Peter H Posted November 20, 2015 Share #141 Posted November 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why? ......,/quote] Because a used product will tend to depreciate less , proportionately, than a brand new one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Hi Peter H, Take a look here Leica M (Typ 262) - Reduction to Rangefinder Photography (at 1000 € less). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jamriman Posted November 20, 2015 Share #142 Posted November 20, 2015 I think this is a great idea. How many of you M240 owners thought of getting an M9 just because it is thinner and has less unused features? I for one am glad I held out. I would prefer however an M-P type 262. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 20, 2015 Share #143 Posted November 20, 2015 Is the M262 (horrible naming conventions) the same size as the M(240) or the M9? I thought it was the same as the M(240) ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted November 20, 2015 Share #144 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) If smaller means; a smaller rangefinder base, that would give different problems. The M6 base would be fine. It's the same, no? The camera can be thinner and possibly shorter, but I agree the width must accommodate at least the current RF base. However it is not at all clear to me that precludes a less wide camera. There may or there may be a way to make some room. You may not see a smaller camera as more desirable. Oskar Barnack would disagree. Edited November 20, 2015 by uhoh7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted November 20, 2015 Share #145 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) This camera has no competition in the marketplace all Leica needs is to satisfy rangefinder freaks. This is probably the first camera that I want to buy from the Leica stable ..........................................there was the M4 many years ago Edited November 20, 2015 by Imants 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted November 20, 2015 Share #146 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) Leica just announced an attractive (not ugly paint color) M camera for $5200 and the forum members seem unhappy? I dont get it. This serms like the perfect M to me. Leica did not stop making the full feature model for those who want it. So why complain? If you dont like it - dont buy it. People have been asking for a lower cost M and a black chrome offering instead of paint. I think anodized aluminum will be fine. If you really want black chrome it is available a la carte. If you like it and dont want an LCD screen - turn off image review in the menu. My camera is set up that way - but I end up chimping any way. Did I mention the quieter shutter? I almost forgot - they shrunk the red dot back to normal size (surely we remember this issue on the forum) Seems like Leica listened to its customers Edited November 20, 2015 by lm_user 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 20, 2015 Share #147 Posted November 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, although a used M 240 at a similar outlay will almost certainly retain a higher proportion of its price. When the video and LV quality of the 240 become obsolete (hmmmm actually they're already obsolete) the 262 will keep its value better. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relms Posted November 20, 2015 Share #148 Posted November 20, 2015 In my mind the announcements of the Typ 262 and a la carte 240s say a lot about the confidence that Leica has in their production facilities. Leica seems to be saying, "Don't worry about the mules, just load the wagon." 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ricard Posted November 20, 2015 Share #149 Posted November 20, 2015 My M240 came back from rangefinder calibration today. One of the things listed under "Repair Parts" is 420-240-380-000 M (Type 240) SHUTTER. To the best of my knowledge, there was nothing wrong with the shutter. I wonder if its possible that they've changed the shutter on the M240. (It sounds the same to my ears though.) It certainly would make more sense to be producing only one shutter for the 3 cameras, rather than produce an entirely new shutter to use only on the cheaper model of the M240. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 20, 2015 Share #150 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) Is the M262 (horrible naming conventions) the same size as the M(240) or the M9? I thought it was the same as the M(240) ... M240, with same larger battery. Pic comparison (with M240) included here... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/2015/11/leica-m-typ-262/ Jeff Edited November 20, 2015 by Jeff S Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Thompson Posted November 20, 2015 Share #151 Posted November 20, 2015 Bravo Leica! I would have purchased this over the M240 if it was available at the time. To chrome aluminum it must plated first. Not a big deal, wheel manufacturer's have been doing this for years. An anodized finish would be fine with me. It's a tool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 20, 2015 Share #152 Posted November 20, 2015 Quieter and faster shutter re-cock in the M262 vs the M240 is a nice aspect IMO...not discussed too much here. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjolie Posted November 20, 2015 Share #153 Posted November 20, 2015 A simpler, lighter and less expensive M without video? Nice! Apart from my beloved modified M3, THIS would be the digital M I would get. For me, the perfect digital M would be the same as the M film camera but just digital. My eyes glaze over when I'm confronted with a camera loaded with switches and buttons and the need to rifle through various menus. It's why I've stayed away from digital Ms so far. The M 262 is a very good sign and if the simplification continues into future Ms, I will definitely get one for sure Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 20, 2015 Share #154 Posted November 20, 2015 In what way, exactly, is the firmware "crippled"? They disabled EVF and Live View on purpose. This is done commenting a couple lines in the code. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 20, 2015 Share #155 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) I haven't read all 5 pages of this thread, but has it been clarified whether the sensor in the 262 is the same as in the 240 or the same as in the SL? Of course it is the same as in the 240, otherwise we would be reading much more marketing nonsense. Edited November 20, 2015 by CheshireCat 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted November 20, 2015 Share #156 Posted November 20, 2015 They disabled EVF and Live View on purpose. This is done commenting a couple lines in the code. One of these days , they will hook you with a low cost base camera ; then you pay extra ( in App purchases ) to license the extra features you want . For the M.262, the shutter mechanism is likely quieter as there is no need to quickly close then open between live view and capture. I like the return to M9 styling and smaller red dot - proves the listen ; but will wait for more of a high ISO step before upgrading. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 20, 2015 Share #157 Posted November 20, 2015 They disabled EVF and Live View on purpose. Bearing in mind that the various video related buttons and the EVF socket have been removed from the camera (a good thing IMO), don't you think it would be a little odd if the EVF and live view options remained in the software? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted November 20, 2015 Share #158 Posted November 20, 2015 This may be the perfect M camera for me. Simple with full function for still photos. I presume all the Improvements made for the M are still in it. Do not care for video. Have visoflex and lenses for macro. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 20, 2015 Share #159 Posted November 20, 2015 Yes, although a used M 240 at a similar outlay will almost certainly retain a higher proportion of its price. Possibly. At the moment the difference in price between a new M240 and the new M262 is only £350 at most UK dealers. Personally speaking, if I was in the market for a digital M body, I'd likely pay £350 extra for the pared-down M262 body, such is my dislike for the EVF and video 'additions' that appeared with the M240. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 20, 2015 Share #160 Posted November 20, 2015 Bearing in mind that the various video related buttons and the EVF socket have been removed from the camera (a good thing IMO), don't you think it would be a little odd if the EVF and live view options remained in the software? Doubt it. It is easier to comment out than rip and write up again, assuming it is integrated into other parts of the firmware, which I am sure it is. It is also easier to upgrade, debug, and troubleshoot as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites 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.