So, is Leica M 240 still worth buying?

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Put a grip on the M and it would be about the same size... Use the GPS grip to get closer to the functionality and the SL would probably look and feel smaller.

its still pretty large though. The other day I was with a friend who still uses an Olympus OM1 and 4. They made my M look enormous.

 

Small size doesn't suit everyone and obviously doesn't t suit all technologies, but for many, a truly high quality small camera is still the holy grail that the M approaches closer than most.

[hepcat]

I think the issue is the size of the camera + lens combo.  If there were smaller native lenses available at release there would be no such complaints.  As it stands, the SL and 24-90 together is HUGE.

I'd really like to see a comparison of the SL and the R8/R9.  That would give some real perspective about whether or not the SL is "HUGE."  IMHO, the R8 was "HUGE."

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gsartori]

If you were in the market for one, would you choose M or SL?

 

 

 

Desu ka? N'est-ce pas? Discuss.

If you have to ask, better you don't buy any of them

[otto.f]

No I would not buy an M240 and split up between an M9/MM and an SL 

[IkarusJohn]

I think the issue is the size of the camera + lens combo.  If there were smaller native lenses available at release there would be no such complaints.  As it stands, the SL and 24-90 together is HUGE.

 

Compared to what?  M cameras, absolutely. A7 with the high quality, desirable Zeiss lenses?  Or the equivalent R9 and 28-90 zoom attached? Or dSLR?  Not enough to make size an issue to my mind. 

 

If if size is a defining issue, stick with the M. There's no way you'll be able to add AF and what goes with it and not end up with something "HUGE" by comparison - not if you want comparable performance and quality. 

[Peter H]

Compared to what?  M cameras, absolutely. A7 with the high quality, desirable Zeiss lenses?  Or the equivalent R9 and 28-90 zoom attached? Or dSLR?  Not enough to make size an issue to my mind. 

 

If if size is a defining issue, stick with the M. There's no way you'll be able to add AF and what goes with it and not end up with something "HUGE" by comparison - not if you want comparable performance and quality. 

 

John, I don't think that continually comparing the SL to other cameras that are equally large or larger is really getting us anywhere. It would have to offer substantial advantages over those equally large cameras for the comparison to make sense. Otherwise, the size is an issue, surely.

 

Yet again I think Leica themselves have done little wrong but have managed to disappoint quite a few people in the process. That is possibly because they have a reputation for doing things differently from the major camera companies, but aside from opting for an EVF, this camera doesn't really offer anything new as far as I can see. 

 

None of the criticisms make the SL a poor camera, but clearly, for many people, it makes it less desirable than whatever it was they were vainly hoping for.

 

I was hoping for a new M with nothing more than a few small improvements, the kind of thing that technology brings about every few years, and nothing more. A better EVF would be nice, that sort of thing. An entire new camera system that needs to be compared with existing DSLRs to make sense of itself is bound to be disappointing to a lot of people who have pretty much rejected that route, or at least relegated it to the role of a necessary evil that we hope will one day be made redundant. 

 

So the M us still a unique and uniquely attractive camera for many people. Not because they are resistant to change but in many cases exactly because they perceive the possibility of change that exceeds the company's ability to provide it. No rights and wrongs or lack of understanding here, but the tone of the conversation may well need us to believe differently.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Peter,

 

I wasn't "continually" comparing the SL to equally large or larger cameras intentionally - that's why I referred to the A7 ...  What comparison makes sense to you?  The M?  Why? It's a different system, but let's look at it:

 

M(240)   width - 139 x height - 80 x thickness - 42  and weight 680g (doesn't say if that is with or without battery)

 

SL(601)  width - 147 x height - 104 x thickness - 39   and weight 847g with battery

 

So, 8mm wider, 24mm taller and 3mm thinner, and weighs 67g more.  That may result in "huge" to you, but it doesn't to me.  What else do you want to compare it to?  I saw somewhere a top down image with the SL and Noctilux, and it looked really nicely proportioned to me - and here might be common ground.  For those who find the Noctilux, 21 Summilux, 75 Summilux, 15 Distagon and 90 Summicron huge and heavy, then I get your point.  These are all lenses I use on my M cameras.

 

What I was responding to, though, Peter, was the bald criticism of the size of the camera based on no comparison at all, other than a rather misleading image on DPReview.

 

Other criticisms were cost (roughly the same as the M), weight (not sure what that was based on, but yes its 67 grams heavier), size of the lens (I haven't seen any comparison of a 2.8/4 28-90mm AF IS zoom that makes this look larger than any equivalent lens).  If people are going to criticise the camera for these issues, then they do need to be based on other similar cameras (which the M, actually, isn't).  The A7 is a fair comparison, and it is smaller and lighter - Leica's response is better EVF, better AF, better video, better image quality, better user interface and plays better with Leica lenses; and I think it is worth observing that this camera was (apparently) never intended to be small.  For me, the size of the A7 was not an advantage - it was too small for my hands, and too big to go into a pocket anyway.

 

The other criticism is the only lens on offer is too slow - one stop over the entire range.  I can't take that seriously.  The second, that there is only one lens, is similarly unrealistic.  There is no way in the World that a small company like Leica could have released a range of lenses from day one - it couldn't do that with the S, or the T, and the lens delivery for the M is similarly slow.  Nikon has retained faith with the F mount (despite what must be enormous complications with such a small throat), so their lenses right back to the AI mounts can be used (something Leica has matched).  I don't recall if Nikon managed to release an entire range of AF lenses when the F3AF was released in 1983, but I doubt it.  Similarly when Canon switched to the EF mount in 1987, how many lenses did they have on offer?  I doubt it was their entire range, and as I recall the EF mount was not compatible with Canon's existing SLR lenses.

 

I don't really understand the disappointment you express.  We've had months of discussion about this camera, and the only thing I was unsure about is what this camera would look like.  So, not only do I challenge your comments about comparison, I also wonder what you were expecting?  It seems to me (and I am not being critical) that many were expecting some variety of M - that possibility was knocked out of the park weeks ago.  This is not a "disappointment" of the scale of the Mini-M XVario; Leica was very clear this was a "new system" - that was never anything to do with the M system, surely.

 

I'm not sure I understand your comment about Leica not doing anything new - there are only so many variables in taking photographs.  Leica was always going to have a simplified interface similar to the S camera, weren't they?  Doesn't that just leave sensor size and form factor?  The surprise is what they've done with video (something I don't begin to understand), and providing a phenomenal EVF and blazing AF.  What else is there?

 

 

I was hoping for a new M with nothing more than a few small improvements ...

 

And this is the point, isn't it?  I don't think the camera needs to be compared to others at all to make sense.  It makes perfect sense to me as it is.  My comments were to put a bit of perspective to what looked (and still look) to me to be "unhelpful" at best, knee jerk and inaccurate, if I'm to be blunt.

 

I'm still very much an M user (you will recall that I have far a more fundamentalist attitude to the M than most - I think the M(240) is fatally compromised by trying to be all things to all photographers), and there is an M coming at some stage soon apparently.  I just think the comments about the SL driven by the fact that it isn't an M are unhelpful.

 

The jury is out for me, as I don't have local pricing and I'm still waiting for the 28 Summilux (ordered before the lens was announced - my order goes back to the chrome lens issued as part of the special edition over  year ago), with no time line for delivery from either Leica or the importer.  

 

So, please excuse my enthusiasm for this new camera, but my point really is I don't mind valid criticism if it is well based.  I find that very informative.  The rest, not so much.

Edited October 22, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[Peter H]

........................................

What I was responding to, though, Peter, was the bald criticism of the size of the camera based on no comparison at all, other than a rather misleading image on DPReview.

 

Other criticisms were cost (roughly the same as the M), weight (not sure what that was based on, but yes its 67 grams heavier), size of the lens (I haven't seen any comparison of a 2.8/4 28-90mm AF IS zoom that makes this look larger than any equivalent lens).  If people are going to criticise the camera for these issues, then they do need to be based on other similar cameras (which the M, actually, isn't).  The A7 is a fair comparison, and it is smaller and lighter - Leica's response is better EVF, better AF, better video, better image quality, better user interface and plays better with Leica lenses; and I think it is worth observing that this camera was (apparently) never intended to be small.  For me, the size of the A7 was not an advantage - it was too small for my hands, and too big to go into a pocket anyway.

 

................................................

 

So, please excuse my enthusiasm for this new camera, but my point really is I don't mind valid criticism if it is well based.  I find that very informative.  The rest, not so much.

I'm not happy with the body to body comparisons, either is size or cost terms. It doesn't reflect the reality of how the camera will most often be used, or the cost of investing in a new system. The body alone, in both respects, will most often be just a small part of the total.

 

 Anyway my simple point is this: it needs to offer something new and I'm disappointed that it appears not to. Don't misunderstand me (though I accept full responsibility if you do!): I find it quite attractive, though I doubt that I'll be buying one. I have not used a DSLR for years now because they are too large for my style of photography, they get in my way,  and therefore the SL is certainly too large for me. This can be known from experience even though I've not so much as seen one yet.

 

So while the launch of a new, serious system might make a lot of sense, and the size alone is no problem to other people given the ubiquityof DSLRs, the context of the competition against which this system is being launched and its lack of a uniquely attractive feature aside from an EVF which we can be confident will soon be replicated and overtaken elsewhere, combined with size and cost of the system, not just the body, does leave me, personally, quite disappointed on grounds that I think are quite rational.

 

Everyone who considers buying a camera compares it with alternatives, and we don't have to agree which alternatives are most appropriate because the choice relates to our personal requirements. Yours are different from mine. I compare it with both the M and with DSLRs, and though it's very appealing as a thing in its own right, it doesn't offer anything I need except with a very large penalty attached.

 

Goodness me John: I'm glad we don't often disagree, but I do enjoy it when we do!  

Edited October 22, 2015 by Peter H

[IkarusJohn]

So this is the heart of your disappointment:

 

So while the launch of a new, serious system might make a lot of sense, and the size alone is no problem to other people given the ubiquityof DSLRs, the context of the competition against which this system is being launched and its lack of a uniquely attractive feature aside from an EVF which we can be confident will soon be replicated and overtaken elsewhere, combined with size and cost of the system, not just the body, does leave me, personally, quite disappointed on grounds that I think are quite rational.

 

I have no reason or desire to doubt either your choices, or whether or not they are rational for you - I just wanted to understand your reasoning, when all I could read was "It's HUGE", when rationally, it doesn't seem that way at all, whatever you compare it to.  I took it that the comparison which mattered most to you was the M(240), and even then it seemed minimal in real terms.  I won't really know until I get the chance to hold the camera in my hands - my preference, though, is cameras that sit in my hands nicely.  The T did, the M does, but the A4 did not.

 

But I read that it is the other factors "combined with size" that really disappoint - it's only the EVF which is new, and that is technology which will be superseded.  I agree on the technology point - the digital Ms cause me considerable disquiet, not least the sensors no longer being supported.

 

Here's the thing, though - we can push for more MP in the sensor and more MP in the EVF and LCD, but we have reached the point of diminishing returns.  I have no need for more than 24MP on the sensor - it is beyond film, beyond most lenses and beyond anything I can see different.  I know PaulJ feels very strongly about this, but I don't.  Not one bit.  I can deal with the DNG files, but double the resolution of the 24MP is not 47.5 or 50MP, it's 96MP, with files over 100MB for each photo ...  Forget it.  Provided Leica keeps making 24MP cameras, I'll buy them - well, actually, I'll keep using the ones I have!

 

So what else is there new to this camera, apart from an upgrade to the Q sensor and a blindingly fast EVF (that sounds like there is little point improving - read that as marginal returns).  Oh, I know ... AF, and a better solution for lenses outside the 18-135 range of the M(240), macro and zooms, and what looks like pretty incredible video!

 

I know this is directly contradicting much of what I said about the M(240) when it was released, but my comments then were (and remain) that I want the M to stay what might be called "primitive".  For a really electronic camera, I want really electronic and I would like it to be really very good - I see no point in a couple optical rangefinder in such a camera.  It wouldn't be an M at all.

 

So, I will happily poodle along with my lenses in the 21 to 90 range on my M Edition 60, Monochrom and M-A and I will be very happy.  I won't be buying the next M.  I might buy the SL once the gremlins have been identified and sorted (if I can ever get one delivered down here), but I won't make that decision based on size, weight, cost or lack of available lenses.  What I will be doing is using it for all the things my Ms don't do - AF with a long tele I can photograph birds with, sport and the like, macro, long exposure (up to 60 minute with Bulb setting), video and remote control with my iPhone or iPad.

 

I wouldn't do any of this with the M(240) because the M(240) isn't as good at these things as the SL - the combination of my M cameras and the SL is very appealing.

 

Nice disagreeing with you, Peter.  I really do enjoy our exchanges, and this is more interesting than "Yes, I agree" - I learn more about why I like what I do.

 

Cheers

John

Edited October 22, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[Peter H]

..........................................

Here's the thing, though - we can push for more MP in the sensor and more MP in the EVF and LCD, but we have reached the point of diminishing returns.  I have no need for more than 24MP on the sensor - it is beyond film, beyond most lenses and beyond anything I can see different.  I know PaulJ feels very strongly about this, but I don't.  Not one bit.  I can deal with the DNG files, but double the resolution of the 24MP is not 47.5 or 50MP, it's 96MP, with files over 100MB for each photo ...  Forget it.  Provided Leica keeps making 24MP cameras, I'll buy them - well, actually, I'll keep using the ones I have!

 

So what else is there new to this camera, apart from an upgrade to the Q sensor and a blindingly fast EVF (that sounds like there is little point improving - read that as marginal returns).  Oh, I know ... AF, and a better solution for lenses outside the 18-135 range of the M(240), macro and zooms, and what looks like pretty incredible video!

 

.....................................

 

To me, this feels like a very Leica-centric way of looking at things, finding great virtue in the sort of thing users of mainstream cameras have taken for granted for years.  AF, for example, whilst new-ish but not unique in a high-grade Leica, does not distinguish it from the competition, and neither do any of its other features aside from the EVF, where most top-level cameras still have optical viewfinders. 

 

When the M9 was announced, thousands of people immediately understood that it was a breakthrough and a good enough reason for them to put a lot of money into a new (for them) system, many selling their outdated-feeling DSLRs to do so. Many even ditched AF in the process, knowing how easy it would be to get another AF camera if they ever felt the need, which many haven't, though to be fair, many have, also. I know it's not reasonable to expect every new Leica camera to have the same impact as the M9 did, but a brand new system ought to, shouldn't it?

 

Also the fact that Leica had apparently made it clear what was coming (though I hadn't been aware of anything other than the fact that an announcement was due - I didn't even know about the SL name until a couple of days before the announcement - doesn't reduce my disappointment. I suppose the memory of the M9 announcement, even if subconscious, encourages me to believe that Leica will do something more interesting than put itself into an already saturated market segment, and come up with something genuinely exciting and original and much wished-for.

 

Maybe it's all subjective. It appears to be. You see the SL's set of features as new and exciting, and I see them as fine but no departure from what has been available, more or less, for years and years, and which I'd lost interest in a long time ago.

 

Hey ho, as they say. We can't all be the same. I know the SL will be a very fine camera and I hope a very successful one. If ever I'm in the market for a full-size top-of-the-range AF camera I'll look at it seriously, but it hasn't enough to make me feel I need one: if it had, I'd have kept or most probably upgraded my Nikons.

[hepcat]

To me, this feels like a very Leica-centric way of looking at things, finding great virtue in the sort of thing users of mainstream cameras have taken for granted for years.  AF, for example, whilst new-ish but not unique in a high-grade Leica, does not distinguish it from the competition, and neither do any of its other features aside from the EVF, where most top-level cameras still have optical viewfinders. 

 

When the M9 was announced, thousands of people immediately understood that it was a breakthrough and a good enough reason for them to put a lot of money into a new (for them) system, many selling their outdated-feeling DSLRs to do so. Many even ditched AF in the process, knowing how easy it would be to get another AF camera if they ever felt the need, which many haven't, though to be fair, many have, also. I know it's not reasonable to expect every new Leica camera to have the same impact as the M9 did, but a brand new system ought to, shouldn't it?

 

Also the fact that Leica had apparently made it clear what was coming (though I hadn't been aware of anything other than the fact that an announcement was due - I didn't even know about the SL name until a couple of days before the announcement - doesn't reduce my disappointment. I suppose the memory of the M9 announcement, even if subconscious, encourages me to believe that Leica will do something more interesting than put itself into an already saturated market segment, and come up with something genuinely exciting and original and much wished-for.

 

Maybe it's all subjective. It appears to be. You see the SL's set of features as new and exciting, and I see them as fine but no departure from what has been available, more or less, for years and years, and which I'd lost interest in a long time ago.

 

Hey ho, as they say. We can't all be the same. I know the SL will be a very fine camera and I hope a very successful one. If ever I'm in the market for a full-size top-of-the-range AF camera I'll look at it seriously, but it hasn't enough to make me feel I need one: if it had, I'd have kept or most probably upgraded my Nikons.

 

Peter, I'm going to jump into your discussion with John for a moment.   I think you've hit the nail on the head.  Your arguments are subjective.  You're not disappointed in the SL camera... you can't be yet because none of us (save Jono Slack and a few others) have actually even seen nor held one yet.  You're disappointed because the camera doesn't meet whatever expectations you ascribed to it.  That's pretty subjective.  And it's groundbreaking because it can fit every single lens ever manufactured by Leica onto a single body.  I don't believe that any other manufacturer has ever accomplished that.  And THAT is it's true strength...  sensor and EVF aside.  Is that a big deal for me?  No.  I only have M mount lenses...  but there are folks out there who have S, R, and T lenses as well in their arsenal. 

 

Oh, and you and I also differ on the impact of the M9; again a subjective assessment.   The only thing that was "new and groundbreaking" about the M9 was that the engineers managed to shoehorn a 35mm sized sensor into an M8 body with some other appreciated refinements.  I'm not diminishing the engineering feats that they overcame, but from a user perspective the camera just isn't that different from the M8 over-all.   The improvements were significant enough to get me to part with my cash to buy one, but I didn't necessarily see it to be as ground-breaking as the M8 which first allowed Leica users to join the digital age with M lenses.  THAT was a breakthrough, IMHO.   Again, a subjective view...

[thegadsby]

I love my Leica rangefinders

 

what do photogs want these days!!

 

I think its to take wonderful images!!!

 

I dont want to take video

 

I dont want a huge block of camera arounf my neck!!!

 

so my Leica M's do the trick

 

3 lens in pocket and no weight

 

quality up with the best

 

pricey yes but value always their

 

 

 

[james.liam]

I love my Leica rangefinders

 

what do photogs want these days!!

 

I think its to take wonderful images!!!

 

I dont want to take video

 

I dont want a huge block of camera arounf my neck!!!

 

so my Leica M's do the trick

 

3 lens in pocket and no weight

 

quality up with the best

 

pricey yes but value always their

 

A sonnet to Leica!

 

How about a haiku....

 

Barnack saw tomorrow before most 

Ernst and Co. embraced the future too

M endures; the SL, unclear

[Peter H]

Peter, I'm going to jump into your discussion with John for a moment.   I think you've hit the nail on the head.  Your arguments are subjective.  You're not disappointed in the SL camera... you can't be yet because none of us (save Jono Slack and a few others) have actually even seen nor held one yet.  You're disappointed because the camera doesn't meet whatever expectations you ascribed to it.  That's pretty subjective.  And it's groundbreaking because it can fit every single lens ever manufactured by Leica onto a single body.  I don't believe that any other manufacturer has ever accomplished that.  And THAT is it's true strength...  sensor and EVF aside.  Is that a big deal for me?  No.  I only have M mount lenses...  but there are folks out there who have S, R, and T lenses as well in their arsenal. 

 

Oh, and you and I also differ on the impact of the M9; again a subjective assessment.   The only thing that was "new and groundbreaking" about the M9 was that the engineers managed to shoehorn a 35mm sized sensor into an M8 body with some other appreciated refinements.  I'm not diminishing the engineering feats that they overcame, but from a user perspective the camera just isn't that different from the M8 over-all.   The improvements were significant enough to get me to part with my cash to buy one, but I didn't necessarily see it to be as ground-breaking as the M8 which first allowed Leica users to join the digital age with M lenses.  THAT was a breakthrough, IMHO.   Again, a subjective view...

 

Very happy to have you jump in! 

 

First, yes, absolutely, my opinions are subjective, I totally agree.  I've tried hard to explain why I'm disappointed in the SL because it doesn't offer me what I want, personally. I do not say it is a disappointing camera, only that I'm disappointed. (By the way, my reference to subjectivity was largely in response to John's quoting of dimensions in an attempt to make the basis of our disagreement more objective, which I challenged.

 

But the impact of the M9 is a little less subjective. Without the M9 there'd probably be no SL. It may have been just an incremental improvement on the M8, but it was the one that mattered. It hit home with enough people to turn a struggling company into a successful one. The difference may just have been the sensor, but it was the one thing that got a lot of people excited enough to take the plunge and get into a whole new camera system.

 

Will the SL do the same?

 

The lack of a genuinely valuable unique quality or feature (the compatibility argument is flawed in many ways) means I'm sceptical, but hope to be proven wrong.

 

The viewfinder and/or image quality may be the things to prove me wrong. Let's hope so.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Peter H

[algrove]

According to Sean Reid it won't be.

Not exactly what he said. He is trying to convince Leica to make a smart adapter.  If Leica's normal wait for adpater releases is adhered to for the SL, they will have PLENTY OF TIME to design one along the desires of Sean Reid.

[algrove]

I've successfully used all my R lenses on Leica M. What advantages will SL bring to the table that M doesn't have as far as R lenses are concerned?

From what I can tell, none. You manually focus the R lenses on the M via EVF. You manually focus the R lenses on the SL via EVF. No difference except for the fact that after 3 years the EVF has evolved into what the SL has in it.  Maybe the next M will incorporate a new add on EVF the likes of a Q or SL.

 

If I had a bunch of S lenses this would be for me ONCE Leica releases a direct S-SL adapter.

[MarkP]

As I've written before, I think many M users were hoping for a Q-iteration with similar performance, compact size, quality EVF, interchangeable lens capability (for R & M), and probably its own AF lenses, that would nicely complement current M systems. I too was hoping for this but got over it fairly quickly.  

 

The SL looks fabulous but just not what I expected or need. Big deal.

It does not compete with the M.

[algrove]

This is not my experience at all.

 

My M9 had a sensor replaced, the rangefinder recalibrated and matched to all my M lenses which I sent off too, they also repaired my 75mm Summilux's broken focus at the time too, all within three days, the whole time I had a loaner kit to use while working. The service was brilliant and super friendly with great communication. The camera came back with an extended warranty for 1 year and looked like new with a replaced leatherette and guts.

Lucky you. Most never get that level of service at Leica. CLA on a 75/2 was recently 3 months.

[algrove]

Probably a good camera but I am not so impressed so far. I would certainly change my mind next year when Leica will release the Summilux SL that I expect to be better than the Otus, and with AF.

How can you make such a baseless statement. The lens is not due out for one year!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[algrove]

Although I'm relatively certain that status-conscious, wealthy amateurs will be the bulk of the buyers,  the SL is aimed at the commercial/industrial photography market.  It's designed for heavy studio use.  It's designed to be used where an SLR would have been used in the past, or where medium format formerly might have been used.  It will take long lenses with a state-of-the-art EVF that is designed into the camera; a job the R-bodies excelled at, and the M bodies do abysmally.  We folks with Ms are all like compact car drivers.  The SL intended for 1-ton pickup truck service,  while the S line is comparable to medium-duty truck service.  They are all different tools for different jobs and working environments.  You don't haul gravel in a Prius, and you wouldn't want to commute in a Chevy Kodiak C5500 medium-duty truck.

 

 

You don't know me. Yes I would what with all the stupid and dangerous drivers on the US roads these days.

Edited October 23, 2015 by algrove