Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: M240 Full Res Samples |
- Illuminated frames (Schnick-schnack. If you can't see the frame lines, there is no light.)
I have shot night scapes where there wasn't enough light for framelines. This is just an evolution, I recommend trying it before knocking it
I doubt I will get the opportunity, but I was out at night with my M8, and was never unable to see the frame lines. Not always easy, but I am not sure I would trade "a little hard to see" for "might be hard to ignore".
You can toggle between red and white framelines. The former not affecting night vision. Brightness is also adjusted according to ambient.
- No card issues (Confirmed? I never had problems with my cards.)
I didn't know you shot at M9? Mine has had the occasional card issue with approved cards. They are minor though.
You mean there were *new* card issues introduced with the M9?? I thought these were the same issues the M8 had. I don't know about the M9, only shot it once, and the card worked fine.
I'm not sure if they were new but they were definitely there. I had to pop a battery several times when hitting the buffer hard. I also had a few corrupt files in the early days and one dead card.
I hit the buffer regularly when shooting stitched and/or bracketed panos using my Nodal ninja. It was extremely frustrating when light was rapidly changing.
The new shutter will also allow you to set a 'middle' exposure and bracket around it, something mechanically impossible on the M9.
True, I now recall hitting the buffer limit when I was shooting panos and HDRs. Still, the choice between paying for the upgrade or slowing down a bit wouldn't be hard for me to make. The M price is much too high for my taste, and if you aren't willing to slow down a little, the M is probably the wrong system for most users.
The price for the new M is less than the M9.
Shooting preference is not really the debate. I can see why a photojournalist would consider an M240 but not an M9.
- 3 metering modes (I use A for everything I do, sometimes with Auto-ISO.)
You misinterpret the term "metering mode" it refers to center weighted (as in previous M's), spot and matrix. The latter being useful for any shot with a strong point light-source, an Achilles of the M9.
Ah, metering patterns. Spot is cool. Matrix is hard to get right, I withhold judgement. IMO only Nikon has ever made this work.
I had no problems with matrix on either the 5Dc or the 5D-II.
- Live View (Listed separately, since this is the source of the current controversy.)
- Magnified view (What is this item, listed separately from live view?)
For me, basic live-view for composition and grad positioning is great, don't care at all about magnification because I focus using the scale on the lens for landscape.
Granted, but also a sub-point of the intended use.
Who's intended use? R users?
carstenw wrote:The price is also nuts.
But less nuts than any other digital M.
How so? If you mean that you get much more for your money than with an M9, I refute your point. You still buy mostly things which have nothing to do with the cost of the technology inside, when you buy Leica.
M9 MAP: $6995
M240 MAP: $6950
Part of my original point may have been lost: a lot of the claimed improvements need to be proven before being listed as advantages. Trial under fire has a way to reveal unexpected weaknesses and flaws.
Leica exist in their own little ecosystem, what internet pundits and armchair experts might see as deal-breakers have very little influence on the actual sales since these users were unlikely to buy a Leica regardless.
I think a lot of people need to reserve judgment a little. When the camera gets out into the wild, profiles are created and people learn the quirks it'll be a different story.
I remember when the M9 launched and people whinged about low DR, poor colour and high noise. Things have changed quite a bit.