Jump to content

Leica M (Typ 262) - Reduction to Rangefinder Photography (at 1000 € less)


LUF Admin

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the bonus of the M 240 EVF is the possibility to continue to focus accurately, even if the rangefinder is out of alignment. 

 

 

 

... or my eye is out of alignment. I had an M8 previously, now shoot rangefinder lenses on a Fuji X-Pro1. The 3x/10x magnification in the EVF to get precise focus spoiled me (and it is better with focus peaking off).

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not. In addition to the 24 Mpx CMOS sensor (vs. the M-E's 18 Mpx CCD), the M262 has a 3-inch 920k dot LCD screen (vs. 230k).  The M262 shutter is quieter than even the M240.  I believe the M262 is also weather sealed and can do longer exposures than the M-E.

The M262 is derived from the M240, whereas the M-E is derived from the M9. 

Very different cameras.

 

Exactly... Although I think Ikarus John is just winding us up... He seems to get some sort of perverse enjoyment from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not. In addition to the 24 Mpx CMOS sensor (vs. the M-E's 18 Mpx CCD), the M262 has a 3-inch 920k dot LCD screen (vs. 230k).  The M262 shutter is quieter than even the M240.  I believe the M262 is also weather sealed and can do longer exposures than the M-E.

The M262 is derived from the M240, whereas the M-E is derived from the M9. 

Very different cameras.

 

I think I expressed my point poorly. Sure, all you say is true, but functionally I suggest it is misleading to think of this as a disabled or "castrated" M(240). 

 

The M-E was an M9, with very minor changes continued after the release of the M(240). It was arguably just a run-out CCD camera. Conceptually, the next M-E could have been a run-out of the M(240), with the next M being all singing all dancing fabulous camera reflecting the same leaps in technology as the M8->M9->M(240). 

 

Instead, we see a camera functionally similar to the outgoing M-E (no video, no live view), but with the latest CMOS sensor, LCD, shutter and weather sealing. I'm not sure that makes it a "very different camera" so much as an upgrade to a camera which is functionally very similar.  It fills the same place in the Leica gamut as the M-E did. It isn't pushing the functional boundaries that the M9 did or the M(240) when released. 

 

The reason I make the point is not to split hairs, so much as to point out to PeterH that his expectation (hope) that technology leaps we've seen in the past in the M will continue might be unrealistic. I asked him what he meant by development to the "fullest extent", and why the AF development in the SL meant less resources for the development of the M. I don't think there are that many further developments available, unless the M is turned into something it isn't. 

 

Nothing will ill be taken away from the next M, I'm sure.  But, I'm expecting it to do what it currently does and nothing more. WiFi, perhaps, but in the same way that the functionality of the M(262) is really no more than an upgrade to the M-E, we can expect similar treatment to the M(240). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems I made it on to Ikarus Johns 'ignore' list. :p

 

No matter how much he protests this, the 262 is a derivative of the M240, just as the M-E was derived from the M9.

 

(he has form here... he has spend much of the last year disputing the fact that the M60 is derived from the M240...).

 

I suppose I should put him on my 'ignore' list... but he is just SO funny...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The reason I make the point is not to split hairs, so much as to point out to PeterH that his expectation (hope) that technology leaps we've seen in the past in the M will continue might be unrealistic. I asked him what he meant by development to the "fullest extent", and why the AF development in the SL meant less resources for the development of the M. I don't think there are that many further developments available, unless the M is turned into something it isn't. 

 

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

 

 

 

More snipping I'm afraid, though I agree with you about the relationship between the ME and the M262.

 

But what you say about the development potential of the M rather proves my point, or at least heightens my concerns. We have to look at hypotheticals to understand what I mean though. Had the SL not been given the go-ahead you can be confident given the way the market has developed that a new M would be as technologically advanced as Leica were capable of making it, perhaps with a quite different sensor or sensors, perhaps with more variants, perhaps with more VF options, perhaps with a brand new processor, who knows. I certainly have little confidence in those who keep telling us what isn't possible.

 

But the SL is here, and a fine camera it is, so we are unlikely to ever know what developments might have been possible with the M if it were to have remained Leica's Full-Frame Flagship.

 

None of that would matter if the sL were in effect the new M, but it's not and it can't be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What?

 

I have never suggested the M60 isn't derived from the M(240). It's an M(240) in a different body, without LCD or EVF. That dreary exchange was over whether or not it was the same camera.  Please try to follow - this isn't a competition.

 

Ignore list!  Now there's a good idea!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

More snipping I'm afraid, though I agree with you about the relationship between the ME and the M262.

 

But what you say about the development potential of the M rather proves my point, or at least heightens my concerns. We have to look at hypotheticals to understand what I mean though. Had the SL not been given the go-ahead you can be confident given the way the market has developed that a new M would be as technologically advanced as Leica were capable of making it, perhaps with a quite different sensor or sensors, perhaps with more variants, perhaps with more VF options, perhaps with a brand new processor, who knows. I certainly have little confidence in those who keep telling us what isn't possible.

 

But the SL is here, and a fine camera it is, so we are unlikely to ever know what developments might have been possible with the M if it were to have remained Leica's Full-Frame Flagship.

 

None of that would matter if the sL were in effect the new M, but it's not and it can't be. M

 

 

Edit - I need my glasses on!

 

I do see your point, and I maintain you're being too pessimistic. My justification is that the SL, much like the M3 before it really does nothing more than perfect available technologies. I don't believe the M was ever going to be AF. If one takes that as a given, then what does the SL do that won't, or can't be taken over to the M?

 

Improved video may happen, but otherwise, the sensor is still 24MP.  I'm hoping your disappointment is completely unfounded, and the next M will be an improvement on what you have already.  No missing out on new technologies. 

Edited by IkarusJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I expressed my point poorly. Sure, all you say is true, but functionally I suggest it is misleading to think of this as a disabled or "castrated" M(240). 

 

The M-E was an M9, with very minor changes continued after the release of the M(240). It was arguably just a run-out CCD camera. Conceptually, the next M-E could have been a run-out of the M(240), with the next M being all singing all dancing fabulous camera reflecting the same leaps in technology as the M8->M9->M(240). 

 

Instead, we see a camera functionally similar to the outgoing M-E (no video, no live view), but with the latest CMOS sensor, LCD, shutter and weather sealing. I'm not sure that makes it a "very different camera" so much as an upgrade to a camera which is functionally very similar.  It fills the same place in the Leica gamut as the M-E did. It isn't pushing the functional boundaries that the M9 did or the M(240) when released. 

 

The reason I make the point is not to split hairs, so much as to point out to PeterH that his expectation (hope) that technology leaps we've seen in the past in the M will continue might be unrealistic. I asked him what he meant by development to the "fullest extent", and why the AF development in the SL meant less resources for the development of the M. I don't think there are that many further developments available, unless the M is turned into something it isn't. 

 

Nothing will ill be taken away from the next M, I'm sure.  But, I'm expecting it to do what it currently does and nothing more. WiFi, perhaps, but in the same way that the functionality of the M(262) is really no more than an upgrade to the M-E, we can expect similar treatment to the M(240). 

I think you might be in for a surprise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

More snipping I'm afraid, though I agree with you about the relationship between the ME and the M262.

 

But what you say about the development potential of the M rather proves my point, or at least heightens my concerns. We have to look at hypotheticals to understand what I mean though. Had the SL not been given the go-ahead you can be confident given the way the market has developed that a new M would be as technologically advanced as Leica were capable of making it, perhaps with a quite different sensor or sensors, perhaps with more variants, perhaps with more VF options, perhaps with a brand new processor, who knows. I certainly have little confidence in those who keep telling us what isn't possible.

 

But the SL is here, and a fine camera it is, so we are unlikely to ever know what developments might have been possible with the M if it were to have remained Leica's Full-Frame Flagship.

 

None of that would matter if the sL were in effect the new M, but it's not and it can't be. 

 

The SL may well be a commercial flop even if it's a technically solid camera. It's going to be compared to other cameras in the typical professional market (weddings and events, product photography, fashion etc.), but it's about double the price of the competing Canon/Nikon gear with only 1 current non-adapted lens offering. I think Leica cannot afford to let the M line dwindle and put most of their eggs into what seems like a fairly risky basket at this time. They have a solid base of M customers who will expect them to keep up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be a controversial surprise...

 

Well, I guess we have almost a year for you to know and the rest of us to guess; and for Michael to drop hints and tell us what is technically impossible and what else is not going to happen.  It's a long time, but then such is Leica that we speculate anyway.

 

Mean time, I'll be coming to grips with my new SL, and continuing to enjoy my existing cameras - a complete lack of talent and time are my most pressing problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see Leica pay more attention to incorporating flash....

A flash jack take-off from the camera body would be great..

This lack of flash availability whilst a camera viewfinder is attached is an endemic bad problem with the Leica M digital cameras.

 

It's a bad problem, insofar it should have been incorporated into the original M8 design and continued. A body jack was available in all the Leica cameras up to and including Leica M7; all Barnacks and all M series  film cameras.  But stopped with the M8 and beyond.

 

I can't use a Visoflex III  for (Macro) with my M8's and incorporate flash into the image.???//''""  Iircc the M9 needed a special grip to allow the camera to use a viewfinder, and a flash off the grip.  If you're working with the electronic Visoflex and the M240..how do you use flash, at the same time??

 

Far better a flash take off the body..would allow numerous lighting opportunities, with a viewfinder attached if necessary. A flash takeoff would allow remotes, slaves, ring lights, portraiture control, etc

cheers Dave S

Edited by david strachan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What?

 

I have never suggested the M60 isn't derived from the M(240). It's an M(240) in a different body, without LCD or EVF. That dreary exchange was over whether or not it was the same camera.  Please try to follow - this isn't a competition.

 

Ignore list!  Now there's a good idea!

My debate with you was always that the M60 was essentially an M240 without screen and LV/EVF (or strap lugs).  You didn't like that characterization at all.   I could pull up the threads, but let's not go there...  

 

As for the M262 versus the M9/M240, Stefan Daniel made the point (in a video interview with Thorsten) that virtually every part in the M240 was changed from the M9, with the exception of the RF, but that the RF was 'improved' (probably tolerances, but he didn't say).   So the M262 has not only a different sensor, shutter, LCD and weather sealing than the M9....but a different processor, a different battery, different construction (tripod socket, etc), different frame line illumination and distance optimization, and everything else according to Daniel.

 

Other than omitting LV and video, the M262 is essentially an M240 with a lighter top plate and new shutter re-cocking system.  Doesn't make it 'neutered' or any other pejorative term..just omits a couple of things that didn't appeal to some, and is lighter.  It bears little relationship internally to the M9, although the same folks who preferred the M9 over the M240 due to LV/EVF/video probably are similarly pleased with the direction of the M262 (and would like to see that direction remain, whatever happens to the next M).

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica M with flash?

 

Sacrilege!

 

Jeff - feel free to revisit that debate as you wish. Don't mind me if I don't join in. For me, the M60, as a camera, isn't an M(240) for all the reasons that Leica released it. Yes, it shares the sensor, processor, buffer, viewfinder, shutter and body form factor with the M(240).  In fact, apart from the firmware and its amazing body, everything in the M60 comes from the M(240); but that doesn't make it the same camera, for all the reasons people were so critical of it. For you, it's the same camera. I'm very happy for you.

 

Meanwhile, I'm just quietly enjoying using the camera in the knowledge Leica is unlikely to make another like it. I warm to it for all the reasons I skipped the M(240). If you can't get that, then I'm afraid I see that as your problem, not mine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 For you, it's the same camera. I'm very happy for you.

 

 

No it's not...not then, not now...I never said it was.  It's exactly the way I described it above.  

 

Just like the M262 is not the same camera as the M240, even though it's derived from it.  

 

If I thought the M60 was the same camera as the M240, then I might have considered buying it....but of course I didn't, because they aren't the same camera, even though the innards are essentially the same.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the M262 versus the M9/M240, Stefan Daniel made the point (in a video interview with Thorsten) that virtually every part in the M240 was changed from the M9, with the exception of the RF, but that the RF was 'improved' (probably tolerances, but he didn't say).

As a matter of fact the rangefinder was changed as well. The basic design is still the same (except the light source for the framelines) but virtually every single component was changed in order to double the precision – the intention being that the rangefinder should be as precise as the electronic viewfinder. They also revamped the calibration procedure for the M (Typ 240) but I suspect that doesn’t apply to the M (Typ 262) as the new calibration method relies on live-view.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...