uhoh7
Veteran
You might want to read this thread
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229885-did-anyone-go-back-to-m9-after-m240/
While it's true edited files from both M9 and 240 can be made similar, the M9 workflow is much faster for many, and with OOC files, well they are unique no matter what anyone says.
All depends on what you like. Expect to spent more time in your editor. No doubt M240 is great and has some advantages. For many they are moot.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229885-did-anyone-go-back-to-m9-after-m240/
While it's true edited files from both M9 and 240 can be made similar, the M9 workflow is much faster for many, and with OOC files, well they are unique no matter what anyone says.
All depends on what you like. Expect to spent more time in your editor. No doubt M240 is great and has some advantages. For many they are moot.
stephen.w
Established
I am interested in this debate, as I have contemplated this very swap. I would like a high ISO (colour) RF platform to shoot my M lenses with, but am really not dissatisfied with the M9 and I should probably just carry on with what I have.
This is absolutely so. Something about the colours and the sharp shadow transition that resembles slide film for me.
***
If you haven't seen it already, this was a very eye-opening thread, at least for me: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/208876-m9-colors-at-night-—-best-way-to-shoot-high-iso/
guardado1213
Established
Well i would assume its faster becasue its the difference between 18mp and 24mp
It might be just a case of GAS that i want to upgrade my M9 to M240 becasue like stephen.w i am not dissatisfied with my M9, i just have some quirks with it that are not all that bad once I think about it.
uhoh7
Veteran
No that's not the case. The M9 RAWs are huge, 36mp. So they aren't any faster.
What's faster for many is how much time you spend fiddling with the images.
The M240 files take more work than the M9 files for alot of people. First, and most time consuming is you have to figure out what to do to them. Jaapv once confessed how long it took him to get his workflow figured out with the 240. Now once you know what the steps are to get where you want, it's a streamlined process, but one which is still more elaborate than M9 by a good margin.
In other words M9 RAWs and M240 RAWs look very different when they come into your editor. The MM also requires alot of fiddling, for many shooters.
Another issue is lens corrections. The 50 Lux ASPH and 28 Cron work nicer on the M9 than the 240 for many eyes, and it's pretty hard to get the 240 to do the same thing.
On the other hand the 240 shutter is nicer, the buffer is faster, there is live view, meaning you can frame and focus some lenses easier. High ISO is better. OVF many say is nicer. Camera is very tough too. But quite a bit more weight.
Sometimes a new camera just spices things up and makes shooting more novel. You can always get another M9. So it might be really fun to try the 240. I would not hesitate to use one, but I like the M9 fine, so I don't bother. Love the one your with?
TRIago
Established
I won't be selling my M9 anytime soon. I kid you not, the raw files from that camera are just amazing. To me, at least. So I see no reason at all to change.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
D&A
Well-known
No that's not the case. The M9 RAWs are huge, 36mp. So they aren't any faster.
What's faster for many is how much time you spend fiddling with the images.
The M240 files take more work than the M9 files for alot of people. First, and most time consuming is you have to figure out what to do to them. Jaapv once confessed how long it took him to get his workflow figured out with the 240. Now once you know what the steps are to get where you want, it's a streamlined process, but one which is still more elaborate than M9 by a good margin.
In other words M9 RAWs and M240 RAWs look very different when they come into your editor. The MM also requires alot of fiddling, for many shooters.
Another issue is lens corrections. The 50 Lux ASPH and 28 Cron work nicer on the M9 than the 240 for many eyes, and it's pretty hard to get the 240 to do the same thing.
On the other hand the 240 shutter is nicer, the buffer is faster, there is live view, meaning you can frame and focus some lenses easier. High ISO is better. OVF many say is nicer. Camera is very tough too. But quite a bit more weight.
Sometimes a new camera just spices things up and makes shooting more novel. You can always get another M9. So it might be really fun to try the 240. I would not hesitate to use one, but I like the M9 fine, so I don't bother. Love the one your with?
Stephen Stills would love you
.Agree with virtually all you wrote but would just add the following: Even when one gets the workflow down pat with M240 raw files, often is the case that the M240 files still have certain problems with color output under a variety of certain lighting conditions, especially with regards to reproducing skin tones. The M9 isn't 100% perfect either but much more manageable in this regard. We often hear of many saying they finally have a workflow that matches or comes close to M9 output. Conversely we rarely hear anyone who says they work hard to get their M9 to match M240 output. That in itself says a lot.
Dave (D&A)
guardado1213
Established
No that's not the case. The M9 RAWs are huge, 36mp. So they aren't any faster.
What's faster for many is how much time you spend fiddling with the images.
The M240 files take more work than the M9 files for alot of people. First, and most time consuming is you have to figure out what to do to them. Jaapv once confessed how long it took him to get his workflow figured out with the 240. Now once you know what the steps are to get where you want, it's a streamlined process, but one which is still more elaborate than M9 by a good margin.
In other words M9 RAWs and M240 RAWs look very different when they come into your editor. The MM also requires alot of fiddling, for many shooters.
Another issue is lens corrections. The 50 Lux ASPH and 28 Cron work nicer on the M9 than the 240 for many eyes, and it's pretty hard to get the 240 to do the same thing.
On the other hand the 240 shutter is nicer, the buffer is faster, there is live view, meaning you can frame and focus some lenses easier. High ISO is better. OVF many say is nicer. Camera is very tough too. But quite a bit more weight.
Sometimes a new camera just spices things up and makes shooting more novel. You can always get another M9. So it might be really fun to try the 240. I would not hesitate to use one, but I like the M9 fine, so I don't bother. Love the one your with?
Thanks for the explanation uhoh7, I don't think my bank account would appreciate me getting another M9 but one can dream. Huss had suggested going to the Leica Store here in LA and trying out a M240 before deciding and i think that is a great idea. Who knows, maybe i wont like the handle of it and decide to stick with my M9 for the next couple years...Maybe I'll buy a Monochrom and start a whole new problem and discussion.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually, owning both, I find the end result better from the M240 than it was from the M9. However, it took me some time to adapt my workflow. The main adaptation was to create custom camera profiles for various types of light, something that I do for any camera that I use. After that it was working out the exact curves in the colour channels that corresponded to my wishes and tweaking the various settings that I use. I found it very practical to use the Grey Card AWB setting as a starting point, despite it being far too cool.
Secondly I found that the application of Dan Margulis' PPW actions are particularly beneficial for the M240, lifting it beyond anything that can be achieved by the M9.
Highly recommended, as is the book that comes with it: "Modern Color Workflow" Downside: The book should be purchased with a bottle of Aspirin and requires at least three readings for full understanding.
http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/free-resources
A simple solution for skin tones is the use of an IR cut filter, as the main cause of the discontinuous colouring is the layered structure of the skin reflecting IR light variably. In fact, the camera rendering is accurate whilst our eye-brain system filters our perception, giving an accurate result which we perceive as unnatural.
The above mentioned PPW actions contain highly effective skin filtering, btw.
Secondly I found that the application of Dan Margulis' PPW actions are particularly beneficial for the M240, lifting it beyond anything that can be achieved by the M9.
Highly recommended, as is the book that comes with it: "Modern Color Workflow" Downside: The book should be purchased with a bottle of Aspirin and requires at least three readings for full understanding.
http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/free-resources
A simple solution for skin tones is the use of an IR cut filter, as the main cause of the discontinuous colouring is the layered structure of the skin reflecting IR light variably. In fact, the camera rendering is accurate whilst our eye-brain system filters our perception, giving an accurate result which we perceive as unnatural.
The above mentioned PPW actions contain highly effective skin filtering, btw.
So that's it! Thanks, Jaap... I was wondering what I was missing with the talk of all the fiddling needed with the files. What has been missing is the IR! Noting that the M240 internal IR filtration is a bit weaker than the M9's, I have consistently used UV/IR Cut filters with the 240. Certainly the files are different from those of the M8 and S2 but (for me) don't seem to need more work to look good.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The only thing I've noticed with the 240 files and skin is the tendency to over do the red which seems to be a problem with most digital cameras IMO ... my D700 is the same.
D&A
Well-known
One of the chief complaints of skin tones and often certain scenes with the M240, has been a preponderance of yellow and yellow casts. Even with post processing techniques, some of these color casts have been very difficult to remove without changing the integrity of other colors.
I will say with firmware revisions along the way, the M240 has gotten better in this regard.
Dave (D&A)
raid
Dad Photographer
I know. This is also why I am keeping my M9. It is a very special camera.
willie_901
Veteran
Don't use out-of-camera JPEGs... problem solved.
RichardPhoto
Established
I went from the M8 to the M240 (just got it yesterday).
I would say the biggest change to me is that the M8/M9/MM feel like film cameras with electronics stuffed into them whereas the M240 feels like a camera designed to be digital from the start. The M240 just feels a more robust and refined product. I personally view it as far superior to the M9.
Regarding the Monochrom... I really really wanted one. Unfortunately I couldn't stretch to the new one, just the original one. In the UK used M240s and MMs are about the same price. When I was shopping around I was constantly aware of phrases like 'sensor corrosion', 'checked by Leica', 'sensor replaced'.... It just made me realise what a total crapshoot it is buying any Leica of the M8/9/MM generation.
I've already been through the heartache and expense of a sending an M8 to Germany for repair - I don't want that again. Sure, it can happen with the M240s but my general feeling is that QC is significantly higher. I feel that I can view the M240 like a Canon/Nikon, etc, in that regard - i.e. something might go wrong rather than something will go wrong.
I would say the biggest change to me is that the M8/M9/MM feel like film cameras with electronics stuffed into them whereas the M240 feels like a camera designed to be digital from the start. The M240 just feels a more robust and refined product. I personally view it as far superior to the M9.
Regarding the Monochrom... I really really wanted one. Unfortunately I couldn't stretch to the new one, just the original one. In the UK used M240s and MMs are about the same price. When I was shopping around I was constantly aware of phrases like 'sensor corrosion', 'checked by Leica', 'sensor replaced'.... It just made me realise what a total crapshoot it is buying any Leica of the M8/9/MM generation.
I've already been through the heartache and expense of a sending an M8 to Germany for repair - I don't want that again. Sure, it can happen with the M240s but my general feeling is that QC is significantly higher. I feel that I can view the M240 like a Canon/Nikon, etc, in that regard - i.e. something might go wrong rather than something will go wrong.