Well OK, lets have a go at M10 (M240) colour processing. Do what you did with the M9. The colour is more accurate with the M10 so less work is needed in that department, but all other things are pretty much the same. More sharpening is required with the M10, but as you do that for the print size anyway it isn't a primary post processing step. And likewise there isn't any fundamental difference in converting a colour file into B&W from either the M9 or M10, there is no big advantage in the M10 other than more resolution. But even resolution is masked a little bit by the change in sensor type, with the M9 having more 'punch' to start with from the CCD sensor. I think of the 'punch' as the micro contrast, and is what people prefer from the M9 sensor.
A thought about Monochrom sales. I also hear they are still selling like hotcakes, but that is to a very specialist user base, buying small numbers of cameras. So any blip in sales, a months slowdown maybe, will statistically look like a massive drop, but its taken from a tiny sample. And while truly excellent monochrome pictures can be made with the M10, the Monochrom gives the specialist other things, a couple are mildly negative (more post processing to alter the linear nature of the base file, and no colour channel manipulate), but the key thing is perhaps the high ISO performance (5000 is perfectly usable) and that at high ISO the noise looks like attractive film grain, not the interpolated colour mush seen from M10 files. And it is this breadth of use that makes the Monochrom attractive, its a camera that can go from imitating large format ultra fine grain to pushed Tri-X and actually look like that without trying hard or adding filter effects in post processing.
Steve
