filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
I'm trying to talk myself into purchase here, so finding out users plus's and minus's would be great here. (yes, been reading reviews, but I'd much rather hear from users here).
For the M240 owners, what the was the draw to getting the M240?
Is it that much better then the M9p?
Why the M240 over the Monochrome?
Thanks,
For the M240 owners, what the was the draw to getting the M240?
Is it that much better then the M9p?
Why the M240 over the Monochrome?
Thanks,
mdg137
Established
For me, absolutely that much better than the M9--
Quieter
LV, and more importantly EVF increase the hit rate with the Noctilux. Oddly, the rangefinder still seems better with my 75 Summilux though-- still more accurate than the M9.
Whatever they did with the rangefinder, my M240 seems distinctly more accurate than either the M8 or M9 that I had prior.
Quieter
LV, and more importantly EVF increase the hit rate with the Noctilux. Oddly, the rangefinder still seems better with my 75 Summilux though-- still more accurate than the M9.
Whatever they did with the rangefinder, my M240 seems distinctly more accurate than either the M8 or M9 that I had prior.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
I didn't really consider the M240 until last November when I moved from a Canon 5D to a 6D on the SLR side. The extra stops of ISO there were more useful to me than I thought they would be and that versatility started gnawing at me for my rangefinder kit. So coming from a black M8.2, I upgraded to a chrome M240.
I sated my desire for high ISO. I find up to ISO 3200 perfectly usable, increasing the low-light application of my lenses as I hoped. IQ is different from the M8.2 but no less pleasing for me at base ISO. The additional resolution is noticeable, not that the M8.2 couldn't print 8x10 and bigger, it could. It's just that the M240 resolves a bit more from my best lenses and does so in less light.
The rear display is noticeably larger and clearer than the M8.2 which is needed for Live View. LV like the EVF is also more useful than I thought. What I do is shoot DNG + JPG configured for Black & White, then use LV/EVF with focus-peaking with my 90/2 or to validate DOF when that's part of what I'm shooting for.
However, focus-peaking in color is difficult for me so I use the black and white configuration for a JPG for peaking color to be easily seen. Having a b&w preview turns-out to be a nice bonus. Outdoors LV is useless to me but EVF works fine. That said, top-drawer EVF is not a reason to get an M240, EVF and LV are very clearly adjuncts to the optical rangefinder.
The rangefinder itself doesn't seem any better or worse than my M8.2 and as always, I would appreciate eye-relief that is more friendly to spectacles. The M240's LED frame-lines also aren't my favorite as they not there all the time which I'd take over the option of having them appear red.
I find the new thumb bump on the right side of the back to be insufficient and added a thumbs-up as I did with M8.2. Though perhaps I just got used to the thumbs-up which I now put on my M2 when I load up good old film.
The bigger battery is welcome too but I do miss the LCD on top of the M8.2 to show me battery status. That or I'm just accustomed to having to look there to switch-out batteries.
I sated my desire for high ISO. I find up to ISO 3200 perfectly usable, increasing the low-light application of my lenses as I hoped. IQ is different from the M8.2 but no less pleasing for me at base ISO. The additional resolution is noticeable, not that the M8.2 couldn't print 8x10 and bigger, it could. It's just that the M240 resolves a bit more from my best lenses and does so in less light.
The rear display is noticeably larger and clearer than the M8.2 which is needed for Live View. LV like the EVF is also more useful than I thought. What I do is shoot DNG + JPG configured for Black & White, then use LV/EVF with focus-peaking with my 90/2 or to validate DOF when that's part of what I'm shooting for.
However, focus-peaking in color is difficult for me so I use the black and white configuration for a JPG for peaking color to be easily seen. Having a b&w preview turns-out to be a nice bonus. Outdoors LV is useless to me but EVF works fine. That said, top-drawer EVF is not a reason to get an M240, EVF and LV are very clearly adjuncts to the optical rangefinder.
The rangefinder itself doesn't seem any better or worse than my M8.2 and as always, I would appreciate eye-relief that is more friendly to spectacles. The M240's LED frame-lines also aren't my favorite as they not there all the time which I'd take over the option of having them appear red.
I find the new thumb bump on the right side of the back to be insufficient and added a thumbs-up as I did with M8.2. Though perhaps I just got used to the thumbs-up which I now put on my M2 when I load up good old film.
The bigger battery is welcome too but I do miss the LCD on top of the M8.2 to show me battery status. That or I'm just accustomed to having to look there to switch-out batteries.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Thanks.
I used to have an M8.2 a few years ago and hated it.
Mostly due to the less then stellar sensor (and it's size).
The odd colors rendering and need for extra UV always annoyed me too.
So not having to deal with the above is great, but not having made the jump to the M9 I'm not sure what changes have gone by and if the M240 is really what I want.
What's your comparison to 6D?
I used to have an M8.2 a few years ago and hated it.
Mostly due to the less then stellar sensor (and it's size).
The odd colors rendering and need for extra UV always annoyed me too.
So not having to deal with the above is great, but not having made the jump to the M9 I'm not sure what changes have gone by and if the M240 is really what I want.
What's your comparison to 6D?
YYV_146
Well-known
IMO If you can afford the 240, go with the 240.
My biggest issues with the M9 was no live view for wider than 28mm lenses (35mm, in fact, since I wear glasses) and the very poor base iso tonality. The M240 fixes both issues.
My biggest issues with the M9 was no live view for wider than 28mm lenses (35mm, in fact, since I wear glasses) and the very poor base iso tonality. The M240 fixes both issues.
icebear
Veteran
I have a M9 and MM, no desire to get a M240.
The M9 was plenty good for me before the MM and for the little amount of color photography I do (rough guess only 10%) since I have the MM, I don't need anything better.
The M9 was plenty good for me before the MM and for the little amount of color photography I do (rough guess only 10%) since I have the MM, I don't need anything better.
rscheffler
Well-known
I've been a 20+ year Canon EOS user and since 2001, have owned all of the 1D non-s series cameras. This likely has had some influence on my hardware expectations when it comes to new cameras. So, in late 2010 when I unboxed a used M9 as my re-introduction to Leica M (previously it was a brief spell with an M3 back in ~1992), one of my first impression of it was that I'd just stepped back 10-15 years in digital camera design, UI and capability. Basically, the M9 has a lot of quirks. Though contrary to Victor, I grew fond of its base ISO character and learned how to work around its quirks and limitations. However, it just never felt like a snappy, precision piece of hardware.
I never owned or used an M8, but suspect it and the M9 are functionally very much the same, including the software side.
The M240 leapfrogs Leica back into the 2010s of digital capability and customer expectations. While the M240 has its own share of quirks, so far I've found the camera to be a better match to my style of shooting and hardware expectations. I often use it alongside a Canon 1DX. They're certainly two very different cameras, but I find the M240 complements the 1DX nicely. It's ready for the next shot much faster than the M9, and does it more quietly, too. The shutter and re-cocking sound is much more refined than the M9's annoying clunk-buzzzzz. There are other improvements too, such as the much better LCD display and easier to read menu. The huge battery is also very welcome.
Image quality improvements over the M9 are not necessarily clear-cut. Yes, there's slightly greater resolution, more dynamic range and cleaner high ISO performance, particularly in respect to chroma noise (the M9 tends to go splotchy). But I wouldn't pick the M240 over the M9 strictly based on image quality. Rather, it's all the small improvements to how one uses the camera that IMO make it more enjoyable to use, for me.
I never owned or used an M8, but suspect it and the M9 are functionally very much the same, including the software side.
The M240 leapfrogs Leica back into the 2010s of digital capability and customer expectations. While the M240 has its own share of quirks, so far I've found the camera to be a better match to my style of shooting and hardware expectations. I often use it alongside a Canon 1DX. They're certainly two very different cameras, but I find the M240 complements the 1DX nicely. It's ready for the next shot much faster than the M9, and does it more quietly, too. The shutter and re-cocking sound is much more refined than the M9's annoying clunk-buzzzzz. There are other improvements too, such as the much better LCD display and easier to read menu. The huge battery is also very welcome.
Image quality improvements over the M9 are not necessarily clear-cut. Yes, there's slightly greater resolution, more dynamic range and cleaner high ISO performance, particularly in respect to chroma noise (the M9 tends to go splotchy). But I wouldn't pick the M240 over the M9 strictly based on image quality. Rather, it's all the small improvements to how one uses the camera that IMO make it more enjoyable to use, for me.
kaiwasoyokaze
Half Frame Goodness
I like to use my M240, and i am not burdened by any experience in using a M8 or M9. my m240 is quiet, feels nice, and has a huge battery.
one of my pet peeves with digital cameras is having a very limited battery and/or having a very inaccurate battery display leaving me with a brick in my hand for the rest of my shooting day. i got rid of the olympus micro four thirds cameras for this reason, and still have my lumix GF1 for this reason alone.
but why get the M240?
It's newer, it seems as though Leica has ironed out the kinks in going into digital, and used prices of it are falling pretty rapidly. (dropping 2000$ in a year)
one of my pet peeves with digital cameras is having a very limited battery and/or having a very inaccurate battery display leaving me with a brick in my hand for the rest of my shooting day. i got rid of the olympus micro four thirds cameras for this reason, and still have my lumix GF1 for this reason alone.
but why get the M240?
It's newer, it seems as though Leica has ironed out the kinks in going into digital, and used prices of it are falling pretty rapidly. (dropping 2000$ in a year)
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Thanks folks.
Ben Z
Veteran
I went from M9 to M240 because:
1. M9 noisy motor sound after shutter click. Leica M was always touted for it's quietness, but in this day and age entry-level DSLRs are far quieter than a $7000 M9. M240 fixed that.
2. Threat of spontaneous sensor-glass cracking of M9. I travel with my cameras. Nobody can predict everything, but this is obviously more than a sporadic incident. Just something I hated hanging over my head like the sword of Damocles, even if Leica fixes it for free...with a several-months wait.
3. Disappointing jpegs on M9. Unless it's a potential wall-hanger masterpiece, I don't care to be bothered with PP. M240 jpegs are on par now with those of Canon and Nikon.
4. Found a mint demo M240 with full 2 yr factory warranty for $1000 less than a new one.
Otherwise the M240 has no added features I care about, and a few I can (and do) live without. Plus it feels fatter in the hand even though by the specs it's not that much different. Kind of like the way a tiny splinter in your finger hurts disproportionately to its size.
As to "why the M240 over the Monochrom"? I love b&w, but it's not all I shoot, so I find it absurd to pay $8000 for a digital camera that only shoots b&w and then need to spend another $7000 on an identical camera that does shoot color, when the latter can easily produce b&w if and when I need it to.
1. M9 noisy motor sound after shutter click. Leica M was always touted for it's quietness, but in this day and age entry-level DSLRs are far quieter than a $7000 M9. M240 fixed that.
2. Threat of spontaneous sensor-glass cracking of M9. I travel with my cameras. Nobody can predict everything, but this is obviously more than a sporadic incident. Just something I hated hanging over my head like the sword of Damocles, even if Leica fixes it for free...with a several-months wait.
3. Disappointing jpegs on M9. Unless it's a potential wall-hanger masterpiece, I don't care to be bothered with PP. M240 jpegs are on par now with those of Canon and Nikon.
4. Found a mint demo M240 with full 2 yr factory warranty for $1000 less than a new one.
Otherwise the M240 has no added features I care about, and a few I can (and do) live without. Plus it feels fatter in the hand even though by the specs it's not that much different. Kind of like the way a tiny splinter in your finger hurts disproportionately to its size.
As to "why the M240 over the Monochrom"? I love b&w, but it's not all I shoot, so I find it absurd to pay $8000 for a digital camera that only shoots b&w and then need to spend another $7000 on an identical camera that does shoot color, when the latter can easily produce b&w if and when I need it to.
semordnilap
Well-known
I went from M8 to M240. Why?
High-ISO.
Shutter Sound.
Electronics.
I think I've used live view once, and I don't own the EVF. I have other cameras to take movies with, so none of that is of interest to me. Basically, the deficiencies of the M9 were enough to keep me from purchasing it, having used the M8 for many years. Terrible screen, awful shutter noise, flaky electronics, awful banding at high iso (imo much more significant than the terrible noise).
So... the M240 checks all the boxes and does it well. It has the extra stuff if necessary, but it's a great rangefinder if that's all you need.
High-ISO.
Shutter Sound.
Electronics.
I think I've used live view once, and I don't own the EVF. I have other cameras to take movies with, so none of that is of interest to me. Basically, the deficiencies of the M9 were enough to keep me from purchasing it, having used the M8 for many years. Terrible screen, awful shutter noise, flaky electronics, awful banding at high iso (imo much more significant than the terrible noise).
So... the M240 checks all the boxes and does it well. It has the extra stuff if necessary, but it's a great rangefinder if that's all you need.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I will go for an M type 240 eventually, mostly because of the improved responsiveness compared to the M9. I'm not in any rush, but it is a better camera that I will want to have at some point.
G
G
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
On a side note, are their any off brand batteries available for the M240?
hendriphile
Well-known
After 30+ years with my film Leica, it was finally time to jump into a digital full-frame rangefinder.
The shutter is about as quiet as my M3, even sounds similar.
Good low-light performance.
Good viewfinder.
Relatively long-lasting battery.
Like the focus assist (after being spoiled by using my 135 Elmar with the M3).
And now the intangibles:
Nostalgia: It feels like the M3 in the hand. I even like the way the bottom plate comes off.
In all these years I had never bought a new piece of Leica equipment (always used), & I thought: if not now, when?
The shutter is about as quiet as my M3, even sounds similar.
Good low-light performance.
Good viewfinder.
Relatively long-lasting battery.
Like the focus assist (after being spoiled by using my 135 Elmar with the M3).
And now the intangibles:
Nostalgia: It feels like the M3 in the hand. I even like the way the bottom plate comes off.
In all these years I had never bought a new piece of Leica equipment (always used), & I thought: if not now, when?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I don't know whether there are or aren't. However, I'd strongly recommend against non-Leica batteries becaus anecdotal (I'll admit) discussion over on the L Camera Forum implicates dodgy batteries / low charge circumstances with Bad Things (TM) happening. Whether true or not I'd be reluctant to do cheap things with batteries (or SD cards) given the implication of batteries and cards in various forms of flaky behaviour.
...Mike
I am a color shooter, so the Monochrom was not considered. I had an M9, and the improvements in the 240 were immediately compelling. Larger battery, better RF, better environmental seal, better ISO performance, quieter shutter... just a more mature product all-round.
Live view and the EVF seemed attractive features but have not been useful.
I sold the M9 to help pay for the 240, but kept both my M8. For the low price I could get in selling, it makes sense to keep them. Besides the M8 model has its own charms, including a fine sensor and excellent color (with IR cut filters).
Live view and the EVF seemed attractive features but have not been useful.
I sold the M9 to help pay for the 240, but kept both my M8. For the low price I could get in selling, it makes sense to keep them. Besides the M8 model has its own charms, including a fine sensor and excellent color (with IR cut filters).
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Back on the main line of discussion...
Just as I was in a circumstance where I might have bought an M9/M9P (employment stability returned; a small yet generous bequest from a favourite uncle) a lightly-used M240 was advertised here on RFF. With my uncle's instruction to spend on "something self-indulgent that you'll really enjoy" firmly in mind I went ahead and bought it.
I've been very glad I did. While I'm sure I would have very much liked an M9 if I'd gone down that path, I'm also sure I like my M240 more. I've found it very comfortable and responsive in use (with one minor caveat), found that it produces photos I really like and have also found that high-ISO performance matters to me more than I thought it would. The high-ISO performance, along with judicious use of auto-ISO (with the latest firmware) is something I've found far more convenient and useful than I expected beforehand.
I've found that all my lenses bar one focus perfectly with the rangefinder (that one being my 75 Summilux, which I knew would be off and which I've since had adjusted to be spot-on) and that I get along very nicely with classic metering mode for aperture-priority auto and manual exposure. The additional width and weight of the camera, much discussed/disparaged by some, and which I worried might be a problem, concerns me not at all in practice. I have been using the camera mostly with a Thumbs Up (which I bought along with the camera), which I find also suits me perfectly and really assists with the way I often carry the camera (strap around wrist and forearm, camera in hand). While I feel much more secure having a spare battery (also bought along with the camera) I've yet to run my battery low, let alone out, even with quite heavy use.
All in all, I'm extremely happy with my M240. My only minor caveat is that it seems awfully slow to start up and, more importantly to me, to wake up from 'sleep'. While I've learned to wake the camera up in anticipation (half press the shutter, well before bringing the camera to eye, just in case a photo opportunity presents itself) I wouldn't have thought instant wake-up would be that hard. All my Canon DSLRs from 2006 onwards have been essentially instant in this regard.
But that's minor and easy to work around. Otherwise I am extremely happy with my M240. And that's just using it as a 'standard RF' camera. I have an EVF and have thought about adapting lenses, and otherwise using functions and features enabled by it's presence. I haven't really done that yet (but keep meaning to if only to use my 21mm/f3.4 Super-Angulon with EVF and non-classic metering mode, which I think might work well for B&W).
...Mike
Just as I was in a circumstance where I might have bought an M9/M9P (employment stability returned; a small yet generous bequest from a favourite uncle) a lightly-used M240 was advertised here on RFF. With my uncle's instruction to spend on "something self-indulgent that you'll really enjoy" firmly in mind I went ahead and bought it.
I've been very glad I did. While I'm sure I would have very much liked an M9 if I'd gone down that path, I'm also sure I like my M240 more. I've found it very comfortable and responsive in use (with one minor caveat), found that it produces photos I really like and have also found that high-ISO performance matters to me more than I thought it would. The high-ISO performance, along with judicious use of auto-ISO (with the latest firmware) is something I've found far more convenient and useful than I expected beforehand.
I've found that all my lenses bar one focus perfectly with the rangefinder (that one being my 75 Summilux, which I knew would be off and which I've since had adjusted to be spot-on) and that I get along very nicely with classic metering mode for aperture-priority auto and manual exposure. The additional width and weight of the camera, much discussed/disparaged by some, and which I worried might be a problem, concerns me not at all in practice. I have been using the camera mostly with a Thumbs Up (which I bought along with the camera), which I find also suits me perfectly and really assists with the way I often carry the camera (strap around wrist and forearm, camera in hand). While I feel much more secure having a spare battery (also bought along with the camera) I've yet to run my battery low, let alone out, even with quite heavy use.
All in all, I'm extremely happy with my M240. My only minor caveat is that it seems awfully slow to start up and, more importantly to me, to wake up from 'sleep'. While I've learned to wake the camera up in anticipation (half press the shutter, well before bringing the camera to eye, just in case a photo opportunity presents itself) I wouldn't have thought instant wake-up would be that hard. All my Canon DSLRs from 2006 onwards have been essentially instant in this regard.
But that's minor and easy to work around. Otherwise I am extremely happy with my M240. And that's just using it as a 'standard RF' camera. I have an EVF and have thought about adapting lenses, and otherwise using functions and features enabled by it's presence. I haven't really done that yet (but keep meaning to if only to use my 21mm/f3.4 Super-Angulon with EVF and non-classic metering mode, which I think might work well for B&W).
...Mike
Ben Z
Veteran
There may be but I haven't seen any so far. I picked up 2 used genuine ones for $150 each, a savings of $80. I figured the M240 is relatively new on the market, and betting most people who have traded them already really didn't use them much, so the batteries should have most of their life left in them. So far they seem to work as well as the new one that came with the camera. Supposedly LiION batteries have about 500 full recharges in them, which is way more than I've ever put on one.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Another side-note here with batteries: my very earliest Canon BP-511A batteries (for my Canon EOS 300D [aka Digital Rebel], since used in subsequent cameras) are just dying off right now. While I'll note that it's the off-brand batteries which are dying, I'll also note that they're the ones with the heaviest use as they had higher "headline" capacity than the Canon originals. But I am discovering that it's true: put them through enough cycles and they will die.
...Mike
Harry S.
Well-known
I wanted to reinvigorate my photography. I had some good M lenses, I was finished with film and wanted to have a full frame camera that wasn't a large DSLR. As daft as it may sound, I've stopped being concerned about image quality. It has been sufficient with digital cameras for the last 5+ years, so that didn't really enter in too much when choosing the M240.
I don't like the removable bottom plate. Its a case of function following form that isn't convenient for a modern camera. I also find the menus aren't as intuitive as those of Japanese cameras. It feels like a chore manually setting lens profiles.
Other than that, its a fun camera to use and I'm satisfied with it.
I don't like the removable bottom plate. Its a case of function following form that isn't convenient for a modern camera. I also find the menus aren't as intuitive as those of Japanese cameras. It feels like a chore manually setting lens profiles.
Other than that, its a fun camera to use and I'm satisfied with it.