Feeling Sad about the CCD Replacement

[Rus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not much. I recommend to stay away from the M262, also to reinforce the message that we don't want castrated editions.

 

 

 

You will use them once you know better. Enjoy your castrated camera.

 

 

 

I get the "less is more" thing, but I am enjoying my two testicles even if I am told I just need one.

 

That's some interesting fascination with testicle-related imagery there....

 

I think the 262 does come closer to the M9 than the M240 in terms of weight. See for instance the specs on Leica website or Thorsten Overgaard's latest page on M9 and 262. 

 

Besides, isn't it strange to think of a camera that gets rid of a bunch of functions that weren't there previously as in any way "castrated"? I also get the convenience of live view for focus checking and RF calibration..but by the same token, I guess quite a lot of ppl are just happy enough to live with two testicles rather than having an extra one put in.

[otto.f]

Not sure about the M9 sensor replacement time, but my MM was back in 3 weeks in February, your dealer should know how much time it will take, the 3 month is an old story from last year. CS has everything planned quite clear at the moment.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[CheshireCat]

Besides, isn't it strange to think of a camera that gets rid of a bunch of functions that weren't there previously as in any way "castrated"?

 

The M262 is derived from the M240, so all these functions were present, and probably still are present in the hardware.

Cryptorchidism ?

[Peter H]

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

Besides, isn't it strange to think of a camera that gets rid of a bunch of functions that weren't there previously as in any way "castrated"?................

 

 

It's an apt enough description of a camera which is an existing camera with some features deliberately removed.

 

They are emasculated because they can't do what they could have done had they been left alone, and they appeal to people who really want something other than what they actually are.

[Gregm61]

If I was using the same VF2 I was using back in 2011 with an Olympus Pen E-P3 for live view with a $7,000 camera, I would be the one feeling castrated. Better use of live view if I really need it would be the E-M1 outfit I've been using since 2013 that has a built-in EVF that's leaps and bounds better than the VF2, but it hasn't seen the light of day since I opened the box on my M262.

 

Leaving off what I don't want and using the extra $2k in my pocket to buy a like-new 35mm f2 Summicron ASPH seemed like an OK deal to me. Smarter still, would have been keeping the 35mm f2 ASPH I bought new back in 1999 for $1,450, but that's another story.....

Edited April 3, 2016 by Gregm61

[jaapv]

 The M was originally designed to be simple.

Err, no. The M3 was designed to be the most advanced and full-featured rangefinder camera of its era. So much so that Leica felt compelled to produce the iiig to cater for the faction of its customer base that felt that the M3 was over-designed. And followed up with the "lesser" M2 and M1. Nothing new under the sun...

[Rus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's an apt enough description of a camera which is an existing camera with some features deliberately removed.

 

They are emasculated because they can't do what they could have done had they been left alone, and they appeal to people who really want something other than what they actually are.

Without wanting this to turn into word play, as debates that are merely matters of perspective usually end up being...

 

it is probably still best to remember that the whole castration-emasculation idea presupposes that the 240 with the full list of functions are necessarily better, and that the 262 with a few of these function taken out is somehow a "lesser" camera--therefore castrated or emasculated. 

 

I would wholehearted agree that the 262 is a "lesser" camera had some of those "full"-- I consider extra-- functions of the 240 been well implemented, which is largely not the case. 

 

For that matter I actually like the Q's much better integration and implementation of a lot of these same functions. 240 is a different story. And even though the 240, perhaps the same as the original M, was designed to be the most advanced and fully capable camera of all time, having the goal is not really the same as achieving it. 

 

Thus it could be just as reasonable to view some of the poorly implemented functions on the 240, such as the laggy LV function with the EVF or video mode, as tumorous; and the 262 as just an overall healthier body with those "functions" surgically removed. 

 

A well thought-out, well implemented idea is good progress; a poorly implemented one needs fixing. 

 

Anyway, a matter of perspective indeed. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Rus

[Peter H]

Without wanting this to turn into word play, as debates that are merely matters of perspective usually end up being...

 

it is probably still best to remember that the whole castration-emasculation idea presupposes that the 240 with the full list of functions are necessarily better, and that the 262 with a few of these function taken out is somehow a "lesser" camera--therefore castrated or emasculated. 

 

I would wholehearted agree that the 262 is a "lesser" camera had some of those "full"-- I consider extra-- functions of the 240 been well implemented, which is largely not the case. 

 

For that matter I actually like the Q's much better integration and implementation of a lot of these same functions. 240 is a different story. And even though the 240, perhaps the same as the original M, was designed to be the most advanced and fully capable camera of all time, having the goal is not really the same as achieving it. 

 

Thus it could be just as reasonable to view some of the poorly implemented functions on the 240, such as the laggy LV function with the EVF or video mode, as tumorous; and the 262 as just an overall healthier body with those "functions" surgically removed. 

 

A well thought-out, well implemented idea is good progress; a poorly implemented one needs fixing. 

 

Anyway, a matter of perspective indeed. 

 

 

I think we're all taking this a little too seriously.

 

I think I coined the term "castrated", slightly more than half jokingly, a long time ago in relation to the M60, but it seems to have some currency in relation to the M262, for reasons that seem natural enough.

 

Of course it's all a matter of perspective. It was just a mildly provocative way of expressing mine.

[sdk]

OP:

You don't like the Q becuase it has unacceptable distortion compared to the M system?

News to me...

 

 

The Leica Q has automatic distortion correction, but the raw DNG files can show that the uncorrected image has inherently high distortion. I have read that distortion correction is automatically on in ACR, Lightroom, etc. Apparently Iridient Developer 3 can show the uncorrected image. This means that after correction, corner sharpness of the Leica Q is inherently lower than just about any modern 28mm lens on a Leica M 240 or 262 (Lloyd Chambers calculated the Q is limited to c.22.4 Megapixels. But the Q, despite limitations, is probably still a bit higher optical quality than a modern 28mm lens on a Leica m9. See: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/LEICA/LeicaM9/LeicaQ-distortion-Dolls.html (subscription needed)

 

For rqy1996, the original poster: if I were you, I would just work with the Q if I had one. But it can't hurt to ask if a loaner M9 or other Leica M digital body could be had from Leica while waiting for the repair.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2016 by sdk

[hishma]

I sent my leica m9 to Leica Bellevue, 3 days ago, and they said they would send it out for repairing. 

 

 Just read several posts, people said it would take 3 - 4 months for CCD replacement. 

 

 

 

However, I need a camera for the spring quarter as I am a college student and in two photography classes. I own a Canon 5D2 and a Leica R9 both seems too large and heavy for my projects. So I've purchased a leica q, it works perfect but the feeling is still different and the distortion is unacceptable comparing to the M system.

 

Should I return the leica q and find a used M body in the market?

 

Or should I keep the Q?(Even though I could purchase for leica, it still means a lot money to me as a college student)

 

 

Can you update this thread when you get your camera back? It would be good to know how long it takes. I need to drop mine off at Bellevue as well, but I'm procrastinating.

Edited April 12, 2016 by hishma

[Darcy]

I much prefer the "castrated" M262, especially because of the price and the lighter weight.