Out to Lunch
Ventor
Dear RFF Leica users,
I've recently seen two deals on both the Leica M9-P and the Leica M. While appreciating the Fuji experience, I would like to continue using rangefinder cameras. The cost aside, should I be concerned with M9-P care and maintenance issues....should I go for the M because it's overall a better camera?
Many thanks for your feedback,
Peter
I've recently seen two deals on both the Leica M9-P and the Leica M. While appreciating the Fuji experience, I would like to continue using rangefinder cameras. The cost aside, should I be concerned with M9-P care and maintenance issues....should I go for the M because it's overall a better camera?
Many thanks for your feedback,
Peter
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Peter,
I was a very happy M9 owner and recently upgraded to the M240, mainly to get the EVF option.
Both are excellent, so I would go with the M9-P if that is more affordable and the M240 if the cost is not daunting.
I also think the extra quietness of the M240 is a bit of a bonus.
Tom
I was a very happy M9 owner and recently upgraded to the M240, mainly to get the EVF option.
Both are excellent, so I would go with the M9-P if that is more affordable and the M240 if the cost is not daunting.
I also think the extra quietness of the M240 is a bit of a bonus.
Tom
__--
Well-known
For me the issue is the difference in color rendition, for which I prefer the M9.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
Pioneer
Veteran
I just received my new M the other day and am enjoying the differences. It is a little chunkier but that is not an issue. If you are interested in one you will likely like it. But to choose?
This is my take. They are both excellent cameras but they are different. For starters, the M is newer and has more advanced technology. It uses a different sensor so there are some differences in the image. But here is the bottom line.
If you need Live View/EVF and Video, buy the M.
If you need high ISO quality, buy the M.
If you need to print your pictures at 36 inches by 72 inches or larger, buy the M.
If none of that matters, buy the M9P. Buy better lenses with the money you saved.
This is my take. They are both excellent cameras but they are different. For starters, the M is newer and has more advanced technology. It uses a different sensor so there are some differences in the image. But here is the bottom line.
If you need Live View/EVF and Video, buy the M.
If you need high ISO quality, buy the M.
If you need to print your pictures at 36 inches by 72 inches or larger, buy the M.
If none of that matters, buy the M9P. Buy better lenses with the money you saved.
Pioneer
Veteran
Of course, none of this really matters.
I know people who have happily shot Tri-X, indoors and out, at ISO 400 for all their lives. Oh, once in a while they will push to ISO 800, but they can probably count the times on one hand.
But the minute the word "digital" is thrown into the mix, everyone is completely convinced that they absolutely must have a camera that can shoot pictures in total darkness.
So I have come to the conclusion that providing advice on which camera to buy is usually falling on deaf ears. In most cases people will read; "18mp vs 24mp", or they see; "only usable at ISO 800 vs usable at ISO 3200", and their minds are already decided.
Don't misunderstand me, I enjoy the M, it is a nice camera. But the M9 was actually a technical wonder when it arrived...and it still is. Most people, myself included, will never actually outgrow the M9.
I know people who have happily shot Tri-X, indoors and out, at ISO 400 for all their lives. Oh, once in a while they will push to ISO 800, but they can probably count the times on one hand.
But the minute the word "digital" is thrown into the mix, everyone is completely convinced that they absolutely must have a camera that can shoot pictures in total darkness.
So I have come to the conclusion that providing advice on which camera to buy is usually falling on deaf ears. In most cases people will read; "18mp vs 24mp", or they see; "only usable at ISO 800 vs usable at ISO 3200", and their minds are already decided.
Don't misunderstand me, I enjoy the M, it is a nice camera. But the M9 was actually a technical wonder when it arrived...and it still is. Most people, myself included, will never actually outgrow the M9.
maggieo
More Deadly
I'm still utterly enchanted with my M9-P. I've found it to be a wonderful camera.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
What Pioneer said.
If I intended to buy new, I'd buy an M just because it's later technology. I already have an M9-P and the differences don't seem great enough to me to worry about trading "up."
rscheffler
Well-known
I've been an M9 user since late 2010 and acquired an M240 in February.
The M9 certainly has quirks (which I suppose one could say about Leica gear in general) and the M240 addresses some of these.
I tend to be a fairly demanding user of these cameras, in that I generate a lot of images and frequently in rapid succession.
The M9 has primarily frustrated me with its shallow and slow card write speed. It also doesn't seem to like being pushed to multitask, such as reviewing images while clearing the buffer, which might present lock-ups, which may be card dependent... The M9's reputation is one of being very particular about memory cards. Battery capacity is also in the 300-400 images range, on average, if shooting DNG, which will really depend on your shooting needs and style. For some of my work, I've gone through 4-5 batteries in a day.
The M240 generally addresses these shortcomings to my satisfaction, though I would still like a faster and/or deeper buffer. And I have experienced M240 glitches when multitasking it, too, but not as frequent or terminal as with the M9.
The M240 also generates images that 'feel' more in-line with mainstream brands. Maybe because of the CMOS sensor, it's better at highlight recovery, with a somewhat wider dynamic range. Though I feel its shadow recovery depth is not quite like the M9's, assuming your M9's deep shadows aren't masking random banding. This gets to be quite subjective and results in CCD vs. CMOS debates. At least for me, I don't have much difficulty getting M240 files to look Leica-like, along the lines of the M9. But on the other hand, I also shoot with Canon gear and find it's easier to get the two systems to look similar in post.
From an image resolution perspective, I don't think it's the reason to favor one over the other, though the M240 is somewhat better with higher ISOs. Slightly less color blotchiness, IMO.
To me the M240 feels like a refinement with some useful additions that can be handy, such as the live view/EVF option. It also feels quicker, smoother thanks to the quieter shutter, and more responsive, if you need it to be ready quickly for the next image.
Considering decent used M9s can be found under $4000 US, and that the camera should be serviceable for a number of years (the M-E is the same camera still selling new), it could be a great option, if it matches your shooting style and expectations.
For most of my 'wandering around town' type photos, I could live with the M9 happily, typically shooting at ISO 160 most of the time, sometimes as high as 640. The M240 better suits 'work' applications where I need it to be quick and out of the way, where I don't want to be reminded about a shallow, slow buffer at the wrong time..
The M9 certainly has quirks (which I suppose one could say about Leica gear in general) and the M240 addresses some of these.
I tend to be a fairly demanding user of these cameras, in that I generate a lot of images and frequently in rapid succession.
The M9 has primarily frustrated me with its shallow and slow card write speed. It also doesn't seem to like being pushed to multitask, such as reviewing images while clearing the buffer, which might present lock-ups, which may be card dependent... The M9's reputation is one of being very particular about memory cards. Battery capacity is also in the 300-400 images range, on average, if shooting DNG, which will really depend on your shooting needs and style. For some of my work, I've gone through 4-5 batteries in a day.
The M240 generally addresses these shortcomings to my satisfaction, though I would still like a faster and/or deeper buffer. And I have experienced M240 glitches when multitasking it, too, but not as frequent or terminal as with the M9.
The M240 also generates images that 'feel' more in-line with mainstream brands. Maybe because of the CMOS sensor, it's better at highlight recovery, with a somewhat wider dynamic range. Though I feel its shadow recovery depth is not quite like the M9's, assuming your M9's deep shadows aren't masking random banding. This gets to be quite subjective and results in CCD vs. CMOS debates. At least for me, I don't have much difficulty getting M240 files to look Leica-like, along the lines of the M9. But on the other hand, I also shoot with Canon gear and find it's easier to get the two systems to look similar in post.
From an image resolution perspective, I don't think it's the reason to favor one over the other, though the M240 is somewhat better with higher ISOs. Slightly less color blotchiness, IMO.
To me the M240 feels like a refinement with some useful additions that can be handy, such as the live view/EVF option. It also feels quicker, smoother thanks to the quieter shutter, and more responsive, if you need it to be ready quickly for the next image.
Considering decent used M9s can be found under $4000 US, and that the camera should be serviceable for a number of years (the M-E is the same camera still selling new), it could be a great option, if it matches your shooting style and expectations.
For most of my 'wandering around town' type photos, I could live with the M9 happily, typically shooting at ISO 160 most of the time, sometimes as high as 640. The M240 better suits 'work' applications where I need it to be quick and out of the way, where I don't want to be reminded about a shallow, slow buffer at the wrong time..
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
JMHO, but if you have the means to afford an M240, that is the camera to get.
Before getting the M240, I had never owned a digital camera of any kind. I have four M lenses which I have used for years on my MP and M4-P; I wanted a digital camera that would let me use my M lenses.
After looking at every digital camera that would address that point, I realized that they were all "settle for" cameras in one way or another. I bit the bullet and got the M240. I looked at the M-Monochrom, too. I need to be able to shoot color though, so the M-M was out of the selection process.
Yes, the M240 is godawfully costly. Most things that deliver the highest levels of performance and reliability are. If you are seroiusly committed to photography, need both color and B&W capability and are a Leica M shooter, there is no real substitute for the M240. Trading in older equipment can help make the M240 more affordable, if you have some gear that you can live without.
After six weeks of shooting with the M240, I have no regrets in making the sacrifices that were required to purchase it. I am hard pressed to see where anyone would regret buying or trading for this camera.
Before getting the M240, I had never owned a digital camera of any kind. I have four M lenses which I have used for years on my MP and M4-P; I wanted a digital camera that would let me use my M lenses.
After looking at every digital camera that would address that point, I realized that they were all "settle for" cameras in one way or another. I bit the bullet and got the M240. I looked at the M-Monochrom, too. I need to be able to shoot color though, so the M-M was out of the selection process.
Yes, the M240 is godawfully costly. Most things that deliver the highest levels of performance and reliability are. If you are seroiusly committed to photography, need both color and B&W capability and are a Leica M shooter, there is no real substitute for the M240. Trading in older equipment can help make the M240 more affordable, if you have some gear that you can live without.
After six weeks of shooting with the M240, I have no regrets in making the sacrifices that were required to purchase it. I am hard pressed to see where anyone would regret buying or trading for this camera.
ReeRay
Well-known
+1 as per "noisycheese" I was in exactly this situation and the M240 was the choice.
Totally satisfied and absolutely no regrets.
Totally satisfied and absolutely no regrets.
__--
Well-known
Coming back to the issue of color rendition of the 240 vs the M9: I've been following Peter on his prosophos blog, where today he writes the following: ..over the next few days, I’ll be posting several colour images I’ve taken with the M240...To put this thing to rest, I’ll state upfront that I’m now reasonably pleased with the colours I’m getting. Are they M9-like? No, of course not. The Kodak CCD sensors in the M9/M-E (and M8) are special (for many reasons), so if you’re interested in seeing an updated CCD sensor placed in a future M camera, you may want to consider signing my…Open Letter to Leica.
If you're interested in signing Peter's open letter, you can see the post on his blog.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
If you're interested in signing Peter's open letter, you can see the post on his blog.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems