indergaard Posted October 15, 2014 Share #21 Posted October 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. I would never be able to go back to a M9/MM based camera after using the M240 for a year. The previous platform is extremely dated . The M240 is more responsive and a far better camera in every way possible, and it's also weather sealed. I can not understand that people are confused what to get today - a M9 or a M240. The ISO performance of the M240 is better than the M9. Far better. But it's still not good compared to competing cameras. It's very good up to ISO 3200 I'd say, as long as you don't over-expose. Anything over 3200 ISO reveals a horrible banding that requires a lot of processing to fix. ISO 6400 is basically unusable in most circuimstances. Especially for night time shots, where a black sky will show extreme banding no matter what... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 Hi indergaard, Take a look here M9 or M (240)?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mashimaro Posted October 15, 2014 Share #22 Posted October 15, 2014 I also went from an M9 to an M240. Higher ISO performance makes a big difference for me as I found the M9 limiting at low light shooting without a tripod. Like many others, I also use full frame systems from other manufacturers as well (Canon 5D3 and Sony A7R). The ISO performance is decent but not as good as those 2 cameras. Liveview is great to have and also the Leica EVF. Very useful tools to make the shorting experience much nicer. The screen is also much better than the M9 screen. I fell the M240 is a great all around camera whereas the M9 is limited to a "sunny day" walk around camera. The M9 is just a simple camera with no bells and whistles. I do love that about the M9. Just my usage of course. I am sad of the size increase as my new Arte Di Mano case for the M9 doesn't fit my M240 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreed2754 Posted October 16, 2014 Share #23 Posted October 16, 2014 A year ago went from M9P to M and never once regretted it. Do a lot do concert work and higher ISO and quieter shutter made a big, big difference. Having live view means no extra finders to carry and ability to use Leicaflex lenses which didn't work out as well as hoped for but still glad to have. Better rangefinder just adds to the equation. Plus the quality of my images seems better with better sensor. Guess upto user and type of photoghy OP does, but believe in this case newer is better. What will you do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted October 16, 2014 Share #24 Posted October 16, 2014 I loved the M9, but sadly don't miss it since getting an M240. The size difference between my M6 and M9 was noticeable. The size difference between my M9 and M240 isn't. I don't notice the weight difference either. Much of the weight is likely the new battery, which can power the camera for most of a long day without sleeping (so it is always ready to shoot, just like a film M). Three cheers for the new battery, it's easily worth the weight. The quieter shutter and wind makes the camera sound like an M should. The shutter button stroke is smoother than the M9, better for hand-holding long shutter speeds. Put me in the camp that likes the live view option. Sometimes you can't beat error free framing. It imposes a noticeable delay, however, so requires different timing. For quick shooting I find an optical finder easier. Also, I find Sony's focus peaking too vague to be useful, and much prefer Leica's more precise implementation. I understand some folks find it hard to see the peaking at all, but that hasn't been a problem for me (I always use the RF when I need to focus quickly). I have used the camera in a downpour, and it worked perfectly. I wouldn't have done that with an M9. The rangefinder window needs a windshield wiper. Folks who talk about the different look of the two cameras aren't wrong, but in my opinion, may exaggerate the difference. The M9 out-of-camera isn't Kodachrome, but it definitely reminds me of Kodachrome---saturated, with smart use of a limited dynamic range. The M reminds me more of Portra---a bit less saturated, with visibly wider dynamic range. I think if you truly love that more Kodachrome look, it's right there with virtually no effort from the M9. The M240 shows more shadow detail out of camera, which makes photos look either more realistic or flatter, depending on the image and your sensibilities. The M9 files are excellent for post processing, but in my opinion, the M240's are better. I prefer the M240, but can understand someone else deciding they prefer the M9 (and have been perfectly happy working with both). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 16, 2014 Share #25 Posted October 16, 2014 I loved the M9, but sadly don't miss it since getting an M240. The size difference between my M6 and M9 was noticeable. The size difference between my M9 and M240 isn't. I don't notice the weight difference either. Much of the weight is likely the new battery, which can power the camera for most of a long day without sleeping (so it is always ready to shoot, just like a film M). Three cheers for the new battery, it's easily worth the weight. The quieter shutter and wind makes the camera sound like an M should. The shutter button stroke is smoother than the M9, better for hand-holding long shutter speeds. Put me in the camp that likes the live view option. Sometimes you can't beat error free framing. It imposes a noticeable delay, however, so requires different timing. For quick shooting I find an optical finder easier. Also, I find Sony's focus peaking too vague to be useful, and much prefer Leica's more precise implementation. I understand some folks find it hard to see the peaking at all, but that hasn't been a problem for me (I always use the RF when I need to focus quickly). I have used the camera in a downpour, and it worked perfectly. I wouldn't have done that with an M9. The rangefinder window needs a windshield wiper. Folks who talk about the different look of the two cameras aren't wrong, but in my opinion, may exaggerate the difference. The M9 out-of-camera isn't Kodachrome, but it definitely reminds me of Kodachrome---saturated, with smart use of a limited dynamic range. The M reminds me more of Portra---a bit less saturated, with visibly wider dynamic range. I think if you truly love that more Kodachrome look, it's right there with virtually no effort from the M9. The M240 shows more shadow detail out of camera, which makes photos look either more realistic or flatter, depending on the image and your sensibilities. The M9 files are excellent for post processing, but in my opinion, the M240's are better. I prefer the M240, but can understand someone else deciding they prefer the M9 (and have been perfectly happy working with both). Was going to post but you have said exactly what I would have written....... I've traded in an old M9+M9P for a second M240 (p) and have not regretted it. All-round it comes close to the ideal marriage of RF plus digital .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 17, 2014 Share #26 Posted October 17, 2014 I also don't miss the M9 vertical smearing on bright ligt sources: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Vertical_smear.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted October 17, 2014 Share #27 Posted October 17, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The size difference between my M6 and M9 was noticeable. The size difference between my M9 and M240 isn't. The size is barely different. The new thumb wheel is smackdab where my thumb used to go on the M8 and 9. And it's too small to be a thumbgrip, infact it's painful if I use it for that purpose. So my thumb now ends up smackdab on the control whachamacallit, constantly turning on the LCD for no good reason. My salvation has been the bottom half of the Leica never ready case having that handy back flap which covers it up. The quieter shutter and wind makes the camera sound like an M should.. YES! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted October 17, 2014 Share #28 Posted October 17, 2014 Loooking back when I still used both M9 and M I realize that M9 felt much better in hand (with Thumbie) than the M for street. Except that the sound of M is so much quieter For all winter and tripod work M is better due to LV /EVF, but not for night shots with long exposures since the M wont allow this. I could happily return to M9, but wuld miss the slight increase in IQ, mainly increased dynamics. The resolution seems similar. Best of luck. If you are not sure go for M9 and spend on lenses instead Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.