The New LEICA M-P: Discreet, Faster, Harder

[bephoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like everything about M-P except the tumor on the forehead

[PeterP]

Well, I can only speak for myself, and I passed on the M8.2, M9P as well, but if I were looking for a new camera I would go for the M-P. The price difference is reasonable in my eyes.

I have to agree with this as well. I also passed on the M8.2 & M9! The M240 is an excellent camera, if I need another body sooner than later the M-P would be my choice over another M240. However, I am still waiting for the self cleaning sensor!

[colonel]

Well, I can only speak for myself, and I passed on the M8.2, M9P as well, but if I were looking for a new camera I would go for the M-P. The price difference is reasonable in my eyes.

 

Well I prefer the M240 to the P, but nevertheless the price difference in the uk is significant

 

£4,799 vs £5,650

 

Rgds

Edited September 3, 2014 by colonel

[swamiji]

Is there anything in the M-P 240 the reduces the LV blackout or improve write speeds to the SD card?

[mjh]

I am not aware of any change. That buffer size was doubled, that’s all.

[CheshireCat]

Is there anything in the M-P 240 the reduces the LV blackout or improve write speeds to the SD card?

 

Seems that, unlike the misleading claims on the US site, the M-P is not any faster.

It will just let you shoot twice as much frames in continuous mode before you are stuck waiting for the buffer to be flushed to SD.

[Ecaton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seems that, unlike the misleading claims on the US site, the M-P is not any faster.

It will just let you shoot twice as much frames in continuous mode before you are stuck waiting for the buffer to be flushed to SD.

 

AF is faster;)

[CheshireCat]

AF is faster;)

 

Yes, I wonder why the US site is not boasting: "The new M-P now has AF* !!!".

 

*Advanced Framelines

Edited September 3, 2014 by CheshireCat

[jaapv]

Because the standard M Typ 240 has the same framelines?

[CheshireCat]

Because the standard M Typ 240 has the same framelines?

 

But now they can be selected, using the "AF switch"

[swamiji]

I am not aware of any change. That buffer size was doubled, that’s all.

 

 

So how come I am not hearing the cries of fraud and lawsuits for misleading claims? Since doubling the buffer does not improve write times or live view black out. Which are the two things that effect speed the most.

[mjh]

So how come I am not hearing the cries of fraud and lawsuits for misleading claims?

Probably because no misleading claims have been made; neither write speed nor black-out times have been mentioned and burst mode speed is explicitly stated to be the same (3 fps). For some reason people expect there to be ‘hidden’ improvements not mentioned in the specs, and all I am saying is that to the best of my knowledge there aren’t any. Leica claims the buffer size is doubled and that’s what it is.

 

(Btw, there is an error in the specs as included in the manual: burst mode series are claimed to be limited to 12 shots whereas this figure is roughly doubled, due to the doubled buffer size.)

[swamiji]

The general claim of faster, is however misleading. Double buffer is not the same as double throughput.

[mjh]

The general claim of faster, is however misleading. Double buffer is not the same as double throughput.

The camera is faster if you previously used to regularly fill the buffer. Sure, if you didn’t it will make no difference, but if you did the difference may be huge. It is all explained on Leica’s website (and in the next issue of LFI); one shouldn’t just read the headlines.

[swamiji]

However, if it takes twice as long to empty the doubled buffer, the net speed is the same. You just wait longer, later. Maybe they should change the name from cache to credit, as you end up paying more later.

[mjh]

However, if it takes twice as long to empty the doubled buffer, the net speed is the same.

Not necessarily as emptying the buffer happens in parallel to shooting. If the buffer is large enough you may never have to wait.

 

The raison d'être for the buffer is that it decouples shooting and digitising the sensor data on the one hand from processing the image data and storing the file(s) on the other. If there was no buffer, the – generally slower – speed of the latter would limit overall speed, whereas with a buffer the faster process (shooting and read-out) determines the speed. At least until the buffer clogs up, and with the doubled buffer size of the M-P this happens even less often than with the M (which was already a big improvement on the M9).

[swamiji]

I get the concept, it's much like write cache on large scale raid, but in practice you are still limited by the write speed. Granted, the M240 is much faster than the M9, but it has larger files, which must be included in the overall performance estimate. Doubling the cache does help with short bursts, but does nothing with long and heavy load. Only increased write speeds can compensate.

 

However with the extremely long LV blackouts, I am not sure how one would ever fill the M240 Cache, much less the M-P240's.

Edited September 4, 2014 by swamiji

[mjh]

I get the concept, it's much like write cache on large scale raid, but in practice you are still limited by the write speed.

Only if you never stop shooting. But of course you do. So if your burst mode series never exceed about 24 shots the 2 GB buffer size means you won’t ever have to wait. If your typical burst mode series are longer you would need an even larger buffer but the key idea is that if the buffer is large enough, the writing speed ceases to be a limiting factor.

Edited September 4, 2014 by mjh

[swamiji]

the key idea is that if the buffer is large enough, the writing speed ceases to be a limiting factor.

 

To calculate that, you take the ratio of the write speed of cache and the write speed of the SD drive and multiply the size of the SD media. That gets very big very fast.

 

Luckily with the LV blackout, which is the weakest link in the M240's performance, that becomes the limiting factor. If you are not using LV, you may see some improvement, depending on style of shooting but not necessarily.

 

In practice, I have seen this technique work wonders, and I have seen it fall flat on it's face. I guess we will see...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mjh]

To calculate that, you take the ratio of the write speed of cache and the write speed of the SD drive and multiply the size of the SD media. That gets very big very fast.

In practice it would depend. For me, the buffer of the M9 or M Monochrom did rarely clog up (again, I’m not a particularly fast shooter), but sometimes it did. With the M (Typ 240) I never had any issues with buffer size, so the M-P would already be overkill for me. For others it might be a godsend and there will be still other photographers requiring an even larger buffer (and/or a faster CPU). This is something each prospective buyer of an M-P needs to consider – you need to evaluate the camera’s performance against your shooting style.

 

The M-P (Typ 240) is not the next generation of M models, rather it is a variant of the original M (Typ 240). It is basically the same camera with a couple of useful additions and a correspondingly higher price. For some the M might be the better choice while for others it may be best to wait for the next generation (to be released in 2015 or 2016, I guess) that undoubtedly will feature a faster CPU.