M typ 262... weight... conspiracy theory needed?

[gpwhite]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I purchased an M 262 and love it. From M8 onwards, this is my favorite digital M. But I have never quite understood, or accepted at face value, Leica's explanation of the "technological differences" between M 240 and 262.

 

Here is a comparison of body weights I have measured at somewhat scientific standards (measurements are precise and repeated, but I tested only one copy of each piece). These weights include body cap and whichever battery is appropriate for the body. [ Quite pleased to have access to a featherweight M7 for this ]

 

M7 black chrome (mild brassing obvious)   600g

M7 50-Jahre Titanium                                  551g

 

M-P typ 240                                                 689g

M typ 262                                                     595g

 

My measurements indicate that the titanium body pieces save 49g versus the brass-based M film body and that the M 262 kit saves 94g versus the brass-based M digital.

 

I expect there are forum members, who hopefully will read and comment, with an understanding of the relative mass of titanium, aluminum (M262) and brass. What struck me is that the weight savings in the M 262 vs. 240 comparison is far greater than in the titanium vs. brass comparison (I would have expected the opposite).

 

Perhaps I have missed something obvious. Hence I post my findings.

 

But,  , I am wondering what is the real story is for the M 262?? It seems that the aluminum top plate story does not nearly explain the weight savings in the 262, so what other "technological differences" were really accomplished?

[Luke_Miller]

Don't have any specific knowledge, but perhaps the M240 has a heat sink for the sensor that is needed for liveview and video, but which is missing from the M262.

[Jeff S]

Well, remember that you're comparing the M-P version and not the stock M240.....the former has sapphire glass screen and preview lever, missing on the stock M240 and M262.

 

Technologically, the M262 also has a quieter shutter cocking mechanism than the M240, but I doubt any 'noisy parts' weighed much more.

 

Jeff

[DezFoto]

It's probably a combination of Jeff and Luke's comments, I would think. 

 

Going back and forth from M6 to M-P (240) during a day of shooting really made me appreciate how light and compact the M6 is.  

[marknorton]

The mistake you're making is thinking that titanium has a lower density than aluminium. It doesn't. In round numbers, titanium has half the density of brass and aluminium has a third of the density. Therefore, replacing parts made in brass with aluminium will have a larger weight reduction than if they are replaced with titanium and since there is more brass in the M240/262 than there was in the M7, the effect of switching to aluminium is even more.

 

The reason to use titanium instead of aluminium even though it is heavier is that it is a much stronger and heat resistant material than aluminium. Using it for camera bodies is pure vanity and cosmetics.

[DezFoto]

The reason to use titanium instead of aluminium even though it is heavier is that it is a much stronger and heat resistant material than aluminium. Using it for camera bodies is pure vanity and cosmetics.

 

Well generally because titanium is stronger than aluminum, you would use less of it to create any given part of equal strength. If you're casting the exact same part, then yes the titanium version would be heavier. It is likely that Leica used titanium purely out of vanity, since it was still rare at the time because most of it was being mined in cold-war era Soviet Union, so it was expensive on the western market. 

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The mistake you're making is thinking that titanium has a lower density than aluminium. It doesn't. In round numbers, titanium has half the density of brass and aluminium has a third of the density. Therefore, replacing parts made in brass with aluminium will have a larger weight reduction than if they are replaced with titanium and since there is more brass in the M240/262 than there was in the M7, the effect of switching to aluminium is even more.

 

The reason to use titanium instead of aluminium even though it is heavier is that it is a much stronger and heat resistant material than aluminium. Using it for camera bodies is pure vanity and cosmetics.

 

Well mostly true. When working with Titanium you also design parts differently because of the differences in the mechanical properties. For example in many cases you can design parts thinner. If you fabricate a part with the same dimensional specifications out of brass, titanium, and aluminum your numbers of 1/2 and 1/3 are correct. However, if you design a part based upon strength or resistance to flex or some other mechanical property, then it can be much lighter than if were made out of steel, brass, or aluminum. Most of the time you don't want to just substitute one metal for another. It is really hard to predict the relative weight of a part without doing the actual design because so many factors go into it. For example, say it isn't a structural part but you are covering a large area using a denser but stronger material. In that case you wouldn't save you much. However, if it is structural then you can make a smaller part provided the other parts in whatever assembly you are creating are also able to mate with a smaller part. In many cases replacing one part propagates through the whole assembly of parts. If that cannot be done some of the benefits of the stronger material may not be able to be realized.

 

I wouldn't entirely agree that making a camera case out of Titanium rather than Aluminum is complete vanity. It could allow for a design that is highly resistant to bumps scrapes while being extremely light. For example, I have a dent in the top of my top-plate.I don't know exactly how it got there but it doesn't seem to affect anything. Given the springiness of titanium vs. brass I doubt that it would be there if my top plate were made out of titanium. 

 

And if they made a new M out of Titanium just think of all the cool special editions they could make simply by creating different colored oxidation states on the surface. Forget about just black, silver, green, and now Panda colored M's we could have RAINBOW colored M's each unique. I know what I want, I want a titanium rainbow patterned M Monochrom. Wouldn't that be cool? Just think of the irony of it ;-)

[DezFoto]

I know what I want, I want a titanium rainbow patterned M Monochrom. Wouldn't that be cool? Just think of the irony of it ;-)

 

 

Brilliant

 

True, brass dents much more easily than does titanium. Brass is actually a silly metal to be using for the top plate of the M's, it's very soft and doesn't like holding onto paints. Internal moving parts makes a lot of sense for brass, since it's somewhat self-lubricating. 

[papimuzo]

[.................]  However, if it is structural then you can make a smaller part provided the other parts in whatever assembly you are creating are also able to mate with a smaller part. In many cases replacing one part propagates through the whole assembly of parts.

 

[...........................]   Wouldn't that be cool? Just think of the irony of it ;-)

 

Absolutely right!   Ahhhhhhhhhhh my dreams: a new M taking in consideration the Titanium properties in order to gain space for loging the complete M' interiors and by the fact reducing the total external dimensions approching the M6 volume...   A good architectural work, not a technological progress but... customer'dreams, at least.

[gpwhite]

The M60, a stainless steel digital M, was a commercial flop because it weighs so much. Even when discounted 20%, as you can find now, it did not find a niche sufficient to hold its volume up. If titanium, which has not been an expensive metal since military aircraft switched to composite skins ~1990, were an option to manufacture the M60, we could have expected it in the M60ti.

 

I guess there could still be a Mont Blanc edition M in titanium with special gray baby calf shooting gloves from Hermes.

[marknorton]

I doubt very much that the switch to a titanium or aluminium top cover involved very much redesign; the overriding requirement would have been to minimise any impact on any other components and therefore a good mechanical fit. The mechanical and thermal loads on a M7 Titanium top cover are probably a bit less than those on the con-rods in my 991 GT3 engine.

[bencoyote]

Absolutely right!   Ahhhhhhhhhhh my dreams: a new M taking in consideration the Titanium properties in order to gain space for loging the complete M' interiors and by the fact reducing the total external dimensions approching the M6 volume...   A good architectural work, not a technological progress but... customer'dreams, at least.

 

I really wonder how much of the external dimensional change has to do with the improvements in the accuracy of the rangefinder made between the M9 and the M240. Anyone know?

 

From my understanding they basically have three relatively simple ways to improve the accuracy of the rangefinder.

1) They can increase the baseline distance which would increase the problems with parallax.

2) They can increase the precision of the parts that they use in the rangefinder. This is hard given how precise it has to be already. All things being equal increasing precision and reducing tolerances costs in the manufacturing process. However, the one big exception to this is when you change manufacturing processes. For example if they went from hand milled or cast parts to CNC milled parts, they may be able to achieve more precision while reducing manufacturing costs. (I'm not saying that always works out - it doesn't. I'm just saying changing manufacturing processes can change the cost structure for a given level of precision.)

3) They can do something like increasing the baseline by changing the geometry of the optics using depth to increase the deflection in the rangefinder.

 

My understanding is that #3 is what they actually did when improving the rangefinder in the M240. Thus I feel it is unlikely that future M's are going to be any thinner. However, I would love to know for sure by someone who has looked carefully at the internal design of the M9 (excluding the M3) and its predecessors as well and compared it to the M240's versions.

 

I just looked up the stats:

M6 138mm x 77mm x 38mm 585g

M240 139mm x 80mm x 42mm 680g

M262 139mm x 80mm x 42mm 600g

 

So we are talking about 3mm shorter, 4mm thinner, and 100g lighter.

[ynp]

A new Titanium M-camera sound interesting.

[ynp]

The M60, a stainless steel digital M, was a commercial flop because it weighs so much. Even when discounted 20%, as you can find now, it did not find a niche sufficient to hold its volume up. If titanium, which has not been an expensive metal since military aircraft switched to composite skins ~1990, were an option to manufacture the M60, we could have expected it in the M60ti.

 

I guess there could still be a Mont Blanc edition M in titanium with special gray baby calf shooting gloves from Hermes.

Peter,

 

I had the M7 Titanium after its introduction and it was easily scratch-able ( hope that this word exists). After one year of use I had to send it for polishing. The titanium plated M6 survived the abuse easily.

 

How do you find your M7Ti after so many years? Cosmetically?

 

Yevgeny

[John Black]

There are multiple items eliminated from the M-262 vs the M-P (240) -

 

•  EVF port removed and presumably the internal electronics to support it

•  No frame line selector switch

•  Button removed from the front (to toggle the EVF magnification)

•  No sapphire glass

•  262's body is notched adjacent to the OVF

•  No microphone ports (and presumably the underlying electronics are eliminated)

•  No top button for the video release

 

Looking at just the weight delta between materials is only part of the equation.  Other things could have changed like less material being used in the aluminum case.

[marknorton]

I've just weighted a few bits...

 

M240 Battery - 94g

M240 Baseplate - 53g

 

M6 Baseplate - 52g

 

M8 Top Cover - 100g

M8 Sensor Board (including metal mounting plate and sensor) - 34g

M8 DSP Board - 35g

M8 Shutter - 28g

M8 Rear Shell (see picture on M8 cracked screen thread) - 24g

 

SO....

 

Replacing the M240 brass top cover and base plate with aluminium (if that is what they have done) will have saved around 90g. If only the top cover has been changed to aluminium, the saving will be around 60g. The electronic deletions will have saved, at most 20g; together, they account for the reduction in weight between the M240 and M262.

 

I can't remember the detail but I seem to remember the battery accounted for more than half the weight increase from M9 to M240.

[bocaburger]

Here's my theory:   If someone bought an M-240 when it was new, for $7000, sold it now for $3500, then ponied up another $1700 to buy a new M262, the total cost would be the $3500 depreciation on the 240 plus $1700, or $5200.  According to Wiki, US paper currency weighs 1g.  So if you paid with fifties that would come to a weight saving of 104g in your wallet.   Thus the smart thing would be to pay with singles, which would effectively cancel out the entire weight of a 2-body, 6-lens kit in a Billingham bag.

[gpwhite]

I doubt very much that the switch to a titanium or aluminium top cover involved very much redesign; the overriding requirement would have been to minimise any impact on any other components and therefore a good mechanical fit. The mechanical and thermal loads on a M7 Titanium top cover are probably a bit less than those on the con-rods in my 991 GT3 engine.

 

Speaking bluntly, the 991 is just not my cup of tea. My 997 GT3 (now gone) certainly enjoyed purring along at 7500rpm, however, so I know what you mean. I have vegged out to a Cayman GTS in its place, which also has a nice top end.

 

I know that this is a Leica site, so let me ask if the 991 feels a bit like an SL to you, over the nimble 993 or fattier 997?

[gpwhite]

Peter,

 

I had the M7 Titanium after its introduction and it was easily scratch-able ( hope that this word exists). After one year of use I had to send it for polishing. The titanium plated M6 survived the abuse easily.

 

How do you find your M7Ti after so many years? Cosmetically?

 

Yevgeny

 

...  I just bought it used, without the full packaging actually (and quite a bit less than the collector kits on line). But it never had a roll of film through it from what I can see.

 

The scratches will not bother me, if they occur. I love the feel of the metal and the lightness in hand. The Ti lens mount and Leica logo are poison for me, so I bought it. I agree with you about the M6 titanium, as it was my favorite camera before I gave up film with Cibachrome was discontinued for my Velvia frames.

 

For now, my M7 50_Jahre Ti looks like it came out of Solms this morning. And the lens too. I imagine I will sell the 50/ 1.4 titanium because I use other 50's, plus it is very rare and is in brand new condition. The lens cap is quite something, isn't it?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gpwhite]

Here's my theory:   If someone bought an M-240 when it was new, for $7000, sold it now for $3500, then ponied up another $1700 to buy a new M262, the total cost would be the $3500 depreciation on the 240 plus $1700, or $5200.  According to Wiki, US paper currency weighs 1g.  So if you paid with fifties that would come to a weight saving of 104g in your wallet.   Thus the smart thing would be to pay with singles, which would effectively cancel out the entire weight of a 2-body, 6-lens kit in a Billingham bag.

 

Not clear on why someone would trade in an M 240 on an M 262. What did I miss?