So, is Leica M 240 still worth buying?

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

http://camerasize.com/compare/#639,389

 

"Leica SL Typ 601 is 6% (8 mm) wider and 30% (24 mm) taller than Leica M.

Leica SL Typ 601 is 7% (3 mm) thinner than Leica M.

Leica SL Typ 601 [847 g] weights 25% (167 grams) more than Leica M [680 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

 

Leica SL Typ 601 dimensions: 147x104x39 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)

Leica M dimensions: 139x80x42 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)"

 

A good move from Leica. For me only makes the M a better choice.

That is half of the equation. Add the one and only lens to it and it is big, heavy and beautiful, but not for me at this time. I am going to the gym now.

[Steveoc64]

All I really want is an M, with an optical rangefinder.

 

Im wondering if a future M-E could simplify things even further and get rid of the chimp-o-matic LCD on the back.  Just need an ISO dial.

 

.... and a CCD !

[Advertisement]

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

[mmradman]

All I really want is an M, with an optical rangefinder.

 

Im wondering if a future M-E could simplify things even further and get rid of the chimp-o-matic LCD on the back.  Just need an ISO dial.

 

.... and a CCD !

Good morning Sleeping Beauty, if you google Leica M60 you will find exactly camera like that.

As for chimp-o-magic rear LCD they are to stay.

[hepcat]

All I really want is an M, with an optical rangefinder.

 

Im wondering if a future M-E could simplify things even further and get rid of the chimp-o-matic LCD on the back.  Just need an ISO dial.

 

.... and a CCD !

Y'know that "chimp-o-matic LCD" serves exactly the same function as the old Polaroid backs did when I'm shooting in my studio.  It has value.

Edited October 23, 2015 by hepcat

[jaques]

Makes the Q look a bargain, with an M backup for the purists. :-)

yes- also makes the Sony A7S11 look like a no-brainer.

[MT0227]

I was at PhotoPlus Expo yesterday and had a chance to play with the SL using the 24-90, and with the lens adapter, the 35Lux FLE.

 

1) When asked to compare vs. the Sony A7SII, the Leica reps said the M240 and the Q would be comparable, the SL is different.  Again, this was Leica's spin.

 

2) The SL is significantly larger in the hand compared to the M240, Q and the Sony A7SII. Think large DSLR form factor; with the 24-90 the SL felt more like my D810 + 24-70mm 2.8 VRII, actually probably a bit larger as the 24-90 is a beast.  Most of us hanging out at the booth had the same reaction; "Looks/feels ..bigger/heavier". 

 

3) The Q, to me, feels like a toy compared to the M240 and SL.  The EVF in the Q is quite a step down compared to the SL, it's somewhere between the EVF2 for the M240 and the EVF in the SL.   Closer to the EVF2 in my view.   The EVF in the SL is quite impressive.

 

4) When used with the 35Lux, the EVF on the SL seemed to display focus peaking very nicely.  

 

 

I'm very new to Leica, only about 3 weeks into my initial purchase of my M-P 240.  Here's my view:

 

A)  The M240 is a very different tool than the SL.  If you want more of the "traditional"  Leica RF experience (in a digital way) and all that comes with using an RF camera, the M240 would be my choice and was my choice knowing the SL was only weeks away.

 

B )  If you want a camera with RF capability that adds in larger form factor DSLR features like the EVF and AF (and feels that way), than the SL is certainly an option if you do not have this tool in your arsenal already.  I guess with lens adapters you can build out a kit with a mix of lenses that give you the mix of both worlds.

 

C) If you don't have the cash for either A or B, I guess the Q would fill in the gap..  I'd personally save for either A or B (intentionally keeping out of the Leica/Sony debate)

 

 

I made my choice on the M-P 240 under scenario (A), in addition to already having other tools to cover what the SL can provide; I will use these tools as my backup.  So far, no backup needed for my M.

Edited October 23, 2015 by MT0227

[MT0227]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!

 

 

[MT0227]

It's costs how much ???

 

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!

 

 

This guy had some pretty large mitts, looks small in his hands.

 

Edited October 23, 2015 by MT0227

[MT0227]

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!

 

Edited October 23, 2015 by MT0227

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Paul & Hepcat,

 

I haven't quoted your excellent posts as I'm on my iPad (in bed with my morning cup of tea, dog lying on the bed). 

 

I'm not sure "excited" is how I feel about the SL. Perhaps, but at the moment more getting my head around it. My background is simple, rather old fashioned film cameras like the FM. Solid, few buttons, all to hand with direct control, excellent optics. The complexity of digital cameras has always annoyed me - I want a camera, not a PlayStation, which is why I went for Leica when my Nikon kit was stolen. I liked my M9 so much, I sold my Hasselblad kit and a bunch of accessories so all I had was my M9 and lenses. Perfectly happy. 

 

But then, I started to realise the limitations of the M system, and started to look at ways to extend it. I love technology, but not for technology's sake. I hated the fact that my Handicam (a wretched piece of equipment) took stills. It offered so much functionality, it hid the fact that it's video was a bit ordinary. I could see that consumer electronics were often very half-assed. If you wanted good video, you needed expensive kit and to understand how to do it properly, so I've stuck with stills. 

 

I still wanted something to add to my M system for long shots, macro and those situations outside 21-90 where electronics would help - bird photographs, kitesurfing, air to air photos while paragliding, night shots, that sort of thing where good AF can be useful, and perhaps video if it was any good. The A7r drove me crazy, and the T was lovely, but the wrong camera really. 

 

We've been talking about a Leica EVIL which takes M lenses for years (well, I have) and each release has been a disappointment, except the Monochrom- that was a huge surprise, and I was surprised how much I came to love that camera. 

 

So the new system caught my attention. As the discussion developed, it was pretty clear this would be a 35mm format, AF system camera that would take M & R lenses (I kept the T-M adapter when I sold my T system in the expectation that this camera would be what I have been asking for for the last 5 years). The odd comment here and there made me pretty confident the camera would use the Q sensor, T mount, offer some AF (though few lenses on launch, as usual) but would otherwise be like all other Leica cameras - different, and very well thought out interface. The only issue for me was form factor (something with S references) and what AF lens. I wasn't looking to be surprised or excited - I had a very good idea this was going to be another camera, but hopefully a very good one that fills a gap in the market. 

 

The first image on the web, I thought pug ugly, bloated A7 style. Then I saw the picture of the woman with the small hands, and thought HUGE. Then the price, and it took my breath away. 

 

But then, I thought hang on, what was I expecting?  The SL is marginally bigger than the M (relying on facts, rather than misleading photos), $460 more than the M(240) and the lens is priced smack in the middle of M lens prices and the lower range of the S lenses. Other pictures emerged, and I really like the way it looks (a little like a Plaubel). 

 

Looking at the specs, I agree with one reviewer who said this leap frogs the A7 into a gap in the market. Leica's marque now encompasses the medium format SLR S series (boy, I love the concept of the S(007), but could never justify it), the EVF based SL, the rangefinder M, and APS-C T camera. Makes perfect sense to me, and each completely different from anything else in the market - unique user interface, not chasing specs, but each doing what they do very well with the best image quality they can do. 

 

None of these camera systems challenge MP counts or other spec chasing issues. 

 

If you're still reading this, the camera pretty much exactly meets my expectations, except that it has better EVF, AF and video than I expected, or had been delivered with the M or the T, respectively. So, when people said it's huge,  heavy, expensive, ugly etc, I tried to understand why, because when I looked at the measurements, I couldn't agree. 

 

Peter nails it, though - he is an M user with a background in dSLRs and from that perspective he saw the SL as being a bit meh. For many others, it is fundamentally a threat to the M.  That's not my perspective - I think the SL will forge a new and very interesting place for itself because there is nothing else like it and people will get it. 

 

Time for breakfast. 

 

John

[cpclee]

Touche

 

All I really want is an M, with an optical rangefinder.

 

Im wondering if a future M-E could simplify things even further and get rid of the chimp-o-matic LCD on the back.  Just need an ISO dial.

 

.... and a CCD !

[MT0227]

.For many others, it is fundamentally a threat to the M.  That's not my perspective - I think the SL will forge a new and very interesting place for itself because there is nothing else like it and people will get it. 

 

Time for breakfast. 

 

John

 

The SL is a larger form DSLR body with AF capability that can also utilize M lenses via an EVF with focus peaking.  Again, if you are looking for that "traditional" RF experience in a digital way, I don't see the SL as a threat to the current  M.  You either want an M for being and M; or the SL for something else with the option to use RF lenses in a non-traditional way.  

Edited October 23, 2015 by MT0227

[cpclee]

Part of this is perception.  The SL would have generated quite a different reaction if, instead of being launched with humongous lenses only, it was launched with some compact AF primes.  In fact, it would be ideal if it was launched with two lines of lenses, one line that stressed compactness basically amounting to M-sized lenses with AF, and another line that was fully telecentric where lenses were big and heavy but optically the best possible.  Basically, all three lenses so far announced are of the latter category and no wonder people perceive the system has big and heavy.  It doesn't have to be.   

 

 

Hi Paul & Hepcat,

 

I haven't quoted your excellent posts as I'm on my iPad (in bed with my morning cup of tea, dog lying on the bed). 

 

I'm not sure "excited" is how I feel about the SL. Perhaps, but at the moment more getting my head around it. My background is simple, rather old fashioned film cameras like the FM. Solid, few buttons, all to hand with direct control, excellent optics. The complexity of digital cameras has always annoyed me - I want a camera, not a PlayStation, which is why I went for Leica when my Nikon kit was stolen. I liked my M9 so much, I sold my Hasselblad kit and a bunch of accessories so all I had was my M9 and lenses. Perfectly happy. 

 

But then, I started to realise the limitations of the M system, and started to look at ways to extend it. I love technology, but not for technology's sake. I hated the fact that my Handicam (a wretched piece of equipment) took stills. It offered so much functionality, it hid the fact that it's video was a bit ordinary. I could see that consumer electronics were often very half-assed. If you wanted good video, you needed expensive kit and to understand how to do it properly, so I've stuck with stills. 

 

I still wanted something to add to my M system for long shots, macro and those situations outside 21-90 where electronics would help - bird photographs, kitesurfing, air to air photos while paragliding, night shots, that sort of thing where good AF can be useful, and perhaps video if it was any good. The A7r drove me crazy, and the T was lovely, but the wrong camera really. 

 

We've been talking about a Leica EVIL which takes M lenses for years (well, I have) and each release has been a disappointment, except the Monochrom- that was a huge surprise, and I was surprised how much I came to love that camera. 

 

So the new system caught my attention. As the discussion developed, it was pretty clear this would be a 35mm format, AF system camera that would take M & R lenses (I kept the T-M adapter when I sold my T system in the expectation that this camera would be what I have been asking for for the last 5 years). The odd comment here and there made me pretty confident the camera would use the Q sensor, T mount, offer some AF (though few lenses on launch, as usual) but would otherwise be like all other Leica cameras - different, and very well thought out interface. The only issue for me was form factor (something with S references) and what AF lens. I wasn't looking to be surprised or excited - I had a very good idea this was going to be another camera, but hopefully a very good one that fills a gap in the market. 

 

The first image on the web, I thought pug ugly, bloated A7 style. Then I saw the picture of the woman with the small hands, and thought HUGE. Then the price, and it took my breath away. 

 

But then, I thought hang on, what was I expecting?  The SL is marginally bigger than the M (relying on facts, rather than misleading photos), $460 more than the M(240) and the lens is priced smack in the middle of M lens prices and the lower range of the S lenses. Other pictures emerged, and I really like the way it looks (a little like a Plaubel). 

 

Looking at the specs, I agree with one reviewer who said this leap frogs the A7 into a gap in the market. Leica's marque now encompasses the medium format SLR S series (boy, I love the concept of the S(007), but could never justify it), the EVF based SL, the rangefinder M, and APS-C T camera. Makes perfect sense to me, and each completely different from anything else in the market - unique user interface, not chasing specs, but each doing what they do very well with the best image quality they can do. 

 

None of these camera systems challenge MP counts or other spec chasing issues. 

 

If you're still reading this, the camera pretty much exactly meets my expectations, except that it has better EVF, AF and video than I expected, or had been delivered with the M or the T, respectively. So, when people said it's huge,  heavy, expensive, ugly etc, I tried to understand why, because when I looked at the measurements, I couldn't agree. 

 

Peter nails it, though - he is an M user with a background in dSLRs and from that perspective he saw the SL as being a bit meh. For many others, it is fundamentally a threat to the M.  That's not my perspective - I think the SL will forge a new and very interesting place for itself because there is nothing else like it and people will get it. 

 

Time for breakfast. 

 

John

[biglou]

" Peter nails it, though - he is an M user with a background in dSLRs and from that perspective he saw the SL as being a bit meh. For many others, it is fundamentally a threat to the M. That's not my perspective - I think the SL will forge a new and very interesting place for itself because there is nothing else like it and people will get it. "

 

 

I think the SL is a dead end for Leica.

The only advantage it has over the M is autofocus capability and for M lenses it will be less capable, no rangefinder when the M has one and also an EVF if needed.

Only three lenses (annonced) with autofocus are not enough to try to compete with other established brands.

Worse the limited resolution of the sensor.

In film days you could use all available films, now when a sensor becomes obsolete you have to buy a new camera.

The new norm is sensors having around fourty or fifty megapixels in 24x36.

Two years from now, even before a wide range of lenses will eventually be designed this camera will be even more lacking in resolution since sensor technology moves on very fast.

Where i Leica i would have put a much higher megapixel sensor in the S, more lenses too, and upgraded the M with the new SL evf and electronics, better sensor (in the sense of higher resolution) maybe also.

Leica would then have two systems at the top instead of three lagging ones.

 

[Jon Warwick]

 

 

2015-10-22_087-112.jpg

That M with an external EVF is looking rather gorgeous vs. the SL.   In my humble and personal opinion.  

 

If the M's EVF is upgraded in the next iteration, it's still M all the way for me

 

..... mainly given i'd prefer the optionality of both OVF and (external) EVF from the M, and because i'd prefer much smaller lenses of the M (especially as i'm not a telephoto lens person) even if the SL's autofocus is mega quick.  

Edited October 23, 2015 by Jon Warwick

[MT0227]

That M with an external EVF is looking rather gorgeous vs. the SL.   In my humble and personal opinion.  

 

If the M's EVF is upgraded in the next iteration, it's still M all the way for me

 

..... mainly given i'd prefer the optionality of both OVF and (external) EVF from the M, and because i'd prefer much smaller lenses of the M (especially as i'm not a telephoto lens person) even if the SL's autofocus is mega quick.  

 

I've been only using my M at 35 and 50mm and have thus stayed away from the EVF2 for now.   I could probably get to 90mm with my vision but that could be a stretch.  Currently, when I have the need to go past 50mm, I grab a different tool.   I could see getting the EVF2 and a 90mm lens at some point, but my next commitment to this platform will most likely be the 21mm SEM.  I'm not looking to increase the bounds for what the M platform has to offer me.  I'm looking to use it the best I can, in the more traditional sense.  Anything beyond that, I grab something else.

[lucianboboc]

I am a Canon FF FSLR owner with a 24-70 f2.8 lens but i want badly a Leica M camera because i can't take my DSLR with me all the time.

For the moment by budget doesn't allow me to buy a new M and i'm not even sure 100% i could get used to the M system with manual focus and rangefinder, so i want to keep my Canon to for the moment.

Do you guys think an M8 or M9 would be ok to test it and see if i like the system?

I've seen it has very bad ISO in which case i'm not sure if the camera can be used in low light handheld without a tripod.

Also, i don't like the idea for the wide lenses to use an external EVF, do you think the next M model will have a hybrid viewfinder OVF/EVF?

[colonel]

Yes, buy a M9, or 240 second hand. Some camera shops have a policy to lend a 240 free for 48 hours. ISO performance of M9 is fine, better to shoot at lower ISO and uprate in Lightroom. 240 is good to 3200 but don't push more then 1 stop at this ISO otherwise you see banding.

Manual focus take a week to get used to. You either love or hate it. IMHO it's much more useful then AF but in some situations it's not as good. I pick up a M with preference to AF unless I am shooting a long focal length. Best of luck