jimmy@jimmybruno.com Posted July 11, 2021 Share #1 Posted July 11, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there any advantage to trading in a 240 for a Leica M9 or M10? I have an M240 and thinking of making an upgrade. I am a newby when it comes to the M series Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 11, 2021 Posted July 11, 2021 Hi jimmy@jimmybruno.com, Take a look here M240 vs M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tom.w.bn Posted July 11, 2021 Share #2 Posted July 11, 2021 M9 = downgrade M10 = upgrade what's wrong with your M240? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy@jimmybruno.com Posted July 11, 2021 Author Share #3 Posted July 11, 2021 I thought so. Thanks you. Nothing wrong with the M240. However, the M10 is way too expensive for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham (G4FUJ) Posted July 12, 2021 Share #4 Posted July 12, 2021 The M9 was an earlier generation camera. Some prefer the look of photos from them. However, many suffered with the sensor cover glass and while some independents can replace it, Leica appear to no longer offer any service backup. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted July 12, 2021 Share #5 Posted July 12, 2021 Jimmy, if nothing wrong with your M240 AND M10 is way too expensive, just stick to your M240 AND be happy. From my experiences, as a curious person who (still) has and uses the three (plus other M of course). Short story : happy user of M9 from 2010, when M10 came with the thin body (and after skipping M240), I was one of the early adopters of M10 in 2017. Out of curiosity and as prices came down, I bought some M240 family Ms, second hand, and as you Jimmy, I found nothing wrong with them. With same lenses, nothing differenciates them (M9/10/240) in same situation. Only some small 'things' ( ISO, batteries, body thickness, etc. ) in practical using which don't have any influence on final results. Arnaud 6 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monochrome_Man Posted July 13, 2021 Share #6 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) Well this is like trading green Porsche 911 for red one or for blue one... 🤩 Edited July 13, 2021 by Monochrome_Man 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaeger Posted July 13, 2021 Share #7 Posted July 13, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) Probably M10r worth the consideration otherwise not enough upgrades to justify the investment IMO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom.w.bn Posted July 13, 2021 Share #8 Posted July 13, 2021 vor 6 Stunden schrieb jaeger: Probably M10r worth the consideration otherwise not enough upgrades to justify the investment IMO. He wrote that the M10 is already financially out of reach...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Bonn Posted July 13, 2021 Share #9 Posted July 13, 2021 The M9 images can have a certain look to them, they can often be bright, vibrant and saturated with bite and contrast yet still look natural and organic. These images need very little PP to achieve this look. You’ll typically see this at base ISO and in natural light For high ISO (‘high’ = 600+ some might even say 400..) and artificial light the M9 can be far harder work… The M240 (in fact most cameras) can coaxed to make something similar, but the files need more manipulation.. The M9 is slow, the shutter whirrs, it has natural light frameline illumination like a film camera. It’s easy to have an emotive reaction to it compared to the more modern feeling 240/M10 If we say the M9 makes nicer files than the 240 (not that nicer is really a quantifiable performance metric) then we have to add the caveat that the 240 makes usable files in far more situations. The M10 is perhaps more like a super 240, everything bar battery life is better (than the 240) - the ISO is better - in short all the improvements that Leica list for the M10 really do add up to make a camera that I (and others) find appreciably nicer to shoot with than the 240. Many people love the M9, particularly the files it makes. If that is something you really want to experience first hand then you really ought to try it. But if not (there’s enough M9 sample DNG files floating round the net to get a taster to see what you think before jumping in) then using only the cool calm calculus of reason, there’s very little logical reason to change a newer M for an older model. (Personally I found the M10 from 240 upgrade a very worthwhile move) FWIW I own an M9, I used to own an M240 (had it alongside the M9) and now I own an M10 (I still have the m9) These are my opinions, others will have different opinions. But I own/have owned all the cameras I talk about. HTH? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy@jimmybruno.com Posted July 13, 2021 Author Share #10 Posted July 13, 2021 very sensible answer. Does the M10 have more megapixels than the M240? and is it noticeable on an 8x10 print? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 13, 2021 Share #11 Posted July 13, 2021 1 minute ago, jimmy@jimmybruno.com said: Does the M10 have more megapixels than the M240? and is it noticeable on an 8x10 print? No. No. Philip. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Michel Posted July 13, 2021 Share #12 Posted July 13, 2021 To Jimmy, I gather that you are a renowned jazz guitarist, and photography is a perhaps new artistic endeavour. Since you already have a M240, you have all you need — I happen to own and use both an M9 and M-P (240)— you can make really good images with that. In jazz venues, the M240 would be definitely be easier to use in less well-lit environments. Adding an EVF2, either from Leica or the identical and much les expensive Olympus canoe very helpful. For a 8 by 10 inches print, it becomes impossible to see any quality difference between files from just about any camera. And prints are the only things that will last! Jean-Michel 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy@jimmybruno.com Posted July 13, 2021 Author Share #13 Posted July 13, 2021 LOL, you found me out. I got into photography from hanging around photographers that were always around taking pictures of me. I've been a closet photo nut for 20 years. Used have my own darkroom when the only thing to shoot was film. I missed those days but now the digital scene is so much simpler and I finally caved into the digital world. Thanks to everyone who has helped me out... I will visit regularly . I still have a two leica ii. I use my old collapsible lenses a lot. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted July 13, 2021 Share #14 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) On the M9 at high ISO the noise is very manageable and not unpleasant. I have used it at higher still but only for B&W. These are both @ ISO800 on M9 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! Edited July 13, 2021 by ianman 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/322637-m240-vs-m9/?do=findComment&comment=4237703'>More sharing options...
Adam Bonn Posted July 13, 2021 Share #15 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) If at high iso you just expose for the highlights and let the blacks fall where they land then you can get pleasing pictures but that isn't the same as iso performance And however you cut it the m9 has worse iso performance than the 240 Edited July 13, 2021 by Adam Bonn Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy@jimmybruno.com Posted July 13, 2021 Author Share #16 Posted July 13, 2021 my kind of pictures. Not bad at all. Looks good in that low light This is at 3200 with M240 using an old 3.4 elmar 35 mm 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/322637-m240-vs-m9/?do=findComment&comment=4237709'>More sharing options...
jimmy@jimmybruno.com Posted July 13, 2021 Author Share #17 Posted July 13, 2021 I don't like the window.. too much whites Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy@jimmybruno.com Posted July 13, 2021 Author Share #18 Posted July 13, 2021 seems I did the opposite about exposing for the highlights. I'll try that. thanks for the tip Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted July 13, 2021 Share #19 Posted July 13, 2021 5 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said: And however you cut it the m9 has worse iso performance than the 240 Never said it wasn’t... I wrote it is very usable at 800 and higher. ps. Could you please stop with the persistent passive aggressive comments whenever I write about M9 performance being perfectly ok. Thanks so much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted July 13, 2021 Share #20 Posted July 13, 2021 6 minutes ago, jimmy@jimmybruno.com said: seems I did the opposite about exposing for the highlights. I'll try that. thanks for the tip As a rule of thumb on film protect the shadows, on digital protect the highlights Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.