By Heinz Richter
Should I upgrade from an M8 to an M9? I see this question asked quite frequently. The M9, as the follow up model of the M8, certainly must be considered an improvement with its full frame sensor and 18 megapixels, compared to the APS sized, 10 megapixel sensor of the M8.
Should I upgrade from an M8 to an M9? I see this question asked quite frequently. The M9, as the follow up model of the M8, certainly must be considered an improvement with its full frame sensor and 18 megapixels, compared to the APS sized, 10 megapixel sensor of the M8.
This switch is quite often recommended and in many cases it appears to be also based on the still prevailing idea that CCD sensors are superior to the now common CMOS sensors. That issue was thoroughly debunked with a comparison test by David Farkas of Leica Store Miami. (see "THE GREAT DEBATE: CCD VS. CMOS")
Leica M8 with 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH
Leica M9 with 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH
My first digital M Leica was a Leica M8 and it worked better than expected. The smaller sensor and the relatively low resolution of 10 megapixels had much less of an affect than expected.
What bothered me the most is the crop factor of the smaller sensor. I grew up with 35mm cameras and have gotten used to the effects of certain focal length in relation to the image. With the smaller sensor this no longer applied and I found myself forever calculating what any focal length on the M8 would translate to on a full frame camera. Of course this is something one can get used to, but 40+ years of experience with film didn’t make that any easier.
But there was more. When using my film Leicas, I often used lenses beyond the standard, rangefinder coupled lenses. I did close-up work as well as using lenses longer than 135mm. This made the Visoflex an important part of my camera outfit.
Leica M5, Visoflex III, Leica Bellows II, 560mm f/6.8 Telyt
Photograph taken with the above combination
Of course the Visoflex can be used on the Leica M8 and M9, but I had always hoped for a more elegant solution. The Visoflex definitely adds a considerable amount of bulk and it takes up a fair amount of space during transport. Subsequently I was hesitant to go with the M9 and I am glad I waited.
Leica M240 with 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH
The introduction of the Leica M240 was the answer for me. Full frame, an even higher resolution of 24 megapixels and a CMOS sensor, offering live view. This allowed me to do close ups and the use of long lenses without any additional accessories, using the screen in back of the camera. Of course that soon proved to be less than ideal. But the solution of that problem lay in the electronic Visoflex. Added to the accessory shoe, I now had a well working viewfinder that easily allowed focusing for close up work as well as long lenses.
Leica M240 with attached electronic Visoflex
Granted, using the electronic Visoflex is not as nice as an optical viewfinder, but I don’t let that bother me. Focusing is quite accurate, especially with focus peaking, and the slight delay in the image refresh when moving the camera is negligible to me. My first digital Leica was a Digilux 2 and its electronic finder is light years behind in comparison. I got used to it and subsequently had no problem at all with the electronic Visoflex.
The M 240 also has the advantage of electronically illuminated viewfinder frames. This makes it independent of the relative ambient brightness which illuminated all previous Leica M models. Under adverse lighting conditions this sometimes made it difficult to see the viewfinder frames.
But I discovered another advantage of the M240 over the M9 and especially the M8. Since no zoom lenses are available for Leica M cameras, we are forced to change lenses quite often out of necessity. With the higher resolution of the M240 I found that I have been able to curtail that need to quite an extend. For most of the work I do, 24 megapixels is more than enough. I rarely make very big enlargements and therefore was actually quite happy with the M8. However, with virtually all of the Leica lenses we have a performance potential that is often not being taken advantage of.
I am talking about cropping. I found that using a shorter lens, in my case often a 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit or a 50mm f/2 Summicron, I can shoot and crop to the field of view of a longer lens to quite an extend without sacrificing overall quality of the image. In many cases this has allowed me to get a shot that I otherwise might have missed while changing lenses.
Leica M240 with 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit, full frame
Same frame cropped
Extreme crop of the same frame
Leica M240 with Novoflex 200mm f/3.8, full frame
Same frame cropped
Same frame cropped for small detail
Same frame cropped for small detail
The electronic Visofles on the M240 also allows me to do some sports photography, something we have always been told the Leica M cameras are ill equipped to do.
Since I bought the M240, Leica has presented us with the M10 and the M11. Is it worth to change? Not for me. Of course the M10 and the M11 have several advantages. For one thing they are smaller, having gone back to the dimensions of the Leica M film cameras and there are several operational improvements. But to me that is not enough to justify the expense. The larger size of the M240 has never bothered me. I was even happy using the huge Zeiss Contarex years ago.
One other advantage of the M10 and M11 lie in their better high ISO capabilities. They definitely display less noise with higher ISO settings. However, since I rarely use images straight out of the camera, this is less of a problem for me. I always optimize my images in post production, including noise reduction with the help of Photoshop when necessary.
Leica M240, 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit, ISO 2000, 1/15 sec f/2.8
Leuica M240, 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit, ISO 3200, 1/60 sec f/6.8, 75% crop
Leica M240, 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit, ISO 4000, 1/60sec f/5.6
Leica M240, 50mm f/2 Summicron, ISO 6400, 1/30sec f/2
Does that mean the M 240 is the end of the road for me? Not at all. We now have the Leica M10-R and the Leica M11 with a resolution of 40 MP and 60 MP respectively. That is a considerable increase in resolution offering a greatly increased image quality with big enlargements and even greater cropping ability than the M240. For me that is of considerable interest, as is the greater dynamic range and better high ISO capabilities. For the time I will keep my M240, but a future switch to the M10-R or the M11 is definitely a possibility.
For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right
For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right
To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.
All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.
_______________________________________________________________________
To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.
All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.
_______________________________________________________________________
Buy vintage Leica cameras from America's premier Leica specialist
Buy vintage Leica cameras from
America's premier Leica specialist
Click on image to enlarge
Click on image to enlarge
Click on image to enlarge
Click on image to enlarge
Click on image to enlarge
Click on image to enlarge
Exactly me feelings. I skipped the M8 and M9 and jumped on the M240 when it came out. I have gotten wonderful images from it. My main gripes? Weight and size. In that order. When I played with an M10, I enjoyed the M7 size of it, but the thing was still heavy! So, definitely not worth it for the upgrade. Now, we have the M10-R: The dynamic range and resolution boost are very intriguing. I don't necessarily need the increased dynamic range, but I'd love to see the highlights roll off a bit more smoothly. That's digital's Achilles heel, especially the Monocroms. I've demoed the MM and M246 multiple times, and I just hate how harshly the highlights clip. I actually prefer B/W conversions from my M240 because the highlights clip one color channel at a time, which buys a touch of dynamic range in that transition.
ReplyDeleteI own the M9 based first generation M Monochrom and the M240 based M-D 262. I see no reason for a newer replacement for either of these except possibly moving from the old Monochrom to the not-quite-as old M246, and that only for the bigger battery and illuminated frames as I shoot a lot in low light.
ReplyDeleteI bought a new M-E 240 this week, and it arrived yesterday.
ReplyDeleteIt is the best looking M I ever had I must say.
The grey paint is very good looking, in reality much better then on the internet pics.
So with the nearly unexhaustive battery, this M240 is all I want.
Concerning the colors, I must say that I like them a lot.
IMO the best of all M's, even better then the M8 and M9!
I am not a CCD fanboy, and I must say that I do not see the differences between CCD and CMOS.
Many others confirm this to me, even very well photographers have the same opinion, e.g. Rui Palha.......
A few friends of me skipped the M240 because they did not like it. So it is a also a matter of personal taste.
Great article!
As I mentioned in the article, the CMOS sensors are definitely not inferior to any CCD and the advantages like life view, higher ISO capability etc. ultimately make them the better choice. Camera choices as well as the choice of which Leica to own ultimately depends on the individual, and with Leica we have the additional advantage of a camera system that offers lenses, unsurpassed by anyone else. Those lenses, coupled with cameras designed to optimize their performance potential still makes Leica the best choice - for me.
DeleteInteresting … we all have different journeys and preferences .. for me it was Digilux 2 followed by M8 .. traded in for M9 to get full format sensor …. Then an M10 - I did many comparisons M9 and M10 and the CCD and CMOS do differ to my eyes … not that one is better than the other necessarily … personally the CCD provides a more film like character … sold the M9 for a Q2 .. sold the M10 for a titanium gravel bike and then bought another M9 which I use with Super Elmer 21mm and Summilux 50mm.
ReplyDeleteAlso have a DLux 6 … if I had to go down to one Leica … hmm probably the Q2 …
Lova my Leicas ..
Interesting, because I started out with a Leica Digilux 2 as my first digital Leica as well. I too changed from the Digilux 2 to a Leica M8 which I later changed to an M240 for the reasons stated in the article.
DeleteThe high ISO examples are outstanding. Especially the Bugatti at ISO 4000 is amazing. Are you sure it was not shot at a lower ISO?
ReplyDeleteI assure you it was shot at ISO 4000. But it did require some noise reduction. Incidentally, the ISO shot in the Strasbourg cathedral has no noise reduction at all.
DeleteThis is even more impressive when you consider that with Facebook you have to accept considerable losses in image quality.
Delete