advice on M9 to m-p upgrade or m240

[uroman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all.

I am an M9 user, love it, but i sometimes have a hard time focusing. I also shoot mostly jpeg, since i don't do a lot of computer processing. So i am a novice compared to all of you. I also have a 35cron and a 50 lux.

 

I am thinking of upgrading to a m-p (or an m240 with the discount).

 

I need most help with focusing. Can someone explain to me if it will be easier to focus with these cameras - help of live view? How does the evf help? What about high ISO performance for a novice user? I am not an expert by any means.

 

I don't have a leica store nearby, and i am just not as well versed on these topics as I could be. I would like to upgrade however for the benefits of them m240.

thanks

[hossegor]

I find the m240 a little bit easier to focus due to the brighter rangefinder (lit)

 

the higher iso is definitly usable if you shoot a lot in low light situations, but with a Summilux i got along fine with my M9 up to ISO 800 also.

 

The live view on the M240 is ok but nowhere as good as the EVF on a Sony A7/R/S.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Disclosure - comparing, I thoroughly dislike the Sony focus peaking. The M240 shutter would be a major reason for upgrade to me too. Focusing is indeed easier on the 240.

Edited November 27, 2014 by jaapv

[TomB_tx]

I don't like focus peaking period. I find the A7 very easy to focus well without these "aids."

While the M(240) does give live view focus capability, I stayed with the M9 as my M lenses are suited to RF, and added the A7 for my R Tele and macro lenses. I've been using separate M & R systems since the 1960s anyway, and the A7 is a good solution for me.

I do sometimes use 35 & 50 RF lenses on the A7 in VERY dim light, as the EVF can be easier to see than even an M RF in these conditions. As a bonus, I find I get better results with my CV 35 f1.4 on the A7 than my M9 since the focus shift isn't an issue with live view focusing at aperture.

The A7 is a reasonable cost way to see if EVF focusing works for you.

Edited November 27, 2014 by TomB_tx

[jaapv]

However, I did not get the impression that the OP asked for advice on EVF focusing. The M240 is of course primarily a rangefinder and thus far superior in the whole experience to an EVF - at least, for those that have an affinity with optical viewfinders. As such it is easier to focus than the M9, which was the question.

[uroman]

this is all very helpful. Is there any reason for me to consider an M-E? To me, if one has an M9, the m-e doesnt add anything. On the other hand, i dont needd 24 MP i dont think. I presume the new M-P is in a whole different league?

 

Also, if one trades an M9 to a dealer, is there any rule of thumb? Some say 60% of used price. That seems really low. I presume that most people just keep their old cameras.

 

Lastly, the new M-P - is there a preferred review of it in detail that I can read? Any suggestions?

[hossegor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Disclosure - comparing, I thoroughly dislike the Sony focus peaking. The M240 shutter would be a major reason for upgrade to me too. Focusing is indeed easier on the 240.

 

i love the a7 focus peaking. the m240 peaking is completely useless to me.

[jaapv]

Really?- It reacts to noise in the viewfiner at low light and shooting a herd of Zebra with a 135 paints the whole viewfinder red - even at the lowest setting, it is that inaccurate.

 

The M240 one in comparison allows to focus to the centimeter with a 400 lens - see my contriutions to the Wildlife and Nature forum. I find the number of focus errors with the 240 EVF is far lower than it ever was with my R series cameras.

The point is that the Sony FP is geared to medium focal lengths, whilst the M240 one is conceived for Tele and Macro, as the camera has the superior RF for lengths around 50.

[TomB_tx]

If the M(240) rangefinder is indeed better than the M9, it could be reason for the O.P. to change. I agree a good RF is great for wide-to-normal lenses, but I haven't had a problem with the focus precision of my M9 - just with focus shift on a few lenses. Is the M(240) view/rangefinder better in other ways than precision, such as brightness, contrast, etc? For film cameras I found the Zeiss Ikon ZM VF great for these other factors, if not up to the Leica in precision focus - but sometimes focus accuracy is more influenced by how well you can see the RF image than by the precise adjustment of the RF.

[bocaburger]

3 years with an M9, 4 months now with an M240, of which 2 months I had both. I did not see even a minusucule bit of improvement in the clairty, accuracy or focusability of the M240's rangefinder when I was comparing them before purchase, or in the time I owned both. In fact the M240's LED framelines are too bright for my taste compared to M's of the past. (I find the red framelines somewhere between useless and annoying). If Leica makes a production version of the M60 I wish it would have the old frameline illumination too.

 

I have Live View button disabled, as I only use it on the rare occasion I attach my 70-210 R or 400/6.8 Telyt, or if I want to use an extension tube to do a macro shot. In those cases I find focusing visually works fine, and in fact I can barely make out the focus peaking and to me it's gimmicky and I don't bother with it. I have a Sony Nex6 and the focus peaking on it is also useless to me because it seems to have too much DOF, that is, it lights up over a wider depth than the DOF of the lens.

 

The one reason stated by the OP which I believe he will find the M240 far better suited to his liking, is he mentions he shoots jpg. I could never get decent quality with jpg on the M9, but with the M240 I almost never revert to dng anymore.

[pop]

Gents, I think we don't even know if we're barking up the right tree.

 

Uroman states that he has a hard time focusing with 35mm Summicron and 50mm Summilux lenses. As we don't know in which situations the difficulties make themselves felt, it is really hard to predict how to improve the hit rate. Perhaps a new pair of glasses would be helpful?

 

The RF of the M (Typ 240) is indeed superior to the RF of the M9 (and, of course, the M-E). However, this may or may not be of any help to Uroman. Buying an M in order to use the EVF with Focus Peaking sounds a bit wasteful to me. I personally am quite happy with Focus Peaking on my Nex 5N and Nex 7 with my 40mm Summicron-C.

[edwardkaraa]

I really must be in the minority group that does not find any difference in RF accuracy between the M9 and M(240). I never had any trouble accurately focusing neither the M9 nor the M. Does Leica claim the RF is more accurate? I was under the impression it was made tougher against bumps but not more accurate?

[pop]

I really must be in the minority group that does not find any difference in RF accuracy between the M9 and M(240). I never had any trouble accurately focusing neither the M9 nor the M. Does Leica claim the RF is more accurate? I was under the impression it was made tougher against bumps but not more accurate?

The new RF has a bit more contrast. This has been reported by several users here (including myself). IIRC, there also has been a statement by Leica to that effect, though I can not locate it right now.

 

I now can focus the 135mm Elmarit with reasonable accuracy, which I could not with the other cameras.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

If you're having trouble RF focusing on the M9 then the M won't be significantly easier. The EVF and/or live view can be useful but the RF is a more enjoyable experience. Personally I have no issues with the focus peaking in the Leica or Sony cameras. It's a matter of learning how each works and then extracting the best from them.

 

I would suggest, you get your M9 and lenses checked, however. If you have decent eyesight, getting reliable focus with the RF should not be a chore. It took me some months to get my M9s and lenses all working as a team and it was a revelation. The M have been a bit better, out of the box, accuracy wise, but my M-P was slightly off at new and needed a small infinity adjustment.

 

There are lots of good reasons to upgrade to the M. Personally, I don't think the RF is one of them. I really do miss having the frame lines available without power. But the improved shutter, live view and all round operational improvements were worth it, for me.

 

Gordon

[Guest]

Obviously the quality of one's eyesight is important for RF focusing. My understanding is that the virtual distance in the Leica rangefinder patch is 2 meters, which means that, if your distance vision is good you don't usually need a diopter, even if you use eyeglasess for reading. That was my case. However, I eventually developed some astigmatism (more in the right eye than in the left one) and started having difficulty focusing with Leica rangefinders. A simple diopter doesn't help with astigmatism; nor do reading glasses with astigmatism correction (because of the 2 meter visual in the rangefinder patch makes it impossible to use reading glasses for focusing).

 

For anyone with an astigmatism problem the Walter Leica Eyepiece is a great solution. The video on the Walter website shows how this Eyepiece works — it's ingenious. You send in your eyeglass prescription when placing your order. Now, I no longer gave any problem focusing the M9. (I don't have any connection with the Walter company, apart from being a happy customer).

[bocaburger]

I'm severely nearsighted, have significant astigmatism, and need correction for reading too. I use a multitude of different cameras with no issues or diopter correction whatsoever even if the eyepiece has it. I simply wear my glasses. And if the M240's rangefinder has more contrast than the M9's I sure didn't see it in all the back and forth comparing I did while I owned both.

[Guest]

The point is that people who need reading glasses but who have normal long vision (except for astigmatism) cannot use their reading glassing for focusing a rangefinder.

[bocaburger]

Yeah but I would think the blurry image and unreadable finder display would be a strong hint to them to not wear reading glasses

[wda]

Rangefinder focusing appears to be simple and intuitive. In my experience over nearly fifty years is that you are rewarded by regular practising, without shooting all the time. Along with others I have found that with ageing eyes, even with corrective spectacles, extra care is needed for consistent accuracy. On other Leica cameras I do use autofocus, but have found that AF is not entirely 100% accurate, even when the LCD suggests otherwise. On balance I still prefer using a rangefinder and adjust my technique to cope with difficult situations.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[satijntje]

Advantages of M240 over the M9:

clearer rangefinder, and therefore easier to focus;

Focuspeaking allowing you to use R lenses and others lenses;

Much better batterie, I never bought a spare M240 one, but always had 2 or 3 9 batteries with me when shooting with M9;

Much better ISO, shooting at 3200 does give me good results;

Video (for those that need it)

Better LCD screen, I found the M9 screen useless to quickly see if images were ok.

 

There might be a few more points, but these are the most important one that came to my mind.

 

Sell the M9, put the add on costs for the M9-P on top and get a nice second hand or demo M240.

 

Good luck

John