Jump to content

M9 or M240? If you have one or both, what do you like about them?


ray .

Recommended Posts

<p>I have both and I like both. The M9 is the simpler of the two. It is also lighter. It was my first full frame digital camera, which was exciting. Right now it is Germany getting a new sensor. I'll have it back in May. I miss it as a backup to my M 240.</p>

<p> I like almost everything about the M 240. I like the live view, though there is about a second or so waiting before you can take the next shot. I like the monitor's glass. Infinitely better than the plastic panel for the M9 monitor. It's a delight to use in RF and live view mode. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The low magnification of the M9 finder is almost ideal for a 35mm lens, but focusing a 50 Summicron is difficult to nail, and a 90mm is nearly impossible. You can shoot with impunity at ISO 400, or even 800, but the noise gets nasty as you approach the maximum of 6400. The color is rendered nicelyand the resolution is excellent.</p>

<p>The M9 has frame lines for a 28mm lens, but I can't seem them completely when wearing glasses. I use a diopter eyepiece when possible, and have a 1.4x magnifier for longer lenses.</p>

<p>The M240, with live view, would be a good upgrade. However I bought a Sony A7ii, which uses all the same lenses, and is far more versatile and easier to focus. The image quality is the same level as the M240, as can be seen in side by side comparisons at www.stevehuffphoto.com.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The M240 is very tempting. I really like the idea of having live view and be it just as a backup in case the RF gets out of whack. - If I wanted a serious <strong>color</strong> Leica, I'd get (or have gotten?) a M240.<br>

The M9 appears too unusable for my usual needs. - ISO range. I simply run out of light. <br>

I agree with Edward upon the M9 VF flaws. I bought a 1.25 magnifier & hope it 'll help. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been shooting an M4 alongside an M9 recently & see no difference in the two in terms of focusing. It is, what it is,

rangefinder photography. The M9 is no more or less easy focusing than a film M. If you want the classic rangefinder

experience, the M9 is it. Sounds like the M240 is for those more interested in the digital experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as ISO range the M9 seems just fine @ 1250 as long as properly exposed, a point at which M8 images to me start to fall apart and are usually unappealing. I haven't tried shooting with it higher than that, but it appears to perform well a full stop or more beyond what its predecessor is capable of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>in my mind, M240 is a little bit better than M9 overall. But taking into account the price difference, then M9 is better value. <br>

But if you already have MM, then having another M9 is better than having another M240, comparatively speaking.<br>

MM is the best in terms of high ISO ability (of the three), also produce the best B&W (in my subjective opinion). M9 produces the best color (of the three, and again in my very subjective opinion). M9 and M8 share the same battery, for easy management. MM is already "MP look".<br>

M9+MM is more perfect than M240 + MM.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I can't speak to the M9. My last Leica was an M3 many years ago. But I have acquired a 240 precisely because I had been getting more and more into the Sony a7 cameras and have a growing collection of Voigtlander lenses along with one Zeiss LM lens. Why not try out the newer Leica and see if there is something worthwhile to it.<br>

The M is a bit heavier and sometimes awkward to use, different than my memory of the M3, but that is with the shorter lenses, Getting my finger on the right spot to focus takes new practice for sure. The shutter is very good, quiet, comparable to the new Sony a7II in that regard. In single shot mode, my shooting style is cramped considerably. I hit the shutter button three times, at least, to get two shots. There is a lag regardless of Live View being on or not. On continuous it fires as fast as I would like to do manually, but runs out of operating memory quickly. Then there is the wait for the processing to finish. This Leica forces you to take time to think about stuff, maybe the exposure or the subject, possibly about your favorite football team's chance at the title this year. I'm thinking the M is better for artsy shots, possibly for street work, but not for sports or fast-moving or hazardous photojournalism.<br>

For 35, 50 and 75mm lenses, the rangefinder is superb--dead on and fast. With wider, longer or specialty lenses, it is ideal to attach either Leica's accessory viewfinder or the Olympus VF-2. Neither provide anything as refined as the Sony viewfinders, but it does make it possible to see what's within the frame and to attempt magnified focus.<br>

So, why keep it?<br>

Well, it is a work of art to look at and feel. The software turns out a very nice image, especially if you code the lenses to match the Leica software expectations. Using a rangefinder gives me a slightly different window on the prospective image--harking back to my first days as a working news photographer. And anyone who worked with film does not feel restrained by lower ISOs than are expected of a Sony or Canon camera.</p>

<div>00dDIH-556023384.JPG.bba5c9a1ad5698e7c26890c14749d888.JPG</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I used to have an M240 and sold it, only because I had to pay the bills (and it paid the bills for months :) ).</p>

<p>Recently, I've acquired an M9, and while I'm fresh with it, I prefer the ergonomics of it over the M240. It's lighter, more compact. After shooting film M's for 6 months, I much prefer the size of the M9 as well. I have to say though, I find it much harder to focus than the M240, or my M6 for that matter, especially with a 50. The rangefinder on the M240 is quite spectacular, and obviously it's different than the M9 with the LED framelines, etc. I do miss that from the M240. The shutter on the M9 is annoying, but not a deal breaker. Still quieter than a DSLR which is good enough for me. It's no film M though in that regard. And I also miss the LCD, but again, after shooting film for 6 months straight, it's not a big deal.</p>

<p>They are both spectacular cameras, but there is something about the CCD sensor of the M9. It really is spectacular. I'm trying to upload a few samples, but for some reason it won't allow me....I can send you a few RAWs if you want to play around :)</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>Scott<br>

www.scotturnerphoto.com</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much Scott for your comments. I posted because I was curious about the M240... A couple

months ago I picked up an M9- guess I forgot to mention it. For the reasons you mention, going to stick

with the M9 for now.<p>

 

Also, thanks for your offer of sharing some files- maybe someone else would like to take you up on it. I'll

post something from the M9 here; people can click on it for a larger version... I agree the color files from it

are fantastic: <p>

 

<a href=" spacer.png title="Untitled by Chaospress, on

Flickr"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8737/16789393377_5e3efddb5d_c.jpg" width="800"

height="533" alt="Untitled"></a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

<p>Ray-<br>

Sorry I never checked back on this thread. I just shot a large project using the M9 and I'll add a few more thoughts:<br /> The M9's dynamic range is more limited than I'm used to after using (in this order) Canon 5d3, Leica M240, 35mm Film (Portra 400), and finally the M9. The highlights clip really hard, and the shadows tend to be darker than what I experienced with the M240. No doubt you have seen this with the M9. So that being said, if you like a larger dynamic range, then the M240 would be a better fit. Personally, I equate this to paying more attention to the light I shoot in. I prefer flatter, softer light anyway, so for me its just a matter of 1) Finding this light 2) Making sure harsh light sources are over my shoulder and not behind the camera.<br>

FWIW, I find (upon revisiting the M240 files) that the shadow detail captured on both is comparable, meaning that you can pull about 2 stops out of the shadows on both cameras (though on the M9, that's pushing it, pun intended ;) ). The main difference being, on the M240, my unscientific opinion is that there is more highlight detail that can be recovered and a wider range between shadow and dark.<br>

I see them as two stylistically different cameras with regards to rendering; the M9 is like slide film and the M240 gives you a closer feel to color negative (though still not as easy to shoot :) ). YMMV. Personally, I love the bite in the M9 files, and when needed, I can pull the shadows up a stop or two. The M240 feels "digital" and "plastic" to me (that's from personal experience, not from reading other blogs), where as the M9 files give me a certain "air" that I've only been able to find in film, with added ISO flexibility and very high resolution. In comparison of M9 files against film, I find personally that on a well exposed/scanned negative of 400 ISO (My preferred film is Portra), the grain is comparable to 800-1000 ISO on the M9. That's pretty damn near all I ever need, and 1600 ISO still looks better than pushed/underexposed Portra IMO.<br>

Don't know how to explain it, but I just love the render. If you can live with the ISO/DR capability of the M9, and the other quirks in operation, it's the camera to stick with IMO. Sounds like you feel the same, just wanted to add this for any future readers.<br>

Cheers!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Scott- It's funny what you say because it's with the M240 that I've felt the files look like color slide

film... : ) Actually to me both cameras make excellent files....... I did end up selling my M9 and getting the

M240. I really like the better accuracy of the frame lines in the optical finder and having Live view as an

option to use when needed, as well as better high ISO performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...