I'm on the fence: M9 or M10 aka "M"

ellisson

ellisson

Well-known
Local time
6:42 PM
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
802
I am ready to go full frame and higher resolution. I have considerable experience with the M8, but not with the M9/M9P or the so called "M". Is the "M" that much better than the M9? My question to those who have used both cameras, which do you prefer, and is the "M" preferable with its viewfinder and higher resolution screen? I will likely purchase one of these in the coming weeks.

I may be confusing the 'M" with the M240. It is the M240 that I am considering versus an M9.

I would be most appreciative of your opinions!
Gary
 
Last edited:
If 7K is no big deal for you then go for the big M, it's a better camera! As for the m9, it's a very capable camera that I cannot really think of anything to complain about :)
 
The M is exponentially better than the M9. If money is not an issue, you should go with the M.
 
Aesthetically, the M240 looks more like the M8. The M9/P files look more like the M8.
The M240 has the current in vogue features.
You can buy a CPO M240 for under 6K in the US.
If you can get to an actual Leica Store you can try before you buy.
A definite plus because you should like the files right of the camera for any camera you buy.
I chose the M9P because the image files remind me of slide film - especially Kodachrome 64.
Hope that helps.
 
Thank you, all. This does help greatly.
I do like slide film...used to shoot a lot of medium format with slide film for the colors. Under 6K for a preowned would be better than the new price for the M240, but I am not that far from a Leica store, so trying out is a good idea. The M9P file look of slide film is appealing to me, so not ruled out! And I think I saw these for 4500-5500 used.
 
I was recently on the same dilema.... and ended getting the m240.

I was able to test an m9 only before making up my mind, and the slowness of it as high iso made me change my mind. The m9 has beatiful colors at base iso, but the m240 as i see it, also has them and much more...(I went for the m240)
 
Getting an M9 and having enough left over for a really good ASPH lens (or an M9 plus a trip to Europe) would be really tempting. If you can live with shooting at a max of ISO 1600 (and being very careful about exposure in that ISO range) then an M9 still rocks. My main worry with the M9 would be future problems with sensor repair and other various parts.
 
My M9 has a defective sensor. I am not the only person who has an M9 with a defective sensor. Check out the likelihood of a defective sensor in the M240.
 
All digital cameras depreciate. The M240 is at the beginning of its lifecycle so unless you really, really need what it offers (a bit more resolution, higher ISO range and cleaner), why spend the extra?

Leica M9 sales are under $3500 all the time now. While everything depreciates, I think the M9 won't be dipping below $2500-3000 for a long time, so it's a good time to buy.
 
raid said:
My M9 has a defective sensor. I am not the only person who has an M9 with a defective sensor. Check out the likelihood of a defective sensor in the M240.
Click to expand...

The sensor on mine was replaced a couple of months ago (right before I was ready to sell it, then had sellers remorse). I have no idea if the replacement sensors are prone to the same failures as the original. As for the M240, it may be too soon to tell - the M9 failures probably didn't start happening until they had been in the field for a while.
 
If I was in your situation, I'd go for an M9 with some level of warranty, then use the extra cash on lens. Since you are going FF, you might want to give a thought to your lens line-up. M9's pricing is very (relatively speaking in the world of Leica) attractive now.
 
I'm a relatively new owner of an M240 and still as yet haven't sold my M9. Here are my thoughts:

-The M240's jpegs are beautiful. OTOH it is virtually mandatory to shoot DNG with the M9.

-The M240's shutter makes a soft click almost like a film M, and there is no jarring motor sound after the shot as there is with the M9 (even if you delay it with discrete mode).

-The M240's tripod thread is part of the body (there's a hole in the baseplate, a la Leicaflex SL). The M9's tripod thread is part of the baseplate and puts a lot of torque on it.

-The M240 is several ounces heavier than the M9, and although it really isn't much deeper, it feels like it is because of the thumb rest which changes the ergonomics more than you'd think such a little blip could do.

-The M240 lacks a frame line preview lever. Not a biggie if you never used one, but for a veteran Leica M user like myself who got used to using it, the absence is annoying until you get used to it.

-Battery life is better with the M240, however the battery is twice the size of the M9's and costs almost $200!

-There are quite a few reports of the M9's sensor glass either cracking or the coating becoming crazed, or lines of dead pixels necessitatating sensor replacement. Leica has stepped up and replaced them free out of warranty, but their turnaround time can be quite long.

-I can't detect any improvement in clarity or accuracy of the M240's rangefinder as some have claimed. But maybe it's more resistant to going out of adjustment. However my M9 has never gone out.

-The M240 is available in silver chrome finish. To get that in an M9 you'll have to spend on a "P".

-The M240's LCD is Gorilla Glass like some smartphones, whereas the M9's is plastic. If you want sapphire (much more resistant than Gorilla), again, you'll need to spend on an M9P or have an M9 upgraded (if they still do that). Personally I do not and never did think the M9P was worth the added cost when it is the same IQ and a screen protector costs a few bucks.

-A used M9 or M9P will not have a warranty, and if something major goes wrong that Leica won't goodwill, then you could end up paying close to the cost of a demo M240 and not ever recoup it if you sell.

-Supposedly the M240 is better sealed. Maybe it is under the buttons and switches, but otherwise I can't see any gasketing anywhere. I would not consider it "weather sealed" in the way of top-end Nikon and Canons.

-It does have live view, provision for an EVF, and a video mode. Personally I won't ever use the latter, and the latest firmware allows disabling of it's button as well as the button for live view. I really don't care much about live view, but it does let me mount my 400mm Visoflex lens, and use M lenses with extension for close work. It also lets me use my old Nikkor lenses. I still prefer to use manual lenses on a traditional SLR, but it's a convenience. The Leica EVF is hell expensive, but the Olympus EVF2 works and is a fraction of the cost.
 
Ben Z said:
I'm a relatively new owner of an M240 and still as yet haven't sold my M9. Here are my thoughts:

-The M240's jpegs are beautiful. OTOH it is virtually mandatory to shoot DNG with the M9.

-The M240's shutter makes a soft click almost like a film M, and there is no jarring motor sound after the shot as there is with the M9 (even if you delay it with discrete mode).

-The M240's tripod thread is part of the body (there's a hole in the baseplate, a la Leicaflex SL). The M9's tripod thread is part of the baseplate and puts a lot of torque on it.

-The M240 is several ounces heavier than the M9, and although it really isn't much deeper, it feels like it is because of the thumb rest which changes the ergonomics more than you'd think such a little blip could do.

-The M240 lacks a frame line preview lever. Not a biggie if you never used one, but for a veteran Leica M user like myself who got used to using it, the absence is annoying until you get used to it.

-Battery life is better with the M240, however the battery is twice the size of the M9's and costs almost $200!

-There are quite a few reports of the M9's sensor glass either cracking or the coating becoming crazed, or lines of dead pixels necessitatating sensor replacement. Leica has stepped up and replaced them free out of warranty, but their turnaround time can be quite long.

-I can't detect any improvement in clarity or accuracy of the M240's rangefinder as some have claimed. But maybe it's more resistant to going out of adjustment. However my M9 has never gone out.

-The M240 is available in silver chrome finish. To get that in an M9 you'll have to spend on a "P".

-The M240's LCD is Gorilla Glass like some smartphones, whereas the M9's is plastic. If you want sapphire (much more resistant than Gorilla), again, you'll need to spend on an M9P or have an M9 upgraded (if they still do that). Personally I do not and never did think the M9P was worth the added cost when it is the same IQ and a screen protector costs a few bucks.

-A used M9 or M9P will not have a warranty, and if something major goes wrong that Leica won't goodwill, then you could end up paying close to the cost of a demo M240 and not ever recoup it if you sell.

-Supposedly the M240 is better sealed. Maybe it is under the buttons and switches, but otherwise I can't see any gasketing anywhere. I would not consider it "weather sealed" in the way of top-end Nikon and Canons.

-It does have live view, provision for an EVF, and a video mode. Personally I won't ever use the latter, and the latest firmware allows disabling of it's button as well as the button for live view. I really don't care much about live view, but it does let me mount my 400mm Visoflex lens, and use M lenses with extension for close work. It also lets me use my old Nikkor lenses. I still prefer to use manual lenses on a traditional SLR, but it's a convenience. The Leica EVF is hell expensive, but the Olympus EVF2 works and is a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...


For anyone considering these two options, as the OP is, this is the most informative unbiased post I've read here.

Thanks Ben. :)
 
For me, color rendition trumps all and I still prefer that of the M9/M-E, which is unique. Also, I like low-light and night photography with the M9, for which there is this technique that obviates the need for shooting above 640.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 15-shot portfolio
 
Many thanks to all for your thoughts and experience with these digital leicas. Fortunately, I'm not that far from the New York Leica Store, so I will be able to get a feel for the M9 and M240. But longer term experience, as provided here, will help me greatly in the decision. I'd like to go with a used camera, but having a warranty - the advantage of buying new or perhaps certified preowned - seems to be important.

And once I enter the Leica store and actually hold and try out these excellent cameras, I will be at great risk! For buying new that is!! Oh boy....
 
Over a year ago as I traveled in Tuscany with my family, I used ISO640 as my max setting at night with a 35/1.4 Lux, and I discussed it in my thread about my trip.It was sufficient.
 
Never used a 240 but had a loaner M9 from Leica while trying to decide if I was going to put it in the budget. Liked the ergonomics of the M9 but hated using it tbh. Inadequate buffer, red fringing, poor hi iso performance etc.. If I could justify the 240, and it is a bit fatter, I would grab this over the M9.

Unlike some here, I'm glad they incorporated video into the new camera, it's a feature I'm sure many photojournalists would use. I would use it for some of my work but ymmv.

A colleague had his M9 stolen while working and while he now uses a 240, there are times he misses the M9 files, esp when converted to greyscale.
 
raid said:
Over a year ago as I traveled in Tuscany with my family, I used ISO640 as my max setting at night with a 35/1.4 Lux, and I discussed it in my thread about my trip.It was sufficient.
Click to expand...

I rarely use ISO greater than 640 on my M8, so even getting to 1600 would be high for my normal shooting, usually street photography. I guess I do not really need to get to high ISOs, certainly not above what I shoot with film - mostly 400 - on my good old M3! So high ISO capability (without a lot of noise) in my camera buying decision will not be a major factor, although it certainly is a nice option to have it.
 
I have an M9 (bought used) and it does everything I need. I don't feel any need to upgrade to an M (aka M240). As I also have the MM, I just love to have two identical camera bodies and don't have to adjust to differences in menues and other handling. And they use the same batteries.

Having said that, if I was in the market for new ff digital RF, I'd go for the M.
 
i prefer the image quality of the m9 by far. had the m240 for a while but sold it. the evf is a joke, the iq is generic. for me, the m9 is the better tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom