M240 vs M9

[emilkarl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/21/2023 at 6:00 PM, espelt said:

There is hardly any difference when taking photos - you can use the Digital M just as you would with the M6. Apart from the difference in exposure metering: Don't expose digitally to the shadows...
You can ignore the back of the camera. Once you've made your settings, you don't need to fiddle with it much anymore. And I like the ISO setting on the 240 even better than the M10. The ISO wheel looks very cool - but I find it a bit fiddly. On the 240 I can adjust this in a matter of seconds, even in poor light. Thumb left hand presses the button, thumb right hand turns the adjustment wheel - done.
If the budget plays a role - the M 240 is currently a very good entry-level option. Maybe there will still be room for a good lens.

Thanks for the reply. How do you find the "poor" ISO performance? I guess it’s not like a 2023 model with 50.000 ISO or something but is it doable? I never go over 1600 when shooting film and that’s ok for most situations so if thats fine with the M240 I guess I am ok.

[costa43]

Looking at a spec sheet, the m240 is better in every meaningful way bar wake time and thickness. Then again, if you have a preference for the CCD then the m9/m8 cannot be beaten by any model for output prior to editing. Many think that you cannot achieve the same ‘look’ even after editing.
 

What I’ve found is that every time I’ve purchased a new M camera, I’m initially disappointed in the colours/output compared to my previous model. After a few weeks, I become familiar with its files and when looking back at my older pictures taken on those previous models, I find they were not as ‘superior’ as initially thought.  Saying that, I still feel the m8/m9 have the most pleasing starting point for an image when it is taken in good light at base iso. You do have to get closer to your preferred final outcome in camera though as you do not have the latitude that you find in the m240 gen onwards. 
 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[espelt]

Am 22.12.2023 um 22:32 schrieb emilkarl:

Thanks for the reply. How do you find the "poor" ISO performance? I guess it’s not like a 2023 model with 50.000 ISO or something but is it doable? I never go over 1600 when shooting film and that’s ok for most situations so if thats fine with the M240 I guess I am ok.

It goes without saying that new models offer even greater scope. But the 240 isn't that bad. 1600 is completely fine. And even with 3200 you can still use them. This streaking can occur with paint. But it also depends on the subject. In any case, you can react to it in post-production. E.g. simulate a little film look. Or convert to sw...

Example with 3,200, Summicron aperture 2. Just Christmas lights and a few candles

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!

M-P 240 . Summicron 50 . ISO 3.200

[espelt]

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!

M-P 240 . Summicron 50 . ISO 3.200

[espelt]

And the black and white version...

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!

M-P 240 . Summicron 50 . ISO 3.200

[Adam Bonn]

On 12/21/2023 at 1:31 AM, jdlaing said:

I believe it has different ISO performance. Not worse

not sure why either of us is fussed about a post I made over 2 years ago...

I guess it depends on ones interpretation of performance... the usual metric is DR range against ISO.

When using this metric one finds that the M9 is worse than than the 240 (namely the M9 has less DR than the 240 at equal ISO values)

(Of course this doesn't mean more pleasing pictures, or more appealing colours, or CCD magic, or Kodachrome-y-ness, or whatever)

[M Street Photographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Adam Bonn:

not sure why either of us is fussed about a post I made over 2 years ago...

I guess it depends on ones interpretation of performance... the usual metric is DR range against ISO.

When using this metric one finds that the M9 is worse than than the 240 (namely the M9 has less DR than the 240 at equal ISO values)

(Of course this doesn't mean more pleasing pictures, or more appealing colours, or CCD magic, or Kodachrome-y-ness, or whatever)

Yes Sir,

And so every time a new camera delivers better image quality, be it in resolution, be it in dr. But is that what it's all about when you compare a camera with a CMOS sensor and a CCD sensor?

 

[Adam Bonn]

12 hours ago, M Street Photographer said:

Yes Sir,

And so every time a new camera delivers better image quality, be it in resolution, be it in dr. But is that what it's all about when you compare a camera with a CMOS sensor and a CCD sensor?

 

well we need a way to measure technical progress, and DR/resolution etc is as good as any... 

RE CCD vs CMOS the problem there is that CCD has finished, so comparing (say) an M9 with an M10 or 11 or 240 isn't the same as comparing an M9 with a circa 2009 tech, 8-9stop DR 18px CMOS sensor, which would be a fairer comparison IMO

[jaapv]

CCD has not finished at all. It is used in high end TV broadcast video cameras and as 3CCD in video applications for better colour separation. The reason still  cameras use CMOS sensors is because they are cheaper and use less power. 

[emilkarl]

To follow up on my previous post...I bought the M240 and are really happy with it. Combined with a 50mm Summicron atm. Looking into getting either a 28mm or 35 mm lens too.

Thanks.

[Casey Jefferson]

Without going through the while discussion (and I believed I didn't post a reply prior), some fun fact based on my personal experience shooting with M9 with original sensor, M9 with new sensor, M240 as well as M-P240.

The M-P240 by far a true replacement of the M9 (original sensor). I had problems with skin tones and some off colors with regular M240 which the M-P240 didn't, all the shots came out just right in terms of colors (DNG Adobe Color profile). Didn't look back ever since.

PS: I sold the M-P to my friend as I want to take a break from rangefinder, and settled on Q2 instead, my friend who also own an M9 agreed that it's the closest thing to the rendering of the M9.