Merelyok
Well-known
I've had the M240 for about a week now, hadn't had much time to really shoot seriously with it but from the time that i've had so far, it is a marked improvement over the M9, especially in output.
The ability to have usable ISO up to 1600 (i've only dared ventured so far but i'm sure it can handle higher ISOs) and being able to use live view (heresy to some i know, but i use the Oly VF2 alot for sneaky street shots) is really awesome.
The menu is still as fidgety as the M9 ( it ain't no Canon) but still usable. Focus peaking could be improved. The in focus portion in red is not very evident unless you use the EVF and have it zoomed in.
I do miss the manual frame selector on the M9 though.
Physically it is certainly chunkier than the M9 with the added heft noticeable if one were to carry it with the strap wrapped around the wrist (i usually carry my cameras this way so your mileage may vary).
RAW / DNG files too are a marked improvement over the M9 files although the JPEG output may seem alittle too plastic or sharpened for some. RAW files have ALOT more retrievable info to work with which is very nice. My workflow (Bridge to CS6) is the same as when i was using the M9 but one has a lot more leeway in manipulating the RAW files from the M240.
I can understand why the debate between CMOS and CCD exists but i will take usable high ISO any day.
Some test shots from my 1st week with it.
Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM
50mm Nokton 1.5 ASPH
35mm Nokton 1.2 (V1)
Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM
Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM
One color shot for reference as well - Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM
* I still fumble around when switching from live view (EVF) to the rangefinder - But i'm sure that's me being clumsy on my part.
The ability to have usable ISO up to 1600 (i've only dared ventured so far but i'm sure it can handle higher ISOs) and being able to use live view (heresy to some i know, but i use the Oly VF2 alot for sneaky street shots) is really awesome.
The menu is still as fidgety as the M9 ( it ain't no Canon) but still usable. Focus peaking could be improved. The in focus portion in red is not very evident unless you use the EVF and have it zoomed in.
I do miss the manual frame selector on the M9 though.
Physically it is certainly chunkier than the M9 with the added heft noticeable if one were to carry it with the strap wrapped around the wrist (i usually carry my cameras this way so your mileage may vary).
RAW / DNG files too are a marked improvement over the M9 files although the JPEG output may seem alittle too plastic or sharpened for some. RAW files have ALOT more retrievable info to work with which is very nice. My workflow (Bridge to CS6) is the same as when i was using the M9 but one has a lot more leeway in manipulating the RAW files from the M240.
I can understand why the debate between CMOS and CCD exists but i will take usable high ISO any day.
Some test shots from my 1st week with it.
Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM
50mm Nokton 1.5 ASPH
35mm Nokton 1.2 (V1)
Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM
Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM
One color shot for reference as well - Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM
* I still fumble around when switching from live view (EVF) to the rangefinder - But i'm sure that's me being clumsy on my part.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Thanks for posting the images and your feelings about the camera.
It surprises me how little interest there appears to be in the 240 at RFF ... maybe it's a little 'too' far away from an M3 for this place!
It surprises me how little interest there appears to be in the 240 at RFF ... maybe it's a little 'too' far away from an M3 for this place!
Merelyok
Well-known
Thanks for posting the images and your feelings about the camera.
It surprises me how little interest there appears to be in the 240 at RFF ... maybe it's a little 'too' far away from an M3 for this place!
Hi Keith! thanks for commenting.
I suppose it might be for some (Movie button??! I have to admit i keep messing up the movie record button for the zoom-in button when using live view).
It is a step away from the M9, but not a spectacularly radical one. All in all, to me at least, it is a step in the right direction.
Now to save up for those pesky Crons / Luxes.
( i had a pre asph titan lux that i thoroughly regret selling).
soultheworld
Established
i had the m240 for a week but i happily returned it and kept using my M9P.
its a personal thing, i simply prefer the way the m9 renders and handles.
its a personal thing, i simply prefer the way the m9 renders and handles.
Merelyok
Well-known
Hi soultheworld, i understand. If i could i would have kept my M9 while still getting the the M240 but the fiscal ramifications would be dire
I took the 240 out for a spin today, shooting exclusively at ISO 2000.
Pioneer
Veteran
My M arrived in the mail yesterday and as soon as the battery was charged I headed out to my granddaughter's softball practice.
At this early point I am quite impressed. I haven't spent any time comparing image quality or color, nor have I tried to assess any of the new features incorporated into the M. I was interested in the M9 because it was a full frame, digital rangefinder, and I am primarily interested in the M for the same reason. In the future I may play with some of the other features but for now I am only using it like I would use my M3.
This camera feels far more refined than my M9. The shutter release is much smoother and the sound is MUCH lower. It actually sounds like an M.
It also feels very responsive. I don't know what the exact differences are in the specs between the M and M9 but the M is able to work very fast, much more like the M3 than the M9.
The camera body is slightly deeper than the M9 but I did not find it as much of an adjustment as the difference between the M9 and the film Ms had been for me.
The battery seems to charge very quickly. It was charged in a couple hours the other day. If it continues to work this quickly I'll be happy.
There is a lot about this camera that I like. As a rangefinder I think that Leica actually got a lot of things right with it. What I don't like is the proliferation of buttons on the back. A Leica M is not that big of a camera folks, and there are not that many places to put your fingers. If I grip it with my thumb on the back and fingers on the front, I hit the Info button. If I hold it with my thumb on the bottom and fingers on to top plate, I hit the M button. With a bit of time I hope I find a comfortable solution.
At this early point I am quite impressed. I haven't spent any time comparing image quality or color, nor have I tried to assess any of the new features incorporated into the M. I was interested in the M9 because it was a full frame, digital rangefinder, and I am primarily interested in the M for the same reason. In the future I may play with some of the other features but for now I am only using it like I would use my M3.
This camera feels far more refined than my M9. The shutter release is much smoother and the sound is MUCH lower. It actually sounds like an M.
It also feels very responsive. I don't know what the exact differences are in the specs between the M and M9 but the M is able to work very fast, much more like the M3 than the M9.
The camera body is slightly deeper than the M9 but I did not find it as much of an adjustment as the difference between the M9 and the film Ms had been for me.
The battery seems to charge very quickly. It was charged in a couple hours the other day. If it continues to work this quickly I'll be happy.
There is a lot about this camera that I like. As a rangefinder I think that Leica actually got a lot of things right with it. What I don't like is the proliferation of buttons on the back. A Leica M is not that big of a camera folks, and there are not that many places to put your fingers. If I grip it with my thumb on the back and fingers on the front, I hit the Info button. If I hold it with my thumb on the bottom and fingers on to top plate, I hit the M button. With a bit of time I hope I find a comfortable solution.
Richard G
Veteran
Good to see more about the M. I'm glad good people here are recognizing its good qualities. I accept the superior output. The M's size, and the ergonomics made me add the Monochrom to my stable, but I have a fountain pen and a wind up watch so I am clearly not normal.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
Scrambler
Well-known
Thanks for posting the images and your feelings about the camera.
It surprises me how little interest there appears to be in the 240 at RFF ... maybe it's a little 'too' far away from an M3 for this place!
I noticed a similar phenomenon on a Land Rover site I was active on. The latest model was always a step down and the just superseded model the best overall. This continued to be true through model upgrades so that each model went from nearly useless to nearly perfect after 3 years out so. What it really was about was the learning curve necessary to find how to compensate for weaknesses and maximise strengths in each design.
ReeRay
Well-known
The M240 is my first digital Leica so I have no comparisons with it's predecessors although I've been using the film M's for many years. It took me a long time to sort out the colours and profiles and at one time I almost caved in and returned the camera. Boy, am I glad I kept it. The files are simply spectacular. The abuse that they tolerate in post processing is phenomenal. The colours are wonderful and convert beautifully to B+W. I've bonded with this camera more so then any other in my 50 years as a photographer. Frankly, I can't put it down.
ReeRay
Well-known
L1005465 by rayevans412, on Flickr
L1002942 by rayevans412, on Flickr
L1006601 by rayevans412, on Flickr
Pioneer
Veteran
The more I use this camera the more I like it.
The shutter sound is very soft. I am using it just like a film camera. No preview. Just aim, select shutter, aperture, focus, compose and expose.
Here is a color sample from my walk to the mailbox today. Maybe a touch too little depth of field but it prints as a beautiful, 3-dimensional, pastel print. Used the Lux 50 Pre-Asph at f2.
The shutter sound is very soft. I am using it just like a film camera. No preview. Just aim, select shutter, aperture, focus, compose and expose.
Here is a color sample from my walk to the mailbox today. Maybe a touch too little depth of field but it prints as a beautiful, 3-dimensional, pastel print. Used the Lux 50 Pre-Asph at f2.
ReeRay
Well-known
double post
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I wonder about what people really want from a camera sometimes and why they seem reluctant to move on from a design they are comfortable with.
Live view seems like a real bonus to me and I wish to hell my SD1M had it ... video I can live without and I think they could have skipped this addition personally. As for the output of the sensor from what I see in this thread it has more punch than the CCD of the M9 and visually for me seems to fall somewhere between the CCD of the said M9 and my Merrills with their foveon sensors.
I guess the camera has a lot more competition than the M9 had when it was released ... courtesy of the full frame mirrorless onslaught that we are currently caught up in.
Merelyok
Well-known
i agree on the live view Keith, i use it ALOT with my Sony A7 for street shots and i have to say i'm loving it on the M240 as well.
With the EVF attached, i creep up to people and they are at most perplexed at why i am trying to photograph the wall behind them (or so they think!)
* the files are alot more malleable than that on the M9, as Reeray has observed.
**oh, and beautiful shots everyone! (Reeray the 1st shot is very nice indeed)
ReeRay
Well-known
I haven't used the EVF as of yet but have just ordered one as I'm struggling with focus accuracy on the 90mm and clueless with what I'm capturing with anything wider than a 35mm. But that's the blessing of the M240. No need for multiple external viewfinders.
Merelyok
Well-known
You're gonna like the EVF Reeray..focusing should be much easier.
Sharing one more shot.
35mm 1.2 Nokton wide open, iso 1000
Sharing one more shot.
35mm 1.2 Nokton wide open, iso 1000
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Your photos look good, I'm glad the M has delighted you.
I've been thinking about the M9 and M lately. In the context of my other cameras .. Film Ms, CL, Nikon F, Leicaflex SL, digital Olympus E-1/E-M1, Sony A7. The various Polaroids, the Hasselblads. What's come clear to me is that all of them produce more than satisfactory quality for my satisfaction, so that's off the table.
What I like shooting with the most .. Have to say it's definitely between the A7+Leica R lenses and the E-M1 system. I guess the TTL viewfinder experience just resonates better with me, and the lighter, smaller, easier to handle bodies make a difference. And that when I want to shoot with film, there's nothing like an SX-70 or SWC to get my vision going.
I thought I'd buy an M at one point, likely not at this point. I'm glad that Leica is pushing forward with the M, and exploring new ground with the T. I'm glad that people who are discovering them are making fine photographs with them.
Forwards,
G
I've been thinking about the M9 and M lately. In the context of my other cameras .. Film Ms, CL, Nikon F, Leicaflex SL, digital Olympus E-1/E-M1, Sony A7. The various Polaroids, the Hasselblads. What's come clear to me is that all of them produce more than satisfactory quality for my satisfaction, so that's off the table.
What I like shooting with the most .. Have to say it's definitely between the A7+Leica R lenses and the E-M1 system. I guess the TTL viewfinder experience just resonates better with me, and the lighter, smaller, easier to handle bodies make a difference. And that when I want to shoot with film, there's nothing like an SX-70 or SWC to get my vision going.
I thought I'd buy an M at one point, likely not at this point. I'm glad that Leica is pushing forward with the M, and exploring new ground with the T. I'm glad that people who are discovering them are making fine photographs with them.
Forwards,
G