wlaidlaw Posted July 29, 2014 Share #41 Posted July 29, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I believe Olympus doubled the refresh rate from 30Hz on the VF-2 on the EP2 to 60 Hz on the VF-4 mounted on an EP-5 and of course the EFV is 2.36M dots as well. The EP-5 obviously has a very fast system, as it starts in less than a second, which makes the Leica T look a bit sick, taking I understand 4.5 seconds start up time with the EVF mounted. That would drive me potty. That is as bad as my Contax TD was in 2003. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Size of the M240 ... why do people complain?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bocaburger Posted July 29, 2014 Share #42 Posted July 29, 2014 I don't have an M9, so I did some research to ge to the bottom of this. There are some miniscule differences in the dimensions, but the differences are not of any practical consequence. A 1mm stone is also miniscule and of no practical consequence...unless it's in your shoe or passing through your urinary tract. The thumb wheel and its hump happens to be in the exact spot I have rested my right thumb flatly for the past 45 years using Leicas. This causes me to grip the (heavier) M240 in a different way, which makes it feel fatter in my hands. I've gotten used to it, it's no longer an issue, but I would not call it inconsequential. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted July 29, 2014 Share #43 Posted July 29, 2014 You wonder why people complain about (What, maybe 3mm?) but yet: I had an M8 years ago but never got on with the crop factor or the high ISO performance which was no real reflection on the camera but more to do with my pickiness!. It's merely preferences by those who might have held what was essentially the same camera for 30-40 years. Muscle memory. Why do you allow yourself your (legitimate, I think) pickiness about the M8 while not extending the same to others for their pickiness vis-à-vis the M's increased thickness? It's not like one can't feel it in use. I don't think Leica would have made it that thick if it wasn't absolutely necessary; they understand their customer's relationship with their Leicas is often not typical. Leica advertising demonstrates this. Just wondering. thanks, s-a Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 29, 2014 Share #44 Posted July 29, 2014 [...]When the M3 came out there were complaints about the size from IIIf users; [...] Yes, and many were outraged by the lever film advance - said it was going to rip the film, and that was the two-stroke M3! . Size - I know I will never get a 35mm larger than the M7. Too old to change. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted July 29, 2014 Share #45 Posted July 29, 2014 My M240 with a lens is way smaller and easier to carry than any gripped SLR I have ever worked with. And then there's the lenses - M lenses are tiny comapred to the tree stumps that go on Canon & Nikon DSLRs. As far as the weight of the M240, again - compared to a gripped DSLR, it is well within reason. I like the weight of the camera; YMMV though. People bitched about the small 2.5" LCD of the M9. Leica fixed that in the M240. People bitched about the battery capacity of the M9. Leica fixed that in the M240. Those two upgrades take up room. They won't fit in an M9 sized package. I'd rather have these two upgrades than an M9 sized camera with the small screen and a smaller, anemic battery. I have the basic M grip (#14496) on my M. True, it is bigger than the grip that fits the M film cameras - and I'm glad of that. The handgrip that fits my M4-P (#14405) is too small for my hands; the M grip #14496 fits my hands perfectly (not everyone has my gnarled and scarred hands, though - and they should consider that a blessing). My take on all the moaning about the M240 is that those who are fortunate enough to own a copy of this magnificent little machine might want to consider counting their blessings. That, and get out and use it rather than sitting around and moaning about how it is 0.000001% short of their personal idea of perfect. JMHO. So true! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 29, 2014 Share #46 Posted July 29, 2014 You wonder why people complain about (What, maybe 3mm?) but yet: Unless you're comparing to a film M, it's 1mm (top plate) between the M and M8 or M9, as determined by digital calipers. And when I put my M8.2 next to my M240, bottom plate to bottom plate, or top to top, I see virtually no difference other than the thumb wheel/rest. If you feel a difference, then that makes it real for you. I don't other than the weight. And if I have a slightly bigger lens on the M8.2 compared to the M, then I can hardly tell any difference other than balance. A lot depends on how one grips the camera. And of course perceptions may vary by individual. But the measurements are barely different and, as I mentioned, that's a big accomplishment considering the substantially larger battery in the M. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted July 30, 2014 Share #47 Posted July 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) And of course perceptions may vary by individual. That was the gist of my remarks, the actual measurements are irrelevant but I am surprised they are what they are. Looking at images it certainly looks thicker than the measurements would demonstrate, and I'm not talking about the thumb wheel and its shroud/guard, just the depth of the top deck. I don't even have an M so got no horse in this race. I was addressing Keith's original question but, again, I can see how some users would find grounds for complaint. Valid? Not my call. Thanks, s-a Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 30, 2014 Share #48 Posted July 30, 2014 It's not like one can't feel it in use. I don't even have an M so got no horse in this race. I think most people complaining about the size of the new M haven't actually used it for any significant time. Yup. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Novak Posted July 30, 2014 Author Share #49 Posted July 30, 2014 You wonder why people complain about (What, maybe 3mm?) but yet: It's merely preferences by those who might have held what was essentially the same camera for 30-40 years. Muscle memory. Why do you allow yourself your (legitimate, I think) pickiness about the M8 while not extending the same to others for their pickiness vis-à-vis the M's increased thickness? It's not like one can't feel it in use. I don't think Leica would have made it that thick if it wasn't absolutely necessary; they understand their customer's relationship with their Leicas is often not typical. Leica advertising demonstrates this. Just wondering. thanks, s-a I guess I haven't really spent enough time with my hands wrapped around a film M to be critical of the 240's dimensions. Many here have a history of Leica usage that goes back a long time ... I'd never even seen one until about eight years ago! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted July 30, 2014 Share #50 Posted July 30, 2014 The size isn't the problem—the weight and angular shape are. It's hard to pull it out of a bag without getting a finger on one of the windows and hanging it from a neck strap for a few hours can beat you up. If Leica offered the same camera but lighter, with a great EVF, and no video, I bet most of us would rather have that version. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 30, 2014 Share #51 Posted July 30, 2014 Most? Not me at any rate.... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscheffler Posted July 30, 2014 Share #52 Posted July 30, 2014 About thickness approaching that of a film M, isn't the problem also that the associated electronics and supports for the sensor extend a fair amount behind the sensor surface? A film M just had to contend with a ~1mm thick strip of film, behind which was the pressure plate and the back of the camera. The only way I could see Leica making a digital M thinner would be to take the thickness off the front of the body, but with the consequence being an extended lens mount to maintain the needed flange distance between lens and sensor surface. I doubt that will happen. And I'm pretty content with the size of the digital M, which IMO seems to be about right for the average hand. Smaller cameras have shown that UI can suffer, especially once an abundance of buttons and dials are added to the mix. I agree though that the M240, even with the newly added thumb rest and wheel, is a bit slippery to handle. Therefore I still find a Thumbs Up to be a very useful accessory. Count me also as very happy with the bigger battery. I needed at least 5 to get through a wedding with the M9, now can usually do it on two with the M240 (in both cases with the cameras set to disable sleep). That's roughly equivalent, I guess, but the fewer times I need to remove the bottom plate (usually at inopportune times), the better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 30, 2014 Share #53 Posted July 30, 2014 The size isn't the problem—the weight and angular shape are. It's hard to pull it out of a bag without getting a finger on one of the windows and hanging it from a neck strap for a few hours can beat you up. OMG! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted July 30, 2014 Share #54 Posted July 30, 2014 I'm very satisfied with what the 240 can do. It does everything I need it to do. But the only thing that would make me buy the next model would be it being made the size of the M6. Once one uses an M6 for a while, other camera bodies just don't feel as good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted July 30, 2014 Share #55 Posted July 30, 2014 I'm amused by people who complain about the size of the M and then add stuff to it (half case, grip, EVF, soft release etc.) Mine stays firmly naked. all the best Mine too - brassing up nicely Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 30, 2014 Share #56 Posted July 30, 2014 I'm very satisfied with what the 240 can do. It does everything I need it to do. But the only thing that would make me buy the next model would be it being made the size of the M6. Once one uses an M6 for a while, other camera bodies just don't feel as good. Habituation. Once I got used to the M8 the film Leica's felt skinny and uncomfortable to hold... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 30, 2014 Share #57 Posted July 30, 2014 I believe Olympus doubled the refresh rate from 30Hz on the VF-2 on the EP2 to 60 Hz on the VF-4 mounted on an EP-5 and of course the EFV is 2.36M dots as well. The EP-5 obviously has a very fast system, as it starts in less than a second, which makes the Leica T look a bit sick, taking I understand 4.5 seconds start up time with the EVF mounted. That would drive me potty. That is as bad as my Contax TD was in 2003. Wilson The T start-up time with the evf attached is actually the same as he M240...... about 2 seconds ..... and from standby is quicker .... and if you half press the shutter straight after the shot you suppress the review and can see and take another shot almost immediately with the EVF.... unlike the M Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted July 30, 2014 Share #58 Posted July 30, 2014 By the time you have the EVF on it and the MF Grip, it is not small. Wilson IMO you don't need either on the M. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 31, 2014 Share #59 Posted July 31, 2014 IMO you don't need either on the M. I do as I am using SLR lenses a lot and have very arthritic hands. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 31, 2014 Share #60 Posted July 31, 2014 The T start-up time with the eve attached is actually the same as he M240...... about 2 seconds ..... and from standby is quicker .... and if you half press the shutter straight after the shot you suppress the review and can see and take another shot almost immediately with the EVF.... unlike the M Here is the chart from DigitalVersus. Other reviews quoted similar times, sometimes even slower. Now I don’t know if there has been a firmware update since these people reviewed the T. Wilson Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/231232-size-of-the-m240-why-do-people-complain/?do=findComment&comment=2640399'>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.