M 262 sensor is technically different to M 240

[jip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LFI states more often things a bit vaguely. 

[gpwhite]

The real question is whether files from the 262 are different in a meaningful way to M photographers. My rental arrived, and I will make some body-to-body comparisons, based on prints.

 

IMHO, the 262 feels very much lighter and sounds quieter (perhaps a clanky M6, but not electronica like an M240 at all). AWB seems like it may be more accurate, and the DNG processed through ACR and Photoshop look different than M240 (using milder ACR settings too), at least on an LCD.

 

My impression is that the 262 files are different from the several thousand M 240 files I have shot. But whether those differences amount to anything in prints (beyond what can be easily attributed to body sample variation and matched through pp), I cannot yet offer an opinion.

[jcespite]

Look forward to more of your thoughts on the 262.  I will probably buy this over a used 240.

[gpwhite]

Look forward to more of your thoughts on the 262.  I will probably buy this over a used 240.

 

I cannot draw any difference in image quality or file flexibility.

 

Both M 262 and M 240 show modest banding at ISO 1600, unless you saturate the exposure (but then why are you shooting at ISO 1600 in the first place?). The color profiles are clearly different to my eyes, before adjustments in ACR. The M 262 files I produced were cooler and, in a way that doesn't to translate much in prints, seemed a bit brighter/ cleaner. You can make the files from the two bodies look essentially the same by tinkering in pp, but I do prefer the M 262 embedded profile (just my taste and likely not so for others).

 

OK, let's set aside the pictures, deeming them to be essentially equivalent. In terms of using the camera, IMHO, it is a plain no-brainer to choose an M 262 as the best RF tool. It feels better and looks better. When I read about the introduction of the M 262, I wondered what on earth Leica was drinking! Well, it tastes awfully good  .

[gpwhite]

One other, completely subjective comment. The rented M 262 seemed to have a bit brighter OVF than my 14-month old M-P typ 240. I am sure someone will say the parts are identical and produced to the exact same specifications by the same people...  probably true. But in my mind's eye, the view through the M 262 was brighter than through my M 240. Not as big a difference as M9 vs. M240 (which is huge, IMHO), but I grew to believe it was there and appreciated it.

[Jeff S]

I always disable video, and typically disable LV on my M240, using it as an RF camera.  But, given digital M tolerances and susceptibility to camera/lens alignment issues, it's nice to be able to turn on LV occasionally for quick and easy calibration checks.  

 

I also like the weight and balance of the M240....and it looks nice with my black dot.  

 

Different strokes...but nice that Leica is offering choices.  I may well have chosen the M262 if it had been offered years ago.   It will be interesting to see what the new M brings, and whether the M262 (or some simplified 'traditional' RF successor) will continue longer term, or if it will end as did the M-E when the new model appeared.

 

Jeff

[gpwhite]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I mis-reported in post #24 above, sorry. I intended to write that ISO 3200 shows mild banding in dark areas lifted by adding greater than +15 luminance in "shadows."

[marknorton]

I've no doubt that the sensor in the M262 is different from the M240 not because it needed to be but because it could be. They could have taken the M240 sensor and implemented an M-E style de-contented body but once you've decided not to do live view and video, there may well be beneficial changes to the sensor to remove high refresh rate readout channels and other extraneous functions which are no longer needed. Those in turn may yield benefits in the form of reduced power consumption, heat, thermal noise and cross-talk between the analogue and digital domains.

 

So, there may be changes and we shouldn't rely either on Leica themselves or LFI - who are really a mouthpiece for Leica - to state accurately what they are. Even ignoring "lost in translation", Leica have a long history of obfuscation mainly because the people making these pronouncements don't know any better.

 

I see the M262 as a de-contented M240 which, by concentrating on the essentials, may even provide better performance than the M240 3 years on. One of the original attractions of the M240 was Live View to complement what was rightly regarded as a deficient rangefinder in the M8 and M9. What we didn't know at the time was that the rangefinder precision was going to be much improved as well which dilutes the case for Live View.

 

If your focal length usage is such that you don't need external finders at all or are happy to stay with external optical finders, I think the M262 makes a compelling case for itself. Certainly, Live View in the M240 has turned out to be a disappointment since it has failed to keep up at all with advancing technology which you might have reasonably expected with an external EVF.

 

I see the M262 as fresh and current and the M240 as obsolescent and in much need of a refresh.

[Mornnb]

I see the M262 as a de-contented M240 which, by concentrating on the essentials, may even provide better performance than the M240 3 years on. One of the original attractions of the M240 was Live View to complement what was rightly regarded as a deficient rangefinder in the M8 and M9. What we didn't know at the time was that the rangefinder precision was going to be much improved as well which dilutes the case for Live View.

 

If your focal length usage is such that you don't need external finders at all or are happy to stay with external optical finders, I think the M262 makes a compelling case for itself. Certainly, Live View in the M240 has turned out to be a disappointment since it has failed to keep up at all with advancing technology which you might have reasonably expected with an external EVF.

 

I see the M262 as fresh and current and the M240 as obsolescent and in much need of a refresh.

The problem with this statement is that Liveview/EVF is one of the essentials. If you shoot anything wider than 28mm or shoot on a tripod it is an essential feature.

IMHO the M240 is as 'essential' as a digital camera can possibly be, without reducing utility as a photographic tool.

[jdlaing]

That's not entirely true. I shot 16-24 mm a while before live view with no problem. It may be desirable but not essential.

[jaapv]

The problem with this statement is that Liveview/EVF is one of the essentials. If you shoot anything wider than 28mm or shoot on a tripod it is an essential feature.

IMHO the M240 is as 'essential' as a digital camera can possibly be, without reducing utility as a photographic tool.

Actually I quite dislike the EVF for wideangle lenses. The lack of detail loses the sense of the image. I prefer the Zeiss optical finders.

[jaapv]

I've no doubt that the sensor in the M262 is different from the M240 not because it needed to be but because it could be. They could have taken the M240 sensor and implemented an M-E style de-contented body but once you've decided not to do live view and video, there may well be beneficial changes to the sensor to remove high refresh rate readout channels and other extraneous functions which are no longer needed. Those in turn may yield benefits in the form of reduced power consumption, heat, thermal noise and cross-talk between the analogue and digital domains.

 

So, there may be changes and we shouldn't rely either on Leica themselves or LFI - who are really a mouthpiece for Leica - to state accurately what they are. Even ignoring "lost in translation", Leica have a long history of obfuscation mainly because the people making these pronouncements don't know any better.

 

I see the M262 as a de-contented M240 which, by concentrating on the essentials, may even provide better performance than the M240 3 years on. One of the original attractions of the M240 was Live View to complement what was rightly regarded as a deficient rangefinder in the M8 and M9. What we didn't know at the time was that the rangefinder precision was going to be much improved as well which dilutes the case for Live View.

 

If your focal length usage is such that you don't need external finders at all or are happy to stay with external optical finders, I think the M262 makes a compelling case for itself. Certainly, Live View in the M240 has turned out to be a disappointment since it has failed to keep up at all with advancing technology which you might have reasonably expected with an external EVF.

 

I see the M262 as fresh and current and the M240 as obsolescent and in much need of a refresh.

Defecient viewfinder? That is quite an indictment. The viewfinder is the raison d'etre  of the camera. If that is deficient the whole camera is. Leica should have thrown the towel decades ago if that were the case.

[gpwhite]

Jaap, I don't know how you can suffer through all these posts!

Of course the M is a dreadful VF, and Leica glass has an entirely bogus reputation:)!

[marknorton]

Jaap, I stand by my statement. I said deficient RANGEFINDER not viewfinder.

 

You only have to think of the situation 4 or so years ago where people were sending in their bodies and lenses for calibration in order to achieve the expected lens interchangeability. Any lens to work correctly on any camera. Remember people with the hex wrenches tweaking the alignment in an effort to get everything to work? You don't see that now.

 

The M240 introduced improvements to the rangefinder precision and alignment processes - the precise details of which were never fully revealed AFAIK - and the opinion now is that the rangefinder is much improved.

 

The problem stemmed from the redesign of the rangefinder for the M8 when the lens was moved forwards from the camera body. That necessitated a redesign of the lens/rangefinder coupling and specifically the profile of the cam which moves the rangefinder telescope as the focussing distance is changed. The original rangefinder was fine for film but the M8/M9 design did not apparently take account of the more critical focussing requirements for digital which is why when I go back to my M8s and M9s, focussing is still a problem with lenses - and I have over 30 of them - that work fine on the M240, even problem children like the 75mm Summilux and original Noctilux.

 

So, the improvement in the M240 rangefinder partially obviated the need for Live View at the very time it was being introduced. The M240 used obsolescent EVF technology from the outset and the idea that we would somehow see an improved EVF for the camera was always a pipe dream. That's why I think the M262 is a better choice right now. My hope is that we will see a revised M240 with a much improved EVF, preferably built-in. 

[Rick]

Mark, always enjoy your posts... and what you write about the M8 and M9 having a different RF/cam from the M2440 makes a lot of sense.  Maybe, why I haven't had a problem with my M240 RF going out of alignment.  Also, My 75 Summilux is much easier to get good focus at all distances.  Never understood why... thought it was just a better camera-lens match.

 

Here is my question.  How do you envision a built in EVF?  It would be convenient, simpler, and probably advantages in many ways for the VF to be built in.  How do you see this implemented.

 

Rick

[marknorton]

I remember speaking with one of the Leica people at the M8 launch and he told me that the rangefinder changes had been a challenge. I suspect the real issue was that the two main adjustments - the roller eccentric and the arm offset - lost the desired orthogonality and so became more inter-dependent which made setting it up an iterative pain. So it's all credit to Leica for sorting it out.

 

As for how an EVF could be built into an M camera, the top plate of the SL gives us a clue how much space is needed for the EVF and the eyepiece optics - quite a lot - so I think a built-in EVF would inevitably change the top plate design to coexist with the rangefinder.

 

We're quite used to seeing things in the M viewfinder which are not where they appear - the focussing patch, the frame lines and the LED display - and instead injected into the optical path through internal reflections in a prism. Whether the EVF image could be injected in the same way and the straight view blanked out with quality maintained, I do not know. What's certain is that the appearance of the camera would change and that might be a step too far for M traditionalists. On the other hand, doing a new detachable EVF with the same quality as the SL would also be rather large. The unloved Frankenfinder was named so for a reason.

 

So, no easy solution, for sure.

[asiafish]

Funny, my M Monochrom (M9) and M-E rangefinders seem to work pretty well.

[uhoh7]

Actually I quite dislike the EVF for wideangle lenses. The lack of detail loses the sense of the image. I prefer the Zeiss optical finders.

I have M9 so of course there is no choice. I use ZI 18 and 21 optical finders and they are very good. I do shoot A7.mod alot with UWA also, and focus with that EVF is a nightmare on the SEM 21 and ZM18 aids notwithstanding. The combo of RF focus and OVF at least in landscape work is superior for me, and as far as framing it's easy to make a quick check and re frame if needed. I usually make a mental note of where my lower left corner is and adjust this accordingly if I don't like the frame.

 

I would love to see some side by side shots 240 vs 262 to see if there really is any difference straight out of the camera.

[gpwhite]

I would love to see some side by side shots 240 vs 262 to see if there really is any difference straight out of the camera.

 

It is an interesting comparison, if only to learn about Leica's M evolution. You will need to do it yourself, I am afraid, as the variation in monitors, etc., would likely mask any differences in profiles you are sensitive too. In terms of "sharpness" or flexibility of the DNG files, I could not see any. The color profiles are different, which you can adjust (hence my first point above).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Jaap, I stand by my statement. I said deficient RANGEFINDER not viewfinder.

 

You only have to think of the situation 4 or so years ago where people were sending in their bodies and lenses for calibration in order to achieve the expected lens interchangeability. Any lens to work correctly on any camera. Remember people with the hex wrenches tweaking the alignment in an effort to get everything to work? You don't see that now.

 

The M240 introduced improvements to the rangefinder precision and alignment processes - the precise details of which were never fully revealed AFAIK - and the opinion now is that the rangefinder is much improved.

 

The problem stemmed from the redesign of the rangefinder for the M8 when the lens was moved forwards from the camera body. That necessitated a redesign of the lens/rangefinder coupling and specifically the profile of the cam which moves the rangefinder telescope as the focussing distance is changed. The original rangefinder was fine for film but the M8/M9 design did not apparently take account of the more critical focussing requirements for digital which is why when I go back to my M8s and M9s, focussing is still a problem with lenses - and I have over 30 of them - that work fine on the M240, even problem children like the 75mm Summilux and original Noctilux.

 

So, the improvement in the M240 rangefinder partially obviated the need for Live View at the very time it was being introduced. The M240 used obsolescent EVF technology from the outset and the idea that we would somehow see an improved EVF for the camera was always a pipe dream. That's why I think the M262 is a better choice right now. My hope is that we will see a revised M240 with a much improved EVF, preferably built-in. 

Mark, whilst I fully agree with your pointing out the improvements in the M240 RF/VF (IIRC you were the first to point them out)  I still think that, as soon as Leica got their new adjustment rig running, it was quite possible to get the system calibrated properly - My lens set was - and still is- without focusing issues on my M9. But yes, some older lenses and an early-digital Summilux 50 asph took some work by Leica to get them into line.