Matteo writes:
“Dear Peter,
I hope all is well with you!
Finally this 2013 is going to an end… I’ve spent this year mostly in London, with little time for photography.
Far from home and committed to work, I’ve been having a hard time developing my ‘artistic’ side.
However, in a strong effort to keep my eyes trained, I’ve dedicated a bit of time to explore film and rangefinder photography.
Now I’m thinking to jump into digital again (time and flexibility are the main reasons), but I have to save a bit before getting a new camera. I’m very interested in hearing a little more from you about your experience with the new M240. It seems you don’t consider it on par (sensor wise) with the new [Sony] Alpha7R and Nikon Df, and I’m curious about that. I’m still a bit puzzled about the available options, as I never had the chance to test extensively an M9 or any of these new models. I think I will stick to film for a little more 🙂 .
—Matteo”
—
Thank you very much Matteo for writing.
Well, it turns out I may have an opinion about the Leica M240… 🙂
As many of the readers of Prosophos.com know, I’ve written much about it:
- The Leica M9 still reigns supreme.
- About the M240… the image quality is a step down.
- The M9 and CCD sensor.
- Leica M9 vs. M240
- M240: More Thoughts
- Leica M240: Final Verdict
- Leica M9 sharpness vs. Sony RX1R, Nikon D800E, Fuji X100s
- My camera of the year for 2013
…And I have even written an open letter to Leica asking for an updated CCD sensor on a future Leica M model. So far, over 130 individuals have signed it.
However, to answer your question in a concise manner, I’ll note three things I don’t appreciate about the Leica M240 sensor:
- Colour signature. The native Leica M240 colour signature is suboptimal for skin tones, and one has to constantly fight against the default settings to achieve acceptable results.
- Colour Tonality. Colour transitions are rendered more coarsely by the M240 vs. the M9. The M9 renders tones in a more subtle and delicate fashion.
- Microcontrast. Although the M240 sensor (24 MP) will objectively out-resolve the Leica M9 sensor (18 MP) at 100% magnification, the M240 files as a whole are more “muddy” and “flat” as compared to the more “crisp” and “3D”-like images generated by the M9. See here for two examples (see various photo-sharing sites, photography fora, and generally the entire internet for more 🙂 …).
–
As for the Nikon Df and Sony A7/A7R, they are not rangefinder cameras, and so obviously cannot provide the rangefinder experience, which is important to me. Also, being CMOS sensor cameras, they cannot equal the M9 in Points #2 and #3 above.
That’s basically it. I hope that answers your question Matteo.
Sincerely,
—Peter.
[Incidentally, Matteo has submitted several images to me that will be featured in a not-too-distant Guest Post.]
Prosophos 
Hi Matteo
This poses a very interesting question if you are deciding to buy a colour digital rangefinder. I know many people may be growing a bit weary of this topic, though I find myself in a similar position to you! I personally agree with Peter on all three points.
The M9 is probably the most unique rendering sensor in the market (along with the Sigma DP series and the Fovon sensor). The way I look at this topic is that the M240 and M9/ME are just two different products and each person will choose one over the other or both.
The M240 is a huge improvement in many ways over the M9 and has it’s own colour signature, which is not better or worse (I know many will disagree on that comment)…..it’s just different.
Given I would personally choose the ME/M9 (I don’t really call on high ISO a lot and I’d be very happy with the ME rendering over the better DR the M240 brings) I am still not choosing to buy one just yet. Mainly due to the fact I can not rely on Leica to support the ME or M9 at the moment.
So I’ll be waiting for:
1. More reassuring signs that support will be better moving forward (and supply of the CCD sensor) and/or
2. Wait and see what the next iteration of the M brings (I could be waiting a while!) even if that is a CMOS sensor which is more appealing to my eye…..
Until then it’s all about the MM for me :-)!!
This probably hasn’t helped Matteo, though just sharing my thoughts when making the same decision as yourself!
Regards
Andrew
PS Noticed that the company who supplies Leica with the CMOS sensor was just acquired by another firm a couple of weeks ago! Will be interesting to see what may happen here.
Thanks Andrew for your ever-lucid comments.
A reply to Matteo of my own.
1. I don’t recognise the picture that Peter paints 😉 of skin tones. I find it very easy to get skin tones I like from the M240. There’s a very delicate rendering of colour from the M240. It sometimes disappoints indoors, but the M9 and other Leicas are similar in that regard.
2. The M240 sensor exceeds the sensor in the A7 and A7r in the tonality of its response – that’s another way of saying the rendering can be extremely delicate and impressive, right down to about ISO 2500. The M240 sensor is probably on a par with the sensor of the D4/Df for the delicacy of its colour response, which is to say its extremely good. The M240 provides much better resolution, the Df sensor much better high ISO performance. Both are very impressive in their strongest areas. Both make you want to shoot with native manual focus glass for each system.
3. I think M240 files can be as (or even more, though that’s subjective) three dimensional than those from the M9. If you are more inclined to the DSLR experience than the rangefinder, I have a couple of posts on my blog re the Df (which is a very impressive camera, much more so than the A7 series which disappointed me): http://wp.me/p2wMAg-z5 and http://wp.me/p2wMAg-zb
4. I wouldn’t bother with the Sony A7 series until they have native glass you like, which is another way of saying that the lens range is limited and the cameras under perform with rangefinder glass (another good reason to stick to a M240, MM or M9/ME). That said, if you like the 35 and 55 that are available, go for it. Nonetheless, I believe the D800E and D600/A99 are better implementations using those sensors.
Best
Simon
Hi Simon,
I saw your previous link to my site, and looked at your M240 images. Unfortunately, those images reinforce my opinion: skin tones are off, micro-contrast is absent, files are flat, etc.
We obviously come to two different conclusions despite viewing the same files. That’s okay of course.
And I credit you for positing your view in a civil manner.
As for the Nikon Df, I actually like what Nikon has done with this camera. It’s just that, when focusing manually using wide open apertures on fast lenses (f/1.4, f/1.2, etc.), the rangefinder patch is much more accurate than Nikon’s “green dot” confirmation. I’ve tried both systems, and can state this uncategorically .
Cheers,
—Peter.
Everyone has their own point of view, and I still love the images the m240 can create (again, I’m not sure I recognise the view you have, but that’s fine). I apologise for linking my previous post but it made sense to me to link a positive experience to a more negative one, so people can see the wider reaction in the round.
As to the Df, I’m very, very impressed with it. I agree it cannot match the accuracy of rangefinder focus wide open, but there’s something special about the experience of shooting one. Much like a Leica rangefinder, it’s incredible fun to take pictures with and you can easily carry a couple of AF primes for when you need them too. I particularly like shooting it with the 28mm F2 AIS, 50mm F1.2 AIS and the 105 F2.5 AIS.
Best
Simon
No apologies for the link are necessary Simon. As I stated above, you presented your views in a civil manner and I took no offense.
The Nikon Df is the first Nikon camera in a few years that has seriously tempted me (the last was the D3). Alas, all my Nikon lenses are gone, save for an 18-70 kit lens that I’ve kept for sentimental reasons.
Peter.
Thank you Peter for this, and thank you Andrew and Simon for your thoughts and advice. I’m not a pro, but I have my experience and I trust my eyes. I like the concept of a ‘minimal’ camera and the M9 is the one that goes closer to this idea. Color is a relative issue in the digital world, but I agree that there are some ‘signatures’ in the raw files that are characteristic of each camera. For example I really like how the M9 handle the shadow noise at moderate iso values, it’s very film like. I’ve tried a leica S2 for a little while and it showed the same traits (even enhanced). We are talking of small details but they can make the difference when you tune your workflow to get the best out of your files. And they are also funny and interesting to explore. As I said I’m not a pro and I shoot for pleasure, but I’m not interested only in the results. I like the entire process of image generation, and this is why I care so much about these details. I’m actually shooting with a Leica MP, which represent a pretty radical approach to photography 🙂
However, the M9 is still very expensive, and for a number of reasons it can represent a ‘not so good’ investment nowadays. Actually, all digital cameras represent bad investments! But as we are talking about Leica, I have to think 1000 times before making my choice. I like the nikon Df concept and I’m sure that it is an amazing camera, but I don’t have Nikon glass, so It would be too expensive to afford. The sony alpha 7r it is simply not charming for me. An amazing piece of technology and a very good deal, I know, but not charming. It can sound silly but this is important to me, and I’m sure that many people think the same.
I will try to test both an M9 and an M240 in the near future… Till then, I will continue shooting film.
Best wishes,
Matteo
Matteo I have 2 Monochromes at the moment though one is just in the short/medium term until April next year. This camera might be worth thinking about given your black and white images (which I loved) in your guest post. Just a thought.
PS Can completely understand why you’d want colour btw.