jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
For framing….
srtiwari
Daktari
I agree with this completely.
In switching from the M9, I expected only what was not debatable- higher resolution (so I may down-sample if its own benefits), better shutter, better ISO headroom, convenience of the LV (magnification, focus "peaking"), option for EVF, and better write-speed to the card.
Although I had hoped for "even better" IQ, I'm not sure my "run-of-the-mill" photographic needs will ever find the 240 inadequate. My 240 images look sharper and richer to me, specially on the older lens (Summicron 50 V3 and Summicron 35 V3).
My brief affair with the monochrom left no doubt about its better ISO headroom and tonality compared to the M240, but for now, I can't justify 2 digital M bodies.
I am very happy with the M 240.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I own a second-hand M8 that works beautifully. I know that if I buy a more expensive gear, I will be a better photographer. SO, I will upgrade to M-240 as soon as I get the money, which may take years and years (by that time there will probably be an M-260 or M-280),
Have you, by any chance, done some exquisite reviews of Leica products on YouTube? <grin>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcPqXKH69j4
Rotarysmp
Established
As an M8 user, and a having an old beat up M2. I would prefer to have an M9 for the field of view the lenses were designed for. I like my 50 summicron, but 66mm equivelent is a FOV I find too long. I love my 28 Summicron, but find the 35mm equivelent FOV not wide enough. The 15mm finder which came with my 15mm Voigtländer is crappy enough that it gives about the 21mm FOV if you glance through it, and 15mm if you are careful and check the far corners.
I first got a Jupiter-12 to regain the 50mm FOV lost with the 1.3 crop, and just upgraded to a Nokton 35 1.4, but don't like the 35mm frame line being so small with the 24mm frame line surrounding it.
When it comes to frame lines, I love the M2. The 50 frame line on it's own is awesome. An M9 with the 135, and 75 frame lines removed would be ultimate finder for me.
I don't like that the the M8/ M9 bodies got fatter. The M1-M6 body is just right. The M240 is fatter still. Sony shows that it is possible to get the thickness out of a FF body, so hopefully the M260 will be thinner (not like I will be able to afford it).
I don't like the crappy monitor and slow playback on the M8. The M9 is the same here. This wouldn't drive me to upgrade to an M240.
I don't like the high iso IQ of the M8 sensor. Guess I'll have to live with it for a few more years though.
I guess I don't need more pixels. The IQ of the M8 with the Summicron 28 is truly fantasitc.
I first got a Jupiter-12 to regain the 50mm FOV lost with the 1.3 crop, and just upgraded to a Nokton 35 1.4, but don't like the 35mm frame line being so small with the 24mm frame line surrounding it.
When it comes to frame lines, I love the M2. The 50 frame line on it's own is awesome. An M9 with the 135, and 75 frame lines removed would be ultimate finder for me.
I don't like that the the M8/ M9 bodies got fatter. The M1-M6 body is just right. The M240 is fatter still. Sony shows that it is possible to get the thickness out of a FF body, so hopefully the M260 will be thinner (not like I will be able to afford it).
I don't like the crappy monitor and slow playback on the M8. The M9 is the same here. This wouldn't drive me to upgrade to an M240.
I don't like the high iso IQ of the M8 sensor. Guess I'll have to live with it for a few more years though.
I guess I don't need more pixels. The IQ of the M8 with the Summicron 28 is truly fantasitc.
presspass
filmshooter
Not to get too far off course, but is an ME worth the $1,000 new it costs over a used M9? Admittedly, the ME comes with a Leica warranty and the M9 with a dealer's six-month warranty. Just going from the specs, it seems the ME is a stripped down M9 - same sensor, no frame selector.
35mmdelux
#Represent
Why would I want to "upgrade" when the M9 is a fabulous camera only inhibited by my own skill or lack therof. Does not compute.
I enjoyed the M8_ 21/4.0 VC lens. Delivered solid images even under fleeting light.
Any of these rigs delivers and they are built tough. Blows by the Fuji offerings.
I enjoyed the M8_ 21/4.0 VC lens. Delivered solid images even under fleeting light.
Any of these rigs delivers and they are built tough. Blows by the Fuji offerings.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Fussy, Fussy, Fussy!
Fussy, Fussy, Fussy!
Some of the things that bother us when we are sitting around fondling and analyzing, become a non-issue when actually shooting. For instance, I don't worry about my M8.2 being "fat" when I'm using it. Not that you mentioned it, but the shutter noise doesn't bother me when shooting outdoors, BTW.
I get along well with my M8.2 framelines. The 28mm and 35mm framelines are especially accurate at what are for me, normal shooting distance: generally 8 or 10 feet and beyond. Well beyond.
Focal lengths? The 21mm makes a good 28mm, although its coverage also agrees well with the 25mm lines in my Zeiss 25/28 finder. My 24mm agrees well with the 28mm lines in the same finder (a good thing, since I can't see the 24mm frame in the camera finder. They could have left it out.) The 28mm works as a 37mm--not such a bad field of view. I use it a lot.
Which brings us to the 50. I have to agree, the 67mm equivalent view is a bit odd for those of us who are used to the classic focal lengths of 35mm cameras. But its horizontal field of view on the M8 is the same as the 100mm Planar for the Hasselblad, which feels perfectly fine. It all has to do with expectations.
We do agree on the 28mm Summicron--a great lens, whether on the M8, or on a film M!
Oh--speaking of expectations, I remember when Leica said that a digital M would simply not be possible. And then they did it. And then, as quickly as possible, some of us began finding things to complain about, like it won't do ISO 6400. Actually our refusal to be satisfied with anything must be what motivates Leica to keep improving!
Fussy, Fussy, Fussy!
Some of the things that bother us when we are sitting around fondling and analyzing, become a non-issue when actually shooting. For instance, I don't worry about my M8.2 being "fat" when I'm using it. Not that you mentioned it, but the shutter noise doesn't bother me when shooting outdoors, BTW.
I get along well with my M8.2 framelines. The 28mm and 35mm framelines are especially accurate at what are for me, normal shooting distance: generally 8 or 10 feet and beyond. Well beyond.
Focal lengths? The 21mm makes a good 28mm, although its coverage also agrees well with the 25mm lines in my Zeiss 25/28 finder. My 24mm agrees well with the 28mm lines in the same finder (a good thing, since I can't see the 24mm frame in the camera finder. They could have left it out.) The 28mm works as a 37mm--not such a bad field of view. I use it a lot.
Which brings us to the 50. I have to agree, the 67mm equivalent view is a bit odd for those of us who are used to the classic focal lengths of 35mm cameras. But its horizontal field of view on the M8 is the same as the 100mm Planar for the Hasselblad, which feels perfectly fine. It all has to do with expectations.
We do agree on the 28mm Summicron--a great lens, whether on the M8, or on a film M!
Oh--speaking of expectations, I remember when Leica said that a digital M would simply not be possible. And then they did it. And then, as quickly as possible, some of us began finding things to complain about, like it won't do ISO 6400. Actually our refusal to be satisfied with anything
must be what motivates Leica to keep improving! 
Mudman
Well-known
I tried a M240 at Photoplus. I dunno about image quality, but handling wise I loved it. And the quiet shutter. In about 5 years when it drops in price a bit I would love to own one.
Roel
Well-known
Have been reading this topic and since I also have a coffeestained M8.2 i have to make decision on what to do.
Do I use the possibility to get a ME or do I go for the M240. (Or keep the M8.2 and not spend money but just take pictures)
I am really happy with my M8.2 regarding image quality. Ofcourse better lowlight performance would be great and a FF sensor would make me lenses work familiar like the M6TTl and M5 I have.
But how should I rate the sharpness. I hear the sharpness of the M8.2 is better than ME/M9 because the lack of in camera filter. And the M240 is less sharp than the M9/ME.
Maybe a stupid question, what does that mean exactly. Is it just a matter of using the sharpness slider and are the files than equally sharp? Or is the M8 really the crispiest and sharpest which could make me not trade in the M8.2 and take the coffeestain for what it is.
Do I use the possibility to get a ME or do I go for the M240. (Or keep the M8.2 and not spend money but just take pictures)
I am really happy with my M8.2 regarding image quality. Ofcourse better lowlight performance would be great and a FF sensor would make me lenses work familiar like the M6TTl and M5 I have.
But how should I rate the sharpness. I hear the sharpness of the M8.2 is better than ME/M9 because the lack of in camera filter. And the M240 is less sharp than the M9/ME.
Maybe a stupid question, what does that mean exactly. Is it just a matter of using the sharpness slider and are the files than equally sharp? Or is the M8 really the crispiest and sharpest which could make me not trade in the M8.2 and take the coffeestain for what it is.
LCT
ex-newbie
What do you mean by sharpness? Resolution? If so the M240 is the best. Contrast? Depends on lenses and tweakings in PP. This said if you don't print larger than A4 you won't see any significant difference with your M8.2. But you won't use lenses the same way because of the crop factor. Do you like fast wides? If so FF is your best friend. Otherwise the coffee stain won't prevent you from taking photographs the same way as you did before. Just recall that Leica don't allow the upgrade for M8s older than six years. (M8.2 and M240 user speaking.)
I felt the same way... it made me wonder what everyone was bitching about... I thought it was really nice.
Tom Niblick
Well-known
Ah, a resurrected thread. I do not know about the M240. Living on a small speck in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, I've never seen one in person. A quieter shutter and a touch more DR sounds nice. But I'm perfectly content with my M9. In fact I'm thinking of reacquiring a M8 for its wonderful B&W files and as a second body. I don't care if it is loud or slow or even if I have to pull the battery every now and then, the M8 still takes great photos.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The sharpness argument is a red herring. At pixel level the M8 might have a smidgen more of acuity than the M9, the larger sensor/ higher MP count will make for less magnification, which more than compensates any difference there may be in a pixelpeeper’s perception.
Roel
Well-known
@Jaap:
Just to be clear. So if the same M lens is used with the M8, M9 and M240 and given a standard image/print size the camera with the highest MP count (the M240) will appear the sharpest? (taken in to account the incamera flitering and different sensor)
And between the M8 (without the in camera filter) and the M9/ME also the higher MP/sensor M9 will feel equally sharp or sharper?
flyalf
Well-known
Based purely on the end result its not a difference between M9 and M 8 (don't know about M8). But its much harder to get the same end results from M9 as M because of more limitations in dynamics.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That one is partly impossible to answer because sharpness is an undefined parameter. The contrast has to do with our perception of sharpness as well, maybe more than the acuity and resolution. That means that the M240 with a different dynamic range is out of the equation. As for the M8 and M9, yes, all being equal except the magnification, any difference in micro contrast and acuity on pixel level due to the slightly thicker* IR filter will be more than compensated for.
*The thickness of the IR filter on the M8 is 0.5 mm, on the M9 0.75 mm.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I think there are too many variables to figure this out by armchair analysis. Let's look at some of the arguments that have been presented. The M8 has no filter over the sensor, but then the M9 has a larger sensor with more pixels. If you take a shot with an M8 that covers the same picture area as a shot taken with an M9, then maybe the M9's extra pixels win. But if your M8 picture is a crop out of a wider M9 shot, using the same number of pixels, then maybe the M8's cleaner sensor wins.
So, as one of our members has pointed out, the answer to this and many other photo questions is, "It depends."
So, as one of our members has pointed out, the answer to this and many other photo questions is, "It depends."
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Sorry, the M8 HAS an IR filter over the sensor albeit a thin one, thus a less effective one. IR reduction by the filter is about 50%. (80 % on the M9)
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This is what I wanted to call attention to: the importance of comparing the two by actually taking pictures, rather than arguing about it. Here is a poster who found the M8 a little sharper. Could we hear from those who have made the comparison in vivo?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have an M8 (well, I gave it to my brother a few weeks ago) and M9 and I can see no difference in print. I do see a marginal difference in acuity in favor of the M8 at pixel level, easily corrected by a small shift in the sharpness slider (5-10 %) in post. Angels on the head of a pin.
) and M9 and I can see no difference in print. I do see a marginal difference in acuity in favor of the M8 at pixel level, easily corrected by a small shift in the sharpness slider (5-10 %) in post. Angels on the head of a pin.