Takkun
Ian M.
Well, I paid a lot less than that for my 262, so that's my real-world answer.
But within the constraints of your question...tough. The Monochrom's don't interest me; I shoot digital for color, or for applications I need color.
SL also doesn't interest me too much. Got to play with one in store, EVF was impressive, everything else...I'd rather buy a Nikon for that price. Lenses notwithstanding, the body itself doesn't jump out among a sea of mirrorless bodies, but then again, I'm not up-and-up on the latest tech.
I like RFs. Real, optical RFs. So that leaves M9P. Almost bought one until I found the 262.
But within the constraints of your question...tough. The Monochrom's don't interest me; I shoot digital for color, or for applications I need color.
SL also doesn't interest me too much. Got to play with one in store, EVF was impressive, everything else...I'd rather buy a Nikon for that price. Lenses notwithstanding, the body itself doesn't jump out among a sea of mirrorless bodies, but then again, I'm not up-and-up on the latest tech.
I like RFs. Real, optical RFs. So that leaves M9P. Almost bought one until I found the 262.
raid
Dad Photographer
If I deviate from the set $3000 limit as the max amount to be spent, and if I would go for a RF camera, it will be M10.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Raid, are you testing some AI software with your students here? I have no idea what you just wrote. Is it possible to put it in English for dummies?
raid
Dad Photographer
OK, let's try something just for you: I meant to say that if were considering getting a RF camera and if the limit to be spend exceeds $3000, then I would think of getting an M10.
This requires AI!
robert blu
quiet photographer
if not M9M is M10 ! If not M10 is SL ! If not SL is...so nice to have options
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Answer the question which, if any, would actually improve your photographs.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
How about convenience first?
Or even pleasure.Going from FF DSLR to M9P might bring convenience (small kit) and pleasure (Leica).
Going to M9M is convenience for sure (no film).
Going SL is convenience of adult age (AF) and it is still, kind of, Leica.
Alberti
Well-known
The M240 is indeed efficient, but not as ergonomically fine as the M8 was for the connoisseur. The framelines are too tight. The distance in which the framelines are projected is just too close, making it harder to see and focus.
And it is rather clumsy.
I'm looking for an M9, waiting for the used prices to be about USD 1500. Won't take long.
jarski
Veteran
don't know if am a connoisseur, but owning both and using them parallel quite a bit past month or so. I find this comment bit odd. how does M240 not be as ergonomically fine as M8?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
And the M9 is better for carrying on the aesthetic aspect as well, because it has the viewfinder illuminator window!
Thanks for the info on the M240 framelines. I don't like undersized framelines, either!
Alberti
Well-known
And the M9 is better for carrying on the aesthetic aspect as well, because it has the viewfinder illuminator window!
Thanks for the info on the M240 framelines. I don't like undersized framelines, either!
The M9 I have heard has undersized framelines too.
But maybe the M240 is worse. The 40mm really doesn't fit the 35mm and even the 50mm Canon does not fit (Does it have a slightly less amount of mm focus than the Leica originals??)
The M240 has many good points going for it though also.
jarski
Veteran
am appreciating bigger battery (bigger than in M10 actually), silent shutter, more modern and better *everything*, over the previous versions. am still happily shooting M8 though and plan keeping it.
only think am not liking in M240 is its odd name oh, and a wifi would be nice also, but there's ways around that.
only think am not liking in M240 is its odd name
oh, and a wifi would be nice also, but there's ways around that.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
But the m9 framelines are not dreadfully undersized, At least the M9 is sized (I think) for a 1 meter distance, not .7M, as the M6, M7, and MP are. The M8.2, sized for 2M, was even better that way.
It is the dreadfully undersized 50mm frameline of the M6/7/P that bothers me the most. Not a problem with the M9.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
JeffS7444
Well-known
$3000 budget? M240, of course! Have already owned an M9, and briefly sampled a Monochrome but decided it wasn't right for me. M240 adds live view, which I've never had in an M-camera, but which I think I'd like a lot.
Loved the M8 when I had it, thought that the M9 was a slightly more polished M8, but aside from the blinking clipping indicators, might have done better to save my money for the M240 or newer.
The L-mount camera which interests me the most is the Sigma FP, but that's another discussion...
Loved the M8 when I had it, thought that the M9 was a slightly more polished M8, but aside from the blinking clipping indicators, might have done better to save my money for the M240 or newer.
The L-mount camera which interests me the most is the Sigma FP, but that's another discussion...
willie_901
Veteran
Limited to these 3 camera, my choice would be the SL.
The SL 's (Type 601) signal-to-noise ratio is significantly higher that the M9s'.
The SNR differences translate to about 1 1/3 stop more dynamic range in bright light. In low light the SL has about a 2 EV higher sensitivity compared to the M9 and 2/3 stop for the M9M.
SNR is an important variable in perceived image quality in both bright light (dynamic range) and low light (sensitivity). The SL's SNR is primarily limited by photon noise while the M9s' have a significant read noise component.
BTW: The M240 and M10 have about same and 2/3 stop more sensitivity, respectively, compared to the SL. The dynamic range for the M240, M10 and SL are similar. Again, their SNR is limited by photon noise instead of camera read noise.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks for your feedback, Willie. Am I correctly understanding you saying that the M10 can stand its ground against the SL, so to speak?