Leica M/M240 - some practical commentary

2WK said:
Well, now he has switched to the m240 as well, so go figure. :p
Click to expand...

The rationalisation made me smile too.

I bought a used MM and am utterly delighted. I do not have any illusion that the M9 is somehow magical, but trading that up to an M would rquire the end of a lot of film kit, which I still enjoy. Hecne the M9 remains at the moment. Also, both suffer the same shortcomings, so I don't get too annoyed with the MM in comparison to it's colour equivalent. I did hit the buffer the other night.

Mike
 
malland said:
Yes, his view is essentially similar to that of my post #34 above.Tristes Tropiques [WIP]
Click to expand...

Not having been acquainted with the site, I read through the various mentions of the M. He trashes on it for a while, and then when the chips are down, decides to use it instead of an M9 due to its low light abilities. So no, I don't think he agrees with a statement that an M9 is competitive.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
Not having been acquainted with the site, I read through the various mentions of the M. He trashes on it for a while, and then when the chips are down, decides to use it instead of an M9 due to its low light abilities. So no, I don't think he agrees with a statement that an M9 is competitive...
Click to expand...
Dante, you'll note that I wrote my statement a week ago, and my post #34 two weeks ago. At that time he hadn't changed his view, as he apparently now has. My views on the M9 unique color rendition and on it's use for high ISO haven't changed.

—Mitch/Paris
Looking for Baudelaire [WIP]
 
Well from what I gather it's not so much about changing his views on the image quality comparisons between CMOS and CCD, but just a practical choice.
Nobody ever contested the better high iso performance (even given the M9 quality when you push in post instead of in camera).

I have a M240, and I have shot an event at night which the M9 wouldn't be able to do. The M240 performed admirably where the M9 would have failed. I am positively impressed by the high iso possibilities of the camera.
Also I really like the improved ergonomics and the shutter sound.
So I'm happy with the purchase.

But to be honest when going by image quality at base iso I just don't find it a very exciting camera.

Talking about changing views. Steve Huff seems to have toned down his enthusiasm for the M240 in favor of the new Sony. He complains about how the Summilux 50mm ASPH just doesn't deliver as much sharpness on the M240 as on the M8 and the M9. A sentiment I have to agree with.
At base iso I just don't find the M to be much more than just a capable performer. Capable but nothing special. It certainly lacks the colors and the crispness of the M9 or even more so the M8.

But this is what I expected when I bought the camera. I have a MM for my own fun. That camera just oozes magic, mojo, umami or whatever you want to call it when a camera has character. :)
The M240 is an amazingly pleasant camera with great ergonomics and a really improved range of opportunities. All the little improvements do add up and it is a capable performer. But to be honest I just don't find it to be a very inspirational or special camera. (except for the fact that I can bring it to situations where I would have left the M9 at home).

So all in all, when buying a M240 just don't expect to get the M9 and the MM to be thrown into the bargain for free, as if the M240 could do what they do and more.
 
Dante_Stella said:
...

In addition, my general impression - having used an X-Pro1 since it came out - is that an M240 plus external EVF is not significantly less usable than the X-Pro's famous hybrid viewfinder - on both, you find yourself using the optical for wider lenses and the EVF for longer focal lengths (not in the least due to sidestep parallax in focusing and framing with the Fuji). The nicer thing about the Fuji is that you don't have to shift eye position.

...

Dante
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for sharing!

I borrowed a X-Pro1 some weeks ago to compare to M9 and M. The BIG difference for me was that I couldnt live with the AF and the subjective hrs of wait from pressing the shutter until something happened :bang:. Im sorry to say, but due to me not being able to get the X-Pro1 to handle I had close to zero hit rate in street photography. Again, this is my experience, and I dont know if this is my or the camera limitations. Better photographers might cope?
 
Just a bit re: live view.

A lot of people don't realise how useful live view/EVF can be sometimes. I'm now able to mount some SLR glass on to my favourite camera for close up shots or portrait/sports/wildlife shots. Sure, I still use the rangefinder 95% of the time (the RF so much better than my M6) but for the 5% of the time that I need it, I'm glad it's there.

No longer do I have to hear people mention "use the right camera for the job", because now I can do all that on a rangefinder camera too. I also don't have to resort to using clunky ancient technology like my Visoflex III with its array of lenses and adapters. I'm slowly in the process of unloading all my other cameras (my point and shoot, my DSLR etc)


Nikon 35-70 f2.8 on Leica M by chrisongtj, on Flickr

Of course, the upcoming Sony A7 will be able to do similarly if one is able to forego the rangefinder. But hey, this is rangefinder forum!
 
crispy12 said:
Just a bit re: live view.

A lot of people don't realise how useful live view/EVF can be sometimes. I'm now able to mount some SLR glass on to my favourite camera for close up shots or portrait/sports/wildlife shots. Sure, I still use the rangefinder 95% of the time (the RF so much better than my M6) but for the 5% of the time that I need it, I'm glad it's there.

No longer do I have to hear people mention "use the right camera for the job", because now I can do all that on a rangefinder camera too. I also don't have to resort to using clunky ancient technology like my Visoflex III with its array of lenses and adapters. I'm slowly in the process of unloading all my other cameras (my point and shoot, my DSLR etc)


Nikon 35-70 f2.8 on Leica M by chrisongtj, on Flickr

Of course, the upcoming Sony A7 will be able to do similarly if one is able to forego the rangefinder. But hey, this is rangefinder forum!
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought that would be a useful addition. I liked live view on my old 1Ds3 for anything on a tripod and expect it would be useful on the RF as well. If it's good enough to live focus as well then it is clearly useful for longer lenses too.

Next up, AF for portrait and sports applications;)

Mike
 
sojournerphoto said:
Yes, I thought that would be a useful addition. I liked live view on my old 1Ds3 for anything on a tripod and expect it would be useful on the RF as well. If it's good enough to live focus as well then it is clearly useful for longer lenses too.

Next up, AF for portrait and sports applications;)

Mike
Click to expand...

Ok fine, perhaps sports photography might not be a strongpoint with this camera... hehe
 
Thanks for your review, Dante. I have not used the M 240. I am enjoying the use of the M8 and M9. I cannot justify in my case to add any expensive new camera while I have cameras that work very well with my lenses.

Can the sensor in this camera render colors as natural as the sensor in the M9?
The M9 is excellent in giving back beautifully exposed and balanced images in situstions with multiple light sources. Does the M240 also handle such cases as well as the M9?
 
malland said:
Dante, you'll note that I wrote my statement a week ago, and my post #34 two weeks ago. At that time he hadn't changed his view, as he apparently now has. My views on the M9 unique color rendition and on it's use for high ISO haven't changed.

—Mitch/Paris
Looking for Baudelaire [WIP]
Click to expand...

Mitch -

To be clear, I don't think his self-reversal makes you wrong (nor does it necessarily make you right). The color rendition is a personal preference that is difficult to evaluate. Comparing my M8 and M files, there is no difference I see that could not be attributed to the white balancing. And certainly nothing that would make me want to forego modern responsiveness and overall operation.

And on the "High-ISO" thing with the M8/M9 - don't take this the wrong way, but the claim that underexposing and increasing exposure in post is a workable solution is like concluding that push-processing is a substitute for upping film speed. Your technique - like push-processing film - involves a deliberate underexposure. This pushes everything to the left on the histogram and pushes some shadow data below the noise floor.

The problem I have identified in testing your "push" technique is that it is really best put - just like pushing film - to situations where a considerable amount of shadow detail can be written off. So for scenes like a Thai cafe seen from the street, it works because it is a high-contrast scene, and the interest is all happening around the highlights - and you can just drop the noisy shadows off. It's not helpful for relatively flat scenes.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
...And on the "High-ISO" thing with the M8/M9 - don't take this the wrong way, but the claim that underexposing and increasing exposure in post is a workable solution is like concluding that push-processing is a substitute for upping film speed. Your technique - like push-processing film - involves a deliberate underexposure. This pushes everything to the left on the histogram and pushes some shadow data below the noise floor.

The problem I have identified in testing your "push" technique is that it is really best put - just like pushing film - to situations where a considerable amount of shadow detail can be written off. So for scenes like a Thai cafe seen from the street, it works because it is a high-contrast scene, and the interest is all happening around the highlights - and you can just drop the noisy shadows off. It's not helpful for relatively flat scenes.

Dante
Click to expand...
Dante, of course you're right and you state it well. The only thing I would add is that "relatively low flat scenes" at night are often uninteresting — note that I say "often" because there are exceptions: for example, Roy De Carava has done some beautiful low-light photography in flat, low-contrast lighting. However, I cannot think of any good color photography in this type of light — and wonder whether there is.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Looking for Baudelaire [WIP]
 
Dante. Thanks. So far this has been very interesting. The M9 continues to keep me well occupied but it is still great to see this real time information on the M. Keep it coming. :)
 
And is there any aspect I am missing in the M vs. X-Pro1 comparo? I was thinking about discussing color, but that is really subjective and probably not helpful to people.

Dante
 
This is terrific. There are so many assumptions on the internet about the abilities of these two cameras as compared with each other. It is nice to read an objective assessment detailing the strengths and weaknesses of each platform. Thanks.

If time permits it would be interesting to see some color comparisons between each camera.
 
Dante_Stella said:
And is there any aspect I am missing in the M vs. X-Pro1 comparo? I was thinking about discussing color, but that is really subjective and probably not helpful to people.

Dante
Click to expand...

the comparison would be probably be more useful and up to date
if the Sony A7 and A7r are included.

Stephen
 
CameraQuest said:
the comparison would be probably be more useful and up to date
if the Sony A7 and A7r are included.

Stephen
Click to expand...

I'm only half-kidding when I say that by the time I ended up finishing that (and I'd have to get an A7 first), Sony's ADD will have kicked in, and the A7 would have been discontinued. The problem with doing detailed comparisons is that it would take a couple of months to get eliminate the learning curve from the equation.

I would actually like to run an X-Pro2, but it's not out, and I don't think Fuji would put me on its A-list.

The basis for even doing this is that both cameras have optical viewfinders are are the same general size and shape, with the same basic control layout.

Dante
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom