FTL
Newbie
Count me in those that sold the M9-P for a 240, had 6 months of "it just isn't the same" and finally bought another M9-P. Lost a lot of money, but at least now I'm happy and that's all that counts.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It is the simplest thing in the world to shoot a decent profile for the camera.
I get a strong impression many of the nay-sayers hers didn’t even try it, although it is the established method to synchronize the colours out of differing cameras.
If you shoot a profile for both the M9 and M240 the colour out of both cameras is identical. No way to tell the prints apart, except for the higher redo;union and better dynamic range on the M240. You won’t get the blown highlights and blocked-up shadows Mitch’s shot exhibits
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2326828&postcount=21
I get a strong impression many of the nay-sayers hers didn’t even try it, although it is the established method to synchronize the colours out of differing cameras.
If you shoot a profile for both the M9 and M240 the colour out of both cameras is identical. No way to tell the prints apart, except for the higher redo;union and better dynamic range on the M240. You won’t get the blown highlights and blocked-up shadows Mitch’s shot exhibits
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2326828&postcount=21
uhoh7
Veteran
Current market rate for a very clean M9 is 3200USD.
The M240 may be editable to equal results below iso 800. But I never saw a 240 do better.
The M9 can be a real trickster, but when you get it right.....
At first I thought it would be useless in low light, but then I tried the CV 35/1.2:
Focus at that FL is relatively forgiving.
The M240 may be editable to equal results below iso 800. But I never saw a 240 do better.
The M9 can be a real trickster, but when you get it right.....
At first I thought it would be useless in low light, but then I tried the CV 35/1.2:
Focus at that FL is relatively forgiving.
__--
Well-known
Jaap, so, one is arrogant if one makes a judgment that one likes the M9 better than the M240? From what I have seen online and also through private correspondence with people who have tried it, making a M240 camera profile does not solve all the color issues of the M240. My picture of the Shan temple on Burma that you link as an example of blown highlights and blocked-up shadows was taken in a very dark area at the back of the temple with strong, tropical, direct sunlight coming into the lens and the area behind the camera lit up by tungsten and fluoresent light. The direct sunlight left no detail when looking at the window and what you called blocked shadows was part of unlit areas that were so dark that I tripped and fell because I couldn't see a step that was there. I posted this picture in another thread as an example of colors one often gets with a mixture and daylight and artificial light — a type of lighting that Alex Webb, in a recent video of him shooting in Korea, said he liked because it creates amber and blue colors. Here is the picture that you linked:
M9 | Summicron-35v4 | ISO 320 | f/2.8 | 1/30 sec
Chiang Tung, Burma
uhuh 7, your shot above is a very good example of the beautiful color rendition that the M9 can produce in low light or night shots. I don't know how much neutralization you did, but the skin tones are very good, something that is often a problem with the M240, as well-documented elsewhere by fotografz (Marc). But with the M9 one doesn't have to shoot at f/1.2 or f/1.4 in order to have beautiful color rendition in low light. While I think you are familiar with the technique for the M9 of Shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in LR4 or LR5, many people still are not, so I'll link it here.
More generally. on the subject of night shots and blocked shadows and neutralization, my feeling, based on the experience of shooting in dark streets in Bangkok, where often there are no street lights and the only light is from shop windows or from food carts lit up by fluorescent lights, one simply has to let shadow areas go to black if one doesn't want the shot look like it came from a surveillance camera. Similarly, when there colored lights present, I don't like to neutralize tones completely. As I believe in showing examples on a photography forum here are a few, although I have posted them before. Incidentally, the second pictures is one most people don't seem to care for, but one that I like a lot. The last one is an example of not neutralizing the skin tones — the lighting is a mixture of fluorescent light as red LED lights hitting the subject.
At the risk of being called arrogant by Jaap, let me say that I think that the M9 becomes an excellent camera for low light/high-ISO photography, when you use the technique of Shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in LR4 or LR5 — excellent because of the M9 color rendition.
M9 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640 pushed 1.7 stops on main subject | f/2.8 | 1/45 sec
Bangkok
M9 | Summicron-28 | ISO 640 pushed 2.2 stops on main subject | f/4.0 | 1/125 sec
M9 | Summicron-28 | ISO 640 pushed 3.6 stops on main subject| f/4.0 | 1/60 sec
Hua Hin
—Mitch/Potomac, MD
Tristes Tropiques
[Direct download link for PDF file of book project]
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Specification page is bad.
furcafe
Veteran
The only thing I miss about my M9 are the stickers I put on it, the decent shots I got w/it, & the frameline preview lever. Seriously, they're just freakin' cameras. 
__--
Well-known
Chris, by playing, in effect, the card of "it's the camera and not the photographer" you're essentially trying to cut off the discussion, which, to me, indicates that you think the idea of favoring the M9 to the M240 is a big deal indeed. So, while I feel that the photographer obviously matters, the difference in image quality, in this case the color rendition, is important. The most articulate statement on the M9, that I've quoted in several others threads is one by Charles Peterson, a Seattle photographer who showed me his excellent personal color work that I found to be outstanding, which I think is spot-on:
—Mitch/Potomac, MD
Chiang Tung Days
Direct download link for pdf file of Burma book project
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
And the other way around -and not that one likes one better than the other, but that one is better than the other.
furcafe
Veteran
Not exactly, Mitch. I've passed no judgment on those who like the M9, just voiced my own opinion that I prefer the M 240 & consider it to be a better camera for me (& many others). As I've written before, I'm happy that the M9 works for you (& many others), but I guess I'm perplexed as to why you feel it necessary to defend the M9's virtues in every thread related to the M 240. Yes, Dante insulted the M9 & mocked those who prefer it, but so what? Again, we're discussing a freakin' camera, not religion. Why do you care what someone else thinks of it?
In other words, while I believe we can all agree that different people prefer different cameras & the world is a better place for it, these types of threads always seem to degenerate into "Camera X is the greatest!" v. "No, Camera Y is the greatest!" with nobody changing their opinions.
Perhaps your proselytizing the M9 would be better directed towards Leica to persuade them to continue producing the M-E (or bring back the M9).
In other words, while I believe we can all agree that different people prefer different cameras & the world is a better place for it, these types of threads always seem to degenerate into "Camera X is the greatest!" v. "No, Camera Y is the greatest!" with nobody changing their opinions.
Perhaps your proselytizing the M9 would be better directed towards Leica to persuade them to continue producing the M-E (or bring back the M9).
It seems to be a low-light high-ISO matter... I can understand frustration when people continue to dismiss the M9 as poor in low light even after one offers a workable technique for improving it... to the point it's only a stop or so behind the 240. (weaselwords: I neither endorse nor reject said technique!)
Of course there's also the color rendition, which is certainly a matter of personal preference, not an absolute. A direct comparison would be nice to see the difference. I've heard it said the 240's reds are too magenta and need to be pushed a bit toward orange in post... Is that it? Is there an issue of more IR contamination with the 240 cover glass?
furcafe
Veteran
Again, why get frustrated because others dismiss the M9? How does that take away from your enjoyment of the M9?
My personal opinion (& it is just that, an opinion) is that the M9, like the M8 before it, was not as good in low light, especially w/regards to noise, compared to the Nikon D700, Fuji X-Pro1, &, now, the M 240. Indeed, my main reason for getting a D700 was to shoot in horrendous lighting (I photograph a lot of music shows and performance art in small, dim, venues) where I was often unable to get anything usable w/the M9. I got the X-Pro1 when I got tired of schlepping around the D700.
It is true that the best way to squeeze high ISO performance out of the M8/9 is to push in post rather than increase ISO in-camera. However, I've also found that to be true of the D700, X-Pro1, & I would guess most digital cameras (I haven't found it to be as useful on the M 240 because of the green cast problem--read Jim Kasson's articles for a technical demonstration). The important factor, again for my personal photography, is that the D700, X-Pro1, & M 240 can all consistently produce usable shots at higher ISOs in-camera than the M9. The D700 & X-Pro1 are about 2 stops better than the M9 &, yes, the M 240 is about 1 stop (sometimes more depending on lighting). In my world, the M 240 is a better camera for that reason alone, though I also appreciate the improved file processing/buffer, extended battery life, & availability of live view (any improvement in the RF seems to be pretty minor to my eyes, but also appreciated). But if you're happy w/the M9, good for you. That's $7K you don't have to spend!
Of course color rendition is important, just like it was (& still is) for film, but even putting aside the fact that raw files are so malleable compared to film, I think it's ultimately rather pointless to extoll 1 sensor over others when photographers have different tastes & priorities. I never saw anything special about the M9's color rendering (& plenty of users complained about its rendition of skintones until custom profiles became widely available)--I bought it for the same reason I bought the R-D1 & M8: because it was a digital rangefinder. I would have bought it even if Leica got their sensors from Canon, Nikon/Sony, or Fuji (I often wish they did so that I could shoot at even higher ISOs).
As to IR contamination, yes, it is my understanding (supported by personal experience) that the M 240 is more sensitive to IR than the M9. Not nearly as bad as the M8 or the Epson R-D1, thank goodness, but enough that there is a noticeable difference in IR-heavy environments, like places w/a lot of incandescent lighting (maybe it's a good thing I never got around to selling all my UV/IR filters).
My personal opinion (& it is just that, an opinion) is that the M9, like the M8 before it, was not as good in low light, especially w/regards to noise, compared to the Nikon D700, Fuji X-Pro1, &, now, the M 240. Indeed, my main reason for getting a D700 was to shoot in horrendous lighting (I photograph a lot of music shows and performance art in small, dim, venues) where I was often unable to get anything usable w/the M9. I got the X-Pro1 when I got tired of schlepping around the D700.
It is true that the best way to squeeze high ISO performance out of the M8/9 is to push in post rather than increase ISO in-camera. However, I've also found that to be true of the D700, X-Pro1, & I would guess most digital cameras (I haven't found it to be as useful on the M 240 because of the green cast problem--read Jim Kasson's articles for a technical demonstration). The important factor, again for my personal photography, is that the D700, X-Pro1, & M 240 can all consistently produce usable shots at higher ISOs in-camera than the M9. The D700 & X-Pro1 are about 2 stops better than the M9 &, yes, the M 240 is about 1 stop (sometimes more depending on lighting). In my world, the M 240 is a better camera for that reason alone, though I also appreciate the improved file processing/buffer, extended battery life, & availability of live view (any improvement in the RF seems to be pretty minor to my eyes, but also appreciated). But if you're happy w/the M9, good for you. That's $7K you don't have to spend!
Of course color rendition is important, just like it was (& still is) for film, but even putting aside the fact that raw files are so malleable compared to film, I think it's ultimately rather pointless to extoll 1 sensor over others when photographers have different tastes & priorities. I never saw anything special about the M9's color rendering (& plenty of users complained about its rendition of skintones until custom profiles became widely available)--I bought it for the same reason I bought the R-D1 & M8: because it was a digital rangefinder. I would have bought it even if Leica got their sensors from Canon, Nikon/Sony, or Fuji (I often wish they did so that I could shoot at even higher ISOs).
As to IR contamination, yes, it is my understanding (supported by personal experience) that the M 240 is more sensitive to IR than the M9. Not nearly as bad as the M8 or the Epson R-D1, thank goodness, but enough that there is a noticeable difference in IR-heavy environments, like places w/a lot of incandescent lighting (maybe it's a good thing I never got around to selling all my UV/IR filters).
Last edited:
M9 vs M240 meh.
what about the BIG Leica arguments?
II vs Contax II ?
IIIg vs M3 ?
M3 vs M2 ?
M4 vs M5 ?
To point out the obvious, these arguments don't really matter.
Just go out and take pics...
Stephen
what about the BIG Leica arguments?
II vs Contax II ?
IIIg vs M3 ?
M3 vs M2 ?
M4 vs M5 ?
To point out the obvious, these arguments don't really matter.
Just go out and take pics...
Stephen
__--
Well-known
Ugh...what is obvious is that, if the photographer is sensitive to (substantial) differences in color rendition between the M240 and M9/M-E, then the choice matters for that photographer for the, also obvious, reason that choosing a digital camera is not at all like choosing a film. Once you've bought an M240 or an M9 you're stuck with the color rendition and cannot simply change film: you can change the look of photos by making and using camera profiles and by post-processing, but, in my view, the difference in color rendition of these two cameras is such that my preference is for the M9 — and that is the view of some others that I've mentioned as well, who do not consider going to the M240 to be an upgrade. If Leica and Adobe can change this through future firmware fixes or improvements in post-processing software, so much the better as far as I am concerned. In the meantime, I'll stick with the M9.
On high-ISO performance, I have been publicizing the "Shoot at ISO 640 and process in LR4/5" technique because, in my view, it makes the M9 into a great camera for night photography in view, again, of the color rendition. Another reason that I have been publicizing this is that this technique is quite different from pushing film and, therefore, not a technique that a photographer will necessarily come upon intuitively: for this I am grateful that Steve has made my thread on this technique into a sticky on the digital M-cameras forum.
—Mitch/Potomac, MD
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
[Download link for PDF file for book project]
kshapero
South Florida Man
The Review is meh and fluff. Useless. Each to their own. Love the M240(I actually have the M-P 240). Love the battery life. Had a M9 and loved it, now I love the 240. All gooder(?)
Freakscene
Obscure member
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Wait. Is "someone" just purchased M-P 240, after M-A?