Surge Posted November 18, 2013 Share #41 Posted November 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's beautiful (but the subject helps!). Without a back-to-back test, there's no way to compare the M240 to the M9-P, so I'm not sure what the point of your message is, as the thread is really about comparing the two bodies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 Hi Surge, Take a look here Impressions of New M240 by M9-P User. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest malland Posted November 18, 2013 Share #42 Posted November 18, 2013 Thanks. The point is simply to address your statement that "With an M9 it seems like you'd lose a lot of color, gain noise, etc., at that ISO." Your statement was also made without comparison shots, and you referred to ISO 2,500 — my example shows an effective ISO of 7,500: I was refuting the conventional wisdom that the M9 is not good for high-ISO night photography. In the thread I linked there are some posts and links to highly technical testing of the "Shoot at ISO640 and Push in LR5" technique by Jim Kasson, who has done excellent work on this. He has also done tests using this type of technique with the M240 and has found that one gets green color casts in the shadows. Finally, my view is that the M9 has better color rendition than the M240 and that applies to high-ISO shooting as well, but this view has been discussed — I would say argued about — extensively, and "fotografz" has addressed this issue more articulately than I have, so I'll leave it at that. —Mitch/Chiang Mai Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 19, 2013 Share #43 Posted November 19, 2013 Umm, well, because for one thing you can only shoot stationary objects that way! You can rule out street shooting at night, for example. The new M is just about at its limit at night, at 2500 ISO at f/2.8. With an M9 it seems like you'd lose a lot of color, gain noise, etc., at that ISO. What is wrong with 0.95 instead of 2.8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer 53 Posted November 19, 2013 Share #44 Posted November 19, 2013 I really, really like my new M240 as well. I had an M8.2 and an M9 but, much to my surprise, my m240 has been a step above any Leica I have owned, even my venerable M6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil U Posted November 19, 2013 Share #45 Posted November 19, 2013 What is wrong with 0.95 instead of 2.8?[/QUOte] Around $8000? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 19, 2013 Share #46 Posted November 19, 2013 I'm really glad that almost everyone who has bought an M240 likes it better than their M9. I can only imagine the disappointment and self-reproach if that wasn't the case. Speaking purely for myself I doubt if I could admit to myself much less an entire community that I had spent several thousand dollars and regretted my decision. It would be tantamount to admitting I had succumbed to GAS and not made an objective decision based on thorough testing. I have used a demonstrator M240 and think many things about it are indeed improvements on the M9, but at this point I am still in the M9 camp, not even quite on the fence. The diminished noise level of the shutter/winding impresses me more than the diminished noise level of the sensor. I have no interest in video or TTL viewing as they are implemented on the M240, but they are not intrusive (although I wish the activation buttons could be disabled or re-assigned). I put both cameras up to my eye back and forth and I just can't see the improvement in the optical rangefinder that some people do. My M9 came seriously miscalibrated and after some painstaking effort on my part it is and has remained dead-nuts on. If the M240 had a pixel-mapping utility, if they had not deleted the frame line preview, and if they had not increased the body thickness, I think I would be much closer to being persuaded to buy one. The latter two irritated me repeatedly as I was using an M240. I could get used to them if I had to I suppose, but for several thousand in upgrade cost I'm not 100% convinced I want to. The fact that the M240 is already a year into its product life and I would still need to get on a waiting list is also a factor for me. I was quite eager to upgrade from the M8 to M9, but I just don't feel the same sense of excitement this time around. Maybe in a while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jvansmit Posted November 19, 2013 Share #47 Posted November 19, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) a pleasant suprise for me is that Classic Metering on the M240 seems to give greater weight to shadow areas when shooting contrasty subjects using 21mm and wider lenses. I could rarely use auto exposure on my M9 & MM when using wide angle lenses unless the lighting was fairly uniform. Even a pinpoint light source at the edge of the frame would lead to under-exposure. As just one example . | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 19, 2013 Share #48 Posted November 19, 2013 I'm really glad that almost everyone who has bought an M240 likes it better than their M9. I can only imagine the disappointment and self-reproach if that wasn't the case. Speaking purely for myself I doubt if I could admit to myself much less an entire community that I had spent several thousand dollars and regretted my decision. It would be tantamount to admitting I had succumbed to GAS and not made an objective decision based on thorough testing. "Disappointment and self reproach?" "Admit to yourself regret for buying the M240?" Come on. What kind of fantasy are you trying to sell with that? Most bought the M and kept the M9 for a while until they decided the M240 was a huge improvement in color at any ISO, build, battery life speed of electronics, RF, the LCD is killer, more MP, it has LV, battery life, weather sealing, one of the best sensors... do you want me to go on? The reason that everyone that owns the M240 likes it better than their M9 is... are you ready... here it comes... it is better. The only ones that seem to think the M9 is better... here it comes... own it. That seems to be the reality distortion in the forum. Most of the rest of us had both and sold the M9 because, it isn't as good as the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 19, 2013 Share #49 Posted November 19, 2013 I've kept my M9-P as a back-up ..... but it has been gathering dust in the safe for 9 months and has only been out in the first few months to take comparison shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonil Posted November 19, 2013 Share #50 Posted November 19, 2013 Since Im new to the Leica fold, I do enjoy how people that own M9's tend to either 1) Laugh in my face that Im wasting my money and 2) Are really supportive because they believe its a good camera upgrade from their M9 When I then tell them Im upgrading technically from a Canon 7D and an OM1 with a broken light meter, then the response changes to "welcome to the leica family, blah blah blah, its not that fanboyish here." Kind of a creepy club. I for one am appreciative of the contrasting responses to the M9 and M240 - and I think based on the inadequacies of the M9, its hard to believe that inaccurate WB is enough to make people scoff at the better LCD, better DR, better sealing, LV, better ISO, shutter sound, shutter button, processor etc... So having a discussion like this thread really helps a new comer like me, despite the "entering a comic book store" feeling I get sometimes from the fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 19, 2013 Share #51 Posted November 19, 2013 …………... having a discussion like this thread really helps a new comer like me, despite the "entering a comic book store" feeling I get sometimes from the fans. :D By the way, in your long list of valuable improvements in the M relative to the M9 you missed the one which in my opinion is the biggest and most important improvement of all: the rangefinder itself. Considering how many people paid around £1,000 to upgrade their M9s to M9Ps for the sake of cosmetics, I think the M's RF improvement alone an extremely compelling reason to upgrade. Welcome to the comic book store! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonil Posted November 19, 2013 Share #52 Posted November 19, 2013 :D By the way, in your long list of valuable improvements in the M relative to the M9 you missed the one which in my opinion is the biggest and most important improvement of all: the rangefinder itself. Considering how many people paid around £1,000 to upgrade their M9s to M9Ps for the sake of cosmetics, I think the M's RF improvement alone an extremely compelling reason to upgrade. Welcome to the comic book store! I left out the RF upgrade because I know nothing about it - I only ever held an M9 once and never held a M240 to know the difference. All things considered I'll try to appreciate the RF in the 240 now that I know its a significant upgrade from the M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted November 19, 2013 Share #53 Posted November 19, 2013 :D By the way, in your long list of valuable improvements in the M relative to the M9 you missed the one which in my opinion is the biggest and most important improvement of all: the rangefinder itself. Considering how many people paid around £1,000 to upgrade their M9s to M9Ps for the sake of cosmetics, I think the M's RF improvement alone an extremely compelling reason to upgrade. Welcome to the comic book store! Yup. I would have paid the upgrade for the ISO, far quicker shutter, speed of operation, screen and RF improvement. Without any of the other CMOS related trickery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 19, 2013 Share #54 Posted November 19, 2013 I've kept my M9-P as a back-up ..... but it has been gathering dust in the safe for 9 months and has only been out in the first few months to take comparison shots. Heck, sell it and buy the a7 24MP as a back up and the a7r for dynamite landscapes and still have enough left over for a $1-2k lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 19, 2013 Share #55 Posted November 19, 2013 Since Im new to the Leica fold, I do enjoy how people that own M9's tend to either1) Laugh in my face that Im wasting my money and 2) Are really supportive because they believe its a good camera upgrade from their M9 When I then tell them Im upgrading technically from a Canon 7D and an OM1 with a broken light meter, then the response changes to "welcome to the leica family, blah blah blah, its not that fanboyish here." Kind of a creepy club. I for one am appreciative of the contrasting responses to the M9 and M240 - and I think based on the inadequacies of the M9, its hard to believe that inaccurate WB is enough to make people scoff at the better LCD, better DR, better sealing, LV, better ISO, shutter sound, shutter button, processor etc... So having a discussion like this thread really helps a new comer like me, despite the "entering a comic book store" feeling I get sometimes from the fans. Nice fresh perspective. Remember those of us who have been without a modern camera to use our R lenses with we now have a viable option thanks to Novoflex since a simple piece of machined metal with tripod mount is too difficult for Leica to make all while they bring out the Mini M, sorry the Vario whatever, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surge Posted November 19, 2013 Share #56 Posted November 19, 2013 I left out the RF upgrade because I know nothing about it - I only ever held an M9 once and never held a M240 to know the difference. All things considered I'll try to appreciate the RF in the 240 now that I know its a significant upgrade from the M9 Does anyone have specific information on what exactly Leica improved on the M240 rangefinder? I've also read they have improved it, but how? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surge Posted November 19, 2013 Share #57 Posted November 19, 2013 … if they had not deleted the frame line preview, and if they had not increased the body thickness, I think I would be much closer to being persuaded to buy one. The latter two irritated me repeatedly as I was using an M240. The frame line preview is easily added via a firmware update. I would be very surprised if you didn't see this, as well as re-assignable function buttons, in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 19, 2013 Share #58 Posted November 19, 2013 The frame line preview is easily added via a firmware update. I would be very surprised if you didn't see this, as well as re-assignable function buttons, in the future. That is an interesting phenomena - a firmware update that adds a lever to the front of the camera that controls a wholly mechanical system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 19, 2013 Share #59 Posted November 19, 2013 The M body is exactly the same thickness as the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted November 19, 2013 Share #60 Posted November 19, 2013 What I was questioning was your assertion that 1600 ISO was essential - well to me at least this is clearly not true. It's all irrelevant though at the end of the day we all have our way of working. If it works for you then good on you and go for it!! Nothing is really essential, but high ISO ability certainly expands and enhances what we can do. With my Canon gear I'm often shooting evening wedding receptions at ISO 3200. I could do it all at ISO 400 or 800, but it would certainly have a different look (not as good in my opinion). I can shoot at ISO 12,800 (dark setting, telephoto lens, moving subject) and I've gotten good results up ISO 25,000 (processed in Lightroom). And I'm not even using the 1DX, which offers even better high ISO performance. If the cameras offered a clean ISO 100K or 200K or more, I could certainly put it to use, though of course it would never be essential. By the way, the quest for better high ISO performance is not a new phenomenon. This has been a constant struggle in the history of photographic technology, with regular advancements from time to time. Look back in the film era and before, and people were often looking for a more sensitive technology that would allow them to do more with less light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.