Where to invest, new M240 or used Noctilux 0.95?

[digitalfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Clarification: The M240 to use 'focus peaking', which is the feature I was addressing, which demands (I believe) the fitting of the EVF. Hence, extra bulk, extra cost, both significant. The form factor is then no longer 'classic Leica'. Not always a deal breaker , but a consideration.

 

Yes I have handled one briefly, but without the EVF and other 'add-ons'. My immediate reaction was, 'wow, it is thicker and heavier', but I know I could easily adapt to that, as I did when moving from M6 to M7 to M8 to M9.

 

P.S. My M9 is 'mini' alongside the M240, by a small margin. But then my 111f is mini alongside any of them!

 

Focus peaking does not require the EVF. Also I believe the OP was referring to the rangefinder when talking about the M240 and Nocti. I personally experience far better results focusing with M240 rangefinder vs M9 rangefinder despite the fact that Leica says they are the same. There is clearly something different with the M240's rangefinder and the results are a much improved hit rate on focus.

 

The M9 and M240 are the same size, so not sure what you are talking about. And how is the M240 no longer 'classic Leica'?...its the same form factor.

[swamiji]

Focus peaking does not require the EVF. Also I believe the OP was referring to the rangefinder when talking about the M240 and Nocti. I personally experience far better results focusing with M240 rangefinder vs M9 rangefinder despite the fact that Leica says they are the same. There is clearly something different with the M240's rangefinder and the results are a much improved hit rate on focus.

 

The M9 and M240 are the same size, so not sure what you are talking about. And how is the M240 no longer 'classic Leica'?...its the same form factor.

 

The M9 and the M240 are not the same size, they may have the same outer measurements but they are certainly not the same size. Two reasons, first is the Thumbwheel, and secondly is the LCD screen. The small thumbwheel does stick out slightly, increasing the dimensions slightly. The larger LCD screen adds to the size and appearance. In neither camera the LCD screen is recessed, both have the appearance of the screen being bolted on. Thus the LCD screen could be made larger without changing the specs, but it does increase the mass. More over, the larger LCD does give the M240 the appearance of a larger camera.

 

On your first point the M240 does use the same rangefinder mechanism, any improvements you find in focusing is purely psychological in nature, unless your M9 rangefinder was out of adjustment.

 

It may be contrary to the flow of many discussions here, but I have several friends who have sold the M240's and have repurchased a M9P's. So from my perspective a Noctilux is certainly a better choice.

[digitalfx]

The M9 and the M240 are not the same size, they may have the same outer measurements but they are certainly not the same size. Two reasons, first is the Thumbwheel, and secondly is the LCD screen. The small thumbwheel does stick out slightly, increasing the dimensions slightly. The larger LCD screen adds to the size and appearance. In neither camera the LCD screen is recessed, both have the appearance of the screen being bolted on. Thus the LCD screen could be made larger without changing the specs, but it does increase the mass. More over, the larger LCD does give the M240 the appearance of a larger camera.

 

On your first point the M240 does use the same rangefinder mechanism, any improvements you find in focusing is purely psychological in nature, unless your M9 rangefinder was out of adjustment.

 

It may be contrary to the flow many discussions here, but I have several friends who have sold the M240's and have repurchased a M9P's. So from my perspective a Noctilux is certainly a better choice.

 

Im not alone in experiencing better results with the M240 rangefinder, its most defiantly not "psychological in nature". My images are testament to that . Do a search, there are at least 20 threads on the topic. You wont find a single user saying the M9 has a better rangefinder.

 

So are you trying to say when you "hold" the M240, the thumbwheel make it feel thicker?

Strange, because when I hold my 240 I dont hold the thumbwheel. Its to the right of my thumb.

 

The difference between the the M9 and M240 is protrusions only. Otherwise the thickness is exactly the same. The difference is the protrusions not the actual body. If you can indeed "feel" a difference in the two you have a magic touch sir. I own both and cannot tell the difference.

[erl]

OK, I stand corrected re the focus peaking. I was under the impression the EVF was required for that function. I also agree the new framelines are better and apparently more accurate.

 

However, the body is definitely fatter. Noticeable immediately you pick it up.

My 'classic leica' comment refers to the EVF 'bump' on top which breaks the traditional smooth line of older M's.

 

None of this a 'deal breaker' for me, but neither is it a 'deal maker', so far.

[swamiji]

Im not alone in experiencing better results with the M240 rangefinder, its most defiantly not "psychological in nature". My images are testament to that . Do a search, there are at least 20 threads on the topic. You wont find a single user saying the M9 has a better rangefinder.

 

So are you trying to say when you "hold" the M240, the thumbwheel make it feel thicker?

Strange, because when I hold my 240 I dont hold the thumbwheel. Its to the right of my hand.

 

The difference between the the M9 and M240 is protrusions only. Otherwise the thickness is exactly the same. The difference is .19" (thats less than a 1/4 inch), again the protrusions not the actual body. If you can indeed "feel" a difference in the two you have a magic touch sir. I own both and cannot tell the difference.

 

The observation that the new rangefinder is more accurate, may just be new car syndrome. A common problem

 

Protrusions must be taken in account when making observations about the appearance of an object. I have the same frame for the last 40 years, however I have this protrusion, that keeps me from wearing 32 inch pants. Same for the M240, the half case manufacturer has to make allowance for the larger LCD screen and the thumbwheel.

[digitalfx]

the body is not fatter, exact same size. The measurements you see published include the protrusion of the thumb wheel, which is to the right of your thumb.

 

I have both bodies and when I put them together (bottom to bottom) the thickness is identical. No way you can feel a difference.

[digitalfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The observation that the new rangefinder is more accurate, may just be new car syndrome. A common problem

 

Protrusions must be taken in account when making observations about the appearance of an object. I have the same frame for the last 40 years, however I have this protrusion, that keeps me from wearing 32 inch pants. Same for the M240, the half case manufacturer has to make allowance for the larger LCD screen and the thumbwheel.

 

Ok swamiji, you are correct. I have no idea what im talking about. Thanks for straightening this out, Im going to sell my M240 immediately now that I know its all my imagination. Im really noticing the fatter body too now that you point this out. I cant believe it took so long to see the light.

 

thanks

[swamiji]

are you serious? since you clearly dont have the camera, how do you speak with such authority?

 

Note, I never mentioned the .16 difference. I agree it's trivial. But the appearance is more than actual dimensions.

[erl]

digitalfix, clearly you have the perfect opportunity to do the comparison having both cams. I did not put mine beside the M240 I handled but my instant impression was it is heavier and fatter. The M9 is literally an extension of my hand. I am that familiar with it. Blindfolded, I would have felt the difference with the M240.

If I am wrong, then I was deluded.

[digitalfx]

Note, I never mentioned the .16 difference. I agree it's trivial. But the appearance is more than actual dimensions.

 

so you do have an M240 then and you can see the 5/32" difference? or you are going by photos and speculation?

[swamiji]

My experience was similar to erl's. I have a friend who was selling his M240. I borrowed it for a short time. I decided to stay with my M9. I felt it was bulkier, while the body was about the same size. The larger screen seemed to make it feel... thicker. I compared base plates, and found it to be almost the same. But I couldn't shake the bulky feeling.

[digitalfx]

LFI 3/2013

 

"Then there was the myth about the M having become thicker, a myth, it has to be said, originated in Solms. According to the published specs, the dimensions are 139 X 80 X 42mm. If this was to be taken at face value, the M would be 5mm thicker than the M9, which had already added 3.5mm compared to the film based models. Camera vendors generally quote the maximum dimensions in each direction, but usually they are excluding protruding elements. At least in this case Leica did not. With the top plate measuring 38mm and the bottom plate 37mm, the new M is nearly identical in thickness to the M9, adding 1mm at most."

 

The perception of added thickness may just be new car syndrome. A common problem

[erl]

Dimensions aside, which I don't have, the handling bulk impression which I came away with was heavier and thicker. As I said before, maybe I am deluded.

[wattsy]

Focus peaking does not require the EVF.

 

I imagine it does if you want to focus with the camera to your eye rather than with your arms outstretched in the modern 'zombie' style of digicam shooting.

[01af]

... maybe I am deluded.

No, you are not. The M (Typ 240) is thicker and heavier than the M9 indeed, by a small but noticable margin.

 

Without the battery but with memory card, body cap, and nylon carrying strap included, the M9 is 598 g; the M is 638 g. The batteries add 41 g to the M9 and 94 g to the M. So the full weight difference between the two, including batteries, is 93 g (3 1/4 oz).

 

The body's thickness difference, excluding protruding elements like buttons, LCD screen, or thumb rest, is +1 mm for the M's top cap and approx. +0.5 mm for the M's body shell and bottom plate.

[erl]

I'm sure your quoted figures are correct. The problem is, I don't hold my camera(s) by the top or bottom plate. My real world judgement is more likely to include the LCD screen. Whatever, as I said, the perception, and possibly the fact that the M240 is in reality thicker and heavier in realtime use. Again, not a deal breaker but something to adjust to.

[macjonny1]

Fact: the rangefinder mechanism has not changed. Personal "feeling" and "images" don't mean it has. Leica has not said the mech has improved.

[digitalfx]

Fact: the rangefinder mechanism has not changed. Personal "feeling" and "images" don't mean it has. Leica has not said the mech has improved.

 

Now this is a fact, hmmm. Glad to know you are an expert on this matter. I stand corrected.

[digitalfx]

No, you are not. The M (Typ 240) is thicker and heavier than the M9 indeed, by a small but noticable margin.

 

The body's thickness difference, excluding protruding elements like buttons, LCD screen, or thumb rest, is +1 mm for the M's top cap and approx. +0.5 mm for the M's body shell and bottom plate.

 

I am so glad you corrected me on this, clearly you own the M and this "noticeable" increase in size has bothered you too. I just picked up the two cameras again, and indeed the M240 feels and looks much thicker now. I really never noticed this before. I am so disappointed, this has really ruined the entire rangefinder experience. I am putting my M240 on Ebay this afternoon and writing a letter to Leica expressing my disappointment.

 

Thanks everyone for helping me see the light.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[macjonny1]

 

Now this is a fact' date=' hmmm. Glad to know you are an expert on this matter. I stand corrected.[/quote']

 

If you have one single piece of objective confirmation from Leica I stand corrected. Forum posts and "I heard it from my Leica dealer" does not apply.

 

Leica would not improve something and not advertise it. Logically that doesn't make sense. Granted Leica is not always logical. There's lots of discussion but no actual written objective proof.

 

By the way, my new MM must have a better RF mech than my old M9P cuz it feels like it. I think I have a late batch with the improved mech.