I didn't vote since, by my previous response, my vote would necessarily be "other" given the current poll choices.
I find the M-P240 raw files just as easy to manipulate, if not moreso, as the M9 files. Whatever is meant by ISO-less, I can bring up vastly underexposed image areas with the CMOSIS sensor just as easily and with the same quality as I could with the M9 sensor. I see no reason that the same characteristics will not apply to the MM246 CMOSIS sensor, albeit in monochrome only.
I did a brief test of the ISO-less raw characteristics with the M9 a long time ago and the results were very good. I guess I'll repeat that test with the M-P, and the MM246 when I get it.
By and large, however, what I'm finding is that the out-of-camera M-P JPEGs, when properly exposed, are FAR more to my liking than what came out of the M9. Of the last two sets of photos I posted, seven in total, four were processed from the M-P JPEGs with extremely little additional tweaking in LR. I could never do that with the M9 to my satisfaction. You can't use the ISO-less feature when making JPEG output. This makes using proper exposure for a sensitivity setting more useful as you can output both a full-fledged raw file as well as a reasonably well balanced JPEG in B&W simultaneously.
I'm keeping at least my M4-2, maybe the CL as well, and when the MM246 arrives I'll have all these cameras as choices when working a project. To me, that's the right way to go as each camera and each recording medium has its specific advantages and aesthetic appeal—I just have to decide what the project's focus and intent are, and use the equipment appropriately to achieve that.
G