guess, I'd say that Leica's quality control has probably improved over the last couple of years. Certainly, they've learned a lot through their M8 and early M9 experiences. I'd bet that the lenses they ship today are, likewise, going out with tighter tolerances. It's a good time to be enjoying the Leica M experience.

 

Tim, that was an excellent, balanced, review. Good to see you back around here...

[120]

...

In which case, the RF, if well attuned to the lens, can do the equivalent of what I do when I AF Fine Tune a lens on a DSLR: it can place the POF at the very front of the DOF wide open, and then as the lens is stopped down and focus shifts a little backwards, the plane of focus remains within the DOF.

 

...

Some points to consider...

 

The rangefinder can't have one offset for one lens and another offset for another lens; it only has one offset. It is nothing new, of course, to set the offset to the front if you have a lens with a lot of focus shift. You seem to be saying your rangefinder is tailoring the focus for different lenses; that is what the lens cams do, not the rangefinder.

 

If you have two lenses that disagree at the same distance with the same camera (should be clear what I mean), then one of the lenses is off--it's a matter of mathematical necessity. There is no way you can substitute a different rangefinder and have both lenses accurate.

 

It is already a stretch for a rangefinder to get the standard lens right (that is what the "bend" adjustment is for).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rscheffler]

Hi Tim,

Surely this can only be as a result of the sensor? With film, we are told that the thickness of the emulsion hid a lot of defects in lenses; where digital is less forgiving. We are also told that the CCD sensor in the M9 & Monochrom resolves finer detail better than the M - I'm not an M user, so I have not followed this closely, but that is the impression I get from a number of comments; the M9 gives a sharper image with more fine detail at native ISO. Could this be the effect of the new MAX sensor design? With shallower wells, and taller micro lenses, the sensor gives a less crisp image, but is also more forgiving of focus shift?

 

I'm not sure the M9 gives a more detailed, sharper image, rather, one with more false detail information that contribute to an impression of sharper, finer detail. Viewed at 100-200%, one can see this false detail for what it is, but at normal viewing magnifications, it will appear to be actual subject detail. What I've seen from M240 files is the probability for greater real detail and that the M240 files tolerate/require greater sharpening in post. I could only guess at reasons for the difference. Some of it might be that the slightly higher resolution of the M240 actually does make a difference towards truthful subject rendering...?

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Ron,

 

This is the first I've heard of "false detail". Can you expand on that?

 

I actually have no particular vested interest in this - I was only repeating what I had picked up from other comments about the M, with no effort at discerning the quality of the information I was scanning. It is a purely speculation on my part, as Tim piqued my interest with a comment that stood out.

 

I'm happy with my M9 & MM, and will be for a long time into the foreseeable future - I think I have only 6,000 or so actuations on my M9 since I got it in October 2010. Hardly prolific, but very satisfying!

 

Cheers

John