Now that I’ve locked down relative sharpness for four different cameras relative to the Leica M Typ 240, I’m going to turn my attention to other areas.
Several areas I want to explore here, I’ll probably take a reconnoitering approach: an initial look through several areas, then return and explore. It all depends: when something interesting pops up, I like to explore it.
- Does the M240 really have the same “bite” as the M9? I remain unpersuaded that to visual impact is at the same persuasive level as the CCD sensor in the M9. Too little experience as yet to say for sure.
- How good is focus peaking for critical focus?
- ISO 100/200 and ETTR; optimal exposure for noise;
- Presence or absence of pattern noise and similar in dark areas.
- Color rendition on outdoor scenes M240 vs M9: Adobe’s profile seems to be off for the M240— too magenta. Also, the two cameras clearly have very different color rendition in the corners: green vs magenta.
- Performance of the 21/3.4 Super-Elmar-M ASPH and 35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH (possibly vs the Zeiss 35/2 Biogon).
- Performance of three Zeiss ZM wide angle lenses: the ZM 15/2.8 Distagon, ZM 18/4 Distagon and the ZM 21/2.8 Biogon. These wides (and Leica’s wide too) have off-center color shading issues (ray angle) on the M9, so if the M240 has better off-center behavior this would be good to know. I’m told that the 21/4.5 C-Biogon still has too steep a ray angle to work well on digital M bodies. Bummer because I love the near zero distortion of that lens.
- Shooting a 15mm was always problematic on the M9 (composition difficulty and no rangefinder coupling), but on the M240 these issues disappear with Live View and the EVF. So how does the Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 Distagon perform on the M240 now that one can compose and focus it perfectly?