Jump to content

Sell M to get M10?


vladik

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Would you sell Leica M 240 in perfect condition planning to buy M10? I have look at SL but rejected it, as I want to use M lenses on M body. Yes, I know we do not know what the M10 specification going to be, but lets assume that it will have a SL sensor and T viewfinder and no video that I am not interested in anyway. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you sell Leica M 240 in perfect condition planning to buy M10? I have look at SL but rejected it, as I want to use M lenses on M body. Yes, I know we do not know what the M10 specification going to be, but lets assume that it will have a SL sensor and T viewfinder and no video that I am not interested in anyway. Thank you.

 

Nope!

What do you dislike about your current camera that you think the next model is going to address?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm keeping my M-246 because there's nothing in the pipeline (rumor or otherwise) to replace it.  As for the M-P 240, I did sell it last week. That sounds more ballsy than it really is.  I also have a SL, A7rII and GX8.  Plenty to use until the M10's true specs are revealed.  If the M10 is a nice upgrade over the M-240, then I'll buy and sell either the A7rII or SL (that's a whole other kettle of fish).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a silly post. Send me your 240 if you don't want it.

The topic proves that the thickness and the lack of wifi is a real hangover for some people, despite the fact that some influential people here can get mad about this opinion and come on and on with millimeters to prove that this is a nonsense opinion.

So far, I'm glad that Leica seems to listen, but I did not buy the M240, for an extra important reason, which is the yellow cast of the images

Edited by otto.f
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you sell Leica M 240 in perfect condition planning to buy M10? I have look at SL but rejected it, as I want to use M lenses on M body. Yes, I know we do not know what the M10 specification going to be, but lets assume that it will have a SL sensor and T viewfinder and no video that I am not interested in anyway. Thank you.

Yes but only if it includes an EVF as good as on the SL.

 

[emoji57]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you sell Leica M 240 in perfect condition planning to buy M10? I have look at SL but rejected it, as I want to use M lenses on M body. Yes, I know we do not know what the M10 specification going to be, but lets assume that it will have a SL sensor and T viewfinder and no video that I am not interested in anyway. Thank you.

 

Good question that you're not alone to ask i suspect. AFAIC my M240 has never been faulty but its LV/EVF mode is so sluggish and noisy that don't use it anymore. It will remain the best digital RF ever made so far and the only M with video features if current rumors prove to be true so i don't expect its s/h value to drop too much when the 'M10' is officially announced. I may be wrong of course but rumors are just rumors anyway so i will wait and see what happens next January certainly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An EVF on an M will always be an auxiliary system, no matter what...

And carry on into the future with the only truly relevant limitations the M has in it's prime role... calibration, focus shift with some lenses and the limited useable range without an external finder? You would tie the M to that, even if potential new customers wanted a beautifully simple, high quality, manual focus photographic tool to use with the best lenses ever available?

 

I understand that for many of you that the M is an optical rangefinder, but if you read through the forum, the vast majority of complaints about the M system, such as focussing accuracy, shift on lenses, frame lines, viewfinder magnification when using longer focal lengths.. it goes on and on, often for pages and pages... and I've only scratched the surface.... if you got rid of those issues, not only would more people buy an M, but those who deserted it for Sony or Fuji would come back.

 

All these negatives directly affect the one thing we ALL agree on, that the M lenses are the smallest, highest quality and most creatively varied (how many different M lenses are there from over the years, all with very different rendering or particular qualities, still available on the new or used market for example).

 

The camera should be a slave to the lenses, not the other way round.

 

It's virtually 2017... time to accept it is no longer the 1950's... Continue with all the same materials and build quality... and design cues... and produce a digital rangefinder with an EVF of the same standard or higher than the current SL for now, and then continue improving it over the coming years.

 

And yes, continue to produce an OVF version for those that see the M as an OVF and nothing else... and at least you will leave them with something to continue to complain about... or argue over...!

 

At least it would make the M range relevant and desirable for people interested in photography and bring more potential Leica owners into the fold. And for those that argue 'if you don't like the OVF or find it limiting, buy another camera', are you REALLY that arrogant that you would advise others to leave Leica to keep your own prejudices intact? Rather than give more people the option of using the worlds best camera system by 'allowing' a digital rangefinder version to sit alongside your optical version?

 

Really?

Edited by Bill Livingston
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure to follow you 100% here but my poor english is perhaps the culprit. The M being a rangefinder and remaining so hopefully, any LV/EVF feature will be accessory by nature won't it. Not a reason to have a sluggish one though. I'd expect a fast EVF instead so that my little A7s mod would not be my most used camera anymore as it should not be for an old Leica fan like yours truly.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking a digital rangefinder option to the range... not a separate EVF. I don't like the idea of an auxiliary viewfinder on such a small and neat camera. Although I use mine on my M-P sometimes, its awkward looking and feels like a 'Heath Robinson' solution to a problem that is better fixed by an alternative M version.

 

Its still a rangefinder, but an EVF rangefinder hybrid... the focus and field of view of the lens can be digital (off the sensor) but still with a rangefinder type focussing as an option (other options can be digitally in place - such as focus peaking - the user selects a preference).

 

In other words, similar to the design Leica filed a while back that people wrote about, maybe a year or so ago... If you could possibly make it the size and shape of an M4, without the film advance and rewind... and available in chrome and black paint options, with the traditional Leica script on the top plate, it would be my perfect digital camera...

 

I may even buy both versions of they looked like that. The OVF body version for my 35 and 50 lenses... and the EVF Hybrid body for my 90 and soon to buy 21... a complete Leica M outfit with none of the disadvantages and all of the advantages... and Leica would sell a LOT more M cameras and increase its customer base.

 

Whats not to like...?

Edited by Bill Livingston
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to forget that focus shift is as much an issue with TTL focusing systems as with rangefinders as soon as one uses stop-down aperture after focusing wide open (like any SLR for instance)

 

I'm rather confused by a "digital rangefinder with an EVF". Surely any rangefinder system, regardless of the way the image is projected onto the eye, will sufffer from a disconnect between lens and meausuring system. Apart from the idea of two little cameras in an optical-digital setting, like discussed here regularly, anything else makes no sense; any full EVF system would have less drawbacks.

 

This whole discussion dates back to the 1960-ies an no new argument has emerged since.

 

Anyway, rather irrelevant in discussing a new M camera....

 

By the way, the improvements of the rangefinder of the 240 have largely obliterated any inaccuracy and calibration issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...