A reader, Marc H., has provided the sample images below.
[Please note: This is not a scientifically rigorous comparison. Marc has generously provided these for your benefit. Any disrespectful comments will automatically be deleted.]
Marc writes:
“While I still had both bodies (M9 and M240), I took a walk around Frankfurt and shot random stuff, just to see how they both render and how the color translates. I set both to the same ISO values, f stop, white balance is auto. The pics themselves are nothing special, but interesting to see how they render. Both used 50mm asph lenses. “
Here are Marc’s samples
(please click on the image to view at MAXIMUM size)
Comparison 1:
–
Comparison 2:
–
Thank you Marc, for providing these.
—Peter.
Prosophos 
They may not be scientific but they are interesting all the same.
Clearly it’s a matter of taste and while the differences are quite evident especially in the first comparison I know which ones I prefer.
The M240 shots look more digital than the M9 if that makes sense. I recently shot my M9 JPEG only for the first time, you can see them here – http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2013/11/08/a-rainy-day-on-the-banks-peninsula/ would I have been as happy with M240 JPEG’s, I’m not so sure.
Thanks for sending these in Marc.
Cheers.
I really enjoyed viewing the images in your link Jason.
When the day for colour comes along, it’ll either be an ME or the new improved M250 for me……..Nothing against the M240 at all…it’s just different and people are making wonderful images with it. Just want to try and retain the micro-contrast.
Thanks for posting Marc and Peter.
Now Peter, have you rung Mark and asked for some of that film back yet…:-).
Mark’s work keeps tempting me to go back to film… but my gift to him was for keeps.
I’m assuming that this is OOC so the difference is expected. It would be interesting to see a comparison of images edited to appear identical. I wonder if we’d be able to differentiate between the M9 vs M240 image.
Agree with this
I still prefer the M9 files at base ISO. I also use the Color Fidelity Lightroom profile for my image processing.
It really does answer the problem, I could equal the M240 images with a 5D2 and probably go past with a 5D3. This blog is very honest with its appraisal where others have over hyped the M240 and other recent cameras that really concerns me considering the money being asked to buy them.
Odd, comparisons like this seem to assume people don’t have their own profiles for sharpening and colour based on the underlying file. So when I say I prefer the results from the M240, its because processing it to my taste takes all of one click in LR plus a teeny bit of editing. The biggest problem I’ve seen with M240 files isn’t softness (they simply aren’t soft) but rather WB/colour, but its a different but very similar problem to what exists in relation to M9 files. I salute the optimism of the person who thinks they could match the M240 with a 5d II. Since I cannot match it with a D800, I suspect that does remain optimism…
Another thought on the results from the M240 vs my D600 which is that although the DXO rating of the images suggests the results from the M240 sensor are poorer quality than the Sony 24mp sensor in low light, I find the results from the Leica sensor superior/more cohesive. The noise is simply much, much less destructive to image quality in the Leica at ISO 2000-3200. I’m going to do a few more tests, but I might well: (a) stick to my M240 where possible; and (b) get a Df (and ditch the D600) for low light AF work.
sgoldswo: Skip the Df. The D610 will provide better value than it. Sure, it has the D4 sensor in it, but other than that it’s a D610 in retro clothes and outrageous pricing. I was dissapointed in a big way when it was announced.
So stick to M240 + D600 for AF or upgrade that to D610 if you really need to do something..
I’m sticking with my M9 and looking at 610 or A7r to compliment.
I agree the Df pricing seems extreme, and the lack of VF focusing aids is suboptimal (just want something like my FM3A VF…) but I’m not sure the 24mp sensor in the D600 holds up that well for ISO 3200 shots, or at least the results just look ugly compared to my M240 which is noisy, but sharp (the M240 just looks like high ISO film, whereas the D600 just looks flat). I had been toying with getting a D4 in any event, so the D4 sensor in a smaller package does sound tempting.
it so obvious which is so much better…. M9
In all fairness to the M240, Marc provided more samples where the difference was less obvious. But there was always a difference.
In any case, I don’t need to be convinced, and I am providing these for the benefit of anybody who wishes to look and see.
I understand and thank you but I too am extremely happy with my M9P and it’s the first digital camera that I have ever really liked after many years of shooting film with Leicas. To me it is really a perfect bridge between the two worlds, film and digital, and so true to the original unencumbered photographic instrument that Leica had always strived towards throughout their long history.
Agree 100%.
I really can’t tell from these pictures posted on the internet. I would think that you would have to have both comers for a period of time to determine which is to your liking.
For me the M240 is so obviously superior to the M9 that I never really understand these comparisons. It would be like asking if you like the Canon 5D or the 5DIII. I guess it is ok to like the way the 5D looks, but the 5DIII is the superior camera.
The M240 produces images that can rival the D800 in certain instances. Why would anyone want to step back to the M9 and its poor color balance under artificial lights, poor dynamic range, and horrible high ISO?
I kept my M9 around for a while and thought it would be a good back up, but eventually sold it. There was nothing better about it that made me want to keep it.
Looking a the top picks, the reds are a *disaster* in both. The Roses look like some sort of alien, fluorescent blobs. I’d like to see the histograms. The white window frame is overexposed in both, and the M9 looks like its clipping the shadow details under the bushes. Leaving auto white balance on doesn’t compare the innate abilities of the sensors.
The roadway is yellow in the M9 version of the second pic. I’m not convinced either way by these images.
Forgive the late opinion. The first comparison shows the M9 as slightly better, but only because it slightly renders the roses better. The second comparison is much more obvious: the M9 wins. However, the M240 looks underexposed by 1/2 a stop. And the contrast could be increased a bit. I wonder if applying these two changes would even the playing field.