Geospatial community members

The community members contributing to share knowledge

Fatma Habel

Leica M240 vs Leica M9: Which is better?

The CCD was a piece of technology that people either adored or despised. The Sony A7ii, which employs all of the same lenses as the A7, is significantly more flexible and easy to focus, so that is what I went with. As can be observed in side-by-side comparisons with the M240, the picture quality is on par with that of the latter. Because the Leica M9 and M240 were not intended for action or sports photography, their shutter speeds range from 1/4000 to 30 seconds, which is quite sluggish for their class. The frame rate of the cameras, which is measured in frames per second, is somewhat connected to the speed of the cameras, with the M9 shooting at 2 frames per second, which is somewhat slower than the M240, which shoots at 3 frames per second.
Nobody could have predicted that the M9 would become a cult camera by the time it reached the midway point in its life cycle. While there were a few glitches, ISO wasn't up to par with the competition, and the majority of M fans were hoping that Leica would step up their game. Nonetheless, in retrospect, the M9 was the first digital M where Leica got everything right: it was light weight and tiny, produced great images at low ISO, and featured a clean, user-friendly UI. It was bulky and heavy, and it was jam-packed with every new feature that Leica could conceive of at the time. Despite the fact that it was still far lighter than a DSLR, the M240 was perhaps the maximum that we, as rangefinder photographers, were willing to take about.
However, I must express my dissatisfaction with Leica's collaboration with Sony. Yes, you may get an EVF from them, however I would avoid Sony sensors since I believe that their depiction is a little flat and characterless in comparison to other sensors. I believe this decision by Leica was made in order to match the sensor and lens together, according to what I read when it was introduced. However, it loses the micro contrast appearance of the CCD since the dynamic range is greater and files are more managable.
Since 2007, DXO Mark has provided sensor performance measurements that have been determined via the use of a standardized methodological approach. Color depth ("DXO Portrait"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports") of camera sensors are all evaluated and scored by this service. An overall camera score is also published by this service. Out of the two cameras under consideration, the M Typ 240 produces much better picture quality than the M9, earning a 15-point advantage in total score. This advantage is based on the fact that the color depth is 1.5 bits greater, the dynamic range is 1.6 EV wider, and the low light sensitivity is 1.1 stops higher.
In exchange for the greater megapixel count, the M9 has a better pixel density and a lower individual pixel size (6.01 microns for the M9 against 6.91 microns for the M9). Returning to the issue of sensor resolution, it should be noted that the M9 does not have an anti-alias filter fitted, allowing it to capture all of the information that the sensor is capable of capturing. The cost of a camera is, without a doubt, a crucial consideration when purchasing one. The list of launch pricing provides an indicator of the market sector that the camera maker has been aiming its products towards.
The shutter is excellent and silent, and it is equivalent in this respect to the new Sony a7II. When shooting in single shot mode, my shooting style is severely restricted. I had to press the shutter button at least three times to acquire two pictures. There is a latency regardless of whether or not Live View is enabled. While working in continuous mode, it shoots at the same rate as I would want manually, but it rapidly runs out of operational memory.
All of these issues occurred to me throughout the course of my M8's four visits to Leica's facilities. When you take a close look at the photographs taken by CCD sensors and CMOS sensors, you will notice a significant difference. Despite the fact that the difference is not significant, the CCD sensor adds a third dimension to pictures printed on 2D paper, whereas the CMOS sensor does not provide the same effect. I'm certain that Peter shares his concerns simply because, as a Leica enthusiast, he wants the M to progress in the same way that we all do, but he is dissatisfied with the picture quality of the present M version. On the contrary, it's all about expressing his concern that Leica may not be able to provide picture quality that he is satisfied with in the future.
While there is a substantial variation in resolution between the two cameras, in practice it is difficult to distinguish between the picture quality produced by the two cameras. Both the M9 and the M240 offer great picture quality, as one would expect from a full frame camera, especially in low-light situations, which is one of the reasons why photographers are attracted to this format. Matt, I don't believe the difference between CCD and CMOS is as clear-cut as you claim it is. In terms of image quality, the new Leica M delivers stunning files that are comparable to those produced by the M9 when the white balance is identical or the shooting technique is barely modified. I feel that the "Leica appearance" has more to do with the lenses and how the Leica sensors are designed to take full use of the lenses' full capabilities than with the cameras themselves.
I agree that too many people install Leica or Zeiss lenses on incorrect devices and then loudly call them inferior when, in fact, it is the sensor, not the lens, that is the problem. Leica's decision to go with CMOSIS at a time when almost everyone else chose Sony was an impressive effort...just as you believe it was insufficient. However, the sensor is just one component of the equation when it comes to generating the picture that Leica is looking for. For my part, I believe they should have contracted with Olympus for their image CPU and/or firmware instead.
With a starting price that is somewhat cheaper than that of the M9, the M Typ 240 is more appealing to photographers on a limited budget. Typically, retail prices remain close to the launch price for the first few months, but after a few months, reductions become available. Further discounting and stock clearing discounts are commonplace later in the product cycle, and particularly when the successor model is ready to be introduced. As a result, the camera price is often reduced by a significant amount. Then, once the new model is introduced, extremely attractive prices on previously owned vehicles may regularly be obtained on the used market.
However, I must admit that it is much more difficult for me to concentrate than the M240, or even my M6 for that matter, particularly when using a 50. The rangefinder on the M240 is extremely impressive, and it definitely differs from the one on the M9 due to the LED framelines and other features. The shutter on the M9 is an annoyance, but it is not a deal killer in my opinion. Even so, it is still much quieter than a DSLR, which is plenty for me.
While the temptation is strong, I have already gone through the process of listing the advantages and disadvantages of each digital Leica M camera and how it may affect my work on the streets in order to avoid being tempted. It quickly turned into a War of the Leica M's, which I am delighted to share with any street photographers considering upgrading to the new model or making their first foray into the Leica M universe. After using the Canon 5d3, Leica M240, 35mm film, and ultimately the M9, the dynamic range of the M9 is less expansive than I'm used to seeing. The highlights clip really hard, and the shadows seem to be deeper than what I experienced with the M240, which is disappointing. As a result, if you want a wider dynamic range, the M240 would be a better choice for your needs.