jaapv Posted December 28, 2015 Share #21 Posted December 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) A camera is not just a sensor. I think the statement refers to the complete camera concept. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Revisiting the Leica M9 vs the Leica M 262 at overgaard.dk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
otto.f Posted December 28, 2015 Share #22 Posted December 28, 2015 If I were overgaard I would withdraw the article, since my reputation would be at stake when so many people get a hiccup from it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 28, 2015 Share #23 Posted December 28, 2015 A bit OTT I would say, I see it as an attempt to write a Putsian piece, no harm in that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 28, 2015 Share #24 Posted December 28, 2015 If I were overgaard I would withdraw the article, since my reputation would be at stake when so many people get a hiccup from it If you post anything on the internet it will not suit somebody. Thosten's articles are almost infinitely better than most of those by the many 'pseuds' on the web. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 28, 2015 Share #25 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) If you post anything on the internet it will not suit somebody. Thosten's articles are almost infinitely better than most of those by the many 'pseuds' on the web. Agreed... I much prefer Thorsten's articles to many others, if not all others... However... I still dislike this article as I believe it to be misleading. The 262 is not at all like the M9. The only thing in common is the step on the top plate. Everything else is a 240 without the LiveView/Video (and those are essentially one function because as soon as you have live view, you have video capability). For some stupid reason, a lot of users here (non-240 users) seem to think the LiveView/Video defines the 240... Well, no, it doesn't. All of us 240 users just see it a Leica digital camera with much the same functional capability of most other serious digital cameras. And most of us choose not to use them, unless, in the particular situation we are in, they have value. For some, that's quite often, for others, its very rare... I myself never use LiveView/Video in normal day to day use, which is why they are both turned off. My son, on the other hand, uses LiveView most of the time. So, when you think about it, my M-P, set up as it is, has everything in common with the 262 and very little in common with an M9. Hence my disappointment with the article. Functionality is a user choice on the M240 and the M240P. I wish more people would understand that... Edited December 28, 2015 by Bill Livingston 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted December 28, 2015 Share #26 Posted December 28, 2015 Which is more changed from the M9? The 240 or the 262? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 28, 2015 Share #27 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) That's a provocative and disingenuous question... and you know it! Both the 240 and the 262 are a completely different camera from the M9, both externally and internally. The M series has a completely different body shell, huge changes to the rangefinder, no longer has the illumination window (that has been on the M series cameras for almost all of their life) and has completely new electronics and sensor(s) from the M9. There is nothing in common between the M9 and the M series cameras... at all. Functionally, the 262 has the LiveView/Video removed on the menu. Physically, it has a change in materials and layout on the top plate from the M, oh, and some possible refinement to the shutter and there are murmurs about changes to the 24Mp CMOS sensor (not 18! and not CCD as in the M9). Other than that, they are identical. The M9 is nothing like either... its an entirely different camera. And don't argue that they are functionally similar in use, because my M-P is identical to both (and the M8 for that matter), functionally. Because that is how I chose to set it up. You are not a fool, you know this equally as well as I do. So why the deliberately provocative question? A better question is whether the 262 is a natural upgrade for M9 users who don't need/want the additional functionality of the 240/262 series of M cameras. That is clearly Leica's target customer (with the hope that new Leica users will be tempted too...). Edited December 28, 2015 by Bill Livingston 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 28, 2015 Share #28 Posted December 28, 2015 It is a whole lot more simple. The 262 has the same relationship to the 240 as the ME has to theM9 : An affordable simplified camera to boost end- of-series sales and provide an entry level model to the successor camera. Thus the comparison is valid. 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 28, 2015 Share #29 Posted December 28, 2015 It is a whole lot more simple. The 262 has the same relationship to the 240 as the ME has to theM9 : An affordable simplified camera to boost end- of-series sales and provide an entry level model to the successor camera. Thus the comparison is valid. Precisely... and it is in those terms, thankfully, most people will think of it in the future, too. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markforce Posted December 28, 2015 Share #30 Posted December 28, 2015 It is a whole lot more simple. The 262 has the same relationship to the 240 as the ME has to theM9 : An affordable simplified camera to boost end- of-series sales and provide an entry level model to the successor camera. Thus the comparison is valid. ...but then again, the article is revisiting the M9 vs. the M262, unless I missed the reference to ME in Overgaard's piece. Overall, I am on the same page as Bill, in that the 9 and the latest 262 are completely different cameras. Just because one was followed by the ME, and the other may represent something like an ME in M240 platform terms (as far fetched as this seems to me)... doesn't make comparison any more 'obvious'. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 28, 2015 Share #31 Posted December 28, 2015 Everything else is a 240 without the LiveView/Video (and those are essentially one function because as soon as you have live view, you have video capability). Except as I mentioned in post #9... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/254782-revisiting-the-leica-m9-vs-the-leica-m-262-at-overgaarddk/?p=2956244 (and possibly some sensor changes according to mjh). Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted December 28, 2015 Share #32 Posted December 28, 2015 Regardless of the critics, I still enjoyed the article whether I agreed or disagreed. Why do we have all these blow hard positions? Can someone not write something without having these people behave like all words about the Leica are written in the bible? I appreciate the time and trouble it takes to write these articles. It was an amusing comparison. I get it. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papimuzo Posted December 28, 2015 Share #33 Posted December 28, 2015 Amazing thread! Anyway Happy New Year to all of you, full of joy and wonderful splendid pictures. :D 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 28, 2015 Share #34 Posted December 28, 2015 Except as I mentioned in post #9... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/254782-revisiting-the-leica-m9-vs-the-leica-m-262-at-overgaarddk/?p=2956244 (and possibly some sensor changes according to mjh). Jeff And as mentioned by me, too, in post 27 "Functionally, the 262 has the LiveView/Video removed on the menu. Physically, it has a change in materials and layout on the top plate from the M, oh, and some possible refinement to the shutter and there are murmurs about changes to the 24Mp CMOS sensor (not 18! and not CCD as in the M9)". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 28, 2015 Share #35 Posted December 28, 2015 Amazing thread! Anyway Happy New Year to all of you, full of joy and wonderful splendid pictures. :D Lol! Quite! Happy New Year to all of you from cold but sunny Cambridge... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted December 28, 2015 Share #36 Posted December 28, 2015 It is a whole lot more simple. The 262 has the same relationship to the 240 as the ME has to theM9 : An affordable simplified camera to boost end- of-series sales and provide an entry level model to the successor camera. Thus the comparison is valid. I can see the logic of the M-E as the surviving best-in-class CCD digital sensor. The CCD sensor has and always will have a cult following. But the Type 240 CMOS sensor is not a best-in class CMOS sensor given the price point. So a brand new dummed down version doesn't have any appeal in the face of a brand new upgraded model coming out later next year. I predict that this 262 will not sell well in the secondary market once the new digital M arrives... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 28, 2015 Share #37 Posted December 28, 2015 markforce, on 28 Dec 2015 - 15:46, said:...but then again, the article is revisiting the M9 vs. the M262, unless I missed the reference to ME in Overgaard's piece. Overall, I am on the same page as Bill, in that the 9 and the latest 262 are completely different cameras. Just because one was followed by the ME, and the other may represent something like an ME in M240 platform terms (as far fetched as this seems to me)... doesn't make comparison any more 'obvious'. Different from a technical point of view - yes. On a gearhead forum like this it is not surprising that this aspect prevails. However, from a marketing point of view, the 262 is a direct continuation of the ME, which, of course, is a late branch on the M9 tree. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted December 28, 2015 Share #38 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) I can see the logic of the M-E as the surviving best-in-class CCD digital sensor. The CCD sensor has and always will have a cult following. But the Type 240 CMOS sensor is not a best-in class CMOS sensor given the price point. So a brand new dummed down version doesn't have any appeal in the face of a brand new upgraded model coming out later next year. I predict that this 262 will not sell well in the secondary market once the new digital M arrives... This was the same prediction made about the M-E... and stocks are nearly depleted and it's being called a "classic." Edited December 28, 2015 by hepcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 28, 2015 Share #39 Posted December 28, 2015 I predict that this 262 will not sell well in the secondary market once the new digital M arrives...Now that depends entirely on the relative pricing. I don't think that any ME buyer outside this Forum gave a second thought to the sensor technology. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted December 28, 2015 Share #40 Posted December 28, 2015 This was the same prediction made about the M-E... and stocks are nearly depleted and it's being called a "classic." CMOS ≠ CCD Apples and oranges 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.