Ecaton Posted November 20, 2015 Share #161 Posted November 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. The weight saving alone will make me "upgrade" from the M240. Had they only made it 3mm thinner as well But all in all I like the direction Leica is going with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Hi Ecaton, 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!
CheshireCat Posted November 20, 2015 Share #162 Posted November 20, 2015 The mechanical rangefinder explain the high price of the M. Yeah, and Elvis Presley is still alive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 20, 2015 Share #163 Posted November 20, 2015 As a traditionalist, the 262 is perfect. But I understand what Peter H means, expecting more in the future to use Leica glass to the fullest. However, in 2060, I sincerely doubt that Leica glass will be attached to a rangefinder. People will scratch their heads and say "what's that?" (Dont' flame me, I love the M all the way....Just saying....) Our beloved Leica glass will be attached to a totally different kind of camera....As Leica are already producing. They are doing the perfect job of guaranteeing and solidifying their future will all these developments. In 2060, people will probably scratch their heads and say, "What's a camera?" I like the direction the M262 is headed in. If I didn't have the M240, I'd have my pre-order in by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 20, 2015 Share #164 Posted November 20, 2015 The top plate from the M9: 115 grams. 100 grams cannot come from the top plate alone. Surely you should be weighing the top plate from an M240 for a more accurate comparison? Maybe the video and live view buttons are made of depleted uranium? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotium Posted November 20, 2015 Share #165 Posted November 20, 2015 If it were thinner, I'd be all over it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 20, 2015 Share #166 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? It is actually the other way around: they removed video features by means of software "castration", therefore it would be a little odd to still have video related buttons. Again, this is just a castrated M240. I wonder why so many Leica users are so positive about castration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 20, 2015 Share #167 Posted November 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The top plate from the M9: 115 grams. 100 grams cannot come from the top plate alone. Told ya: they also removed a few lines of code from the firmware Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 20, 2015 Share #168 Posted November 20, 2015 Again, this is just a castrated M240. I wonder why so many Leica users are so positive about castration. Maybe some people have different preferences to you (and better taste)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack-tucker Posted November 20, 2015 Share #169 Posted November 20, 2015 So far my only doubt about this camera is, how it would look after a while in use. My M-P shows a lot of brass and the black paint comes off quite fast. (Maybe due to the hot temperatures and humidity during summer, here in India). I don't mind, but I wonder if I would, if it would show a lot of aluminium... Otherwise, IMO this camera was a good move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted November 20, 2015 Share #170 Posted November 20, 2015 I like it. The viewfinder is already obsolete and video is not the best. "das Wesentliche". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 20, 2015 Share #171 Posted November 20, 2015 My black 240 is still spotless after 2 years of daily use. I am considering some sandpaper because I'm jealous of the brassing on my friends cameras. No not really Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted November 20, 2015 Share #172 Posted November 20, 2015 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. Barnack did not know the rangfinder of the M3....I don't know if he would disagree. The rangfinderbase is the broadness of the camera , the lenght between the " eyes " small hole on the left + big hole ( viewfinder " on the right. When you make this distance smaller, you worsen your rangefinder base. I don't know how you can make room if you make the camera smaller. The leica people don't either the last 60 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 20, 2015 Share #173 Posted November 20, 2015 Removing or disabling the video software from the camera would have no advantage and only disadvantages. Why would any reasonable producer of electronic goods go to the length of developing, testing and maintaining a separate version of the software justs in order to remove a few functions from the software which can not even be accessed from the outside? The unused bits of software do not cost anything at all. It's much like discussing whether you want 1/125 removed from the shutter speed dial because you think you'll never going to use that particular speed. A bit of experience in the software business would be useful for a discussion about software, methinks. As a matter of fact, no one here knows whether those bits of software are there or not, and those who do know don't tell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2015 Share #174 Posted November 20, 2015 But we DO know that these bytes must have weighed 100 grams! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 20, 2015 Share #175 Posted November 20, 2015 No, it's the weight of the responsibility for so many functions which weighed down the processor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2015 Share #176 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 [....] I would say very few - given that the cameras have virtually the same thickness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted November 20, 2015 Share #177 Posted November 20, 2015 Without the need for sustained data processing for video or live-view they probably removed a good weight of heat-pipe from the Meastro ASIC . A simpler shutter a few more grams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 20, 2015 Share #178 Posted November 20, 2015 On the question of which chip is used in the 262, not having to run video (which is what Live View requires, thus makes possible) greatly reduces the requirements on the support circuitry of the chip. On a CMOS chip the support circuits are at every pixel, not at the edges as in CCDs, so a much simpler chip is certainly possible. The tech spec for the 262 uses a different phrase to describe its chip from what is said about the 240. Here it is called a "still image" chip, supported by Maestro I electronics (I can't find the precise language as Google is distracted by all the review articles). I suspect that the support circuits are all still there inside, but the buttons have been removed and the software is commented out for a simple, relatively trouble-free path to a lower-power operating setup. Actually, if the menus have been shortened, that's the software equivalent of removing buttons but leaving the hardware behind the buttons intact. Routines in the underlying firmware don't have to be removed if there is no way to call them. Hackers (if any should dare) could probably bring LV and video back in the 262 if they really wanted to. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted November 20, 2015 Share #179 Posted November 20, 2015 Is this a modernised M9 rather than a restricted M240? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted November 20, 2015 Share #180 Posted November 20, 2015 My opinion: Pros: Losing video and EVF, good move. Losing weight and price, excellent. Quieter shutter: YES! Cons: Losing live view? Hmm. Why not just ditch the screen completely? So, now do I buy a really cheap M-E, or get this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.