Is the 240 still a good choice to get started with a M?

[catacore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The main problem with M240 at 6400 ISO is banding. Also the image just falls appart at that ISO. Maybe converted to B&W would still be usable, but as a color image there is no way (in my oppinion). So, it is more than just removing the noise.....

Edited March 13, 2023 by catacore

[sometimesmaybe]

just a quick update - i just got hold of a m240 DNG - courtesy of @watersignphotography (IG)

this image was shot at 6400. full size images here (OneDrive) 

both images are cropped:

1. top image is the straight DNG to JPEG conversion via PhotoLab 6 with no DeepPrime XD (DxO's de-noising algorithm)
2. bottom image is processed with DeepPrime XD via PhotoLab 6 (no other edits / enhancements applied)

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!

[RayD28]

11 minutes ago, sometimesmaybe said:

just a quick update - i just got hold of a m240 DNG - courtesy of @watersignphotography (IG)

this image was shot at 6400. full size images here (OneDrive) 

both images are cropped:

1. top image is the straight DNG to JPEG conversion via PhotoLab 6 with no DeepPrime XD (DxO's de-noising algorithm)
2. bottom image is processed with DeepPrime XD via PhotoLab 6 (no other edits / enhancements applied)

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!

Impressive.  Thanks for posting.  

[Herr Barnack]

6 hours ago, catacore said:

The main problem with M240 at 6400 ISO is banding. Also the image just falls appart at that ISO. Maybe converted to B&W would still be usable, but as a color image there is no way (in my oppinion). So, it is more than just removing the noise.....

...which is why I have never used ISO 6400.   6400 is available - but it does not produce a usable result if high image quality is a priority.

That's why most photographers use the lowest ISO they can get away with for a given scene.  I have not heard of any digital camera that produces color files that can use its highest available ISO and create files with high IQ.

 

[trickness]

The 240 is a good camera for the money, but personally I'd stretch your budget and try to find a good used M10...feels better in the hand, viewfinder is better, color rendition is better (my MP240 had oversaturated weird reds...ok you can fix in post but its kind of annoying) - only reason to buy a 240 is if you don't have the scratch to get am M10. It's just a better camera in all the right ways.

[catacore]

So, trying to answer the topic question: yes, the M240 is still a good choice in 2023. If you think it will be your end of the (M) road, then go for it. If you think you're going to continue on this (M) road, then try to jump straight to the "better" choice. An M10. I wish I would have known that beforehand (see post#19).

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, catacore said:

So, trying to answer the topic question: yes, the M240 is still a good choice in 2023. If you think it will be your end of the (M) road, then go for it. If you think you're going to continue on this (M) road, then try to jump straight to the "better" choice. An M10. I wish I would have known that beforehand (see post#19).

Or @maidenfan84 could bite the bullet, buy an M11, join this thread and bitch about shutter lag https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/334121-shutter-lag-comments-from-jesko-von-oeynhausen/  That is (apparently) the path to true M camera happiness. 😁

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Herr Barnack

[catacore]

3 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

 6400 is available - but it does not produce a usable result if high image quality is a priority.

 

 

It would be impressive to have usable ISO on M10 just one stop below what's available. Meaning 25000 ISO. Which is not the case, I guess. So the M240 is a bit more "honest" in this respect. And, probably, more honest than most of today's cameras.

[Herr Barnack]

56 minutes ago, catacore said:

It would be impressive to have usable ISO on M10 just one stop below what's available. Meaning 25000 ISO. Which is not the case, I guess. So the M240 is a bit more "honest" in this respect. And, probably, more honest than most of today's cameras.

The M10M comes close - but it is black and white only.  Some say ISO 50,000 is usable; some say 20,000-25,000 is the usable limit.  It depends on the user's tolerance for digital "grain" (AKA noise). 

JMHO but a usable ISO of 20,000-25,000 is impressive for any camera.

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Herr Barnack

[Gregm61]

I’ve tried some de-banding tools in photoshop after output from camera raw and have been impressed with the results from files captured from ISO 4000 and up with the MP 240 I am using.

For the number of times I’d actually go this high up the ISO scale with the MP240, I’m prepared to use this tool as needed.

16 bit surface blur…

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Gregm61

[codocee]

Average price of a used M11 is $6800-$$7400.

Average price of a used M10 is $4,000-$4200.

Average price of a used M240 is $2400-$2700.

 

For someone using the camera as a carry for all occasions shooting, I’d suggest M240. 
Saves either $1600 versus the M10, $4000 on the M11 that the sellers of that camera lost $1500 on in 1yr if sold

I shoot a used M262 bought for $2800, a M9M monochrome used for $1000, with a corroded sensor, and a Sony A7RIII, used for $1800, mint for high res use. Each serves a specific purpose

Every time I go out the door I’ve never felt constrained by my gear options. Each is great in there use for me.

I hear and see the words “better” and “best” “blows it outta the water” repeatedly. I just can’t justify the perceived gain.

 

The M240 or M262 are still in my view a great bargain in todays market. Nothing wrong with either- not “better” than some. Not the “best”, and they certainly don’t “blow anything outta the water”.

 

Buy good glass!

 

 

 

 

 

[mikeamosau]

Had my MP240 for almost 8 years. Shot with an M10 and M11, and not felt any reason to update it. Still love it. 

[Jskywalker]

Had been using the M240 for about a year now. I liked the colour of the jpg output (don’t flame me, I’m lazy and doesn’t like to spend too much time post processing.) I like that I can transfer the jpg files and share in the shortest possible time. I read that M10 out of camera jpg is not as nice as the M240 (please correct me if I’m wrong). There are two deficiencies. Like many others had pointed out is the low ISO. I set my to 1600 which is still very useable. The other issue is weight. The M240 is called the Big M for a good reason. It’s built like a Main Battle Tank. 😅. The M240 is still a very capable camera despite its age. Unless there’s another that produces a much superior out of camera jpg, I think I’ll stick with it for a long while.

[Casey Jefferson]

Thought of sharing my story about entering the Leica world.

I went from M240, to M9 (old sensor), then M9 (new sensor), then M-P240 as my current main camera alongside an affair with Q2.

There's really nothing rendered like these older camera bodies/sensors M240/M9). They may not have the latest greatest technology, dynamic range, ISO performance, but they render colors in a simpler and more beautiful manner. The Q2 in comparison rendered colors somewhat true to life, but in a boring way. My M-P will render even overcast weather in a moody (and pleasing) way, my Q2 will either give me dull or flat colors instead. I hope Leica will continue to service the camera as long as I still shoot...😂

[Chris W]

I don't know the Q2. I had a Q and thought the images from it were outstanding, needed little work. I sold it because I didn't want to be locked into 28mm.

With my M240 quite a lot of the images had an orange/gold tinge to them. It took a lot of work to balance the colours back to what I saw with my naked eye. You may call that character. Also, the low light performance was questionable.

I've always loved a rangefinder, but can't afford an M10R or M11. I recently found a great deal on a Hasselblad X1D 2 and traded my M240 in for it. I'm shocked how small the Hassy actually is, especially with the 45mm lens (35mm in old school terms).

[cboy]

Imo M11 is losing more its charm compared to the later models since alot of new features were taken from other camera lines such as the streamlined menu screen layout on all Leica lines,  touchscreen, battery compartment, more function buttons, EVF to make use of a 'closeup' lens etc. How more is it like a SL; or this trend towards a EVF M? In other words it's becoming more of just an analogue shell with 'advanced' digital features thats not essential or detracts from it's simplicity or analogue experience. YMMV

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by cboy

[Casey Jefferson]

1 hour ago, Chris W said:

I don't know the Q2. I had a Q and thought the images from it were outstanding, needed little work. I sold it because I didn't want to be locked into 28mm.

With my M240 quite a lot of the images had an orange/gold tinge to them. It took a lot of work to balance the colours back to what I saw with my naked eye. You may call that character. Also, the low light performance was questionable.

I've always loved a rangefinder, but can't afford an M10R or M11. I recently found a great deal on a Hasselblad X1D 2 and traded my M240 in for it. I'm shocked how small the Hassy actually is, especially with the 45mm lens (35mm in old school terms).

That resonance with my experience with the M240 too, that's why I went to try out M9, and back, but decided on the P variant for 240 and to my surprise, it rendered on the cooler side and colors are vibrant instead of overly warm - even if it came out too warm a quick white balance adjustment usually clear things out. They are supposedly the same but in my experience they don't. Heard similar things about the M262 too.

Low light capability isn't up there for sure but I starting to believe the trade off of having better dynamic range and low light performance are color rendering - for lack of better words.

How do you find about the Q vs the M240 in terms of rendering though? So far all raw samples of the original Q suggested that they're a little less rich than the 240 (as in color tonality and palette). Problem is now that I have two cameras already, almost pull the trigger for yet another camera to find the perfect compromise but didn't, due to budget. The Q is going for pretty good price now, and I longer for a silver Q!

Edited May 12, 2023 by Casey Jefferson

[Casey Jefferson]

47 minutes ago, cboy said:

Imo M11 is losing more its charm compared to the later models since alot of new features were taken from other camera lines such as the streamlined menu screen layout on all Leica lines,  touchscreen, battery compartment, more function buttons, EVF to make use of a 'closeup' lens etc. How more is it like a SL; or this trend towards a EVF M? In other words it's becoming more of just an analogue shell with 'advanced' digital features thats not essential or detracts from it's simplicity or analogue experience. YMMV

 

I don't care for features and menus, cause I rarely use anything more than the good old exposure triangle. But again the raw samples I downloaded were underwhelming.

[Casey Jefferson]

Here are two quick samples from today, white balance are as it is for both, adjusted just exposure and contrast (curve, sliders). The daylight shot nothing orange or warm about it, it's just as what I saw in person, same as the dusk shot, the sky is just as what I saw in person, it's just the right degree of warmth to the tone, and the greens are vibrant.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tsleica]

It makes sense because its not too costly..has a rangefinder..and does video.

My Sigma FP blows it out of the water for color rendition at any iso.

My Panny S5 is just a better camera.

But the M does what those dont do.

No brainer really..M is the ticket for a more personal experience.

But I dont think the RF is particularly good for wide angles but 50/75/90/135 are fast and easy... 35mm and below are not as natural or easy to frame with...esp 28mm.

Edited May 12, 2023 by tsleica