rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1026 #6 · Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread | |
jfreak wrote:
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty and if I trust these people who are more professional and put their prestige on stake claiming something, may be the IQ is different but not worse than M9. So all in all I found M240 for the price a better option.
I am writing this hoping that someone in my state of debate over the m240 vs M9 or a7 can get some help in the decision making.
I am very grateful to all of you who have written in response to my post on this debate and I hope someone else find this useful as well. ...Show more →
Wow, that's a great price for a refurb/demo body. I would definitely pick it over an M9 in the $3000-4000 range. I bought a demo body back in February and the US equivalent price was about $6000... I wonder if there is a bit of an oversupply causing such attractive pricing?
I agree with your statement: "the [M240] IQ is different but not worse than M9."
IMO, a lot of the Leica pro-CCD articles are fairly biased, and very much opinions. As someone with extensive prepress/PP experience, there are differences between each camera, but the general 'character' of each can be modified to closely match the other. Where some of the M9 preference has validity, is in ease of achieving that particular 'filmic' look, as decided by Leica for the M9, perhaps intentionally due to the sensor's dynamic range characteristics. The M240 needs a bit of PP to get the 'filmic' look of higher contrast and blocked up shadows. Interestingly for my introspection, towards the end of my use of the M9 as my sole M camera, I was frequently PPing its files to greatly reduce contrast and extend tonality. It would seem for my current PP tastes, that the M240 does this more easily 'out of the box.'
As I think I mentioned, IMO, the M240's improvements over the M9 are in overall refinement. It's more responsive, quieter, longer battery life, deeper buffer, faster card write speed, higher rez LCD, live view, EVF, cleaner high ISOs, etc. It feels more polished, more in line with one would expect from a digital camera of the last few years.
Richard has some good points, and particularly the reminder of the Leica M core use model - that of handheld reportage style work. Within this envelope I believe the M is tough to beat. Compared to the a7, for my needs, it is superior. Yet, I also have a Canon DSLR kit for specific capabilities, many of which an a7 camera also would not be able to touch. Therefore, for me, the M and DSLR systems cover somewhat opposite use extremes and overlap in the middle. An a7 camera would sit somewhere in that middle zone, not excelling at any of the extreme, more specialized uses of the other systems. If you're wondering what those extremes are for me, it's responsiveness, fps rate and AF performance of the DSLR and compact size and outstanding wide angle lenses of the M (see the whole "what wide to get for a7/R/S" discussion to see how difficult it is to solve for that system, at least when trying to keep lens size to a minimum).
Charlie also made a good point - you need to give the system time.
I also ultimately feel that Leica M digital is not about pixel peeping. Yes, many of the lenses are outstanding and capable of extreme sharpness/clarity and invite very close image examination. But the system seems to work better in a fluid style of shooting which at times may result in compromises as far as absolute technical image quality is concerned. Sometimes you will miss focus with it, either due to missed anticipation and hand/eye coordination  , or working at very shallow depth of field, or not compensating adequately for field curvature in wider aperture focus and recompose situations. You'll have to ask yourself what is of higher priority - perfect placement of the plane of focus, or the moment captured in the image? With its limited amount of interference by layers of electronic systems between pressing the shutter release and exposing the image, the M is a great system for capturing fleeting moments, if you disable the auto-sleep function, or keep tapping the shutter release to keep it awake (and not to imply that other cameras can't be fast, too).
The High Line at its southern terminus:
M240 & 2x 21SEM, 28 Cron, 90 Summarit, ZM50/2
|
