I had the question put to me, M9 or M typ 240: which to buy?
Presently, the M9 used is about $1000 less than a used M. So what are the considerations for choosing between those two? I hope others will chime-in with their takes on this question. Here goes mine:
M9:
An older camera than the M. Typically "all things being equal" won't happen, watch for shutter counts, condition, how it was stored. The sensor replacement issue for corrosion (perhaps others can say more about this factor, no problems for my M9 yet). But assuming the M9 and the M were roughly equivalent in condition and shutter count, what other factors are there?
The M9 operates almost exclusively with 1) zone focusing and 2) rangefinder focusing. The screen is OK for chimping gross composition and light level. But I haven't found it to be very useful for determining critical focus upon playback. There's no live-view mode, either.
As such, in my experience I find that for 50mm and longer, you really need to pay attention to what the lens' scale markings tell you about aperture translating to depth of field. Work that into what's your closest in-focus elements versus the farthest in-focus element via zone focusing.
Alternately, what's the depth of field ahead of and behind your rangefinder defined focus, as told by the lens' aperture-to-depth scale (rangefinder operation? You have to practice this to understand what your shot will be. The playback screen on the M9 won't tell you very well what is in-focus versus what is bokeh, you must figure that out on your own.
When you go home and process your photos, that's when you know what you got right, and which shots your blew.
Here's an example of zone focusing with the 90mm Macro Elmar on the M9:
walk to a view by Carl B, on Flickr
To get the framing branches and the person walking both in focus, I had to refer to the hyper-focus scale on the lens to tell me that I'd better be at f22 (to maximize depth of field, a limited resource for a 90mm), and then swing a bit away from infinity, to also get the branches in-focus. Had I not known that, I would have blown the shot. Which I did the previous day, live and learn.
Some see the above as a limitation, others have fun with it as a "purist photographer's challenge." It's true "old-school."
So, if you see this as a limitation, is there an potential offset? Some feel that the CCD sensor is just that. The Kodak CCD sensor really can do some neat things, given good light. The more clinical (or sensible) among us would say that with the right post-processing flow, M 240 shots can be made to look like M9 shots.
Here's two of my favorite M9 "CCD-magic" shots:
day giving-way by Carl B, on Flickr
rice creek at lexington - westward by Carl B, on Flickr
Could I have done these on the M? Maybe, but the M9 was already pushing the "look" in the right direction. Do I get these type of shots all the time? No. Sometimes I get a bit frustrated that the M9 doesn't always catch "CCD" as well as my ancient-but-incredible Oly E-1 (another Kodak CCD 'wunderSensor-Kamera'). Sometime my M9 images just lay there like a dead opossum, taunting my limited photoshop skills.
M typ 240:
You have live view. You can pop a decent EVF on top (OVFs only for the M9). 'WYSIWYG' (What you see is what you get). Ignore live view and don't chimp if you want the 'purist photographer' experience. (Although I can't bring myself not to chimp.) Better dynamic range. Better high-ISO. Probably better I/O choices (although I don't use them). Ignore movie mode (unless you lug around a tripod). I think the RF mechanism is a bit less prone to needing adjustment than on the M9, but Brian will correct me if I'm wrong.
Here two of my favorite M 240 shot:
river bank iris by Carl B, on Flickr
diamonds for a lady by Carl B, on Flickr
Both of these were with the Leica R 35-70mm f4, not rangefinder coupled, so you could not shoot it on the M9.
Either M9 or M240:
Be willing to clean your sensor. There's no modern-camera self-cleaning here. No optical image stabilization, so watch your slowest shutter speeds. Other cameras performance have certainly caught up, but nothing else (besides perhaps the Epson R-D1 series) is a digital rangefinder, with simple and clean operation.
I can't choose one over the other. Glad to have both.
OK, that's it for me now. Others? What makes the M9 different from the M? What would you choose?
Presently, the M9 used is about $1000 less than a used M. So what are the considerations for choosing between those two? I hope others will chime-in with their takes on this question. Here goes mine:
M9:
An older camera than the M. Typically "all things being equal" won't happen, watch for shutter counts, condition, how it was stored. The sensor replacement issue for corrosion (perhaps others can say more about this factor, no problems for my M9 yet). But assuming the M9 and the M were roughly equivalent in condition and shutter count, what other factors are there?
The M9 operates almost exclusively with 1) zone focusing and 2) rangefinder focusing. The screen is OK for chimping gross composition and light level. But I haven't found it to be very useful for determining critical focus upon playback. There's no live-view mode, either.
As such, in my experience I find that for 50mm and longer, you really need to pay attention to what the lens' scale markings tell you about aperture translating to depth of field. Work that into what's your closest in-focus elements versus the farthest in-focus element via zone focusing.
Alternately, what's the depth of field ahead of and behind your rangefinder defined focus, as told by the lens' aperture-to-depth scale (rangefinder operation? You have to practice this to understand what your shot will be. The playback screen on the M9 won't tell you very well what is in-focus versus what is bokeh, you must figure that out on your own.
When you go home and process your photos, that's when you know what you got right, and which shots your blew.
Here's an example of zone focusing with the 90mm Macro Elmar on the M9:
walk to a view by Carl B, on Flickr
To get the framing branches and the person walking both in focus, I had to refer to the hyper-focus scale on the lens to tell me that I'd better be at f22 (to maximize depth of field, a limited resource for a 90mm), and then swing a bit away from infinity, to also get the branches in-focus. Had I not known that, I would have blown the shot. Which I did the previous day, live and learn.
Some see the above as a limitation, others have fun with it as a "purist photographer's challenge." It's true "old-school."
So, if you see this as a limitation, is there an potential offset? Some feel that the CCD sensor is just that. The Kodak CCD sensor really can do some neat things, given good light. The more clinical (or sensible) among us would say that with the right post-processing flow, M 240 shots can be made to look like M9 shots.
Here's two of my favorite M9 "CCD-magic" shots:
day giving-way by Carl B, on Flickr
Could I have done these on the M? Maybe, but the M9 was already pushing the "look" in the right direction. Do I get these type of shots all the time? No. Sometimes I get a bit frustrated that the M9 doesn't always catch "CCD" as well as my ancient-but-incredible Oly E-1 (another Kodak CCD 'wunderSensor-Kamera'). Sometime my M9 images just lay there like a dead opossum, taunting my limited photoshop skills.
M typ 240:
You have live view. You can pop a decent EVF on top (OVFs only for the M9). 'WYSIWYG' (What you see is what you get). Ignore live view and don't chimp if you want the 'purist photographer' experience. (Although I can't bring myself not to chimp.) Better dynamic range. Better high-ISO. Probably better I/O choices (although I don't use them). Ignore movie mode (unless you lug around a tripod). I think the RF mechanism is a bit less prone to needing adjustment than on the M9, but Brian will correct me if I'm wrong.
Here two of my favorite M 240 shot:
river bank iris by Carl B, on Flickr
diamonds for a lady by Carl B, on Flickr
Both of these were with the Leica R 35-70mm f4, not rangefinder coupled, so you could not shoot it on the M9.
Either M9 or M240:
Be willing to clean your sensor. There's no modern-camera self-cleaning here. No optical image stabilization, so watch your slowest shutter speeds. Other cameras performance have certainly caught up, but nothing else (besides perhaps the Epson R-D1 series) is a digital rangefinder, with simple and clean operation.
I can't choose one over the other. Glad to have both.
OK, that's it for me now. Others? What makes the M9 different from the M? What would you choose?
Last edited by a moderator: