Herr Barnack Posted March 27, 2014 Share #1 Posted March 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here is the latest review of the M240 that I stumbled upon just today. Have a read and let us hear your reaction to the reviewer's thoughts - Leica M (Type 240) Digital Camera Review - Reviewed.com Cameras My take: Messr. Donegan seems fixated on the cost of the camera moreso than on its capabilities. With this comment, it seems that he can't resist going into Consumer Reports mode: ...The Leica M is far, far more advanced than the M9 and M9-P, with performance that holds up much better against contemporary full-frame cameras. It does well enough to satisfy even professional shooters, but it doesn't quite reach the dizzying heights of something like the Nikon D800... I have found that people either "get" the Leica thing, or they don't. If I had to categorize Donegan, I would say that he falls into the latter category rather than the former. I have not personally seen a head to head evaluation of the image quality of the M240 vs. the D800, but I would have to guess that they are pretty much neck and neck. The D800 has significantly more megapixels - but the M240 has Leica M glass. The bottom line IMHO is that the M240 is about more than its price and whether or not the D800 may or may not be able to win by a whisker in terms of image quality at a given print size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Hi Herr Barnack, Take a look here The Leica M 240: Either you "get" it or you don't. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted March 27, 2014 Share #2 Posted March 27, 2014 What's your point? Either get it or don't. You keep trying to talk yourself out of it. Maybe the D800 is the better tool for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wk Posted March 27, 2014 Share #3 Posted March 27, 2014 Do you want to carry a Leica M, or a D800. Do you like a rangefinder or an SLR. The M240 does have Leica glass, but don't forget about Zeiss glass on the Nikon. If we are talking strictly resolution, that new Otus looks menacing. Think of it from a different view. If you are a pro and have to choose where you spend your money. Say it might be used in a studio sometimes. It is an interesting question. Ideally, yes I want the beautiful Leica, but after having to send a camera back to have it calibrated with a lens (multiple times) can be a frustrating experience. I "get it" though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted March 27, 2014 Share #4 Posted March 27, 2014 it's valid if you are coming from the latter category, which is often the case with many new members on the forum at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted March 27, 2014 Share #5 Posted March 27, 2014 I find it strange that we insist on juging cameras on technical performance or price. And when a reviewer strays from these two holy criterias, it's to consider borderline mystical mumbo jumbo like "the soul of the camera" or the "glow of the lenses". What about a photographer's actual use? Most people think that 12mp is enough for any print size, and 1600iso is enough to shoot in almost any light... That means any 2014 camera has for most pros and probably all amateur's IQ needs covered. Then the difference should be made on our use, shouldn't it? If you're a bird shooter, a Leica M is useless junk. If you shoot packshots for a living, your money would be better spent elsewhere. You want a zoom? auto-everything? The M isn't your camera... If you need a travel camera, if you like street photography, diary-style photography, available light portraits, you want a near-silent operation, to be able to zone-focus efficiently, then you wanna consider the M (and a few other). I know a guy who shoots people in the public transport, in a country where respecting privacy is a big deal... He uses a fuji X100s, and anything DxO could say about the camera is irrelevant to him : he just need something completely silent with a wide enough lens that he can frame from the hip. So I don't think there's anything to "get" or not about the M. What people should "get" is what they actually want to do with photography, then they'll pretty much know which camera to get... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted March 27, 2014 Share #6 Posted March 27, 2014 On the whole I would say it is a pretty fair review, I find it interesting that he said that 'pull iso' to 100 gives you better highlight protection! Anyone care to comment on this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted March 27, 2014 Share #7 Posted March 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you were shooting at iso200 1/4000 shutter speed it might avoid blowing highlights. Overall it reduces dynamic range though so it could only protect highlights by loosing shadow detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVT Posted March 27, 2014 Share #8 Posted March 27, 2014 I find it strange that we insist on juging cameras on technical performance or price. And when a reviewer strays from these two holy criterias, it's to consider borderline mystical mumbo jumbo like "the soul of the camera" or the "glow of the lenses". What about a photographer's actual use? Most people think that 12mp is enough for any print size, and 1600iso is enough to shoot in almost any light... That means any 2014 camera has for most pros and probably all amateur's IQ needs covered. Then the difference should be made on our use, shouldn't it? If you're a bird shooter, a Leica M is useless junk. If you shoot packshots for a living, your money would be better spent elsewhere. You want a zoom? auto-everything? The M isn't your camera... If you need a travel camera, if you like street photography, diary-style photography, available light portraits, you want a near-silent operation, to be able to zone-focus efficiently, then you wanna consider the M (and a few other). I know a guy who shoots people in the public transport, in a country where respecting privacy is a big deal... He uses a fuji X100s, and anything DxO could say about the camera is irrelevant to him : he just need something completely silent with a wide enough lens that he can frame from the hip. So I don't think there's anything to "get" or not about the M. What people should "get" is what they actually want to do with photography, then they'll pretty much know which camera to get... Very well said Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted March 27, 2014 Share #9 Posted March 27, 2014 Another boring review that can't avoid the typical "cliches" and there are quite many of them: ...M9/M9-P seemed stuck in the past, eschewing modern features, such as live view and video recording ...a Leica M-series camera is always dependably well-built. ...as Leica is usually sold less on its performance and more on its build quality (what the hell is he smoking?) ...Using a rangefinder lends a sense of deliberate purpose to your photography, as you have to think about your subject in ways you don't with other cameras. skimming out of boredom on the rest of this "review" ...Is it worth the money? Can you justify spending $7,000 on a body alone? He knows nothing about rangefinders, he can understand even less, why does he has to write a review? Instead he can get a cheap dSLR that does the actual thinking for him as he lacks brain matter, and also can get live view and full 100% framing. And all these for a lot less Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marac Posted March 27, 2014 Share #10 Posted March 27, 2014 Leica suits my style. Full stop Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share #11 Posted March 27, 2014 What's your point? Either get it or don't. You keep trying to talk yourself out of it. Maybe the D800 is the better tool for you. Jeez, didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. I just wondered what others might have to say about the review, that's all. As for my choice, it's already been made - my M240 will be here next week. He knows nothing about rangefinders, he can understand even less, why does he has to write a review? Instead he can get a cheap dSLR that does the actual thinking for him as he lacks brain matter, and also can get live view and full 100% framing. And all these for a lot less. Agreed. He apparently felt the need to write a review for some reason - probably so he could moan about the cost of the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 27, 2014 Share #12 Posted March 27, 2014 Jeez, didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. I just wondered what others might have to say about the review, that's all. As for my choice, it's already been made - my M240 will be here next week. Agreed. He apparently felt the need to write a review for some reason - probably so he could moan about the cost of the M240. You didn't rub me the wrong way. Either you get one or you don't. People spend too much time on reviews. Use your own judgement. The reviewer is not taking your photos for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayewing Posted March 27, 2014 Share #13 Posted March 27, 2014 Are we being a bit harsh towards both Carlos Danger and the review? I hope Carlos enjoys his new Leica M now that he has taken the plunge and ordered one. I note that the review was written for a website called Reviewed.com which reviews a wide variety of electrical and electronic products. The review was aimed at a general audience rather than at well informed amateur and professional photographers who read specialist photographic magazines and frequent forums like this one. I think the review is fair and does describe the characteristics of rangefinders which may be unfamiliar to many readers. The reviewer does recognise the individual nature of the Leica M and did not attempt to score it against other modern cameras. He could hardly avoid mentioning the high price as he is writing for an audience who are used to reading reviews in the hope of finding the "best buy". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted March 27, 2014 Share #14 Posted March 27, 2014 Anyone else sick of how image quality is equated with high ISO performance? Quality at normal ISO is a secondary- or non-factor in these reviews. It's degrading to photography in general when quality is measured by how well a camera manages when the user doesn't know how and when to shoot. "But though technology continued to advance, the M9/M9-P seemed stuck in the past, eschewing modern features, such as live view and video recording, that had become commonplace. Leica has remedied these faults, however, with the debut of the Leica M." Yeah, and the image quality took a hit to accommodate these irrelevant, non-photographic features. Lack of video is a "fault"? I suppose lack of "slideshow with music" is a fault, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 27, 2014 Share #15 Posted March 27, 2014 I thought it was a fair and balanced review and the author put the fanboy/hater situation in context with the final conclusion. The author said it's a good camera but there are cheaper camera's that work just as well or better. It's just facts. I personally don't care that there are cheaper cameras that do just as good or better job. I like the camera. But I would be lying if I said I didn't want the performance to match those cheaper cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted March 27, 2014 Share #16 Posted March 27, 2014 At this moment in time, where there is a massive shift in the small compact mirorless full frame designs, an area where Leica excels for decades, and our ...anonymous reviewers still insist in secondary features like... live view, or ISO 5,000,000,000,000,000 All these reviewers will soon change their opinions as the market shifts to compact mirorless products. I am curious what are they going to say then with the ...obsolete Leica which already fullfills it's specs for the future small and light mirorless? Useless reviews. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted March 27, 2014 Share #17 Posted March 27, 2014 I enjoy using both the Leica M and Nikon D800E. I am not a Pro. It depends on what an individual wants or needs. They are different tools made for different user experience and purpose. Personally, the more tools I have at my disposal, the better. Last month, I bought myself a A7r with a 55/1.8 for my India trip. People complain about it but it works for me. I shoot both film and digital. Which is medium is better? Hmmm! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share #18 Posted March 27, 2014 I thought it was a fair and balanced review and the author put the fanboy/hater situation in context with the final conclusion. The author said it's a good camera but there are cheaper camera's that work just as well or better. It's just facts. I personally don't care that there are cheaper cameras that do just as good or better job. I like the camera. But I would be lying if I said I didn't want the performance to match those cheaper cameras. Facts?? Where? I sure as find didn't see any of these supposedly "just as good as the M240 and cheaper" wonder cameras in my research prior to deciding on the M240. D800: Too damn big & heavy. Canon: No, thanks - never have cared for Canon. Leica X Vario and X2: Can't use my M lenses, shouldn't have to drop another $500 on an EVF, don't want zoom. Leica M-E: Can't see spending that much for a watered down M240. Leica M Monochrom: Very tempting, almost went there - but I need color capability too and I can barely afford one megadollar digital M. Fuji, Sony, and all the rest: Lame-ass compromises compared to the M240. JMHO, but the Big Boy (M240) was and is the only choice. I'm missing half my Nikon gear now, but it was stuff I hardly ever used anyway. Life is full of compromises. In my world, there is no room for compromise when it comes to my one true love - photography. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreed2754 Posted March 27, 2014 Share #19 Posted March 27, 2014 Hey Anthony er Carlos Congrats on making your choice. I've loved mine and have not looked back -- at least for my needs as a 40+ year rangefinder user. Also thought the review was fairly balanced given the site. There's only a small percent of the population who can comfortably afford the M so no one should be surprised people might criticize the price. Then many of us think the raison d'être are the lenses as much as the sensor and the reviewer only used one lens -- altho was fairly positive about it. Give us a review when you get you M and don't shoot your Weiner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share #20 Posted March 28, 2014 ...Give us a review when you get you M and don't shoot your Weiner. Will do. Going to Washington in three weeks with Eliot Spitzer, will post photos when we return. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.