Impressions of New M240 by M9-P User

[Hamad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the fence “upgrading” your M9/-P to the M240? I was, too. That’s why I thought others might find my impressions useful.

 

I am not a professional, but I take the hobby seriously. I’m not much of a pixel peeper, but I do check new gear in a variety of ways to ensure that it performs as it should, that I have a good copy, and that I like the way the new gear works and renders images.

 

I have never been so torn over a gear “upgrade” as this one. In fact, I canceled my order for the M240 three times before I let the order ride!

 

I think the biases are rampant in upgrading anything: On the one hand, people like myself just paid $7K for a new camera they want to believe works better than their old one, else that wasn’t a very good use of money. On the other hand, people who cannot get or justify the purchase of the new camera want to believe it doesn’t matter because the old gear is just as good – just different – and they just don’t make ‘em like they used to.

 

For what it’s worth, I thought the M9-P was the best camera I’d ever owned, but it was incomplete. It wasn’t satisfactory indoors for me, not only because the images were often too noisy, but because the color fell apart so early in the ISO range. I know there are thousands of Leica photographers who take far better pictures than I do who disagree (many of whom shoot at ISO640 and push!), but I worked around this indoor limitation by purchasing a Monochrom. The Monochrom became and is still today my favorite camera of all time, but it, too, is incomplete (no color!).

 

I got the M240 a week ago, and I am much happier than I expected. The nominal increase in maximum native ISO from 2500 to 3200 was pathetic, and that was my biggest gripe with the M9-P. From the trickle of early photos on the internet (still surprisingly few), IQ at base ISO seemed about the same with worse white balance from the M240. Operation seemed universally improved, but you don’t pay $7K for better menus, screen and quieter shutter (to be honest, I might have paid $1,500 for a quieter shutter!). In short, my expectations were modest.

 

Now that I’ve shot the M240 and M9-P for a couple of weeks alongside each other, I couldn’t be happier with the upgrade, and I’m selling my M9-P. All of the operation is smoother, quieter and faster – exactly as one would expect. At base ISO, the M240 is about the equal of the M9 – maybe even a touch better because of the dynamic range / file malleability improvement. For my taste, the white balance is a wash (both firmware versions are most up-to-date, and both miss in all sorts of ways often enough), the level of detail / resolution looks like a tie. The dynamic range and malleability of the files is noticeably improved in M240. I frankly expected to see the loss of “pop,” crispness, or detail from the M240, but I can’t see it. The M240 has lost nothing that I can detect from the brilliant sensor of the M9, which I still think is bested by no one.

 

Now for the really good news: The M240 is all I need for indoor shooting. The camera's high-ISO performance is dramatically improved, and it is a complete camera for my non-action use. The levels of noise and accuracy of colors are good even at ISO3200. For my use, ISO3200 on the M240 is like ISO640 on the M9, because that’s the point after which the color / noise began to take a toll on the image (for my own threshold of quality). Essentially, the M240 provided all the improvement I needed, and I was surprised to get it. I have detected no banding at these settings, even though I push the files around a bit – but I haven’t been looking for it either. Essentially, my test is: if I don’t see it, I don’t care! I did shoot the camera at ISO 4000-6400 (and I did see it, and I did care).

 

Finally, I find magnification useful for perfect focusing, and I find focus peaking not terribly useful. I haven’t shot a movie (even unintentionally!), and probably never will. I didn't detect the slightly increased weight or larger size of the M240, but I can see it side-by-side. I wouldn't want to let the size creep larger still in the next generation, or it would start to impact one of the reasons I've favored the Leica system.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Good to hear that you like your M240.

[thighslapper]

I see the M9 versus M 'IQ' and base ISO 'look' controversy rumbles on.......

 

Yet again it is all purely subjective and built on memories, gut feelings and what you think you see.........

 

The ONLY true comparison is to take cameras with identical lenses, all the same settings (as near as possible) and shoot identical subjects at exactly the same time ..... adjust for any slight differences in exposure and then look.

 

I did this extensively when the M came out and again during Beta testing.

 

If there are any differences at all then 99% of the time they vanish when WB is corrected on the images using the same reference image point (with the current F/W the % of images with slight errors is about the same).

 

I cannot see any difference at all.

 

I've kept my M9-P to use if my M has a holiday at Solms. Otherwise I hardly use it as the M has so many advantages over the M9 and loses nothing by moving to a different sensor .....

[fsprow]

Just got back from my first commercial use of the M (in the Hindu Kush in Northern Pakistan) and, as it has from the start, the camera worked perfectly (as did my M8 and M9). Much of this work is done indoors in relatively poor (high ISO) light.

 

When I gave the image files and some large (16"x 24") prints to the client, an NGO, she said that something was different and much better than my previous images, quality wise. This paid for the camera, even though I doubt I will use the video capability or live view (I use a Nikon DSLR for ultra wides and longer telephotos).

 

A very happy user.

[fsprow]

Adding one thing:

 

Never, in selling 3500 or so images, has the client ever refused a purchase because the focus was incorrect. In fact, some of my best received are ones where it was not perfect. The visceral impact of the image makes the difference and for me the Leica system has always performed (going back to my M3DS, which I still use with TriX) because it seems to be warmly accepted by most of the subjects, allowing me to reflect their emotion. The latest digital technology (and especially in the M) has allowed this to be done more efficiently and in lower light without flash.