Did anyone go back to M9 after M240

[sblutter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not yet having a MM, I can't speak for it's low light capabilities. However after 3+ yrs with M9 and many months with Photoshop CC, I have to object to characterizing it a low ISO camera.

 

Here are 2 very illuminating (pun intended) threads on this. I've gone to 1600 easily, with large very acceptable prints (36 x 24") to prove it.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/292708-m9-colors-night-best-way-shoot.html

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/301422-m9-iso-performance-new-life.html

 

Also, making B & W conversions from color DNG's in Photoshop enables many post production options.

 

That said, I plan to eventually pick up a good used MM 'just because', but not for the ISO. I've downloaded lots of sample DNG's. The capability is impressive - but in conditions I rarely find myself shooting in.

[A miller]

Mine too, except when I get the urge to pump the ISO above 320 as I do as a matter of course with my MM (which I shoot at 1250 generally w/o even thinking about it)

[A miller]

Not yet having a MM, I can't speak for it's low light capabilities. However after 3+ yrs with M9 and many months with Photoshop CC, I have to object to characterizing it a low ISO camera.

 

Here are 2 very illuminating (pun intended) threads on this. I've gone to 1600 easily, with large very acceptable prints (36 x 24") to prove it.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/292708-m9-colors-night-best-way-shoot.html

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/301422-m9-iso-performance-new-life.html

 

Also, making B & W conversions from color DNG's in Photoshop enables many post production options.

 

That said, I plan to eventually pick up a good used MM 'just because', but not for the ISO. I've downloaded lots of sample DNG's. The capability is impressive - but in conditions I rarely find myself shooting in.

 

I think the style of the shooter is an important part of the analaysis. You're images are good and perhaps usable for your purposes; but I wouldn't call them clean or necessarily broadly satisfactory.

 

For me, relative to all other full frame 35mm digital cameras out there (ok, at least the ones I know about), the M9 is an A++ performer at 320 and below; an A- at 640, and below an A at higher than 640. Yes, one can make due above 640, even well above using certain techniques, but I view that as just salvaging quality, not shining in it. (And converting high ISO shots to B&W in PP is - in many cases - a concession that the color didn't come out well with the high ISO)

-

If you want to shoot people at will on a whim at 1/1000 on a cloudy day with first class quality; the M9 isn't part of the discussion; whereas, the MM leads it.

 

To give you a sense of the MM's ISO performance, here is a shot from dinner last night at 10,000 ISO with a 60 yr old antique 28mm f5.6 lens http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/345169-ran-out-iso.html . Sadly, my M9 would soil at the prospect of shooting this. (Granted, the M(240) would equally soil in this particular case...)

[jcarrera]

Never !

My first Leica tool is the Monochrom. My best camera ever !

But dealing with the M-240 I think it is much better than the M9. I was never very happy shooting the M9.

If I had to go back I'd return to my old crispy M8. I admit this was a flawed camera, but still what a camera !!

I'll keep my M 240, but I'd be happy if I could find a good M8 or M 8-2 as well !!

[bocaburger]

The whole discussion about the MM's low light capability is enlightening, but however also moot for those not wanting to shoot exclusively b&w.

 

As to the original question "Did anyone go back to M9 after M240" I'm reporting now a couple months into M240 ownership, my M9 is now sold. At first I considered keeping it as a second body, but an M9 + M240 in the bag is noticeably bulkier and heavier than my old 2 M4 body kit. They require separate batteries and chargers. And the frame lines are calibrated differently. Plus half the rationale of carrying 2 bodies (ability to shoot color/b&w and/or different ISO's) is moot with digital. I felt the M9 was worth too much cash to keep for just an emergency backup. So inscribe me as one who isn't going back to the M9. My main reasons for prefering the M240 are usable jpegs and no annoying whirrr sound after the shutter fires.

[Guest jvansmit]

I sold my M240 & MM after a few months, then used a Fuji X-E2 & X-T1 for a while, and have now sold it all & gone back to my 'old' M9 which had been gathering dust for around 18 months.

 

While the M240, MM & X-T1 are undoubtedly wonderful cameras, and gave me some great photos, I still prefer the M9 files.

 

I'm mostly a high contrast B&W shooter, often at ISO 640 and 1250, and there is something about the M9 files that gave me a much higher ratio of photos that had 'meaning' for me. My shot discipline is probably quite poor as I often shoot instinctively while range-guessing focus, and the M9 seems more tolerant of this.

 

With the money from the sale of the other gear, I've bought a 24mm Summilux....and have enough cash left over for another great trip sometime !

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry to go off topic but, why do you guys shot JPEG?? From a $7000 camera and few other grands lens I want to get the best. I was talking about it with a friend few days ago and he was saying that JPEG shouldn't even be an option on this kind of camera.

 

Nicola

 

People say to get quick results, use JPEG. I submit with LR or ACR properly set up, results can be as fast.

 

Secondly PROPER sharpening is impossible from a JPEG as the amount is print size dependent and is best done as a two stage process, one in ACR and once at final size and resolution.

[bocaburger]

One reason I shoot jpegs: Very often, friends ask me to "take pictures" for them, "because you have a really good camera" I shoot jpegs, delete the real losers, burn the rest to a disk and hand it over to them. Be damned if I'm going to develop and convert RAW pics for their limited discernment.

 

Second reason I shoot jpegs: These days the overwhelming majority of my images gets displayed digitally, not in print. I have not found the manipulation limitations of jpegs to be a problem when images are only to be displayed on a monitor.

 

Third reason: A hobby is supposed to be fun. Post processing is not fun to me. In fact I despise it. Every minute saved not processing and converting RAW's is a minute I can go out and shoot. Not to mention all the time not spent learning to post-process. I never did my own wet darkroom work either. Hated it with a passion.

[Michael Markey]

One reason I shoot jpegs: Very often, friends ask me to "take pictures" for them, "because you have a really good camera" I shoot jpegs, delete the real losers, burn the rest to a disk and hand it over to them. Be damned if I'm going to develop and convert RAW pics for their limited discernment.

 

 

I can relate to that situation.

Its the reason why I choose digital (in my case either a DP2M or DP3M) rather than ,say, my film Leicas.

Cost of film /development only to have them appear later ,cropped to within an inch of their life on FB.

 

I do however shoot the RAW but thats largely because the Sigma jpegs aren`t very good otherwise I`d take your approach.

 

Oh yes ...M9 .

It`s on my short list .

[W4Leica]

My story is that I did not get a chance to go back. I decided to go with M9 (my first Leica Digital) after seeing review and pictures of M240. CCD sensor is the main reason that M9 is the winner for me.

[neekon]

I did. Went through my old photos after having the M240 for a few months and decided I missed the images from the CCD. Never really had that same feeling with the M240. Ended up picking up a lightly used ME as I always liked the color of the body. Couldn't be happier.

[jip]

I had the M8, M8.2, M9, and M9-P bought the M240 and never looked back. Sometimes I miss the more clumsy M9, with its loud shutter and low ISO speeds only, but in the end I enjoy the M240 allot more than I ever did with the M9-P.

[uhoh7]

The responses are very interesting. It is especially so in regard to the loyalty of M9 users. The M8 did not seem to generate such widespread loyalty after the M9 introduction. Regards, Ron

 

M8 has to be the most underrated, under loved great camera today.

[fotografr]

By all technical considerations, M is better. However if you do not use high iso, like frame selector, and USB port, keep the M9. I am not upgrading.

 

I will maybe someday when they fix the red line problem. Can not see sending a camera in to fix a dead pixel. No other brand has this problem. Then the ham hands screw up the camera cosmetically, mess up the RF, and the problem can come back next week. It is like they don`t care about your investment.

 

My Canon 5D MkII and MkIII bodies, (2 of each) all developed dead pixels and had to go in for repair. I should note, this was not due to flying with them. Dead pixels are a fact of life in the digital world. Maybe someday someone will develop a sensor that won't have the problem, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

With respect to Leica service, my turnaround time with them has been faster than with any of my Canons and the cameras have come back spotless and perfectly adjusted. I have nothing but praise for Leica Service in New Jersey. This was not always the case, but there have been huge improvements in the past couple of years.

[Paulus]

It is amazing how one adapts. When I pick up a film M nowadays it feels uncomfortably thin in my hands and I always try squeezing it too much. Strangely my iiif feels "normal", so probably the overall dimensions have to do with it.

 

Strange, I never had that feeling. My M and my MP do feel great even when I use them both at the same time. Maybe it's because a have leather ever ready cases around them?

[fotografr]

Not yet having a MM, I can't speak for it's low light capabilities. However after 3+ yrs with M9 and many months with Photoshop CC, I have to object to characterizing it a low ISO camera.

 

This is the MM at ISO 5000.

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!

[BerndReini]

However after 3+ yrs with M9 and many months with Photoshop CC, I have to object to characterizing it a low ISO camera.

 

In my experience, the M240 is about one and a third stop faster than the M9. I will shoot the M9 at up to ISO 1000, while I would safely use the M240 up to ISO 2500. Past that you will risk banding with the M240 and excessive grain with the M9. One stop and a third, anything else is hyperbole. It can make the difference in some situations, but photographers, who find anything above ISO 640 unacceptable with the M9 will surely have pretty strict standards for the M240 as well.

 

The MM is in a different league. Here is one at ISO 2500.

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!

[fotografr]

 

The MM is in a different league. Here is one at ISO 2500.

 

Indeed it is. Lovely portrait.

[AlanSchaller]

I tested the M240 a few times and despite trying to convince myself, I didn't get on with the look it presented. The images reminded me some what of the pictures my old Sony RX1 put out. Also it felt a bit bulky especially with a half case on..

 

I bought a second hand M9, and at iso 160 it is untouchable for colour in my opinion!

 

I later bought a Monochrom, thinking I would use it 50% of the time. I now use it 95% of the time.

 

Here is a selection of my pictures taken with both cameras if you are interested:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127753524@N02/

 

Alan.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest )-(]

Bump for an older post but a similar question and also wondered if anyone's views had changed with more time to reflect.

 

I traded my M9 to M240 to allow me to better use my M-mount lenses for landscape/tripod use.

No complaints with that, the M240 is far more workable for me with Lee filters/dawn tripod scenarios and the Liveview (poor as it is) makes all the difference.

The improved general performance is light years ahead too, no more staring at the flashing red dot wondering when I might be allowed to take another picture.

 

 

However, I'm now desperately missing the M9 for the images it could produce at or around base ISO as a handheld camera.

 

I'm tied to the M240 for that landscape use, the M9 really wasn't so great for this (for me), too fiddly in the half-light of pre-dawn trying to frame a shot etc..

 

But, agh, could I really buy another M9, or is it just folly.