M9 or M (240)?

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm considering a used M9 or M(240) and am having trouble deciding which to go with. I don't care at all about video because I use my DLux6 for that. I know there are a lot of people here who have owned both and I'd very much appreciate opinions on image quality and reliability. Thanks!

[jdlaing]

I have had both and my preference is the M-240.

 

I don't use video. There are many more benefits to the M-240. Live view, image size, just to name a couple.

[Advertisement]

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

[fotografr]

I have had both and my preference is the M-240.

 

I don't use video. There are many more benefits to the M-240. Live view, image size, just to name a couple.

 

Thank you. I've heard some people express the opinion that the M9 color is more natural, though that may be a function of post processing. Also, would you say the M(240) files have a more "processed" or "digital" appearance than the M9?

[Jeff S]

One can read and discuss all day. Better IMO to get your hands on both….buy, borrow or rent and make prints to decide.

 

I loved my M8.2(s), but now keep only one as a spare since the M suits MY needs and preferences better. But nobody could have convinced me of that on a forum; it took making pics and prints to determine the best fit (in shooting style, overall workflow and print results). YMMV, as they say, but only you can know.

 

Jeff

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Thank you. I've heard some people express the opinion that the M9 color is more natural, though that may be a function of post processing. Also, would you say the M(240) files have a more "processed" or "digital" appearance than the M9?

 

I use both but the reality is my M9 is now grossly under used.

 

The reasons I use the M 240 more include the greater dynamic range, the superior high ISO performance and the option to select faster auto ISO speeds, the option of using Live View and an EVF together with the ability to frame with precision, the vastly superior screen, Focus Peaking and Image Magnification with the Focus Button, more MP...I could go on but you've probably got the picture.

 

When I compare files out of camera I have a preference for the M9 colour, but I never use files out of camera.

[jdlaing]

Thank you. I've heard some people express the opinion that the M9 color is more natural, though that may be a function of post processing. Also, would you say the M(240) files have a more "processed" or "digital" appearance than the M9?

 

I don't believe in that "digital" look theory. The M-240 has a cleaner sharper rendering with greater detail in my opinion if you were to use the same lens on it as on an M-9.

[Hookeye]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went from M8 to M(240) and bypassed the M9, so I cannot contribute, other than point you to the parallel discussion in the M9 forum:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/337677-did-anyone-go-back-m9-after.html

 

Cheers HP

[bocaburger]

I went from M9 to M240.

 

I was happy with the IQ of the M9 and can't say I'm any happier with the M240, but no less happy. However the M9's jpegs were mostly unusable whereas the M240's are very nice, and that's huge to me because I rarely need to bother with raw anymore.

 

The ergonomics of the M9 were much better suited to me than the M240's. Subtle differences on paper, big ones in the hand...at least mine. But I've gotten used to them now.

 

The M240 is much quieter. I always disliked the whrrrr after the shot on the M9, as it made it even louder than my DSLR. Finally, without halfway measures like "discrete mode", a digital M is in the ballpark sound-wise with their film ancestors.

 

The thing I like best about movie mode and live view is that with the latest firmware I can make it so they can't even accidentally get activated. I have features like advanced metering deactivated also. So feature-wise my M240 is set up very close to an M9, and as close to a film M as I can get it.

 

If you are one who often uses a tripod, the relocation of the attachment screw to the chassis itself vs being part of the baseplate, is a significant redesign.

 

I have not found the rangefinder of the M240 to be even a little bit more accurate or easier to focus than my M9 was. Both were/are spot on. My M9 never went out of alignment either. Nor did any of the dozen or so Leica rangefinders I've owned. So I can't give the edge to the M240 on reliability there. However there is the cracking/blooming sensor-glass issue with the M9. Fine, Leica fixes them free. But nothing has ever been stated that the replacement sensors have been redesigned to solve the problem. And repairs at Leica tend to take a long time keeping the camera out of the owner's hands. So that would be a big issue on my mind if I was right now trying to decide between the two.

Edited October 13, 2014 by bocaburger

[fotografr]

Thanks very much. I'm now plowing through previous discussions about this question, which I should have done before starting this thread. Apologies.

[Paulus]

I'm considering a used M9 or M(240) and am having trouble deciding which to go with. I don't care at all about video because I use my DLux6 for that. I know there are a lot of people here who have owned both and I'd very much appreciate opinions on image quality and reliability. Thanks!

 

 

I really liked the M9 I had.The camera and the files are great. I had a steel grey. I did not like the steel grey. It scratched very fast. I also did not like the noise it made after a took a shot.

 

I really like the M240 . It feels safe in the rain. I recently shot lots of photos in the rain in Venice. It was really fun , feeling it was a rain proof camera. I like the speed/ grain in iso 2500 which is better than the M9.

 

If I had to choose again, I'd skip the M9. Except the M9P black. This camera just looks great. If you go for the files and are not bothered by the is 1600 grain. The M9 is great. If you want to make photos in darker places, the M240 just wins.

 

Colours of the M240 are great! I notice that I make more color photos since my M240

 

see for M240 :

 

Venice Italy land and city scapes - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

Ballonvaart en landing in Moerenburg: "Trying to catch a Virgin." - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

see for M9

 

Affligem kleur - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

Valley of the Hilver - pauljoostenfotograaf

[John Ricard]

I own both. For studio photography, where I am shooting at base ISO, and a small buffer isn't really an issue, I reach for the M9 first. For just about any other shoot situation, I prefer the M240. The M240 has a small buffer like the M9, but it seems to clear out a bit quicker. And the ability of the M240 to shoot in lower light than the M9 makes it a better camera for any situation except studio shooting.

[CheshireCat]

Thank you. I've heard some people express the opinion that the M9 color is more natural, though that may be a function of post processing.

 

All the contrary. The M9 can produce unreal purple/pinkish skin tones, especially indoor.

I don't know if this is UV/IR related, but the problem is a pain to fix in post.

 

Outdoor photos may look better on the M9 straight out of camera, but I believe this is because the M9 tends to over-saturate. You can achieve the same (actually better) results in post with the M.

 

Also, would you say the M(240) files have a more "processed" or "digital" appearance than the M9?

 

No.

[k-hawinkler]

All the contrary. The M9 can produce unreal purple/pinkish skin tones, especially indoor.

I don't know if this is UV/IR related, but the problem is a pain to fix in post.

 

Outdoor photos may look better on the M9 straight out of camera, but I believe this is because the M9 tends to over-saturate. You can achieve the same (actually better) results in post with the M.

 

 

Have you tried something like this?

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2494150-post3.html

[fotografr]

I really liked the M9 I had.The camera and the files are great. I had a steel grey. I did not like the steel grey. It scratched very fast. I also did not like the noise it made after a took a shot.

 

I really like the M240 . It feels safe in the rain. I recently shot lots of photos in the rain in Venice. It was really fun , feeling it was a rain proof camera. I like the speed/ grain in iso 2500 which is better than the M9.

 

If I had to choose again, I'd skip the M9. Except the M9P black. This camera just looks great. If you go for the files and are not bothered by the is 1600 grain. The M9 is great. If you want to make photos in darker places, the M240 just wins.

 

Colours of the M240 are great! I notice that I make more color photos since my M240

 

see for M240 :

 

Venice Italy land and city scapes - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

Ballonvaart en landing in Moerenburg: "Trying to catch a Virgin." - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

see for M9

 

Affligem kleur - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

Valley of the Hilver - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

Thank you. Your photos are gorgeous.

[CheshireCat]

Have you tried something like this?

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2494150-post3.html

 

Thanks, tried those settings.

They mitigate the issue a bit (at the cost of color saturation), but they do not fix it.

My educated guess is the issue is due to IR/UV contamination, therefore it is only fixable in hardware (i.e. filters).

[John Z. Goriup]

I went from an M6-TTL to an M9 to a M9P to a new M-P in the last 8 years, with a couple of "affairs" with full-frame Canon & Nikon full-frame digitals ( ff is my own nonnegotiable requirement ) during that time, and am absolutely convinced that the output of the current M provides the highest image quality of any digital camera I've owned so far, utilizing a combination of older lenses I've kept from M6 days as well as newly purchased "digital era" M optics.

 

Color fidelity, sharpness, contrast, higher ISO & lower light capability and overall image qualiity using the same lenses is improved over the M9 & M9P, which I felt had too strong a color signature whereas the new M / M-P are more neutral and 'transparent'.

 

Moreover, the M 240 / M-P does so much more. For the life of me I will never understand the reason for all the katzenjammer about the video feature, or the the additional 5mm of depth of the body. If you don't need nor want the video……..don't use it - full stop, although I've seen some travel videos a friend took in exquisite locations and all I can say is……WOW. Re the extra 5mm - the live view feature opens a whole new range of capabilities, but also requires significantly more battery capacity - hence it's larger - if you don't (want to) use live view, one freshly charged battery lasts pretty much all day.

 

"Ohhhh Yeaahhh,, but I paid good money for all these unwanted features Leica forced on me, which I will never use ". You have a point, BUT, since the advent of digital photography, and given that from a long-view historical standpoint we're only a relatively short period into the digital age, and given the rate of improvements and advances in sensor and computer technology, I am perfectly comfortable with the concept and think it's entirely reasonable to accept the fact that many of us ( Leica M range-finder owners ) will be trading / upgrading M bodies at somewhat regular intervals as the image quality of new future bodies continues to improve and resale values and the market for used Leica bodies are considerations. For example, the current Oly EFV2 could & should be be a whole lot better and more user-friendly, when Wetzlar figures out how to mount the "T" VisoflexI ( or something even better ) on a future M I'll be the first to order the package.

 

It is my firm belief that the live view capabilty will grow on the vast majority of M / M-P owners as an indispensable part of their repertoire. In my case I didn't have to wait for it to grow on me, since I bought the first new MP in northern California principally because I wanted that capability in the hope that it would help me shrink the amount of equipment I have to schlepp around for motorsports photography to a single system that accommodates my needs for ultra-wide angle, macro, and long telephoto optics. When I got the new M-P I had them throw in an M/R lens adapter, the new macro adapter, and the EVF2…….. and haven't taken the Canon 5D-Mk III out of its bag since. I find the steep learning curve to use the M-P effectively to be a challenging but thoroughly enjoyable and absorbing experience.

 

I strongly recommend the M240 or the M-P, and further recommend chrome, since that is the toughest finish and will look the best for the longest time.

 

Respectfully and Good Luck,

 

JZG

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks, tried those settings.

They mitigate the issue a bit (at the cost of color saturation), but they do not fix it.

My educated guess is the issue is due to IR/UV contamination, therefore it is only fixable in hardware (i.e. filters).

 

Unfortunately you are correct IMHO.

But when IR/UV contamination is small then I find those settings can help.

[rirakuma]

I would vote for the M as well. The improvements in ergonomics alone is worth the extra bucks.

[tom0511]

Some weeks ago I would have voted for the M but personally I am still undecided.

There are 2 things where I might prefer the M9(p):

 

1) Even though the new M is only slightly heavier and fatter and ist still ok to use I find a bit on the heavy brick side. For me the M9 feels better in this regard.

 

2) I have gone back and forth betwee the 2 models in regards of which IQ I prefer.

I agree that with the M9 in certain light higher ISO Skin tones can look "funky".

On the other side it seems that with the M9 I had more Images which gave me a certain "Pop" which I do not allways find in my M Images.

 

Of course there are other things I really like about the new M:

1)better high ISO

2) weatherproof (even though I never ran into a Problem with the M9)

3) faster processing clearing of buffer

4) Sometimes life view is nice

 

So after selling my M9(p) twice I just rebought a black M9p.

I will not sell the M and I am not sure which I will use more often but for some reason the M9(p) feels somehow more "pure" M-like to me and the Images are a Little more Special/different. I can not say better.

If I were ou I would a) try to handle both in regards to weight look at Images in the net etc. and see which "signature" you prefer and if you believe to be able to see a difference.

I admit I am not allways right if I try to guess from which model (M vs M9) a certaim Images comes.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[stephan_w]

I'm actually in the same situation. Tried a M240 when it came out, not very much convinced, but now sometimes I think: The M might be more versatile than the M9 because of the higher ISO (how much is it really, now with better IQ of LR?). Then I like the layout of the M9 better, it is more classical.