The Leica M 240: Either you "get" it or you don't

[dant]

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:

 

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.

 

They say a D800 beats a 645D. Here is a shootout between the M240, an MM and a 645D

 

 

Camera Comparisons

 

Personally I'd rather have the Leica than the D800. I like the Leica footprint and the manual controls. It is plenty sharp. I love the MM's as well at 18mp. Beautiful grain at 2000 - 2500 iso.

[CalArts 99]

If you ask me this sort of "either you get it or you don't" is kind of emblematic of the somewhat arrogant 'Leica-speak' that can sometimes come from Leica users. The implication is pretty clear: you're either dimwitted or you're not. It smacks of a sort of elitism which I've always felt has been the sour note in respect to Leica ownership. It's like belonging to some kind of haute monde private and secret club or something.

 

One man's meat is another man's poison. Choose the tools that work for you. Let's see the photographs (after all, isn't that what it's all about?) But in the meantime why the self-congratulatory, patting on the back, pep rally sort of thing? If one decides to buy a particular tool set for whatever personal reasons, there's really no need to justify it (and publicly) in this sort of manner (i.e., "either you get it or you don't.") It's already justified (because it was your own personal choice!)

 

Anyway, congratulations on your purchase of the M240. Put it to good use. You've made the right choice. But only because it was your choice.

[Herr Barnack]

@CalArts 99,

 

Thank you for your observations. When I titled this thread and used the "either you get it or you don't" phrase, no elitism or arrogance was intended; rather I was thinking back to personal experience with a friend/colleague who doesn't get it. Allow me to elaborate and perhaps you and others will understand where I'm coming from.

 

At present, my shooting is 100% film based. I develop all my own film, but do not currently have a darkroom. When I need exhibition quality prints, I go to a friend who is a commercial photographer. He is also extremely capable in terms of Photoshop and inkjet printing.

 

This gent is a confirmed Nikon shooter and uses a D800 for his commerical shoots. He is very talented in terms of studio lighting technique and in every other facet of photography. He is also very opinionated.

 

My friend thinks the D800 is a better built camera than anything ever made by Leica. He also thinks that there is no advantage to shootng with Leica M gear and that Leica's legendary build quality of both cameras and lenses, the image quality of Leica glass, and the handcrafted nature of the lenses and cameras is nothing more than marketing hogwash and baseless hype. He thinks people who pay the prices that Leica M gear commands - whether new or used - are blinded by the hype and are just plain dumb, gullible and/or in need of ego validation via the carrying around of photographic status symbols. He thinks "the Leica thing" is all just a bunch of crap.

 

I like this guy and he is an outstandingly talented photographer and printer, but his film photography bashing and Leica mocking wears thin. Clearly, he does not get it.

 

This is the type of person I was referring to; it seems that he is operating from a thought process based on some sort of reverse Leica elitism and considers Leica users to be dimwitted.

 

I hope this helps to clarify where I was coming from.

[diogenis]

My friend thinks the D800 is a better built camera than anything ever made by Leica. He also thinks that there is no advantage to shootng with Leica M gear and that Leica's legendary build quality of both cameras and lenses, the image quality of Leica glass, and the handcrafted nature of the lenses and cameras is nothing more than marketing hogwash and baseless hype. He thinks people who pay the prices that Leica M gear commands - whether new or used - are blinded by the hype and are just plain dumb, gullible and/or in need of ego validation via the carrying around of photographic status symbols. He thinks "the Leica thing" is all just a bunch of crap.

 

This is exactly the type of a debate one should avoid at all costs. Besides lenses that you can have some direct comparisons using mtf graphs, it is very difficult to describe "legendary build quality" Now that you actually have your camera ready, and he can try and use it I bet he will surely change his mind. Because even if both products can produce stunning results, one of the two connects you directly to the scene via a lightweight package, a bright and extra big, superb, optical viewfinder with great eye relief, that gives you total control in the scene/subject you are shooting, the other is heavy, bulky, with a vf that introduces tunnel vision, dark, noisy,

I'm not sure how one can justify these reasons, but each on it's own

[mwilliamsphotography]

There is no debate.

 

The Leica M in any iteration is a Rangefinder.

 

A Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/Pentax/Hasselblad/PhaseOne/Pentax/etc., etc.., etc., are not.

 

End of comparison.

 

To each their own way of making photographs.

 

- Marc

[CalArts 99]

There is no debate.

 

The Leica M in any iteration is a Rangefinder.

 

A Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/Pentax/Hasselblad/PhaseOne/Pentax/etc., etc.., etc., are not.

 

End of comparison.

 

To each their own way of making photographs.

 

- Marc

 

Then do I "get it" if I'm using a Nikon SP or a Canon 7?

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Then do I "get it" if I'm using a Nikon SP or a Canon 7?

 

No.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Then do I "get it" if I'm using a Nikon SP or a Canon 7?

 

How would I know if you "get it"?

 

The discussion was regarding things like the M240 verses a D800 … one is a rangefinder and the other isn't.

 

IMO, there is nothing else to get. No elitism, competitive crap, or combative retorts. One is one thing, and the other is another thing. Who cares which you prefer, use, or what works for you or doesn't?

 

Use what suits you.

 

- Marc

[swamiji]

There is no debate.

 

The Leica M in any iteration is a Rangefinder.

 

A Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/Pentax/Hasselblad/PhaseOne/Pentax/etc., etc.., etc., are not.

 

End of comparison.

 

To each their own way of making photographs.

 

- Marc

 

A DSLR user can get the M perfectly well, and just not like it. Just as I don't care for DSLRs. It has nothing to do with what is better, it's how you react to your tools. I would not criticize a person for buying a D800, it's a perfectly wonderful tool... Just not for me.

[mwilliamsphotography]

A DSLR user can get the M perfectly well, and just not like it. Just as I don't care for DSLRs. It has nothing to do with what is better, it's how you react to your tools. I would not criticize a person for buying a D800, it's a perfectly wonderful tool... Just not for me.

 

Yes to all of the above.

 

I didn't say differently.

 

However, who determines if one tool is better than the other? Only you can for you, and only I can for me.

 

It may be dissected even farther than that. Only you can decide which type of tool is best for any given creative objective.

 

So, someone blustering on about their D800 being better, or another person implying that D800 user doesn't get it because they prefer their M, and yet a third person saying both are crap and their Sony A7R is better than either … sounds like mass insecurity.

 

Personally, I do not eschew 35mm DSLRs, M Rangefinders, Mirror-less, or Medium Format … and use what suits me, when it suits me, for the work that suits me.

 

That said, I like working with a rangefinder when possible. What makes it different from all the others is what I gravitate to creatively.

 

- Marc

[joesqua]

The M Typ 240 is really another category of camera. It is a hybrid. Because of the ability to "screen focus" a large variety of lenses of focal lengths impossible to see in the M's optical viewfinder, it behaves like a mirror-less camera. With either the rear screen or the EVF it becomes the equivalent of a DSLR without the mirror complications. For those whose enjoyment rests in the 35/50/90 range, the optical viewfinder fills the bill. They who have an arsenal of R lenses will enjoy their "reflex" lenses in a non-reflex environment. Seems to me any argument of M 240 vs DSLR is moot.

[CalArts 99]

How would I know if you "get it"?

 

The discussion was regarding things like the M240 verses a D800 … one is a rangefinder and the other isn't.

 

IMO, there is nothing else to get. No elitism, competitive crap, or combative retorts. One is one thing, and the other is another thing. Who cares which you prefer, use, or what works for you or doesn't?

 

Use what suits you.

 

- Marc

 

Relax, relax. It was an attempt (that clearly failed) at a joke. I was just trying to bring some levity. I thought that's what using the laughing emoticon was meant to express (?)

 

(Regardless, it does appear that the OP's thread was specifically about the Leica as a rangefinder, and not just rangefinders versus single lens reflexes in general.)

[Herr Barnack]

I thought my original post was about the faux objections people who fixate only on the price of a camera raise in lambasting the M 240, when their real issue is the fact that they are either unwilling or unable to purchase the camera and then resort to sour grapes broadcasting about it.

 

Based on the ensuing kerfuffle, I must have been wrong in thinking that I knew what my own post was really about. Jeezuz - I give up!

[Lazytiger]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Just shot my d800 and my M 240 head to head in my first real shooting since buying the M. While the d800 files are all expectedly detailled and sharp, some of the Leica shots just have that certain extra magic.

 

In direct comparison, the Nikon shots look great, but also a little boring to me. Ordinary. However, since I can work much faster with the d800, I do prefer it for situations with a lot of movement, especially when using a shallow dof. This might be due to my lack of experience with rangefinder focussing.

 

Here are two shots from that shooting. Different light, different location, different expression. Same model, same hat

 

Leica M, 50 Lux:

http://www.caesarfilm.de/Pics/Caesar-140326-01_LeicaM.jpg

 

 

d800, 85/1.8:

http://www.caesarfilm.de/Pics/Caesar-140326-01-d800.jpg

[Richardgb]

Having come to this thread late, but having read, and re-read the OP and subsequent comments, I think the waters have been well and truly muddied.

 

The OP is correct that a Leica is more than just about money.

 

There have been many, many, in this forum who have opined that Leica's quality control could be a lot better. Yes, when you get a good 'un, everything's wonderful, but some here seem to have short memories.

 

Next the 'get it' point. OK, there are those here, not just Leica die-hards, who are perfectly capable of making their own minds up about which camera to use / purchase. But, I suggest, there is a much larger number who do read reviews, either for entertainment or to justify the reason for their purchase, or - heavens - for information. Look at the comments which follow Huff, Rockwell, or Reid's (to name but 3) pronouncements.

 

Concerning reviewers, many of the comments here seem to ignore that most reviewers - at least those below a certain age - have probably had much less experience with a rangefinder than with any other camera type: this is inevitable given the market over the past few years. The result is that some of their verdicts may not agree with those who fell in love with the M3, moved into the digital age with an M8/M9/M240 and say (hope!) they won't have to buy another camera. The reviewers have their opinion, supported by whatever qualitative or quantitative evidence they care to produce, and that's it. They are not 'wrong', but they simply, to use the very apt phrase of the OP, haven't 'got it'.

[Herr Barnack]

What Richardgb said.

[diogenis]

....

However, who determines if one tool is better than the other? Only you can for you, and only I can for me.

 

- Marc

 

In reality everyone should have been able to answer this question with ease.

Leica is now very well established in the market with all it's digital models out for many years, and photo's that showing the potential of the cameras. So are the dSLRs.

 

Questions need to be answered prior choosing one or the other system is among others:

+Do I have the cash for the stuff? (Body+lenses)

+Do I prefer compact&light over bulky and heavy?

+Do I prefer gattling shots or relaxed shooting?

 

What one Shouldn't ask is (among others):

Which one is better built?

Which one has better technology?

Which one has more advanced technology?

Because all the above are vague questions that have nothing to do with your goal which is how to capture great shots. There is also one small exception though:

Leica will have the upper hand (at least for me and) at least for handling with those wonderfull mechanical levers that give great feedback to the user, as well as the rangefinder patch&viewfinder together: it's not entirely the end result but also a matter of how you walk the path as well.

 

And I believe, that this last experience is one that is very difficult to be communicatd among users that are used with the latest automations from products coming from Canon, Nikon etc. You cannot easily communicate the "feel" of a Leica and this is where the reality gives its place to the myths about top build, build like a tank and more...

[jdsheepdog]

I cannot help but wonder if long history with a rangefinder has much to do with it. I used an M3 (still) for so long that it really has become instinctive.

 

My only SLR was a Canon A1, which I never really became used to, and it suffered from electrical faults to the final extent that I had to carry the (expensive) battery in my pocket and put it into the camera when I wanted to use it. The mirror "blink" I hated, and trying to assess DoF with the lens shut down was a waste of time. I used the scale on the lens, just like my M3.

 

Which of course, continued to work perfectly, as it always did.

 

My M8 I did not like for a variety of reasons, mostly the IR filter requirement, and not really knowing what the focal length was of what lens was in use. Again, it had electrical problems and was replaced by Leica.

 

My MP and M3 in the digital age suffer from the unavoidable argument of immediacy of result, and the the MP, jewel that it is, must go to help fund the M 240. The M3 will go with me to the grave, it is far too much an old friend to part with, even if it gets used less and less.

 

My M 240 I have fallen instantly in love with. It works for me just like my M3, and I find many of the functions being argued about here simply irrelevant. I go somewhere, take a couple of shots to confirm exposure, and then use the camera pretty much manually, and it just works.

 

I guess what I don't "get," in the words of the OP is an SLR, or worse, a DSLR, which for me just adds layer upon layer of complication to what was for me, problematic in the first place.

 

Do I "get" the M, (any M,) you bet. It is everything else that I don't get.

[hepcat]

@CalArts 99,

 

My friend thinks the D800 is a better built camera than anything ever made by Leica. He also thinks that there is no advantage to shootng with Leica M gear and that Leica's legendary build quality of both cameras and lenses, the image quality of Leica glass, and the handcrafted nature of the lenses and cameras is nothing more than marketing hogwash and baseless hype. He thinks people who pay the prices that Leica M gear commands - whether new or used - are blinded by the hype and are just plain dumb, gullible and/or in need of ego validation via the carrying around of photographic status symbols. He thinks "the Leica thing" is all just a bunch of crap.

 

 

I cannot help but wonder if long history with a rangefinder has much to do with it. I used an M3 (still) for so long that it really has become instinctive.

 

I guess what I don't "get," in the words of the OP is an SLR, or worse, a DSLR, which for me just adds layer upon layer of complication to what was for me, problematic in the first place.

 

Do I "get" the M, (any M,) you bet. It is everything else that I don't get.

 

Carlos, I'm a little late to the party too, but your friend is right. Frankly the "Leica thing" IS largely advertising hype and a "bunch of crap." And I'm a forty-year owner/user of Leitz/Leica equipment. The brand doesn't do a thing for anyone. The red dot does NOT ad value to the product.. What is NOT "advertising hype" or a "load of crap" however is the working differences between a coupled-rangefinder/bright line viewfinder camera and a DSLR. They can co-exist nicely in any photographer's arsenal, but I've made my choice and that's to return entirely to shooting digital with a rangefinder camera (in my case the M9-P and the M8.)

 

Rangefinder cameras have a completely different set of requirements for being able to use them proficiently in making images than do DSLRs. That's what reviews, reviewers, and folks who are frustrated with them because they try to use them like an SLR.

 

Rangefinder cameras use primes, often large-aperture primes. The M series doesn't have to compete head to head on ISO because often there is a three stop advantage in lenses. Primes cause you to move to change perspective... and work with the focal length. They can (and should be) zone focused for maximum speed of use. You learn to frame based on your knowledge of your viewfinder, not what you see in the tunnel. There is no mirror black out. There are many, many things that those of us who shoot with this gear appreciate about it that SLRs just can't do. THAT, my friend is what makes Leica special. There is no "glow" (unless something's broken or you've got serious flare issues) or "it" that you buy when you buy a Leica. What you buy with a Leica is a different way of working. A different way of seeing, and a different method of accomplishing similar goals. It's not for everybody, but that's ok with me. I really don't care what anybody else thinks I "ought" to be doing, or what my gear "ought" to be able to accomplish. I know what it can do, and I use it to its fullest and maximize it's potential. THAT is why you buy Leica.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul J]

Facts?? Where?

 

Nikon D800e £1599

Leica M240 £4799 (plus £660 grip if you need USB)

 

Fact.