in the 'M'arket today...

[2WK]

I'm considering a digital mate for my M6.

Am I mad for not considering the new M because I think it's design is hideous?
I don't want video, I don't' need EVF, illuminated framelines seem nice.....but also gimmicky. The only things I feel like I would be missing are the large battery and extra iso stop.

The M9p just looks that much better... I mean lets face it, they are tools of the trade, but they are also things of great beauty. The M9p looks much more like a historic Leica camera....the new M looks like Apple Computer had a go at it....really bums me out.

 

[LCT]

Yes important thing the look... Quieter shutter sound, more accurate framelines, less color shifts, less digital noise, more resolution and all those details are not important finally. 😉

 

[jsrockit]

Just buy the M9p then...

 

[thegman]

I don't think you're mad, and if the M9P is priced right, then why not?

In most circumstances, the images produced by the M240 and the M9 will be largely indistinguishable.

 

[Godfrey]

I own and use an M9. It is a very fine camera.
I've had the opportunity to spend a little time with the new M. It is a better camera.

Physically, they look so similar it's hard to tell them apart.

If I were buying a Leica M camera now, I would take the new M over the M9 instantly. No question. But I have the M9, I like it, and it works well.

That's it for me.

G

 

[2WK]

I don't think you're mad, and if the M9P is priced right, then why not?

In most circumstances, the images produced by the M240 and the M9 will be largely indistinguishable.

Thats what I'm thinking. I have an Xpro if I need something for extremely low light. As a daily carry camera an m9 produces amazing files. And I much prefer a rangefinder.

And then I think, if I have an xpro for color, what about a Monochrom? 🙄

 

[thegman]

Thats what I'm thinking. I have an Xpro if I need something for extremely low light. As a daily carry camera an m9 produces amazing files. And I much prefer a rangefinder.

And then I think, if I have an xpro for color, what about a Monochrom? 🙄

I think the Monochrom is probably my favourite Leica digital (although I've not used any of them), it has an idea behind it that is pretty interesting.

It's not for the likes of me though, I like colour too much to spend so much on a camera which can't do it. If you're wedded to B&W though, it's a pretty cool camera.

 

[Godfrey]

I think the Monochrom is probably my favourite Leica digital (although I've not used any of them), it has an idea behind it that is pretty interesting.

It's not for the likes of me though, I like colour too much to spend so much on a camera which can't do it. If you're wedded to B&W though, it's a pretty cool camera.

I would love a Monochrom, and have considered trading "sideways" for one with the M9, doing color with the GXR or a NEX 6 or an Oly E-P5. (or the Hasselblads ...)

But it would still cost something and the M9 does well enough for the moment. I have so little time for shooting right now that all these cameras are way overkill.

G

 

[Jeff S]

Besides the other M benefits LCT lists, there's also better weather sealing, better build quality (e.g., tripod mount) and Maestro processor.

In the end, both will take great pics in the right hands. I plan to use the M in the traditional RF mode in most circumstances. In that way, I'll take the quieter, faster, better protected camera, without battery issues. These are things that bring me closer to my film M experience, not further apart. And as a bonus, the illuminated frame lines optimized for 2m (best I've ever used on the M8.2) provide for a better framing experience.

Live view, btw, can offer the practical advantage of being able to clearly check camera/lens focus issues, a common problem with digital Ms. Video can be ignored, which is what I'll do; one hopes the button will provide for alternative use through firmware updates. EVF is optional (just as the Viso was on film Ms). The cameras are virtually the same size.

The M9-P in chrome, however, does look sweet. But I'd go for the practical M advantages...after the teething issues are sorted out.

The Monochrom is a whole different beast. One needs to base the camera choice on the intended output (and workflow preferences), not the other way around IMO.

Jeff

 

[theno23]

Make sure you handle an M - as others have said it looks almost identical to the M9/p/E, but it handles much better:

Nicer shutter action and sound, the M9 etc.'s was gritty, and very noisy.
Better frameline illumination
Better frameline accuracy
Faster to operate
Much better rear screen

It feels more like my M6 to shoot than my M9 does.

I really liked shooting with my M9, when there was no better digital rangefinder, but the M really is a big step up.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm slightly surprised at the high degree of admiration for the M. I've handled one, and it's OK, though I REALLY dislike the illuminated frameline idea. I really can't see how it handles 'much better' than the M9. Until I've tried both side by side, in the real world rather than just getting my hands on one, I'll reserve judgement, but my feeling so far is definitely not that I would gain a great deal by 'upgrading' to the M from the M9 -- unlike M8.2 to M9.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jeff S]

I'll reserve judgement, but my feeling so far is definitely not that I would gain a great deal by 'upgrading' to the M from the M9 -- unlike M8.2 to M9.

Funny, we each have different preferences and priorities.

I prefer the handling and operation of the M8.2 over the M9...better 2m frame lines, top display, sapphire screen, and no problems with cards, buffer, red edge, cracked sensors, etc. Using filters is a non-issue for me (hey, they're popular again with the MM), and a UV/IR filter actually benefits even an M9, which often does a poorer job of IR filtration with just its internal filter. And the crop allows me to use my preferred lenses.

But then I don't shoot super wide, nor high ISO, and my prints are not huge. So, for me, it comes down to other factors.

The M presents advantages that I felt were always lacking in the M8.2 (or M9)....weather sealing, lack of obnoxious motor re-cock noise, bigger battery (in the same sized package), faster more problem-free processing, etc. I don't need bells and whistles, just incremental improvements to daily use. The rest is gravy, as long as IQ suffices, and the latter will require some use and testing.

Different strokes.

Jeff

 

[Godfrey]

I'm slightly surprised at the high degree of admiration for the M. I've handled one, and it's OK, though I REALLY dislike the illuminated frameline idea. I really can't see how it handles 'much better' than the M9. Until I've tried both side by side, in the real world rather than just getting my hands on one, I'll reserve judgement, but my feeling so far is definitely not that I would gain a great deal by 'upgrading' to the M from the M9 -- unlike M8.2 to M9.

I didn't find much to like or dislike about the illuminated frame lines. They work, they're consistent regardless of ambient light, you can change the color, not much there.

The handling improvement to me is that the new thumbwheel and control pad is much nicer to use than the M9's thumbwheel and control pad, and provides a nice thumb rest built in. Also, the new M is FAR more responsive on saves and when you're checking a set of exposures, the LCD is much clearer, etc. The M9 writes to card rather in a rather lethargic manner and is slow to image on the LCD.

I'll get a new M eventually as the Live View would help me for certain uses, and I like the differences it offers. I'm not in any rush however.

G

 

[pieter]

From a pure style and design standpoint the M240 is a big leap backwards from the M9P. Besides when you order now you probably get it around the time when Leica releases the M240P which hopefully fixes some of the bad design-choices (for a premium of course).

From an ergonomic standpoint I would rate the two about equal. The M240 has some nice small improvements, but at the same time ruins this advantage by adding unnecessary features with cloud the simple ergonomics of the M9.

Image quality you have to judge for yourself. The M240 adds dynamic range and about a stop of iso performance, but also is a step into CMOS style rendering. Personally I prefer the output of the M9 for it's color and less plasticy smooth style. Just check the M240 facebook group to see if you like it's style.

I would buy the M9P and maybe upgrade to the M240P or M250 when that gets announced in about two years.

 

[Godfrey]

...
From an ergonomic standpoint I would rate the two about equal. The M240 has some nice small improvements, but at the same time ruins this advantage by adding unnecessary features with cloud the simple ergonomics of the M9.
...

I don't see it. Either the disparagement of the design, or what relation the new features have to do with the ergonomics. Far as I'm concerned, the new features are invisible unless I'm using them, and the ergonomics are better.

Style wise, I could care less. I saw no value to paying $1000 more for the M9-P over the M9 other than for the overly expensive sapphire LCD cover.

G

 

[jaapv]

Physically, they look so similar it's hard to tell them apart.

That is good news. My wife won't be able to spot the new one 🙂🙂

 

[hlockwood]

That is good news. My wife won't be able to spot the new one 🙂🙂

Exactly my strategy when dumping my hardly used M9-P in favor of an MM.

HFL

 

[Jeff S]

Exactly my strategy when dumping my hardly used M9-P in favor of an MM.

Until she wonders why the photo she asks you to take with it has no colors.

Jeff

 

[Godfrey]

Until she wonders why the photo she asks you to take with it has no colors.

Jeff

Oh, I'd just tell 'her' I used B&W film. ;-)

G