Upload & Sell: Off
Someone will have to shoot a color checker chart with both to compare the differences.
While there seems to be a fair amount of grumbling (at LUF) over the subjective value of the sample images, from a technical perspective, my feeling is the sample DNGs hold promise. The color quality seems good, the files are malleable and in no way that I have noticed, worse than the M9.
Someone at LUF pointed out there is a bit of pattern noise when pushing 3, 4 or 5 stops. I tried it as well, and can see it in the dark areas of the flower photo, but 'normal' pushing of shadow values a couple stops seems very decent. So, maybe the CMOSIS sensor isn't quite up to that of the Sony sensors when pushing shadows. There also seems to be a bit of angst that the result isn't a clear improvement over the M9. In some respects, I'm relieved, because it means using an M9 alongside the M240 will very practical (other than the battery difference).
I hadn't thought about pushing the CMOS. If the sensor design is more like Canon's CMOS, or the Nikon cameras without Sony CMOS (D700, D3, D3s, etc.,) then push processing the files in post won't be a great option compared to raising ISO in-camera. I'm enjoying keeping my M9 set at ISO 160 in all conditions, and I'm not sure that I'd want to go back. I'll be interested to see tests in this regard, or maybe even a DxO Mark chart will give a good indication.
Ultimately, I'm trying to squash my internal gearhead, and I'm thinking of the M9 as a certain film that I can stick with for a while, rather than obsessing about the IQ improvements coming with the new M 240 "film," but we'll see. Committing to the 50 Summicron collapsible has also helped that process along, a bit, so things like the 50 AA aren't as tempting. If you're shooting professionally for a client, all of these advances may make a difference, but, for personal art, it's a matter of picking a paint and paintbrush and just going with it...famous last words! I'm sure I'll have an M 240 and 50 AA in a year.