back alley
IMAGES
nice fence...
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
+1
Anyone knows hot to get "slide film" colors from the M9?
Maybe is useful for the OP.
ellisson
Well-known
TennesseJones
Well-known
Been using an m9 for a year and it's terrific. You can see pics on my flickr if you fancy.
I'd like a bit more high iso, really to allow the ability to use more depth of field when there's little light.
Not used a m240. Saw someone with one. It's quiet, which is nice if you come from a film M.
Either'll be pretty good.
I'd like a bit more high iso, really to allow the ability to use more depth of field when there's little light.
Not used a m240. Saw someone with one. It's quiet, which is nice if you come from a film M.
Either'll be pretty good.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've had the M9 since 2012. It is a fine camera. However, I've almost completely stopped using it.
Why? I have a bunch of Leica R lenses. I bought a Sony A7 so that I could use them with a nice sized body and TTL viewing, full frame format as they were designed for originally. I like these lenses more than I like the lenses I was able to afford that work best for the M9. I thought I might buy the M (type 240) to use them after I saw how they worked with the A7, but I can't really see how they would work any better. I prefer TTL, SLR type viewing and focusing over RF most of the time.
The difference between the M9 and M sensor ... I hear so much ballyhoo about it, yet nothing I've seen really convinces me that the M9 imaging is so superior. To me, they both produce the raw material that I can craft my photos of.
I played with an M again recently. If I had to do it all over again and was faced with the question of whether to buy an M9 or an M, and could afford either with two new Leica lenses (28 and 50), I'd buy the M in a heartbeat. The body just works that much better.
G
Why? I have a bunch of Leica R lenses. I bought a Sony A7 so that I could use them with a nice sized body and TTL viewing, full frame format as they were designed for originally. I like these lenses more than I like the lenses I was able to afford that work best for the M9. I thought I might buy the M (type 240) to use them after I saw how they worked with the A7, but I can't really see how they would work any better. I prefer TTL, SLR type viewing and focusing over RF most of the time.
The difference between the M9 and M sensor ... I hear so much ballyhoo about it, yet nothing I've seen really convinces me that the M9 imaging is so superior. To me, they both produce the raw material that I can craft my photos of.
I played with an M again recently. If I had to do it all over again and was faced with the question of whether to buy an M9 or an M, and could afford either with two new Leica lenses (28 and 50), I'd buy the M in a heartbeat. The body just works that much better.
G
uhoh7
Veteran
M9 is a great deal now. Not to hard to find one with a new sensor for around 3200.
In daylight, nothing comes close IMHO.
A7 is good backup camera for M9 and maybe better for low light, and longer glass.
Last night I shot an event, for M9 I shot 21, 28 and 35, with A7 I used mostly 85 and 135.
In daylight, nothing comes close IMHO.
A7 is good backup camera for M9 and maybe better for low light, and longer glass.
Last night I shot an event, for M9 I shot 21, 28 and 35, with A7 I used mostly 85 and 135.
ktmrider
Well-known
M9's Goiing for $4000 or Less with Warranty
M9's Goiing for $4000 or Less with Warranty
Bought an M9 in January primarily because I had five M mount lenses and wanted to move into the modern age. I paid about $4000 and it had just been CLA'd by Leitz. . You can find mint M9's at Tamarkin and elsewhere for $4000 with a warranty.
Was not sure I was ready to go digital as my only experience was the X100 shooting JPEG's. I thought $4000 was okay but this is only one of my hobbies. And really enjoying LR and it's capabilities shooting raw on the M9. Have no need to upgrade to M.
If I want video, I have an X100. Now I do have several R lenses and for those that do not duplicate the focal lengths I have with M lenses, I would probably get a Sony and R adopter which would be cheaper then an M and give me an extra digital body.
Higher ISO would be nice but I still shoot a lot of TriX with the M2 for available darkness photography using fast lenses. If that were an issue, the newest Sony A7 does things Leica can only dream about.
Don't plan on upgrading any time soon. In fact, am thinking I might leave the M9 at home and take the M2 for an upcoming 90 day trip to Europe. Admittedly, I enjoy all things analog compared to digital.
M9's Goiing for $4000 or Less with Warranty
Bought an M9 in January primarily because I had five M mount lenses and wanted to move into the modern age. I paid about $4000 and it had just been CLA'd by Leitz. . You can find mint M9's at Tamarkin and elsewhere for $4000 with a warranty.
Was not sure I was ready to go digital as my only experience was the X100 shooting JPEG's. I thought $4000 was okay but this is only one of my hobbies. And really enjoying LR and it's capabilities shooting raw on the M9. Have no need to upgrade to M.
If I want video, I have an X100. Now I do have several R lenses and for those that do not duplicate the focal lengths I have with M lenses, I would probably get a Sony and R adopter which would be cheaper then an M and give me an extra digital body.
Higher ISO would be nice but I still shoot a lot of TriX with the M2 for available darkness photography using fast lenses. If that were an issue, the newest Sony A7 does things Leica can only dream about.
Don't plan on upgrading any time soon. In fact, am thinking I might leave the M9 at home and take the M2 for an upcoming 90 day trip to Europe. Admittedly, I enjoy all things analog compared to digital.
rscheffler
Well-known
I started with a used M9 in late 2010 when they were still difficult to find new, and lenses were really scarce (at sane prices)... then early this year I finally took the plunge on a demo M240 (and saved about $1000).
Between the two, you're not going to see significant differences in image quality at lower ISOs. The M9 will have a punchier look due to it's narrower dynamic range (it's quick to clip highlights), whereas the M240 has a somewhat flatter look, but can be easily tweaked in post to match the M9. As my processing tastes evolved with the M9, I found I frequently lowered its contrast quite a lot, so I guess the M240 is a good fit for me. M9 files will look sharper out of the box, but my argument is that's somewhat due to fine detail aliasing that gives the impression of higher than actual detail/sharpness through 'false' image detail. The M240's files in comparison, look a bit softer, but take sharpening very well. At higher ISOs, which you indicated wasn't such a priority, the M240 has much better control over colour noise and is pretty competitive with current generation cameras.
Which one to go with, I think will depend a lot on your shooting style. Particularly, how you work with the camera.
I come from 20+ years of SLR/DSLR photography and as a result, shoot a lot and rapidly during outings/events. I always found the M9 a bit laggy and sometimes like I was a half step behind the action while waiting for it. Sure, a lot about rangefinder photography is mastering the art of anticipation, but some things are difficult to predict and I value a camera that is ready quickly for the next shot when 'under fire.' In this respect, the M240 is significantly better and more refined. First of all, it doesn't sound terrible like the M9's clunky-buzzy shutter system. It's much smoother and less noticeable/distracting. And it's way faster at getting to the next shot. Even though on paper it's only a difference of 2 fps vs. ~3fps, it feels like a world of difference to me. Having recently gotten back into shooting weddings, I primarily use the M240 along with a DSLR, with the M9 along on occasion. Whenever I shoot with the M9, it's immediately obvious how much slower it is. And the buffer is much shallower too. Then there are a host of M9 quirks, at least with mine, such as random, progressively worse image banding as the buffer fills and the camera is under greater electronic stress. Not to say the M240 is perfect... It's not. During every wedding it lock-ups 3-4 times where I have to reboot by popping its battery. I also have to force myself to remember not to press any buttons while the buffer is cleaning to the card, as it will lockout the shutter release and sometimes will freeze the camera. In contrast, with my Canons, I can review an image whenever I desire, which is handy for immediately confirming proper exposure in tricky lighting situations, etc..
I have never used an M8, but I suspect the M9 is very much an M8, but full frame. In this respect, if you liked the M8, you may be right at home with the M9. The M240 is a pretty big step up (improvement) in terms of Leica's electronics capability and functionality. But image quality differences will be splitting hairs, for the most part.
If you're a fairly casual shooter, rarely in a rush and often at base ISO, then a used M9 might be the way to go, since they can be found in the low 3000s.
That said, I'd love to pick up a second M240 in place of my M9 for use during gigs....
Between the two, you're not going to see significant differences in image quality at lower ISOs. The M9 will have a punchier look due to it's narrower dynamic range (it's quick to clip highlights), whereas the M240 has a somewhat flatter look, but can be easily tweaked in post to match the M9. As my processing tastes evolved with the M9, I found I frequently lowered its contrast quite a lot, so I guess the M240 is a good fit for me. M9 files will look sharper out of the box, but my argument is that's somewhat due to fine detail aliasing that gives the impression of higher than actual detail/sharpness through 'false' image detail. The M240's files in comparison, look a bit softer, but take sharpening very well. At higher ISOs, which you indicated wasn't such a priority, the M240 has much better control over colour noise and is pretty competitive with current generation cameras.
Which one to go with, I think will depend a lot on your shooting style. Particularly, how you work with the camera.
I come from 20+ years of SLR/DSLR photography and as a result, shoot a lot and rapidly during outings/events. I always found the M9 a bit laggy and sometimes like I was a half step behind the action while waiting for it. Sure, a lot about rangefinder photography is mastering the art of anticipation, but some things are difficult to predict and I value a camera that is ready quickly for the next shot when 'under fire.' In this respect, the M240 is significantly better and more refined. First of all, it doesn't sound terrible like the M9's clunky-buzzy shutter system. It's much smoother and less noticeable/distracting. And it's way faster at getting to the next shot. Even though on paper it's only a difference of 2 fps vs. ~3fps, it feels like a world of difference to me. Having recently gotten back into shooting weddings, I primarily use the M240 along with a DSLR, with the M9 along on occasion. Whenever I shoot with the M9, it's immediately obvious how much slower it is. And the buffer is much shallower too. Then there are a host of M9 quirks, at least with mine, such as random, progressively worse image banding as the buffer fills and the camera is under greater electronic stress. Not to say the M240 is perfect... It's not. During every wedding it lock-ups 3-4 times where I have to reboot by popping its battery. I also have to force myself to remember not to press any buttons while the buffer is cleaning to the card, as it will lockout the shutter release and sometimes will freeze the camera. In contrast, with my Canons, I can review an image whenever I desire, which is handy for immediately confirming proper exposure in tricky lighting situations, etc..
I have never used an M8, but I suspect the M9 is very much an M8, but full frame. In this respect, if you liked the M8, you may be right at home with the M9. The M240 is a pretty big step up (improvement) in terms of Leica's electronics capability and functionality. But image quality differences will be splitting hairs, for the most part.
If you're a fairly casual shooter, rarely in a rush and often at base ISO, then a used M9 might be the way to go, since they can be found in the low 3000s.
That said, I'd love to pick up a second M240 in place of my M9 for use during gigs....
Landberg
Well-known
I don't feel the charm with the digital M. But I hope that you buy the right one for you!
Lss
Well-known
If you want full frame for lens choice etc., either option will do just fine. If you want higher resolution, it is better to skip the M9 and go with the M. There is obviously a difference going from M8 to M9, but it is generally not very significant. The gain between M9 and M is insignificant, but the step from M8 to M starts to make a real difference. Megapixel count is a simple number, but it can fool the reader. The real difference is in the linear resolution, i.e., what you gain for a single dimension of the image. M8 to M9 is about +30%; M9 to M is about +15%; M8 to M is about +50%.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I have no experience of the M8 and extremely limited experience of the M9 (a limited experience which I quite enjoyed, taking a few shots with a friend's M9). My intention was to wait for an M9 at an affordable price. However, just about the time that happened (for my personal value of "affordable") I came into circumstances which allowed me to purchase an M type 240. While I have no real experience of the alternatives, I have to say I'm very happy with my digital M and expect to use it for a great many more years - perhaps more than I might if I'd gone with the M9. Given that I'm happy working with other "obsolete" yet (for me) "good enough" cameras, I can't imagine any reason to upgrade from my M type 240 for many, many years as I'm more than happy with it's output.
...Mike
...Mike
Bob Tilton
Member
I own an M9. I've only shot a few frames with the 240 in the store. Granted not enough to form a firm opinion of the 240.
Thus far, I have not been convinced from reading various reviews and seeing numerous examples to move to a 240.
However, the opinions are all over the place.
I do not envy your position.
Thus far, I have not been convinced from reading various reviews and seeing numerous examples to move to a 240.
However, the opinions are all over the place.
I do not envy your position.
Pioneer
Veteran
Have the M9. Like it a lot.
Bought the M240. Nice camera but I sent it back. M240 didn't look any better at 16x20.
Still have the M9. Like it a lot.
Bought the M240. Nice camera but I sent it back. M240 didn't look any better at 16x20.
Still have the M9. Like it a lot.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Image quality is moot nowadays, one can buy a 1000$ camera and get the same level of quality as a D800, at least for all practical purposes like printing to a normal size.
Somehow I miss the real advantages of the M240 in this discussion:
1. Better, more accurate and more shock-resistant rangefinder.
2. Better viewfinder experience by better framelines.
3. More silent shutter.
4. Vastly improved LCD.
5. The option to use about any lens out there by the auxiliary EVF.
6. Weathersealed.
7. Real spot metering and semi matrix metering, classic as well.
8. Not for everybody but handy to many - Video and Liveview that can be switched off.
9. More stable firmware, more reliable in general.
10.Better battery life.
11.Black cameras: More resistant coating.
12.Improved user interface in the menus.
Somehow I miss the real advantages of the M240 in this discussion:
1. Better, more accurate and more shock-resistant rangefinder.
2. Better viewfinder experience by better framelines.
3. More silent shutter.
4. Vastly improved LCD.
5. The option to use about any lens out there by the auxiliary EVF.
6. Weathersealed.
7. Real spot metering and semi matrix metering, classic as well.
8. Not for everybody but handy to many - Video and Liveview that can be switched off.
9. More stable firmware, more reliable in general.
10.Better battery life.
11.Black cameras: More resistant coating.
12.Improved user interface in the menus.
Ben Z
Veteran
1. Better, more accurate and more shock-resistant rangefinder.
I find it no more better or more accurate than my M9, they look and work identically to me. If it's really more shock resistent, wonderful
2. Better viewfinder experience by better framelines.
Again, I haven't found it so. They are usually a tad too bright and intrusive for my taste, and the calibration back to 2m just means re-learning new framing guesstimation all over again. I wish Leica would pick one and leave it there.
3. More silent shutter.
I mentioned that, and to me it's one of 2 main reasons I bought the M240 and think it's a big improvement over the M9.
4. Vastly improved LCD.
I'll have to take your word for that. I never use it for anything but the menus, and I left the factory screen protector on it so far.
5. The option to use about any lens out there by the auxiliary EVF.
Agreed. Although I still prefer to do that on my 5D. To me the main advantage of the EVF is not needing to carry 12, 15 and 21mm auxiliary finders and switch them each time along with the lenses.
6. Weathersealed.
I mentioned that also, but I'm taking it with a grain of salt. The clip-on cover for the EVF port is hardly hermetic, and I don't see any more sealing around the baseplate than the M9 has. It might be better sealed than the M9 but I'm not totally convinced it deserves to be called weathersealed.
7. Real spot metering and semi matrix metering, classic as well.
I was excited about that until I discovered it entails an additional opening and closing of the shutter. I have it disabled, and so far my years of experience with the "classic" Leica metering has gotten me as good of exposures as I could want
8. Not for everybody but handy to many - Video and Liveview that can be switched off.
Agreed. Very happy the latest firmware allows them to be switched off.
9. More stable firmware, more reliable in general.
It definintely seems so. Very welcome.
10.Better battery life.
I mentioned that, but pointed out that the M240's battery is nearly double the girth of the M9's and costs not quite double, so the advantage in less-frequent changes has trade offs
11.Black cameras: More resistant coating.
Didn't know that! Anyway, after having black M6's, 7's, MP's, M8 and M9 I decided to go with silver this time.
12.Improved user interface in the menus.[/QUOTE]
It's different than the M9. Not sure I like it any better. I liked the M9's button/wheel arrangement better than the M240 with the wheel removed to a separate location. I'm really not warming up to that thumb wheel or the hump.
I find it no more better or more accurate than my M9, they look and work identically to me. If it's really more shock resistent, wonderful
2. Better viewfinder experience by better framelines.
Again, I haven't found it so. They are usually a tad too bright and intrusive for my taste, and the calibration back to 2m just means re-learning new framing guesstimation all over again. I wish Leica would pick one and leave it there.
3. More silent shutter.
I mentioned that, and to me it's one of 2 main reasons I bought the M240 and think it's a big improvement over the M9.
4. Vastly improved LCD.
I'll have to take your word for that. I never use it for anything but the menus, and I left the factory screen protector on it so far.
5. The option to use about any lens out there by the auxiliary EVF.
Agreed. Although I still prefer to do that on my 5D. To me the main advantage of the EVF is not needing to carry 12, 15 and 21mm auxiliary finders and switch them each time along with the lenses.
6. Weathersealed.
I mentioned that also, but I'm taking it with a grain of salt. The clip-on cover for the EVF port is hardly hermetic, and I don't see any more sealing around the baseplate than the M9 has. It might be better sealed than the M9 but I'm not totally convinced it deserves to be called weathersealed.
7. Real spot metering and semi matrix metering, classic as well.
I was excited about that until I discovered it entails an additional opening and closing of the shutter. I have it disabled, and so far my years of experience with the "classic" Leica metering has gotten me as good of exposures as I could want
8. Not for everybody but handy to many - Video and Liveview that can be switched off.
Agreed. Very happy the latest firmware allows them to be switched off.
9. More stable firmware, more reliable in general.
It definintely seems so. Very welcome.
10.Better battery life.
I mentioned that, but pointed out that the M240's battery is nearly double the girth of the M9's and costs not quite double, so the advantage in less-frequent changes has trade offs
11.Black cameras: More resistant coating.
Didn't know that! Anyway, after having black M6's, 7's, MP's, M8 and M9 I decided to go with silver this time.
12.Improved user interface in the menus.[/QUOTE]
It's different than the M9. Not sure I like it any better. I liked the M9's button/wheel arrangement better than the M240 with the wheel removed to a separate location. I'm really not warming up to that thumb wheel or the hump.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Rangefinder accuracy: it is a fact, although Leica does not push it. The design has been slightly altered and the build tolerances narrowed. Result: my hit rate (already good) has gone to close to 100%.
Gear lash has been eliminated too.
The main reliability improvement is the vertical adjustment. Instead of the adjustment fork which could be knocked out of kilter by a shock there is vastly more stable set screw.
I guess the framelines are a personal thing, but they are better defined and have a constant brightness (ambient light adjusted) I agree they are a bit intrusive in white, but I am a big fan of setting them to red.
A drawback btw might be that it took me quite some effort to harness the colour in postprocessing. I now have it down just fine and prefer it to the M9.
Gear lash has been eliminated too.
The main reliability improvement is the vertical adjustment. Instead of the adjustment fork which could be knocked out of kilter by a shock there is vastly more stable set screw.
I guess the framelines are a personal thing, but they are better defined and have a constant brightness (ambient light adjusted) I agree they are a bit intrusive in white, but I am a big fan of setting them to red.
A drawback btw might be that it took me quite some effort to harness the colour in postprocessing. I now have it down just fine and prefer it to the M9.
Ben Z
Veteran
Very glad to hear that about the rangefinder. Maybe why I haven't noticed any improvement in accuracy is because I fine-tuned my M9 rangefinder myself to a very tight tolerance. Perhaps the new design also helps Leica circumvent some human error so that the M240's leave the factory with their rangefinders more consistently within specs than they did when the M9 was in production. Improvement in the vertical stability is much welcomed, because even if misalignment doesn't mess up focus accurace, it is quite annoying.
I tried the lines in red but found them more difficult to see. And disturbing/distracting, after so many years with various rangefinders all with white(ish) frames.
I have not had to post process the color at all so far. I shot a ton of photos over the weekend of my daughter-in-law and grandson, indoors and out, with AWB and jpeg-fine set to "standard"-everything, and the colors and skin tones are gorgeous. I was amazed at how much better the M240's jpeg processing is than the M9's. I could easily print any of those images with little or no color adjustment and no further sharpening, and the dynamic range outdoors at mid-day under the tropical sun was surprisingly accomodating too.
I tried the lines in red but found them more difficult to see. And disturbing/distracting, after so many years with various rangefinders all with white(ish) frames.
I have not had to post process the color at all so far. I shot a ton of photos over the weekend of my daughter-in-law and grandson, indoors and out, with AWB and jpeg-fine set to "standard"-everything, and the colors and skin tones are gorgeous. I was amazed at how much better the M240's jpeg processing is than the M9's. I could easily print any of those images with little or no color adjustment and no further sharpening, and the dynamic range outdoors at mid-day under the tropical sun was surprisingly accomodating too.
Kwesi
Well-known
Perhaps you can start a separate thread on your M240 postprocessing? That would likely be of interest to many.
Thanks,
Stephen
Art Vandalay
Imported from Detroit
I just bought the 240 after having the ME. Frankly, the 240 is what a digital Leica should've been in the first place. If you're not jerking off in the Leica echo chamber about the CCD images vs CMOS, you'll absolutely love it. I purchased a blem from pop flash...can't find the blem for the life of me but wherever it is it was worth $1k to someone. My win.