I enjoyed your article.
I too was hesitant initially with the M240 but I must say after having it for a year I have no problems at all now.
The M9 was such a hard camera to beat .

agree and thanks for the article. As a previous owner of the M9 , the new M has far better DR. As long as you exposure the right way (i. e do not underexpose) images are better than the M9 ‘ ones.

[…] See on jipvankuijk.nl […]

This was very helpful, so thank you. The new M seems much, much better than the M9 at handling light sources. The M9 (and a lot of DSLRs) rendered light sources very harshly. The new sensor handles them as film would. This is most evident in the shot of the Christmas tree.

Low noise is a good thing, but natural rendering of highlights is just as important. I think the new M could, in theory, replace film.

[…] → Leica M in low light […]

My solution is Leica Monochrom! You do not need better one.
And you do not bother about the color.

Very nicely laid out article, and tastefully done. I find the color from my M240 perfect. It has more color depth to my eye, more accurate, and a subtler palette. Reds are better..The landscapes I am getting are so good I could never go back to the M9p..the look is very refined, as a flemish painting at base iso’s. The extra resolution is just the right amount for fine 18×27 prints..keep the well done articles coming-we need more like this

Nice little article, well done. I also find the M image improved over the M9. The CCD vs CMOS appearance doesn’t seem any different to me in print. Leica themselves don’t seem to believe there is a difference either:

“Many people think there is a big difference in the touch and feel, and the look and feel of the CCD vs CMOS. We think a pixel just renders light or transforms light into electricity. And the look and feel is done in the image processing. On the other hand, the CMOS sensors have a lot of advantages such as video and live view and we therefore think that the CMOS have the future at Leica.” – Stefen Daniel, February, 2014

I have been using the M Typ240 for about 4 months now and feel comfortable up to ISO5000 for night shots. It’s color is very distinct from my other camera (Nikon D4) and what I have used in the recent past (D700/RX100) — and not DSLR like at all. Typical ISO5000 shot (35mm Summilux f/1.4 at f/4):

I have found the DR to be fine, not quite what I get with the D4, but more than enough for what I want it to do. I cannot image a better photographic experience that what I’m getting right now.

Thanks for the blog
I don’t understand the colour issues people talk about
I had a M9 and now a M240
I only use raw
The M240 is superior to the M9 in every way. There is a kind of Kodachrome 64 colouring that the M9 has. It is not superior, just different, and less accurate IMHO then the M240.
Best Rgds

I guess adoption of the M(240) has been one of the most polarizing issues for myself. With the M9, I felt I could get results I wanted very quickly without too much post processing but on the M(240), I find myself needing to spend much more time trying to get pleasing results.

I am possibly at the point of giving up on the M(240) but still think certain color issues may be fixed via a future firmware update.

I am interested to hear of these LR profiles you have custom created for the M(240). Thanks for sharing.

Very well and thoroughly written, I am looking forward to your profile thought !

Hey guys, thanks for the replies!

I also had to get used to the M (Typ 240) colour, compared to the M9(-P) but after a while I discovered it wasn’t so much for the camera colour that differed but the dynamic range that is so much larger with the M (Typ 240) making the files look ‘flatter’ straight out of the camera. Yes the M9(-P) files look better straight out of the camera, but they are much less mendable. I can say I can create very pleasing results with the M (Typ 240) especially after I created my own Lightroom profile for the camera. For me the colours are the same as the M9(-P) after I created the custom profile in Lightroom 5. I’ll write a article on this subject later.

Thanks for reading, and leaving your thoughts!

Great article. As the others, I too actually prefer the output of the M9 better than the M(240). I think the sensor in the M8/9 series had more character (IMHO). The M seems to now produce files very similar to a lot of DSLRs. Not a bad thing, but the look of the CCD files just seemed to have a more filmic look to me. However, I am still considering the M for it’s lens mount flexibility.

I owned the M240 for about 6 months now and I too preferred the M9 output. I’m thinking of swapping my M240 with an M9-P which i just sold. :( For low light situation I will go with Sony Alpha 7.

Personally, I decided I preferred the low-ISO look of the M9 to the M(240), so I kept the M9 and picked up a RX1r for low-light work.
Great photos and great article, keep ’em coming!