The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL OUR AMERICAN FRIENDS!

Wide Angle shooting M9 V M240 - experiences appreciated

PeterA

Well-known member
Hello people I would appreciate your thoughts based on your experiences as I am deciding on whether to buy a 240M-P or not specifically based on whether I will get an appreciable improvement (hopefully) when using wide angle lenses.

In simple language - will the 240-P give me better edge to edge performance when using wides over the M9? If so how much better? My end goal is always large prints - produced with the least possible post processing and correction - I am a truly lazy photographer.

I have no interest in hearing about the features that the M240-P delivers apart from its performance capabilities versus M9 using wides - as I am a troglodyte type photographer who doesn't use video/high ISO/wifi or breakfast cereal microwaving functionality at all. I just want the best file I can get and I would buy an M240 IF it delivered a better wide angle performance than my M9 with wide angle lenses. By better I mean edge to edge file quality for printing up to 36 inches.

Your experience with any M mount lenses would be appreciated - and by wide I mean I mean 21-24mm focal lengths. As a supplementary question, I would be keen to know if my 28 cron or 35 lux - were better served on a n M240. If you have specific recommendations regarding lenses that would be great.

Thanks
-Pete
 

Mike Woods

New member
Hi Pete

I'm not one for pixel peeping so I wont comment on edge to edge performance, despite having owned an M9 and now an M240. I will comment on composition since you want to limit pp/corrections. Using the 240 and evf with wideangles is a huge step change from the M9.

I use a Zeiss 21 2.8 and composing is superb, as is its performance. Incidentally I also have the 35fle and I love the way it draws on the 240 but I was never really enamoured with it on the M9. Not sure why, just my experience.

Good luck with your decision.

Mike
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
In simple language - will the 240-P give me better edge to edge performance when using wides over the M9? If so how much better? ...
Your experience with any M mount lenses would be appreciated - and by wide I mean I mean 21-24mm focal lengths. As a supplementary question, I would be keen to know if my 28 cron or 35 lux - were better served on a n M240. ...
I can only comment on what I have experience with, and I'm rarely micro-inspecting edge to edge performance. I've been using the Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH and Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 on the M-P and find them to both produce outstanding results, noticeably better performance than what I was getting on the M9 with the 'Lux; the Elmar 24 I purchased after I bought the M-P.

G
 

DaveS

Member
I agree with Mike on the EVF benefits of getting exact framing with wides. BENEFIT 1

I had both M9 and M240. Kept the M9 as a back up and then realized I was never using it. So I traded it up to a second M240. Have a chrome and black version. For wides I have a 18mm Zeiss, 21mm Leica F3.4 Asph, 24 F2.8 ASPH and 28 Summicron ASPH. The 21 seems the sharpest from wide open, but it is starting at F3.4. The 28 sharpens up a bit at the very sides till F4 then is sharp edge to edge for me. The 18mm has colour bleeding at both sides, one side more than the other. Setting it to be coded as 21mm non ASPH does the best job of almost completely eliminating the colour shift problem.

The 24 is very slightly soft at corners at F2.8 and then sharp F4 on. And always sharp in the middle.

My experience is that they all show similar sharpness sides and corners on both M9 and M240. However the M240 seems to be better/improved with the colour shift problems using the 18mm Zeiss F4. BENEFIT 2

So given your criteria above, it seems you are really asking about the microlens effectiveness of the M9 versus the M240. They both seem about the same to me, but the M240 appears to have a better lens coding correction for my copy of the Zeiss 18mm.

Also if they are equal in most respects, then in theory the 24MP sensor of the M240 will give you a better 36 inch print. My printer Epson 3880 does up to 25 inches on sheet paper and it looks excellent edge to edge printed with stopped down 1 or 2 stops on any of the above lenses. BENEFIT 3

Also the M240 rangefinder if fully Leica specs adjusted seems more accurate. I know it is less critical on wides versus a super fast tele, but all the same it is nicer to have. BENEFIT 4

The last one I can think of is even at low ISO if you are lifting shadows in bright sunlight or fixing corner brightness wide open, you can use the extra ISO/lower noise performance of the M240. BENEFIT 5

I know you said it is not a criteria, but the overall feel and performance (except size and weight) for me is night and day and makes the M240 more fun.

all the best,

Dave
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Hi Pete

I'm not one for pixel peeping so I wont comment on edge to edge performance, despite having owned an M9 and now an M240. I will comment on composition since you want to limit pp/corrections. Using the 240 and evf with wideangles is a huge step change from the M9.

I use a Zeiss 21 2.8 and composing is superb, as is its performance. Incidentally I also have the 35fle and I love the way it draws on the 240 but I was never really enamoured with it on the M9. Not sure why, just my experience.

Good luck with your decision.

Mike
Thanks Mike I don't need an EVF for anything really - however your comment on 35lux is interesting to me, what do you mean by "the way it 'draws'".. in film days teh 35lux was my second most used lens and I never quite liked it on my M9 despite upgrading to latest version...

-Pete
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I can only comment on what I have experience with, and I'm rarely micro-inspecting edge to edge performance. I've been using the Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH and Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 on the M-P and find them to both produce outstanding results, noticeably better performance than what I was getting on the M9 with the 'Lux; the Elmar 24 I purchased after I bought the M-P.

G
Thanks Godfrey - again I would be interested in some expansion on 'noticeably better performance' if you are able...as for micro inspecting edge to edge performance - it all depends on subject matter of course but I have had awful experience with trying Leica wides on an Sony A7R(yes I am now failiar with all the technical rasons why and no I wont be changing digi chip covers or trusting GAS types gushing love -in festival commentary on its newer version ) and don't wish to waste my money again...hence my question I guess...(some posters have publicly decried wide angle performance on CMOS M as well as on CCD M9 as far as mushy detail goes - to the extent that they have exited M system...) most of my large work is large format or MFD back on technical camera anyway - but I am testing the experience of people using their snapshot camera Leica and wides with this discussion...

Thanks
-Pete
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I agree with Mike on the EVF benefits of getting exact framing with wides. BENEFIT 1

I had both M9 and M240. Kept the M9 as a back up and then realized I was never using it. So I traded it up to a second M240. Have a chrome and black version. For wides I have a 18mm Zeiss, 21mm Leica F3.4 Asph, 24 F2.8 ASPH and 28 Summicron ASPH. The 21 seems the sharpest from wide open, but it is starting at F3.4. The 28 sharpens up a bit at the very sides till F4 then is sharp edge to edge for me. The 18mm has colour bleeding at both sides, one side more than the other. Setting it to be coded as 21mm non ASPH does the best job of almost completely eliminating the colour shift problem.

The 24 is very slightly soft at corners at F2.8 and then sharp F4 on. And always sharp in the middle.

My experience is that they all show similar sharpness sides and corners on both M9 and M240. However the M240 seems to be better/improved with the colour shift problems using the 18mm Zeiss F4. BENEFIT 2

So given your criteria above, it seems you are really asking about the microlens effectiveness of the M9 versus the M240. They both seem about the same to me, but the M240 appears to have a better lens coding correction for my copy of the Zeiss 18mm.

Also if they are equal in most respects, then in theory the 24MP sensor of the M240 will give you a better 36 inch print. My printer Epson 3880 does up to 25 inches on sheet paper and it looks excellent edge to edge printed with stopped down 1 or 2 stops on any of the above lenses. BENEFIT 3

Also the M240 rangefinder if fully Leica specs adjusted seems more accurate. I know it is less critical on wides versus a super fast tele, but all the same it is nicer to have. BENEFIT 4

The last one I can think of is even at low ISO if you are lifting shadows in bright sunlight or fixing corner brightness wide open, you can use the extra ISO/lower noise performance of the M240. BENEFIT 5

I know you said it is not a criteria, but the overall feel and performance (except size and weight) for me is night and day and makes the M240 more fun.

all the best,

Dave
Thanks Dave - I hear you re better rangefinder and thanks for the detail on the specific lens performances you quote- interesting that you say that the lenses seem to sharpen up at f4 - but that as far as you are concerned edge to edge performance is similar between both cameras...personally I have always been disappointed with the M9 and wides for anything except snap shot fun and was hoping that the latest incarnation of the camera would evidence significant improvement for more purposeful work...

I am leaving the non file benefits out of my decision making process - but thanks for the specificity of your response.

-Pete
 

DaveS

Member
Just to help illustrate a bit.L1000398 center.jpgL1000398.jpgL1000398 corner.jpg

Here is a sample of a M9 and 21 SEM DNG file converted to jpeg with no sharpening etc. Just saved a corner crop and center crop. The twigs in the bottom left hand corner are very sharp for a wide angle in my opinion. Like all M files they do sharpen up very well in unsharp mask, but these are untouched to show you the starting point. Anyway, M9 is cheaper used and it does well in my opinion.

Not sure how well this translates when displaying them here, it seems to upsize my crops a bit, and downsized my whole picture view, but the idea is there.

regards,
Dave
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Just to help illustrate a bit.
Here is a sample of a M9 and 21 SEM DNG file converted to jpeg with no sharpening etc. Just saved a corner crop and center crop. The twigs in the bottom left hand corner are very sharp for a wide angle in my opinion. Like all M files they do sharpen up very well in unsharp mask, but these are untouched to show you the starting point. Anyway, M9 is cheaper used and it does well in my opinion.

Not sure how well this translates when displaying them here, it seems to upsize my crops a bit, and downsized my whole picture view, but the idea is there.

regards,
Dave
Again - thanks Dave - yep the M9 makes a decent file alright - the question I am asking - is the 240 better? -:)

Pete
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
The M[240] brings 24 MPx to the table. I've taken a few 21SEM shots to 75 cm wide, and I think it helps. I'll dig in the files for a sample.

I shot a multi-year project starting with the M9 and 21SX, which had occasional problem with CA at the edges, a lens problem not the camera. Then moved to 21SEM on the M9 and finished with 21SEM on the M240. All did what I wanted and were effective when shown large, but the last were the best in terms of detail across the field.

scott
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thanks Godfrey - again I would be interested in some expansion on 'noticeably better performance' if you are able...as for micro inspecting edge to edge performance - it all depends on subject matter of course but I have had awful experience with trying Leica wides on an Sony A7R(yes I am now failiar with all the technical rasons why and no I wont be changing digi chip covers or trusting GAS types gushing love -in festival commentary on its newer version ) and don't wish to waste my money again...hence my question I guess...(some posters have publicly decried wide angle performance on CMOS M as well as on CCD M9 as far as mushy detail goes - to the extent that they have exited M system...) most of my large work is large format or MFD back on technical camera anyway - but I am testing the experience of people using their snapshot camera Leica and wides with this discussion...
I had a Sony A7 for a year and a half and had good results with it, but not with Leica RF wides in general. It worked best with Leica R and Nikkor wides, and even they were a bit challenged at corners and edges with the 18, 19, 20, and 24mm focal lengths. My feeling is to stick to the dedicated lenses with these types of bodies at the short focal length extremes for best results; like you, I choose not to get into the new model GAS fest or camera modification game. I ultimately found working with the Sony not to my liking so I sold it.

But back to Leica ... I find the M-P delivers less moire, less corner/edge darkening, less corner/edge artifacts and smearing, and some reduction in color shifting compared to the M9. Resolution is up by a modest but noticeable amount. On the rendering side, the M-P produces much better white balance for JPEGs, much better (near finish quality) B&W JPEGs, and the viewfinder/rangefinder is noticeably easier to use and seems more accurate. Beyond the imaging characteristics, I wasn't all that thrilled with the M9. It seemed unresponsive and awkward to use a lot of the time. The M-P feels as responsive if not more so than my M4-2.

Basically: I considered selling out of Leica M gear for some time with the M9; I nearly put it on the market at least four times. With the M-P in hand, I feel as delighted with it as I am with the M4-2. It is now the camera I grab when I want to go shooting most of the time.

G
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Thought I posted this earlier, but I must have forgotten to push the last button. I've shot mostly the new SX28 on M240 recently. Here is an example. Corners are fine. The sides of the frame were very shadowed and were pulled up in COne but no color shift appears to my eyes:

L1003059 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

click on the picture twice to see a full resolution original, unsharpened jpeg.

scott
 

algrove

Well-known member
I find composing for wides with the M-P easier for me. However, the EVF is what I use for composition now with the M-P versus an OVF with the M9. Parallax issues are eliminated by using the EVF for me where I get what I see. Many shots with the M9 came out ill framed due to this issue and not so with the M-P. I print mostly 16x20 and sometimes larger and find the M-P files more flexible for my needs. I shoot DNG only and as such any true RAW files needs PP massaging as you must know.

As for lenses, I use the 18 a lot, 21 often, 28 a lot, 35 a lot, etc.I do not pixel peep per se and do not care about internet postings where a 6MP camera would work just fine. I often stitch files and as such want large file sizes for eventual cropping needs. I you stitch you'll know what I mean.

Most of the following examples were taken with the 18 or 21 and slightly cropped to my liking.


Louis Foubare: Making Every Minute Count « The Leica Camera
 

hiepphotog

New member
Thought I posted this earlier, but I must have forgotten to push the last button. I've shot mostly the new SX28 on M240 recently. Here is an example. Corners are fine. The sides of the frame were very shadowed and were pulled up in COne but no color shift appears to my eyes:

L1003059 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

click on the picture twice to see a full resolution original, unsharpened jpeg.

scott
Scott, it's set on private mode. I would like to see the full-res of this pic. I'm still going back and forth to see if I really want this lens :D. Thank you.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I had a Sony A7 for a year and a half and had good results with it, but not with Leica RF wides in general. It worked best with Leica R and Nikkor wides, and even they were a bit challenged at corners and edges with the 18, 19, 20, and 24mm focal lengths. My feeling is to stick to the dedicated lenses with these types of bodies at the short focal length extremes for best results; like you, I choose not to get into the new model GAS fest or camera modification game. I ultimately found working with the Sony not to my liking so I sold it.

But back to Leica ... I find the M-P delivers less moire, less corner/edge darkening, less corner/edge artifacts and smearing, and some reduction in color shifting compared to the M9. Resolution is up by a modest but noticeable amount. On the rendering side, the M-P produces much better white balance for JPEGs, much better (near finish quality) B&W JPEGs, and the viewfinder/rangefinder is noticeably easier to use and seems more accurate. Beyond the imaging characteristics, I wasn't all that thrilled with the M9. It seemed unresponsive and awkward to use a lot of the time. The M-P feels as responsive if not more so than my M4-2.

Basically: I considered selling out of Leica M gear for some time with the M9; I nearly put it on the market at least four times. With the M-P in hand, I feel as delighted with it as I am with the M4-2. It is now the camera I grab when I want to go shooting most of the time.

G
Godfrey, I'm happy with my SonyA7R - as long as I use Sony lenses - sure I have a Sony to M adaptor- but I get the same file from M9 using 35/50/70/90 lenses and worse files when using 28/21...don't get all the angst about shutter this and that problems with the Sony tbh - but then again anyone who shoots tech cameras or MF clunkers is probably used to a loud shutter ...

well you are one who says that less problems with wides on 240 than M9 ..so that is a different input

Thanks
-Pete
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Thought I posted this earlier, but I must have forgotten to push the last button. I've shot mostly the new SX28 on M240 recently. Here is an example. Corners are fine. The sides of the frame were very shadowed and were pulled up in COne but no color shift appears to my eyes:

L1003059 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

click on the picture twice to see a full resolution original, unsharpened jpeg.

scott
Hi Scott and thanks for your reply - although I have to say I don't know what an SX28 or the other Leica lenses are that you refer to? Mate I am an old school Leica shooter so I own Summilux/Summicron/ Elmar/Elmarit named lenses...LOL
In the photo I am looking at what F/stop and what focus point at what ISO?
I see definite softness/smearing in the right hand side wall bricks going backwards from the viewer - so that is why I ask what f/stop and where was the focus point.
Like all lenses you'd expect some vignetting at the edges - as illustrated in your pic - doesn't bother me in the least...

What your pic does show is a nice clean file and good resolution at what I assume was your planar point of focus - dead set in the middle of the diner. I don't make a lot of these type of shots- what I look for is good 'depth' ie how does a lens draw in three dimensions does it give me a feeling of volume to go along with the the light I chase....OR shot wide open do I get the POP factor and separation without the harsh contrast edge...

Why I prefer Leica to Zeiss lenses - Zeiss can boost their edge contrast as much as they like - but that type of drawing is clunky compared to the baby bum fluff roll off of a good Leica lens. But I veer off topic.

Thanks for your input - much appreciated

-Pete
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I find composing for wides with the M-P easier for me. However, the EVF is what I use for composition now with the M-P versus an OVF with the M9. Parallax issues are eliminated by using the EVF for me where I get what I see. Many shots with the M9 came out ill framed due to this issue and not so with the M-P. I print mostly 16x20 and sometimes larger and find the M-P files more flexible for my needs. I shoot DNG only and as such any true RAW files needs PP massaging as you must know.

As for lenses, I use the 18 a lot, 21 often, 28 a lot, 35 a lot, etc.I do not pixel peep per se and do not care about internet postings where a 6MP camera would work just fine. I often stitch files and as such want large file sizes for eventual cropping needs. I you stitch you'll know what I mean.

Most of the following examples were taken with the 18 or 21 and slightly cropped to my liking.


Louis Foubare: Making Every Minute Count « The Leica Camera
WOW Louis what I site you have there! A lot of magnificent shots for me to look at enjoy - so thanks for posting and aren't I lucky to have figured out your link to photos!

I understand the slightly cropped idea btw - don't we all do it? LOL
For the minimal landscape work I do do- I go to the trouble of setting up a tripod and a MFD backed tech camera - two reasons, firstly I get the resolution I need from the backs and my Rodenstock or Schneiders and secondly - until recent times - 35mm didnt promise or deliver the megapixel count or quality required to do larger prints or have enough guts in the raw file to play with..secondly , shift tilt swing for one shot or stitching and much easier nodal point shooting... times are changing and yes I am wondering if the 240 and its 25 don't give me a better option for a more simple system...I am definitely excited about the small tech cameras that Arca and Cambo are releasing to mount 35mm cameras..who needs copal shutters lol

Thanks again
-Pete
 

algrove

Well-known member
Peter
Did not pay enough attention to your comments to realize you are not a landscape kind of guy. Sorry. For street I love the 35 FLE first and foremost followed by either the 50 or if needed the 28. Had the cron but now like the Elmarit 28/2.8 for its size. Friends say the new 28 Lux is dynamite, but a bit pricy. I have the 21 lux and very much like it for certain street uses. This is but one example.

View attachment 94213

I love street and find the challenges enormous, but that's why I like it so much.


http://blog.leica-camera.com/photog...y-and-unpredictability-in-street-photography/

I recently sold my P45+ and V setup to migrate to the 645Z and have not regretted the move, but I always come back to a Leica either M-P or M246. I am getting nice landscape results from old glass on the M246-especially my old 90/2.8 225g Tele-Elmarit even though I often use the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M more often on the M-P. I will try the Sumarron 35/2.8 next which should lend itself to good street shooting, but perhaps the silver look could attract attention.
 
Top