Upgrading M9 to M240 Worth It?

K

ktmrider

Well-known
Local time
11:25 AM
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,363
I have owned an M9 for about two years. It was just serviced by Leica, Nj in January and has a new sensor. It is my only digital (just sold X100). I am wondering if upgrading to the M240 is worth it. CCD vs CMOS does not enter into it. I would like higher ISO on occasion.

I don't see myself using focus peaking or making video. I do have a couple R lenses I could use on the M240. I figure I can upgrade for about $3000 if I get a used M240 at Tamarkin.

Let me know your thoughts. My other and favorite Leica is an M2 from 1959 and I have given thought to going back to film so honestly spending another $3000 seems a bit silly. I think it is just GAS which should pass quickly.
 
No not worth it.
Sounds like you want better high ISO performance..... Not worth $3k in my opinion.
Reclaim an x100s for those lo-light times and be done with it.
Or a mirrorless so you may use your R lenses as well.
Just an opinion.
 
I'm actually considering ditching my X100T ( menu viewing glitch ) and getting an M9 now that I have an M6 and 35 asph back in my life. When *does* the high ISO on the 9 starting becoming problematic in mixed or orange light? 800 and above or is it 1,600?

I have several hundred 9 files in my archives, I should pull them and answer that question my self.
 
I think the upgrade is worth it - especially if you find yourself questioning wether to bring the M9 along because of potential low light levels - like in a pub or restaurant or planning to be out after sunset. I made the switch after i got my sensor replaced in January and i definitely feel more confident with the new M
 
I keep thinking higher ISO is useful but seldom find myself really needing it in the things I shoot. I keep a 35f2.8 C Biogon on the camera but have a 35f1.2 available. I traveled for 90 days with the M9 through Europe last fall and sent the camera to Leica, NJ in December for a CLA. They replaced the sensor although I did not see an issue. Guess I wonder if the corrosion issue will ever be resolved.
 
As long as the M9 isn't cramping your style, i would keep using it. Let Leica worry about the corrosion issue.
 
I also find the high ISO on the M9 restrictive, and sometimes switch to my Ricoh GR or Olympus E-M5 in those situations. I think it depends on what proportion of your shooting is in those situations. Why not keep the M9 and go for the Sony A7s with what you would spend on the upgrade? I think that's what I would do if I had that money to spend at this time.
 
I 'upgraded' because I lost faith in my M-E, and do not trust Leica's future plans for the sensor issue. I was on my second sensor, and given that it was out of commission for 4 months while it was getting the sensor replaced (after maybe a year of ownership), I was not willing to go through that again.

I sold my M-E, and bought a full Leica warranty refurb M240 for about a $2000 difference. (The camera is indistinguishable from new) .Which is a lot better than if I tried to upgrade via the official Leica route. I stuck with Leica because 1/ I really enjoy the optical RF experience and form and 2/ I have a lot of M lenses.

I'm sure it has better high ISO than my old M-E, but I rarely used that anyway. It's a shame the M240 is so much heavier but the shutter and response is much better.
 
SO much heavier? 95 grams difference. 585 vs. 680...If you use a Summicron instead of a Summilux the weight difference is more... Or if you use a half-case... A bit of hyperbole here?
 
I've struggled with the same (upgrade to M-240) question primarily because of the better M-240 performance at higher ISO settings. I use high ISO (up to 12,800) frequently with my Nikons and have felt limited in that area by the M9. I have adapted by using wider apertures and occasionally flash. I am still blown away by the image quality the M9 produces at or near base ISO. My conclusion is the M-240 ISO performance improvement is not great enough to justify replacing the M9. Perhaps the M-240 follow-on will do it.
 
f16sunshine said:
No not worth it.
Sounds like you want better high ISO performance..... Not worth $3k in my opinion.
Reclaim an x100s for those lo-light times and be done with it.
Or a mirrorless so you may use your R lenses as well.
Just an opinion.
Click to expand...

Or buy an X (Typ 113) for low-light use alongside your M9.
 
I think the upgrade would be more like US 2k, given your M9 is just coming back from Leica.

And given the two additional stops that the 240 provides, you can sell your Nokton, and keep your 35/2.8 and 90/2.8 as basic lens kit :) Moves you another US 1k closer ....

That being said, the nicest things about the 240 for me are shutter sound, decent battery life, more flexibilty to crop, and the fact that I can pull shadow detail without adding noise by a real surprising amount. I also like red LED frame-lines, make me focus more on composition.

Roland.
 
I owned an M9 for three years. It was a good camera, but I found that I didn't really bond with it very well. Something about the sound of the shutter and its recock mechanism's wind, the relatively slow data transfer, etc, just grated on me subtly. I also wasn't very thrilled with the default white balance and JPEG look it produced. They seemed like off-color Velvia to me, and I was never a Velvia fan. However, the raw files were good and the lenses I have are outstanding, so I kept going with it ... although I considered selling it several times.

Then, in January this year, I found spots on the sensor which I could not clean up. I sent it to Leica USA for service. It was pronounced as needing a new sensor due to the corrosion problem, which they would do free of charge. When I asked, they also offered an upgrade to the M or M-P model. I took the upgrade to the M-P as the price was the best deal.

Even though I'd gone to a dealership and spent a good bit of time experimenting with the M before spending my $3750, the M-P surprised me. The shutter sounds great, the camera is quick and responsive in a way that the M9 never was. The battery lasts for twice to three times the number of exposures per charge. The viewfinder is somehow cleaner, easier to see and focus with. And the files I get out of it are simply much much better than what I got out of the M9: better white balance, cleaner, more detailed, and of course good results right up to ISO 3200, passable at 6400, instead of 1600 or below.

Beyond that, I've found the new control ergonomics to be much more to my liking, Live View on LCD or EVF proves occasionally useful. Despite it actually being a little bit larger (0.8mm thicker front to rear) and a couple of ounces heavier than the M9, it feels smaller and tighter in my hands. (I think that's the control ergonomics in play.)

It's changed my photography in ways that the M9 couldn't. I now want to go out with it and nothing else most of the time. It does what I want ... It is the camera I'd hoped the M9 would be but couldn't be. So, in the end, it was worth the money I paid for it and then some, over the trade-in on the M9.

That's a long way of saying: "Yes, it's worth it, and it's worth the cost for reasons well beyond what you're going to read in a spec sheet or think you know from using the M9."

Good luck!

G
 
jaapv said:
SO much heavier? 95 grams difference. 585 vs. 680...If you use a Summicron instead of a Summilux the weight difference is more... Or if you use a half-case... A bit of hyperbole here?
Click to expand...

A 17% weight gain is significant.

You want the camera to lose weight, not gain it.
 
Lots of reason to upgrade to the M240, but for me its ISO 6400 files are disappointing in the clubs I frequent. The Monochrom 240 files on the other hand look stellar at 6400 and very nice at 12800 and even 25000.
 
Huss said:
A 17% weight gain is significant.

You want the camera to lose weight, not gain it.
Click to expand...
Not always. When using longer lenses I prefer a heavier camera for stability. Up to a limit of course.

One should consider the percentage including one's favourite lens, btw. Noctilux usuers will not notice a four ounce difference;).
 
From my experience, the answer is yes.

In my last vacation in Japan I went to MapCamera in Tokyo and they offered me a great deal in a trade in. So I decided to say goodbye to my M9. As much as I loved the camera, the M240 is a better to choice for me right now. I live in Argentina and if something happens with my gear (for example, sensor corrosion) the cost/time to get it fixed overseas is absurd. And, yes, the M240 is a better camera overall.

Of course I miss the results I could have with my M9 in good daylight at base ISO. But I can live with that.

Best.
 
Huss said:
I 'upgraded' because I lost faith in my M-E, and do not trust Leica's future plans for the sensor issue. I was on my second sensor, and given that it was out of commission for 4 months while it was getting the sensor replaced (after maybe a year of ownership), I was not willing to go through that again.

I sold my M-E, and bought a full Leica warranty refurb M240 for about a $2000 difference. (The camera is indistinguishable from new)
Click to expand...

Pretty much mirrors my situation, except my M9's sensor was still ok when I sold it. If I can preemptively avoid some stress, I try to.
 
The higher ISO performance is a nice benefit. As is just about every other enhancement from the M9. The battery lasts forever... I have a spare that's in a desk drawer. It's quieter. More buffer space. Etc. The only complaint anyone ever has is the slowness of the EVF or Live View after taking a photo. It's true, it is a bit of a freeze, but the M9 doesn't offer it. With an EVF, I now have very accurate framing with wides. And magnification for tele.

If you can, try one out first. It took me a little while to gel with mine, but I really like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom