My M-E vs M240 test

[neonart]

Thanks for the comparison. Here we have a case of weather the CCD has more dynamic range in the highlights or if the CMOS overexposed. Based on similar comparisons, it may very well be the former.

I think if you are a low ISO shooter, the M9/ME is a fantastic choice. My case was completely the opposite. I'm frequently hitting the ISO 4000 limit I set on my m240 (while the ME sensor starts to fall apart at about ISO1600). However, I agonized between the ME and M240 because of the wonderful low ISO CCD photos I saw. In the end the High ISO performance, live view, and battery life led me to the M240. I've been absolutely delighted.

 

[MCTuomey]

I think if you are a low ISO shooter, the M9/ME is a fantastic choice. My case was completely the opposite. I'm frequently hitting the ISO 4000 limit I set on my m240 (while the ME sensor starts to fall apart at about ISO1600). However, I agonized between the ME and M240 because of the wonderful low ISO CCD photos I saw. In the end the High ISO performance, live view, and battery life led me to the M240. I've been absolutely delighted.

OT: so, you find the M240's iso 4000 acceptable, color as well as B&W converted? i agree about the M9/ME limit of about iso 1600, so i'd be interested in your thoughts on the m240's reach above that limit.

 

[Ronald M]

Based on these, keep the ME.

Not the first place it was stated the highlights are much less recoverable.

240 has some IR contamination and I can not leave the filters from the M8 in place.

 

[jubbaa]

Huss

I think it would be a mistake to buy either camera based on a couple of quick snaps taken in the shop. If you are really torn between the two you will be much better off renting both for a couple of weeks and shooting them extensively , then draw your conclusion.

Good luck.

 

[thompsonks]

IMO a good test for you, but not for those among us who avoid fried highlights.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

Here is my M-E/M240 comparison. I purchased my M-E before the M240 was available to purchase and it was almost a year after my purchase before someone not on a list could get the M240.

However, I attended the Leica Miami store grand opening in March of 2013 and they had a M240. These two photos below are taken with different lenses and slightly different ISO speeds. But recently I decided if I could see enough similarities that I would have no problem "upgrading" to the M240 for the quieter shutter and a little bit better ISO speed.

I'll let you all figure out which is which.

 

[willie_901]

The thing about overexposure is the artifacts/loss of IQ due to exceeding the full-well capacity of sensor sites is impossible to reproduce in a test such as this. A small difference in the number of saturated sites can have a huge impact on the IQ.

It loos as though one of these images has more flare than the other. The angle between the plane of the sensor and the light is different. The total exposure in the lower image is greater.

I suspect the results could have easily been reversed by a strikingly small change in camera positions and even shutter calibrations. To be fair, it is a challenging to do meaningful testing in a camera store.

The OP certainly did the right thing by testing for conditions that match his style. Still, these images have extremely high signal-to-noise ratios because the exposure is high. The dominant source of noise is photon (shot) noise. The superior read noise of the CMOSIS sensor is marginalized by the signal-to-noise ratio chosen for the test.

 

[neonart]

OT: so, you find the M240's iso 4000 acceptable, color as well as B&W converted? i agree about the M9/ME limit of about iso 1600, so i'd be interested in your thoughts on the m240's reach above that limit.

Yes, while not every exposure at ISO4000 is perfectly acceptable, I can work with most. Having owned an RX1R (great in low light) just prior to the M240 I did not feel restricted by the M240.

Here are some samples at High ISO. You can judge for yourself. I'm pleased with the results...

ISO4000 ~f4.5 1/15th (Planar 50)

ISO6400 ~f2 1/125th (Sonnar 50)

ISO4000 ~f3.5 1/45th (Biogon 35)

ISO4000 ~f1.4 1/45th (Nokton 40)

 

[Huss]

Here is my M-E/M240 comparison. .... These two photos below are taken with different lenses and slightly different ISO speeds.

Different lenses will give a different look on the same body!

 

[Huss]

Yes, while not every exposure at ISO4000 is perfectly acceptable, I can work with most. Having owned an RX1R (great in low light) just prior to the M240 I did not feel restricted by the M240.

Credit where credit is due.

That ISO performance at 4000 blows the M-E out of the water at 1600.

If you need this ISO level, then the M240 definitely is the choice.
I shoot mostly at base to 640.

 

[Kwesi]

Here is my M-E/M240 comparison. I purchased my M-E before the M240 was available to purchase and it was almost a year after my purchase before someone not on a list could get the M240.

However, I attended the Leica Miami store grand opening in March of 2013 and they had a M240. These two photos below are taken with different lenses and slightly different ISO speeds. But recently I decided if I could see enough similarities that I would have no problem "upgrading" to the M240 for the quieter shutter and a little bit better ISO speed.

I'll let you all figure out which is which.

I'm going to go ut on a limb here and say the top image is the M240 file with the bottom being the M-E. My main reason being that overall the M240 files have a warmer color balance that the M-E and M9. The difference seems most apparent in the flowers

 

[MCTuomey]

Yes, while not every exposure at ISO4000 is perfectly acceptable, I can work with most. Having owned an RX1R (great in low light) just prior to the M240 I did not feel restricted by the M240.

Here are some samples at High ISO. You can judge for yourself. I'm pleased with the results...

ISO4000 ~f4.5 1/15th (Planar 50)

ISO6400 ~f2 1/125th (Sonnar 50)

ISO4000 ~f3.5 1/45th (Biogon 35)

ISO4000 ~f1.4 1/45th (Nokton 40)

I would be very pleased with these results at iso 4000 (and above), whether color or converted. Thanks for taking the time to respond, very helpful.

 

[Pioneer]

These are all wonderful photos. I really don't think you need to worry about your cameras. They seem to be working great. Of course, if you really want to buy a new one then feel free. Based on what I can see you will be able to take terrific photographs with the new one as well.

And BTW Neonart, my compliments. Your wife makes a stunning model.

 

[neonart]

Credit where credit is due.

That ISO performance at 4000 blows the M-E out of the water at 1600.

If you need this ISO level, then the M240 definitely is the choice.
I shoot mostly at base to 640.

Thats kinda what I came to realize. I wanted a camera that could be my only camera, and I shoot in these conditions often.

However, for those who shoot low ISO, or who are ok with multiple bodies, then the CCD based leicas have a magic hard to reproduce.

I would be very pleased with these results at iso 4000 (and above), whether color or converted. Thanks for taking the time to respond, very helpful.

You bet. Glad they were helpful.

And BTW Neonart, my compliments. Your wife makes a stunning model.

Thank you. I'm just glad she puts up with me chasing her around [with the camera].

 

[Huss]

I'm going to go ut on a limb here and say the top image is the M240 file with the bottom being the M-E. My main reason being that overall the M240 files have a warmer color balance that the M-E and M9. The difference seems most apparent in the flowers

You may be correct but lenses also have their own colour signature.
A comparison test of two different bodies using different lenses is meaningless. My impromptu test wasn't great, but at least I used the same lens on each body.

 

[raid]

If I had an M240, I would do a battery of tests with the M9.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I'll let you all figure out which is which.

I'd love to be told I'm wrong, so I could realize I can't tell the difference between a CCD file and a CMOS file, and I could get on with 'the future', but just a quick glance at the overall picture with no consideration of anything than the overall look led me to say within two seconds that the second shot is the M-E. Nothing at all to do with color balance or highlight detail, just the overall look.
So, which is it? And please tell me I'm wrong, because I'd rather be.

 

[Corran]

I've also noticed the elasticity of the highlights in my M9. This is a good thing. On the flip side, I imagine the 240's shadows have more info. It seems the MO of modern digital is to underexpose by a stop or so and bring up the shadows. To me that adds a certain "look" to the image that I do not like.

The snarky folks will comment that you should "get the exposure right" instead of relying on highlight recovery. Well any photographer should know that not every scene you photograph will have a perfect contrast range that fits nice and neat into the cameras DR range (or print DR, for that matter!) so that's a really pointless statement. Exposure is subjective, according to intent.

There are certainly some things I don't like about the M9 but the highlight recovery is one of the things I really like about the camera. I prefer to shoot +2/3 or even 1 stop on the M9 (compared to the "metered" exposure) usually.

 

[Pioneer]

If I push the highlights as close to the right as I can get, sometime even just a bit over, I get some amazing results in post process, even at higher ISOs. I actually don't think people are exposing far enough right most of the time because they are relying too much on that tiny little display screen to tell them the photo looks good. If it looks good on that little camera screen you probably will not be really happy with the print.

 

[noimmunity]

ISO6400 ~f2 1/125th (Sonnar 50)

Very nice photos, but the banding is unacceptable to me, personally.

I'd think it would be better to shoot at a lower ISO and push in post, same as with the M9.