This is one that I shot about a month and a half ago. My wife and I built the dress the night before the model arrived.
Would love to hear your thoughts!
Leica M type 240 & Summilux 35mm f/1.4. Two Profoto lights, one with a 3'x4' gridded softbox, and a very understated kicker/rim on the other side with a 30º grid to control spill
if you prefer the M9, it's just simple that: you just prefer it over the M240 files...don't overthink it. there's no scientific mumbo-jumbo or some other rationalization will make you think otherwise. the other aspects of the camera (shutter, LCD, high ISO) doesn't seem as important, so it's even easier for you.
now, i can take that M240 off your hands for $3.5K...which seems to be the ongoing rate for clean M9s.
Well, most decisions can be undone, though it can take time to do it. I'm not so sure I don't like the M9 best myself, but I have not used my M enough yet to be able to say that definitively. That is one reason I am not going to be quick to sell either. But I really think I prefer to say they are just different cameras, with different strengths and "weaknesses".
3.5 is not the going rate for my mint M9 with 2K clicks if I sold it. I would still price it $4250. This was a 6K camera, and with low clicks, there is no way it's not worth at least 4K today.
Having both the M and MM, I clearly prefer the 1 year old MM's rendering over the M. I guess your right it's a matter of preference.
I wish they made the M9-U with the higher iso performance of the M
Your response to Charles and myself suggests you can live without the benefits of the M240. And you have an MM and you have a A7, so why not get the M9 for a while.. With the prices the way they are, it's a no brainer. IF Leica releases an M-CCD camera, it'll probably come in another year to two years+ when the M240 has met its expected sales.
joe88 wrote:
What? You want to replace a real camera with an electronic box?
While I agree the A7/R is a ground breaking camera because its the first affordable FF mirrorless camera and priced very competitively, I still don't trust Sony enough with their roadmap for cameras and lenses. Although Sony make excellent sensors, I have never felt much love with my NEX cameras. My RX1 seems to be an exception but still, I prefer cameras with both shutter dials and aperture rings. As for alternative to a rangfinder, I'm looking forward to (i) a FF Ricoh GXR optimized for RF lenses, (ii) or maybe a FF Fuji X series (ii) or possible an A7 successor when Zeiss releases their manual focus FE mount lenses. Otherwise I find most of the current mirrorless cameras too much of a compromise compared to a full frame DSLR.
Some people say Canon and Nikon are not innovative enough compared to Sony or Olympus, but why reinvent the wheel when a DSLR works for what its supposed to? I must say its good to have so many choices for cameras nowadays compared to say 3-4 years back....Show more →
Yes! A FF Ricoh GXR. THIS is what i want as an M alternative. not the A7/r. with all this talk about A7/A7r stuff i was dumbfounded why the idea of an FF GXR wasn't even mentioned until now. I love my Ricoh GR and it seems that only Ricoh (IMO) is the only one truly successful in throwing in multitude of whiz-bang features without sacrificing ergonomics and accessibility.
that said, i don't think it will happen until they release a FF DSLR...but hey Ricoh/Pentax has surprised us before...maybe they will announce a FF DSLR along with a FF M-compatible GX-R.
There are many discussions about the color profile of the M240. Like many others, I was very skeptical about go forward with M240 as I really love the color of M9. But lately in FM, there are many wonderful images by Gary, Andrew, Charles and others using M240.
In light of recent discussion of using RF lenses on Sony A7/A7r, I took the dive and get an M240 instead. I only took about 100 images this past weekend and I really like it. It is a much better, capable, and robust body compared with M9. I plan to keep both of them for a while to see if I can use them together as far as color profiles go. Hope to post some images here when I have time during the winter/holiday break.
I rented and sampled an M-E (similar to the M9) before settling on the M240. For me, the M240 felt better in every respect. I love the build, shutter sound, battery life, and electronic photo aids (LV and EVF capability). It felt like a more comprehensive imaging solution that wasn't quite inundated with "feature creep." (Well, maybe movie mode... it would nice if I could remap that button to do something else). I probably end up using LV for less than 10% of my images, and the EVF for less than 5%, but those percentages are important to me, particularly when when shooting wider than 35mm.
File appearance is a very personal thing, of course, but given that most of my street photography is in the evening, nightime, or indoors (ISO 1600-3200), the M240 was a better choice for me. I also found the DR of the M240 to be pretty good (if not quite as good as my D800) for my landscape work.
However, if you are shooting at lower ISOs and are looking for a fantastic SOOC file every time, I can see the appeal of the M9/M-E. To me, the M240 was itself a revelation considering the quality of its SOOC DNG files, particularly as compared to my Nikons. The M-E files are even punchier, but the differences in SOOC image quality could not trump, at least for me, the usability and flexibility of the M240.
I had put off buying a viewfinder for my 24 Lux, with the LV feature, as long as I shoot M240 with my 24 lux, I can now use LV to take the place of the EVF for that lens. Since it's the only lens I needed one for anyway, I'm now good to go in that area. I didn't really want to have to fool with one anyway.
