So why should I invest in a M240 rather than a mirrorless like the A7r??

[aplumpton]

<p>Robin, about a half dozen per year at present, but that is limited with my M9 by its resolution, also by the limited call for that size of B&W photography. In most cases, however, the M9 is very competent. Your suggested test is a good idea if I ever get my hands on an A7r and the M adapter for a short period.<br>

Mike, quite interesting, but as he says these artifacts are present only in very high contrast situations, such as night photography (star trails example). Not of great importance in my case, as the only star trails I am familiar with are those imaginary ones related to my own career!</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>You can download a few A7R RAW or full size JPEGs from the web and try with those. You can't compare directly with an M9 file of the same subject, of course, but you could still get a good idea. I'd be interested to hear what you find!</p>

[philip_wilson]

Arthur I have the M8 and M240 and like them both. Obviously the benefits of full frame a useful but the M240 is a bit

more digital than the M8 as you have to use the menus more. In terms of image quality the colours are more accurate

although I quite like the look of the M8 files and probably prefer the CCD sensor. In terms of resolution the M240 is

clearly quite a lot better than the M8 but except for large prints this is not a big deal.

 

The M8 is not a panacea - it will sometimes (probably about ⅓ of the time) give pink edges or an edge with the CV12mm

but it is fine with wider lenses. The live view feature is useful but I mainly use mine as a rangefinder. Indeed to use live

view I find you need the EVF as the rear screen is quite prone to reflections and had to see in bright light. I am currently

playing with a R series zoom on the M240 using the EVF and it works well and still feel good to use.

 

Personally if you can wait I would suggest that you keep the M9 and wait for the M240 replacement which is probably

only 2 years away.

 

I am not sure who suggested the 17 F4 Canon TS lens on the Sony but as an owner of this very good lens I would

suggest that it is way to big to use on a tiny camera like the Sony - especially given the vulnerability of the front element.

The 17 F4 will foul on the prism / flash of any Canon with a built in flash - such as the 7D!

[aplumpton]

<p>Philip, thanks for your comments. I am preparing a small exhibition of B&W conversions from a series of photos made on the M9 and will probably only print to 10 x 15 rather than the 12 x 18 (at 300 ppi) for cost reasons. I cannot really afford to print larger, frame, exhibit and then have a good number of unsold images sitting around for years; given the specific nature of the subjects of the series, that could well be the case (Making a larger image for an order is another thing).</p>

<p>Your idea of waiting for the next generation M is good. I almost did that when I purchased the M9 a year or so after its release. It requires a lot of additional pixels to make significant differences, so that, apart from live view and the better monitor screen of the new M, may be a good reason to wait. All of these models give good results when used within their limitations.</p>

<p>Interesting that you mention the excellent Canon TS lens. A friend visiting last week showed me some of the very impressive images he made with it, under conditions difficult to achieve with a non phase shift lens. You are right that it would be a monster on an A7 or A7r or on some flash incorporated Canon cameras. The A7r is probably best with small single focal length optics and the few made for it, like the Zeiss 35mm f2.8. Pity that it works less well with many very wide angle lenses of Leica. I could really use its moveable monitor screen with a 21mm, to extend the range of my handheld shooting (Good point, however, about live view with the screen in bright light).</p>

[Alex_Es]

There is this about the Leica M 240: it is so easy to use. No funny surprises, no useless icons that you spend days trying

to get rid of, no silly buttons to accidentally press and throw you off, no slow autofocus crud. It took me less than hour to

master my M. The live view mode excellent, though slow on the uptake. The viewfinder is nothing short of spectacular.

And on top of that you can attach a bevy of amazing lenses to the M and get full frame. I have been in love with the M

since I got it. It has never done me wrong. And oh yes, the grip. Wow.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Lost in space.</p>

<p>Leica is about quality lenses. The end.</p>

<p>The lump of machinery, is a lump of machinery.</p>

 

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Interesting comparison-Leica M 240 vs Sony A7s. Leica lens vs Zeiss lens. <a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/06/19/crazy-comparison-sony-a7s-551-8-vs-leica-m-240-50-apo/">HERE</a></p>

 

[philip_wilson]

Arthur. I want digital with Leica on your advice (I was contemplating Fuji) when I bought a used M8 a few years ago. I

loved it but wanted full frame. I decided to hold off on the M9 and ordered the M240 when it was announced but I then

had to wait almost a year ( and I was near the top if the list). I have had it around 18 months and I love it. That said I like

the images from the CCD sensor in the M8 and the simplicity of the M8.

 

In terms of the Canon TS lenses the 17 is amazing. The 24 mk II is also amazing but I could only afford one and the 17

with a 1.4x (it works with care) does. Pretty good job as a 24. For longer TS lenses I use Mamiya M645 lenses on a

Mirex adapter and they work very well - giving me 35mm and up

 

I have been playing with a canon FD 35 F2.8 TS lens on my M240 and it seems to work OK

[kin_yu1]

<p>I am still amazed how good the M8 is and still mentioned again and again by people who now own both the M9 and the M240. Remember how many people had considered M8 a flawed design from the very beginning. I am certainly would continue to hold on to my M8.2 and I love the IR sensitivity of its sensor for B & W photography. <br>

I would certainly consider the M240 when it will inevitably on the used market a few year down the road because of its reported jpeg capabilities. </p>

[philip_wilson]

Kin. While JPEGs from the M240 are a lot better than from the M8 it is still a camera where RAW is a lot better.

[aplumpton]

<p>Louis, the writing above the 50 cent price seems sharper with the Leica pairing (no surprise, although one might expect the Zeiss lens to be better than in the shot of S. Huff. Other factors may have been evident, such as focus precision, use or not of a tripod, etc., I didn't look further).</p>

<p>Philip, I know you like the M8, as I really do, and I believe that you, like Kin and myself have used it for very good IR shots as well. 10MP is enough in many cases, although I am a bit ticked off that I rushed to buy it after it was mentioned in a Leica interview that a crop sensor was necessary for Leica M optics. Finally, the acquisition was worth it and I use it about 20% or so of the time I use the M9. I think you did well in waiting for the M240.</p>

<p>Kin, my first M8 was a disappointment (shutter breakdown) but that was a supplier fault and after trying to make it operational (Toronto and NJ) they replaced the camera with a new one. A few years later the monitor developed a grey spot in the middle. Another supplier problem it appears, but even if I was out of the warranty period, Leica NJ replaced the monitor for free. These were I think rare problems and Leica responded correctly. But it has now been a long time, from a year or so after the M8 was introduced, that I have had extremely good use from it. It just keeps working without any hitches and I need only to clean the sensor from time to time.</p>

<p>I agree that it is great for IR B&W photography and the body will no doubt continue to do so for a long time. Perhaps some remember that the regretted Kokak high speed IR film gave similar results, with an extra halo effect, to the M8 and proper lens filtration, but could not be enlarged too greatly because of its very apparent grain. I think that the M8 exceeds that limitation.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I've been quite pleased with the Voigtlander lenses on Sony cameras. This edited scene in Spain did not have a vignette problem or color issues on the edges with a Sony a7R and Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 Nokton lens. I did brighten the overall scene and may have added a bit of saturation.</p><div></div>