Leica M9 versus Leica M Typ 240
The Leica M9 and the Leica M (Typ 240) are two enthusiast cameras that were revealed to the public, respectively, in September 2009 and September 2012. Both the M9 and the M Typ 240 are rangefinder-style mirrorless cameras that are equipped with a full frame sensor. The M9 has a resolution of 18.1 megapixel, whereas the M Typ 240 provides 23.7 MP.
An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Leica M9 and the Leica M Typ 240 is provided in the side-by-side display below. Three consecutive perspectives from the front, the top, and the back are presented. All width, height and depth measures are rounded to the nearest millimeter. If you prefer, you can also use the toggle button to switch to a comparison in percentage terms (in this case, the camera on the left – the M9 – represents the basis or 100 percent across all the size and weight measures).
In this particular case, the Leica M9 and the Leica M Typ 240 have exactly the same width and height, and, thus, have identically-sized bodies. However, the M Typ 240 is markedly heavier (16 percent) than the M9. It is noteworthy in this context that the M Typ 240 is splash and dust-proof, while the M9 does not feature any corresponding weather-sealing.
The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete since they do not consider the interchangeable lenses that both of these cameras require. In this particular case, both cameras feature the same lens mount, so that they can use the same lenses. You can find an overview of suitable optics in the Leica M Lens Catalog.
The table below summarizes the key physical specs of the two cameras alongside a broader set of comparators. If you want to switch the focus of the display and review another camera pair, just select a new right or left comparator from among the camera models in the table. Alternatively, you can also move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible comparisons there.
|Camera Body Specifications
|Leica M9 (⇒ rgt)||5.5 in||3.1 in||1.5 in||20.6 oz||..||no||2009||7,999||discont.||check|
|Leica M Typ 240 (⇒ lft)||5.5 in||3.1 in||1.7 in||24.0 oz||..||YES||2012||6,950||discont.||check|
|Canon G9 X Mark II (⇒ lft | rgt)||3.9 in||2.3 in||1.2 in||7.3 oz||235||no||2017||529||latest||check|
|Canon 1D X Mark II (⇒ lft | rgt)||6.2 in||6.6 in||3.3 in||54.0 oz||1210||YES||2016||5,999||latest||check|
|Canon G9 X (⇒ lft | rgt)||3.9 in||2.3 in||1.2 in||7.4 oz||220||no||2015||529||discont.||check|
|Canon M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||4.3 in||2.6 in||1.4 in||10.6 oz||255||no||2015||499||discont.||check|
|Canon G7 X (⇒ lft | rgt)||4.1 in||2.4 in||1.6 in||10.7 oz||210||no||2014||699||discont.||check|
|Leica M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.5 in||3.1 in||1.5 in||23.3 oz||210||no||2017||6,595||latest||check|
|Leica SL (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.8 in||4.1 in||1.5 in||29.9 oz||400||YES||2015||7,450||latest||check|
|Leica M Typ 262 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.5 in||3.1 in||1.7 in||24.0 oz||..||YES||2015||5,195||discont.||check|
|Leica M8 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.5 in||3.1 in||1.5 in||20.8 oz||..||no||2006||5,499||discont.||check|
|Panasonic FZ1000 (⇒ lft | rgt)||5.4 in||3.9 in||5.2 in||29.3 oz||360||no||2014||899||discont.||check|
|Panasonic GH2 (⇒ lft | rgt)||4.9 in||3.5 in||3.0 in||15.6 oz||330||no||2010||1,499||discont.||check|
|Sony RX100 IV (⇒ lft | rgt)||4.0 in||2.3 in||1.6 in||10.5 oz||280||no||2015||999||discont.||check|
The listed prices provide an indication of the market segment that the manufacturer of the cameras have been targeting. The M Typ 240 was launched at a somewhat lower price (by 13 percent) than the M9, which makes it more attractive for photographers on a tight budget. Usually, retail prices stay at first close to the launch price, but after several months, discounts become available. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.
The size of the sensor inside a digital camera is one of the key determinants of image quality. A large sensor will tend to have larger individual pixels that provide better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color depth than smaller pixel-units in a sensor of the same technological generation. Furthermore, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more possibilities to use shallow depth-of-field in order to isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be more expensive and lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.
Both cameras under consideration feature a full frame sensor, but their sensors differ slightly in size. The sensor area in the M Typ 240 is 1 percent smaller. They nevertheless have the same format factor of 1.0. Both cameras have a native aspect ratio (sensor width to sensor height) of 3:2.
Despite having a slightly smaller sensor, the M Typ 240 offers a higher resolution of 23.7 megapixel, compared with 18.1 MP of the M9. This megapixel advantage comes at the cost of a higher pixel density and a smaller size of the individual pixel (with a pixel pitch of 6.01μm versus 6.91μm for the M9). However, it should be noted that the M Typ 240 is much more recent (by 3 years) than the M9, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that make it possible to gather light more efficiently. Coming back to sensor resolution, it should be mentioned that the M9 has no anti-alias filter installed, so that it can capture all the detail its sensor resolves.
For most cameras, data on sensor performance has been reported by DXO Mark. This service assesses and scores the color depth ("DXO Portrait"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports") of camera sensors, and also publishes an overall camera score. Of the two cameras under consideration, the M Typ 240 offers substantially better image quality than the M9 (overall score 15 points higher). The advantage is based on 1.5 bits higher color depth, 1.6 EV in additional dynamic range, and 1.1 stops in additional low light sensitivity. The adjacent table reports on the physical sensor characteristics and the outcomes of the DXO sensor quality tests for a sample of comparator-cameras.
|Leica M9 (⇒ rgt)||Full Frame||18.1||5212||3472||no||22.5||11.7||884||69|
|Leica M Typ 240 (⇒ lft)||Full Frame||23.7||5952||3976||1080/25p||24.0||13.3||1860||84|
|Canon G9 X Mark II (⇒ lft | rgt)||1-inch||20.0||5472||3648||1080/60p||21.9||12.5||522||65|
|Canon 1D X Mark II (⇒ lft | rgt)||Full Frame||20.0||5472||3648||4K/60p||24.1||13.5||3207||88|
|Canon G9 X (⇒ lft | rgt)||1-inch||20.0||5472||3648||1080/60p||21.5||12.3||495||63|
|Canon M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||APS-C||17.9||5184||3456||1080/30p||22.2||11.4||753||65|
|Canon G7 X (⇒ lft | rgt)||1-inch||20.0||5472||3648||1080/60p||23.0||12.7||556||71|
|Leica M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Full Frame||23.8||5952||3992||no||..||..||..||..|
|Leica SL (⇒ lft | rgt)||Full Frame||24.0||6000||4000||4K/30p||25.0||13.4||1821||88|
|Leica M Typ 262 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Full Frame||23.7||5952||3976||no||-||-||-||-|
|Leica M8 (⇒ lft | rgt)||APS-H||10.4||3936||2630||no||21.1||11.3||663||59|
|Panasonic FZ1000 (⇒ lft | rgt)||1-inch||20.0||5472||3648||4K/30p||22.1||11.7||517||64|
|Panasonic GH2 (⇒ lft | rgt)||Four Thirds||15.9||4608||3456||1080/60i||21.2||11.3||655||60|
|Sony RX100 IV (⇒ lft | rgt)||1-inch||20.0||5472||3648||4K/30p||22.8||12.6||591||70|
Many modern cameras cannot only take still pictures, but also record videos. The M Typ 240 indeed provides for movie recording, while the M9 does not. The highest resolution format that the M Typ 240 can use is 1080/25p.
Beyond body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The M9 and the M Typ 240 are similar in the sense that both have an optical viewfinder. The latter is useful for getting a clear image for framing even in brightly lit environments. The following table reports on some other key feature differences and similarities of the Leica M9, the Leica M Typ 240, and comparable cameras. If you need more detail on the specs, you can find comprehensive listings, for example, in the dpreview camera hub.
|Leica M9 (⇒ rgt)||optical||no||2.5||230||fixed||no||4000||2.0||no||no|
|Leica M Typ 240 (⇒ lft)||optical||no||3.0||920||fixed||no||4000||3.0||no||no|
|Canon G9 X Mark II (⇒ lft | rgt)||no||no||3.0||1040||fixed||YES||2000||8.2||6||no|
|Canon 1D X Mark II (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||YES||3.2||1620||fixed||YES||8000||16.0||no||no|
|Canon G9 X (⇒ lft | rgt)||no||no||3.0||1040||fixed||YES||2000||6.0||6||no|
|Canon M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||no||no||3.0||1040||tilting||YES||4000||4.6||5||no|
|Canon G7 X (⇒ lft | rgt)||no||no||3.0||1040||tilting||YES||2000||6.5||7||no|
|Leica M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||3.0||1037||fixed||no||4000||5.0||no||no|
|Leica SL (⇒ lft | rgt)||4400||YES||3.0||1040||fixed||YES||8000||11.0||no||no|
|Leica M Typ 262 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||3.0||921||fixed||no||4000||3.0||no||no|
|Leica M8 (⇒ lft | rgt)||optical||no||2.5||230||fixed||no||8000||2.0||no||no|
|Panasonic FZ1000 (⇒ lft | rgt)||2359||no||3.0||921||swivel||no||4000||12.0||13.5||no|
|Panasonic GH2 (⇒ lft | rgt)||1534||no||3.0||460||swivel||no||4000||3.0||15.6||no|
|Sony RX100 IV (⇒ lft | rgt)||2359||no||3.0||1228||tilting||no||2000||16.0||10.2||no|
Both the M9 and the M Typ 240 have been discontinued, but can regularly be found used on ebay. The M9 was replaced by the Leica M Typ 240, while the M Typ 240 was followed by the Leica M Typ 262.
So what conclusions can be drawn? Which of the two cameras – the Leica M9 or the Leica M Typ 240 – has the upper hand? The listing below highlights the relative strengths of the two models.
Advantages of the Leica M9:
- Maximized detail: Lacks an anti-alias filter to exploit the sensor's full resolution potential.
- Less heavy: Is lighter (by 95g or 14 percent) and hence easier to carry around.
- More heavily discounted: Has been available for much longer (launched in September 2009).
Arguments in favor of the Leica M (Typ 240):
- More detail: Has more megapixels (23.7 vs 18.1MP), which boosts linear resolution by 14%.
- Better moiré control: Has an anti-alias filter to avoid artificial patterns to appear in images.
- Better image quality: Scores substantially higher (15 points) in the DXO overall evaluation.
- Richer colors: Generates noticeably more natural colors (1.5 bits more color depth).
- More dynamic range: Captures a broader range of light and dark details (1.6 EV of extra DR).
- Better low-light sensitivity: Can shoot in dim conditions (1.1 stops ISO advantage).
- Broader imaging potential: Can capture not only stills but also 1080/25p video.
- Larger screen: Has a bigger rear LCD (3.0" vs 2.5") for image review and settings control.
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (920k vs 230k dots).
- Faster burst: Shoots at higher frequency (3 vs 2 flaps/sec) to capture the decisive moment.
- Better sealing: Is splash and dust sealed for shooting in inclement weather conditions.
- More affordable: Was released into a lower priced segment (13 percent cheaper at launch).
- More modern: Reflects 3 years of technical progress since the M9 launch.
If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the M Typ 240 is the clear winner of the contest (13 : 3 points). However, the relative importance of the various individual camera aspects will vary according to personal preferences and needs, so that you might like to apply corresponding weights to the particular features.
In any case, while the specs-based evaluation of cameras is instructive in revealing their potential as photographic tools, it says nothing about, for example, the handling, responsiveness, and overall imaging quality of the M9 and the M Typ 240 in practical situations. User reviews that are available, for instance, at amazon can sometimes shed light on these issues, but such feedback is all too often partial, inconsistent, and inaccurate. This is why hands-on reviews by experts are important. The table below summarizes the assessments of some of the best known camera review sites. You can find the full text of the reviews, respectively, at cameralabs.com, dpreview.com, ephotozine.com, imaging-resource.com, and photographyblog.com.
|Leica M9 (⇒ rgt)||-||-||4.5/5||4.5/5||-||2009||7,999||discont.||check|
|Leica M Typ 240 (⇒ lft)||-||-||4/5||-||-||2012||6,950||discont.||check|
|Canon G9 X Mark II (⇒ lft | rgt)||..||..||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||2017||529||latest||check|
|Canon 1D X Mark II (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||89/100 Gold||4.5/5||5/5||4.5/5||2016||5,999||latest||check|
|Canon G9 X (⇒ lft | rgt)||HiRec||-||4.5/5||4/5||4.5/5||2015||529||discont.||check|
|Canon M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||-||-||reviewed||4/5||2015||499||discont.||check|
|Canon G7 X (⇒ lft | rgt)||HiRec||77/100 Silver||4.5/5||3.5/5||4.5/5||2014||699||discont.||check|
|Leica M10 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||-||4/5||-||4.5/5||2017||6,595||latest||check|
|Leica SL (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||84/100||4.5/5||4/5||4/5||2015||7,450||latest||check|
|Leica M Typ 262 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||-||-||-||-||2015||5,195||discont.||check|
|Leica M8 (⇒ lft | rgt)||-||HiRec||-||-||-||2006||5,499||discont.||check|
|Panasonic FZ1000 (⇒ lft | rgt)||HiRec||82/100 Gold||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||2014||899||discont.||check|
|Panasonic GH2 (⇒ lft | rgt)||86/100 HiRec||79/100 Silver||4.5/5||4.5/5||5/5||2010||1,499||discont.||check|
|Sony RX100 IV (⇒ lft | rgt)||HiRec||85/100 Gold||4/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||2015||999||discont.||check|
Care should be taken when interpreting the review scores above, though. The assessments were made in relation to similar cameras of the same technological generation. A score, therefore, has to be seen in close connection to the price and market introduction time of the camera, and comparing ratings of very distinct cameras or ones that are far apart in terms of their release date have little meaning. It should also be noted that some of the review sites have over time altered the way they render their verdicts.
In case you would like to check on the differences and similarities of other camera models, just make your choice using the following search menu. Alternatively, you can follow any of the listed hyperlinks for comparisons that others found interesting. If you cannot find the camera you are interested in, please contact me, and I will try to locate and add the respective data to the application.
- Canon 750D vs Canon M5
- Canon G1 X Mark III vs Fujifilm X-T2
- Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Canon 5DS
- Kodak S-1 vs Panasonic G5
- Leica Digilux 3 vs Canon 5D Mark II
- Leica SL vs Nikon D3
- Nikon D750 vs Sony A7R II
- Olympus E-1 vs Olympus E-620
- Olympus E-M1 II vs Panasonic G80
- Panasonic G9 vs Fujifilm X-T20
- Sony A7R II vs Fujifilm X-T2
- Sony A900 vs Sony A850