Takkun
Ian M.
(mods: feel free to move to a different sub-board if need be)
Greetings all,
After another absence, I'm back, finally completing graduate school and with time to shoot for leisure again. Happy to say I shot most of my images for my thesis with my trusty Bessa, sneaking around grocery stores for hip-shots (it was on mid-century supermarket architecture).
You may remember that last summer I spent more money than I ought to have on a few lenses and, most notably, a shutter replacement on my M8. My guess is that a spring from an infinity lock got lodged in it at some point. It's been working fine since, and got a lot of enjoyment out of it.
But with some travel coming up, I worry just a bit about reliability; it's on its third shutter now. I also can't help but feel missing out on a bigger, better sensor—I'm lucky to use a Nikon D850 for work, and am a bit envious of true full-frame and usable ISO above 320.
So lately I've been surfing the regular channels: classifieds here, eBay, KEH, and so on, looking at potential (affordable) upgrade paths. Looks like the M9 and M240 are within striking distance, and not a tremendous, but non-insignificant price, between them. (Oddly enough, the M8s I see go for far more than I paid for mine)
I'm curious what current M9 users think about upgrading, if the 240 is worth the jump in price from it. Also curious what the current state of affairs for M9 sensors is. I understand there's a fee if it was bought more than 5 years ago, which, I would guess, is all of them. There's quite a few on different sales channels that don't specify if the sensors are original or not. Is it the sort of thing where, if you didn't have a problem, you won't in the future?
Or am I just absolutely insane for spending a lot of coin replacing a 13 year old camera with a 10 year old one?
Greetings all,
After another absence, I'm back, finally completing graduate school and with time to shoot for leisure again. Happy to say I shot most of my images for my thesis with my trusty Bessa, sneaking around grocery stores for hip-shots (it was on mid-century supermarket architecture).
You may remember that last summer I spent more money than I ought to have on a few lenses and, most notably, a shutter replacement on my M8. My guess is that a spring from an infinity lock got lodged in it at some point. It's been working fine since, and got a lot of enjoyment out of it.
But with some travel coming up, I worry just a bit about reliability; it's on its third shutter now. I also can't help but feel missing out on a bigger, better sensor—I'm lucky to use a Nikon D850 for work, and am a bit envious of true full-frame and usable ISO above 320.
So lately I've been surfing the regular channels: classifieds here, eBay, KEH, and so on, looking at potential (affordable) upgrade paths. Looks like the M9 and M240 are within striking distance, and not a tremendous, but non-insignificant price, between them. (Oddly enough, the M8s I see go for far more than I paid for mine)
I'm curious what current M9 users think about upgrading, if the 240 is worth the jump in price from it. Also curious what the current state of affairs for M9 sensors is. I understand there's a fee if it was bought more than 5 years ago, which, I would guess, is all of them. There's quite a few on different sales channels that don't specify if the sensors are original or not. Is it the sort of thing where, if you didn't have a problem, you won't in the future?
Or am I just absolutely insane for spending a lot of coin replacing a 13 year old camera with a 10 year old one?
Bill Clark
Veteran
My wife and I just spent a week in sunny so. cal with our daughter and her family. They live near Pasadena.
Brought my full frame digital Canon along. Used it zero times.
For what it’s worth: All color photographs made with my iPhone. It does just fine for me. I made their holiday photos for them last december using my iPad mini. The larger screen than my phone I like.
Brought my full frame digital Canon along. Used it zero times.
For what it’s worth: All color photographs made with my iPhone. It does just fine for me. I made their holiday photos for them last december using my iPad mini. The larger screen than my phone I like.
peterm1
Veteran
Assuming you want to stick with the Leica M series forget the M9 - its just an uprated M8 and old technology. Get the M 240 - it is full frame, its operations and image quality are superb especially compared with those above and even today it is rated as value for money and reliable. But before going further in this thread turn to an another thread on RFF exactly on this point about whether it is worth getting an M240 today. There are many posts on this discussion and there is no value repeating them here. But.........if you want to go off grid I think I would most likely opt for say a Sony A7ii or something of that sort which is also excellent and can still mount your M lenses. I frequently use my Sony NEX 7 and find it to be fine for manual focus lenses though a different experience to Leica M bodies. The latter is both good and bad in that the EVF is easier to focus if your eyes are in any way impaired as mine are but the haptics / handling etc are not so nice.
Archlich
Well-known
M9 users will tell you they're doing fine and getting superb results from the camera. M240 users will do the same too.
But if you own neither, I'd say just get the 240, treat yourself to some (semi) modern technology like usable ISO 3200 and a screen that's actually useful for reviewing images, and forget about all the "what if" concerns on the M9's reliability issues. A M9 with replaced sensor is about as expensive as a 240 anyway.
But if you own neither, I'd say just get the 240, treat yourself to some (semi) modern technology like usable ISO 3200 and a screen that's actually useful for reviewing images, and forget about all the "what if" concerns on the M9's reliability issues. A M9 with replaced sensor is about as expensive as a 240 anyway.
a.noctilux
Well-known
Definitely M240 is better choice than M9, if you have any.
But, when I said that to a friend, when his M9 had corrosion and ask me if he upgraded or not to M240, so he took the Leica offer plus a couple of thousands euros to upgrade.
After using a while the M240, he is never happy with the output of the "superior M240".
But, when I said that to a friend, when his M9 had corrosion and ask me if he upgraded or not to M240, so he took the Leica offer plus a couple of thousands euros to upgrade.
After using a while the M240, he is never happy with the output of the "superior M240".
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I had M-E and M8 side by side for several months. Barely find any difference.
Both are usable at ISO 2500 if you know how to do digital exposure.
Pictures looks the same.
M-E colors and else are nice, sometimes. But not always, to say at least.
M-E also pickups IR noise on hot days.
Batteries dies almost instant if it is freezing outside.
M240 has much more capacity in battery and it is weather sealed. Pictures wise here is nothing wrong with it.
M9 is kind of classic, M240 is still in production and sold for high price if new.
Both are usable at ISO 2500 if you know how to do digital exposure.
Pictures looks the same.
M-E colors and else are nice, sometimes. But not always, to say at least.
M-E also pickups IR noise on hot days.
Batteries dies almost instant if it is freezing outside.
M240 has much more capacity in battery and it is weather sealed. Pictures wise here is nothing wrong with it.
M9 is kind of classic, M240 is still in production and sold for high price if new.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Pretty strong opinion there, Peterm1. I like my M9. Sometimes I miss my m8.2, but my lenses are not coded, and the m9 lets me dial them in manually.
Archiver
Veteran
My M9 has been chugging along for nine years, and it is still my favourite camera. I haven't used a M240 and only briefly held a M10-P. so I don't have further experience to be able to make a judgment about M9 vs M240. But the M9 is still a great camera and takes wonderful images. I don't go beyond ISO 1600, and process in Lightroom.
Sensors: Leica no longer replace them for free unless you bought it brand new in the last five years (don't quote me on that). Mine was pretty badly corroded and was replaced in 2017, and has been fine since then. Leica went over and beyond to develop a new coverglass which should eliminate the corrosion issue, and were very good to offer free replacement for as long as they did.
Wet cleaning seems to accelerate sensor corrosion issues with the old M9 sensors. Mine was wet cleaned a few times and looked pretty scrofulous. I suspect that all the M9 and Monochrom sensors will eventually succumb to sensor corrosion, simply because of the cover glass issue. But once replaced, it should be fine.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I enjoyed the M8 and M9 when I had them but short of a stupendous (i.e., free or close to it) deal, would not purchase another CCD M-camera today. M240 seems to be a pretty good buy by Leica standards, and that's where I'd start.
Takkun
Ian M.
Thanks for the responses everyone. Good things to think about. Didn't realize how big a jump the M9 to M240 was; when it came out, I was still fussing over the dreaded "DRIVE BLOCK" error.
I'm not a high-ISO chaser like a lot of digital camera buyers (or I wouldn't be looking at decade-old cameras), but while the M8's noise can be lovely in certain situations, especially BW, its hard to work with a lot of the time.
Considering some of the replaced-sensor M9s I've seen approach the cost of the M240, I think the latter is in my sights. I'll miss the black chrome, little battery display screen, and a RF just doesn't seem an RF without a bright line window!
I'll also say I have looked at switching to another system with adapters, namely the Fuji XPro. I'm still not sold on EVFs; the only one I've felt came close to an optical experience was the Leica S series, and obviously that is far beyond my budget and desired size. Still a film shooter at heart and a real RF is close.
I'm not a high-ISO chaser like a lot of digital camera buyers (or I wouldn't be looking at decade-old cameras), but while the M8's noise can be lovely in certain situations, especially BW, its hard to work with a lot of the time.
Considering some of the replaced-sensor M9s I've seen approach the cost of the M240, I think the latter is in my sights. I'll miss the black chrome, little battery display screen, and a RF just doesn't seem an RF without a bright line window!
I'll also say I have looked at switching to another system with adapters, namely the Fuji XPro. I'm still not sold on EVFs; the only one I've felt came close to an optical experience was the Leica S series, and obviously that is far beyond my budget and desired size. Still a film shooter at heart and a real RF is close.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yep. I think that would bother me.
peterm1
Veteran
Rob F I am glad you made your comment as it forced me to sit down, think and clarify in my own mind what made me post the previous comment about the M8M9. So, I should explain.
I still own an M8 and have to say that I have been somewhat disappointed in it almost from the day I purchased it (though in some respects I enjoyed it and still enjoy it, though within limits) . I am not saying its a bad camera and neither I am sure, is the M9 bad. What I am saying is that neither live up to my expectations born from 20 years shooting Leica M film cameras, in certain key respects. And I should add if YOU like your M8/M9 that's fine - the last thing on earth I would want to do is take away any of your enjoyment. But let me explain what my objections and criticisms are for me (not for you or anyone else and you are free to differ). I should also concede that both are capable of wonderful images IF you get everything right. And I found that to be a big "if" in certain situations.
Leica M film cameras were renowned as "available light cameras" principally due to the ability to hold them steady at slow shutter speeds with little shutter shock unlike SLR shutters. The Leica digital Ms however, let this reputation down in a number of ways. First the CCD sensor is very limited in its ability to shoot in low light and was on the day it was released behind the pack in this respect even then. A digital camera should be even better as an "available light camera" than any film camera given the high ISO performance now usually associated with them. The M8 can do not a whole lot better than match my old Leica M4P when it was shooting ISO 400 film. So this is a bit of a disappointment given what we expect from digitals. Moreso when one considers the M8 CCD sensor's very poor dynamic range, with resulting blown highlights all over the place without ultra careful framing and metering in many outdoor situations (where once more film M8s excelled) I would have to say it lets the team down there too.
This is made worse somewhat by its clunky shutter (no I LITERALLY mean clunky due to the sound made) which sounds like a bear trap closing (OK maybe that's a bit hyperbolic). But the shutter does to my way of thinking impart more shock than the old, rather sedate and most certainly quiet, cloth shutters of film Ms. This further reduces its "available light" credentials.
Finally not everyone may agree here but honest to God, that pokey little 0.68x magnification viewfinder SUCKS NOODLES. It is crud for a Leica and almost takes me back to using an LTM camera. It's especially a problem for me as my eyes are no longer 20/20. OK there are ways around that, but all of them are kluged together - honestly, screwing in supplementary lenses just to be able to see a viewfinder clearly - this is the 21st century so why not a built-in (as in you don't have to pay extra for it) variable diopter like just about every other camera on the planet. And if your eyesight changes as eye sight always does, well, just buy another (what?) $200 diopter lens from Mr Leica. Great work Mr. Leica. The M10 has gone back to a bigger magnification finder AT LAST and so has improved but not entirely solved this situation. Even the M240s I have tried out are better somehow than the M8/M9 finders though it has the same magnification as them. Not sure why it is, but it just is. BTW the lower magnification of these viewfinders also makes it harder to focus longer lenses as it effectively shortens the rangefinder's apparent baseline length and making the rangefinder inherently less accurate. So, if like me, you enjoy shooting a 90mm f2 lens wide open you are pretty much screwed. Though you can stick it on your Sony where it works great...........
The shutter factor mentioned above also affects the camera's "haptics" - its handle-ability and the "feel" you get from handling it. A person spends a lot of money on luxury european sedan because it feels nice to use. That is principally why people spend big on such things. (OK some do it for status but honestly if the European car had all the charm of being nothing more than a badge engineered Hyundai straight from the production line or was full of quirks that made using it unpleasant to use, even those status seekers would cry foul.) Same for luxury cameras.
I just think as many do that Leica's first (and second) foray into digital Ms (partly) failed in that regard too (partly - because they still look pretty and this is something which helps me enjoy the experience in that respect at least). They are not terrible cameras by any means and certainly are capable of very nice images. They are just not as good as you are entitled to expect given that you paid probably twice or even three times what you would have paid over the cost of a competitor's camera which in fact might even be functionally better . It is not enough for a Leica camera to just take pictures it has to have something extra if Leica wants to get you to pay all that lovely dosh to them.
Oh and by the way when I first got my Leica M8 I thought "these images are so nice straight from the camera that I can forego much post processing". I was right for about a couple of months then found I could no longer get sharp images or any usable images - turns out that despite treating the damn thing like a baby kitten, my rangefinder had randomly drifted (as they do, especially I believe on the M8) and I had to spend yet another $150 on recalibrating it.) Really? Nice surprise Mr Leica! Now its a camera that cannot focus- never even once had that with my M3 or M4P. Sorry - I do not wish to be over critical or melodramatic but the best I can give Leica for their CCD cameras based on my own experience is a low to middling pass.
But still I stuck with Leica's M8 - for me it was kind of being in a bad marital relationship - too good to leave, too bad to stay. :^)
On the bright side, the M240s seem to have it about right in most respects (OK not crazy about the plugin top mounted EVFs but you can't have everything). So far as I can tell we are finally .......finally, some 10 years on, getting a series of Leica M cameras that seem at last to be truly worthy of the name.
willie_901
Veteran
...
Chasing high ISO (for low light performance) is also means you are chasing dynamic range performance in bright light.
After all, shadow regions at ISO 100 could have essentially identical sensor illuminance as bright regions in when ISO 1600 is required for practical shutter times and, or apertures. In both cases sensor underexposure is similar and, more importantly, unavoidable.
The camera attributes that make using high ISO's practical in low light offer the same benefits for shadow regions in bright light.
willie_901
Veteran
I just read a recent post where you mentioned using a X100.
The X-Pro 2's EVF/OVF system is much more versatile and useful than the older X100 bodies'. There is no need to use the EVF. I only use it in those rare situations where precise framing/composition is important. But since you would have to fiddle around with an M to XF mount adapter to use your M/LTM lenses or purchase native XF prime lenses, the X-Pro 2 is not an attractive option.
I believe a very clean M-240 series camera from a reliable seller is most effective way to continue using your M/LTM lenses.
ktmrider
Well-known
I never owned an M8 but M9. I purchased a mint MP240 about 15 months ago and really enjoy it. Leica finally entered the modern digital age with the M240 with live view, focus assist and video.
The worst criticism of the M240 that I hear is the thickness compared to a film M or even the M9. This does not bother me as I presently use an M5 as my film Leica. I have been happy with the MP240 and it will go with me on a six month trip around the world this fall. The M10 does not tempt me at all although a mint M4 is calling my name.
The worst criticism of the M240 that I hear is the thickness compared to a film M or even the M9. This does not bother me as I presently use an M5 as my film Leica. I have been happy with the MP240 and it will go with me on a six month trip around the world this fall. The M10 does not tempt me at all although a mint M4 is calling my name.
Mcary
Well-known
JMO but I think the M9 is a great camera if you already have one and it meets your need's. As far us upgrading from a M8 to a new digital M I'd go with the M262 over the M240 due to it's lighter weight and the fact that it doesn't shoot video, which I have no interest in shooting, of course if you're interested shooting video than the M240 would be a better choice for you.
jordan.dickinson
Jordan Dickinson
I went with an M262 about 2 months ago and got it for $2500. Seemed like a good deal based on its condition so I scooped it up. It has one of the best shutter sounds I've heard on a digital M, and though that's not a big thing, it's just a nice bonus. I don't really care about live view or video, so this particular M has been just about perfect for me. If I had the extra money, I'd probably even have gone with the M-D 262 since I really don't even need/want the back screen. In any event, I think I'd take the advice of those above and skip the M9 generation, and move to the M240/M262 realm.
With that in mind, I have also gone back in time and just bought an M8.2 and have also recently acquired an M8 in a trade. So far I'm actually really loving the M8 again having not owned one in about 8 years. I'm using the M8 mostly for a test in IR photography, but it just seems to offer a great balance for an everyday digital M.
With that in mind, I have also gone back in time and just bought an M8.2 and have also recently acquired an M8 in a trade. So far I'm actually really loving the M8 again having not owned one in about 8 years. I'm using the M8 mostly for a test in IR photography, but it just seems to offer a great balance for an everyday digital M.
Takkun
Ian M.
Wow, that's a phenomenal deal. The 262's I'm seeing are going for waaaay more than the 240s, likely because they're newer. Still surprised the M9s I'm seeing with known new sensors are almost exactly the same price as a 240...
EDIT: I found a 262 for not much more than a pristine 240. Debating it. Very carefully. No interest in video, lighter and quieter, 3+ years newer. Con: I hate giving up black chrome as it is, but aluminum under black paint? That's a tough one.
EDIT 2: I pulled the trigger on the 262; figure a newer model won't give me as much trouble. I think my Amex is smoldering right now. And I'm sure someone on here will love a nicely babied M8 that still has the plastic wrap on the baseplate.
Lss
Well-known
There is no actual evidence that M8 by design would have much of a problem in terms of the rangefinder randomly drifting. Everything I have seen and experienced suggest it is reliable as far as rangefinder mechanisms go, although chances are there are even more reliable designs out there.
Epson R-D1 on the other hand... easy to adjust for a reason.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I have an M9 and like the images I can make with it. I had an M8 and found the color response/IRR filter issue annoying. Never had a problem with the RF or shutter replacement. Going back to the M8 files now, I find they are pleasant. However, the M9 was an upgrade on all fronts, though, no question. But I think Peter has the right idea: If even only for the sensor corrosion issue. You are buying a pig in a poke, even with a recent sensor replacement, because the replacement is the same product that just failed. If you are going to spend this much money, spend it once and do it right. Buy your way around/out of the CCD issue and go straight to CMOS.
I'll just pause and say that the old argument for the price of a Leica was that you'd buy the camera once and use it for decades and that it was therefore worth two or three month's salary. The camera industry has taken this argument away though. I have used the M9 since it came out, replaced my sensor once, and am basically just holding my breath on how long the replacement will last. If I had the scratch, I'd go straight for a CMOS sensor and never look back. This is not -- you understand -- because of any difference in image quality. It is just about being able to rely on your MASSIVE investment for the long run.
Also BTW: I have no idea why a shutter is necessary any more - go M10?
I'll just pause and say that the old argument for the price of a Leica was that you'd buy the camera once and use it for decades and that it was therefore worth two or three month's salary. The camera industry has taken this argument away though. I have used the M9 since it came out, replaced my sensor once, and am basically just holding my breath on how long the replacement will last. If I had the scratch, I'd go straight for a CMOS sensor and never look back. This is not -- you understand -- because of any difference in image quality. It is just about being able to rely on your MASSIVE investment for the long run.
Also BTW: I have no idea why a shutter is necessary any more - go M10?