M(240), M9P or Q?

[JBond]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all. I'm looking to buy a Leica and was looking for a bit of advice on what to get. Budget is around £3k- £4k which means second hand for the Ms which I am fine with. (probably would start with a 35mm lens). From what I have read so far the 3 main contenders to consider are Q, M(240) and M9P. Photography subjects include general family holidays, architecture, scenery. No fast paced sports. I quite like black and white now and again. What are the main benefits/drawbacks and distinguishing features for each please and which one to go for?

[Advertisement]

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

[david strachan]

Welcome to the world of Leica, and we hope you'll contribute to our Forum.

 

You are asking a question we would all be asking ourselves, if we were starting again. A question with answers that run to millions of words.

 

The Wiki pages on this Forum will help a lot on technicalities, and has references to source material and reviews.

 

If I were in your space, I'd start with the Q. Because it will be the start.

 

all the best...

[Adam]

The obvious difference are: Q has auto-focus, if you cannot go without it, forget the M's. Q has fixed lens, if you really want to use different focal lengths, the M is your camera.

 

One big difference between M9 and M240 is the sensor. M240 is CMOS, M9 is CCD. CMOS allows live view and EVF, better shadows. but M9 is has more unique rendering.

 

There is a lot of info on this site. The real challenge is to know what questions you want to ask.

 

My very modest experience with the latest M with a 35mm summicron lens is that it is a fantastic tool. But you should really read the forum discussion dedicated to the Q, the M9, and M240.

[dem331]

I wouldn't start with a Q.  My advice, and I know many will disagree, is not to spend this amount of money on a fixed lens camera. The great thing about non-fixed lenses is that you will allways have them.  I still use lenses I bought 16 years ago as if they were new, (35mm and 90mm summicron asph are that age), but I have a closet full of little used cameras. M3, M4, M6, M8. I also have some beautiful lenses on fixed lens cameras I never use (35mm minilux, 35mm Zeiss Tessar on a Yashica T4, even some nice fixed lenses on a Canon cameras).  In three, five or certainly ten years the Q will be a paperweight, technology just moves too fast and deteriorates too quickly, the lenses you will always have.

[farnz]

Bearing in mind your forum name I think you should probably go for a S (Typ 007).  It sounds made for you.

 

Pete.

[Berlinman]

I use a M240 and a Q. I would start with an M240 or if you do mostly bw with an MM.

 

 

Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Ernstk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd also recommend getting an M (which also works with your forum name).

 

It's a unique and engaging experience. However, choosing which M may be more of a challenge.

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Ernst

[JBond]

Thank you very much all for the worm welcome and advice. I think the extracts below sum up to the point the reasons for my hesitation in making a decision. 

 

The autofocus issue: I'm afraid i belong to a generation (or rather group of people) who is used to autofocus (using Nikon). I am not saying I dislike manual focus. I just haven't used MF in the past, especially on a Leica so I haven't got a clue what it's like at all. I generally take pictures of my family, nature and architecture. Can't think of having ever taken any pictures of fast moving cars, bikes or anything of the sort. So is lack of AF going to have an imapct on me?

 

Does the M not have AF at all? And is MF a problem when taking pictures of some slow moving objects such as plants in the wind or a bee approaching a plant for example?

 

I think the two main things that have held me back from going with the Q are the lack of weather sealing and the fixed 28mm lens. I probably could live with a fixed lens but not sure the 28mm is for me or not.

 

Now the dilemma about the M models. I know that the 240 has more advanced features compared to the 9P however some of them may not be relevant to my needs. For example: the video option I am not fussed about. And I am not sure if the difference between 18Mp and 24Mp sensors would have a major impact on my photography or not considering what I use the camera for?

 

I generally take pictures using the viewfinder and the Live View option is used at times when taking pictures of things like plants which are nearer to the ground. I dont particularly fancy getting down on the floor/grass/etc to take the picture. Then again when I use liveview I tend to swivel the screen on my dslr so that I am looking at it from above/below/angle and considering that the screen on the M doesn't swivel I'm not sure live view would be much good for me anyway? Unless those optional external EVFs would allow me to look at them from above from about 20-30cm away?

 

And finally the unique rendering of the 9P has also been a point of interest. From what I have read, I believe it is a little more grainy and warmer? Is that right?

 

The difference in price between second hand 240 and 9P is around £1k-£1.5k. Is that price difference justified by the technological improvements on the 240? Bearing in mind that some of those improvements may not necessarily be beneficial to me anyway?

 

BTW: if it matters I take around 1000 pictures per year.

 

The obvious difference are: Q has auto-focus, if you cannot go without it, forget the M's. Q has fixed lens, if you really want to use different focal lengths, the M is your camera.

 

One big difference between M9 and M240 is the sensor... but M9 is has more unique rendering.

 

 

 

Bearing in mind your forum name I think you should probably go for a S (Typ 007).  It sounds made for you.

 

Pete.

 

I wish I had the money to back up my forum name and to be able to afford the S However the S doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. I'm sure it is probably a brilliant camera however it will just feel like using yet another DSLR. Perhaps it's something frowned upon in this forum but the looks of the M and Q actually form part of my attraction to the gadget.

 

I'd also recommend getting an M (which also works with your forum name).

It's a unique and engaging experience. However, choosing which M may be more of a challenge.

Welcome to the forum.

Ernst

[pop]

I think you should realise that the Leica M is basically a view finder camera. This means that what you see in the finder is not an accurate representation of the picture you are going to make. There will be more in your picture than you suspect, or less, depending on the distance. There's also what they call the parallax; it is caused by the smallish distance between the finder and the main lens. It can cause things in your picture to be misaligned with respect to what they looked like in the finder, even things in a distance of several meters. 

 

For this and perhaps other reasons the M-type Leica will not focus to any distance closer than 0.7 meters or thereabout. 

 

However, the optical finder and - above all - the rangefinder has a number of advantages. As long as you can move your eye to the finder and see your subject, you will be able to accurately frame with the finder. You can see what's happening right next to what's within the frame. You have no autofocus, but you can see instantly whether you will be able to acquire focus or not. (This is one of my pet peeves with autofocus: all works perfectly fine until you encounter a situation where the AF will not find the focus or will focus on the wrong thing. You then lose time remembering what other ways there are for focusing, activating that other mode and focusing with that alternative mode, no matter how advanced it may be). Manually focusing takes a bit of practice, as does properly using an AF.

 

The M (Typ 240) with its CMOS sensor offers live view (LV) while the M9 does not. It also has a much better display. I use LV whenever the framing is critical: for some architecture, landscapes or close-up work. I always use the electronic viewfinder (EVF) for LV; while the EVF is not very good, it is good enough for the purpose (my purpose, that is).

 

If bees in flight are important subjects, then neither the M9 nor the M (Typ 240) are particularly useful. Both are very well suited to family and landscapes. For architecture I would prefer a LV camera because the framing is very important and easier to control with LV. 

 

It's all very subjective, of course, and the next member is probably going to tell me I'm speaking through my hat.

[STB]

The autofocus issue: I'm afraid i belong to a generation (or rather group of people) who is used to autofocus (using Nikon). I am not saying I dislike manual focus. I just haven't used MF in the past, especially on a Leica so I haven't got a clue what it's like at all. I generally take pictures of my family, nature and architecture. Can't think of having ever taken any pictures of fast moving cars, bikes or anything of the sort. So is lack of AF going to have an imapct on me?

 

Does the M not have AF at all? And is MF a problem when taking pictures of some slow moving objects such as plants in the wind or a bee approaching a plant for example?

Here's an entertaining, and informative, video comparing the process, speed and accuracy of focusing for three cameras, the autofocus Canon 5D Mark II and Olympus E-P1, and the manual focus M9:

 

[vhfreund]

The M system has a certain magic which is difficult to explain. I would always go for an M (M 240 / M262 /M 9 M6....). This the reason I use Leica!

[STB]

As Philippe points out, Leica Ms don't focus closer than about 70cm.

 

If you want to get closer (you mention 20-30cm), you're going to need either a closeup/macro lens or an extension tube (e.g. a Leica OUFRO or third party copy). These solutions will not couple with the M9 and M 240 viewfinders, meaning that you'll need the M 240's live view to make them work (optionally supplemented by an electronic viewfinder for greater focusing precision). For example, live view enables me to use a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 up to half life size, and beyond with an extension, which I could not use with an M9. More generally, the M 240's live view opens the door to using lenses from many manufacturers, including lenses from the Leica R system, which can sometimes save quite a lot of money. My Micro-Nikkor, in as-new condition, cost US$90.

[ECohen]

You need to rent an M240 with a 35mm summicron (or a 50) and see if you like manual focus....start there......go to a Leica Store

 

Ask yourself why you want a Leica? Why do you want to shoot with a rangefinder?.......its way different than an SLR

 

 

"subjects include general family holidays, architecture, scenery"

Your using Nikon now? Why do you want to change? What lenses do you currently own/use a lot?

Will you enjoy just one lens? ....till you get more?......no more fast zooms...and everything Leica is pricy

 

i use a M240 and love it because of its simplicity. It's so much fun to shoot with.

The 240 is a thinking camera you don't have a choice.....Your Nikon you, can hand it to a family member and they will be able to use it.

 

 

I cant speak too the Q. My introduction to Leica was the X2 I used it for 2 years......I wish I had bought the M from the beginning I could have saved some money and gotten another lens

I too came from Nikon ....there is a learning curve and Leica is not necessarily the best camera for everything.

 

 

Shooting kids and family .....auto focus is pretty nice.....inside family parties you may want a flash to pop into the ceiling

Lots of limitations to work around the nikon is an easy cheap camera best suited for a lot of different kinds of photography.

 

All this said theres nothing like and M and a 35 or 50....if its the right camera for you.

[JBond]

You need to rent an M240 with a 35mm summicron (or a 50) and see if you like manual focus....start there......go to a Leica Store

 

Ask yourself why you want a Leica? Why do you want to shoot with a rangefinder?.......its way different than an SLR

 

 

"subjects include general family holidays, architecture, scenery"

Your using Nikon now? Why do you want to change? What lenses do you currently own/use a lot?

Will you enjoy just one lens? ....till you get more?......no more fast zooms...and everything Leica is pricy

 

i use a M240 and love it because of its simplicity. It's so much fun to shoot with.

The 240 is a thinking camera you don't have a choice.....Your Nikon you, can hand it to a family member and they will be able to use it.

 

 

I cant speak too the Q. My introduction to Leica was the X2 I used it for 2 years......I wish I had bought the M from the beginning I could have saved some money and gotten another lens

I too came from Nikon ....there is a learning curve and Leica is not necessarily the best camera for everything.

 

 

Shooting kids and family .....auto focus is pretty nice.....inside family parties you may want a flash to pop into the ceiling

Lots of limitations to work around the nikon is an easy cheap camera best suited for a lot of different kinds of photography.

 

All this said theres nothing like and M and a 35 or 50....if its the right camera for you.

 

Yes, at the moment I use a Nikon with just one zoom lens. Well, I haven't actually touched the camera since Christmas. The Nikon may be nice and whatnot but I've lost interest. The camera is also too bulky to take out in a lot of places and is not very discreet.

 

The reason why I want to come to Leica is "a bit of everything" really: I fancy a challenge (albeit one that doesnt need hours of practice everyday to overcome), something new, I like the looks and shape of camera, I have been attracted by the famous sharpness of Leica lenses, I been won over by the hype and so on.

 

In terms of lenses a 35 and a 75 (or 90) would do fine for me.

 

Based on all recommendations so far it looks like the 240 is the way forward. I might go and rent one for a few days to try it out.

[torakun]

I've been in your shoes before acquiring M240. 

 

My consideration is, I want a camera that will cure me from my G.A.S (gear acquisition syndrome, basically kept buying new gears out of curiosity but neglecting to learn and take a photo) and something that will make me proud holding it. Leica M tick those two boxes. I will be proud owning one, and I won't be bothered getting new gears because the cost is exorbitant, which going to make me be very careful in my purchases and the time it takes for me to gather the money. Leica lenses are one of the best in the world, and the size makes it the best in the world. This will get me no gear envy, which means, I won't waste time and money lusting for a better gear, just better/newer lens maybe.. haha..

 

You mentioned that you don't want to carry your big DSLR. Well, I've been there too, and thats precisely why I got on with Leica. I like to travel but I don't like to look like a tourist. Their giveaway obviously is carrying a big DSLS amongs the other. Leica will make you want to carry it around everywhere (the price also help as a motivation) while being proud of owning it. Frankly if I have to say it, there's no other camera that can give this high level of satisfaction and proudness of owning one. Black and White is also very good. It's much better than my olympus em5 II before, and fuji. Although mainly those are not full frame sensor, but the signature of the BnW files are different enough. 

 

If you've been spoiled by the current generation cameras, like I do, with their auto focus, live view, etc. Get M240. Don't forget that M9 screen is low resolution and really can't be used for looking at your image, it was created for navigating through the menus. The sensor have corrosion issue and you might need to take it to Germany for a replacement soon. Usable ISO is up to 400, forget about shooting at night using ISO 1600. All of those things made me think that while m9 was revolutionary at its times, for the spoiled current generation like me, M240 is the best choice.

 

Now I own 50 cron and 28 cron, and I couldn't be happier. 

 

Good luck with your decision, it took me over a month to decide, and I am convinced I made the right one.; 

[STB]

Yes, at the moment I use a Nikon with just one zoom lens. Well, I haven't actually touched the camera since Christmas. The Nikon may be nice and whatnot but I've lost interest. The camera is also too bulky to take out in a lot of places and is not very discreet.

 

The reason why I want to come to Leica is "a bit of everything" really: I fancy a challenge (albeit one that doesnt need hours of practice everyday to overcome), something new, I like the looks and shape of camera, I have been attracted by the famous sharpness of Leica lenses, I been won over by the hype and so on.

J, this is not exactly the most convincing set of reasons for dumping your Nikon and buying a Leica

 

Before you go out and blow what is for most people serious money on an M 240 and lenses, I think you should think about whether you have lost interest in the Nikon or lost interest in, or don't have a lot of time for, photography. If it's the latter, there are significantly less expensive options for taking very good photographs; and if you really think that your Nikon is holding you back because it's "too big", some of these options come in quite small packages, such as the Canon G7X and the Sony RX100.

[DigitalHeMan]

J, this is not exactly the most convincing set of reasons for dumping your Nikon and buying a Leica

 

Before you go out and blow what is for most people serious money on an M 240 and lenses, I think you should think about whether you have lost interest in the Nikon or lost interest in, or don't have a lot of time for, photography. If it's the latter, there are significantly less expensive options for taking very good photographs; and if you really think that your Nikon is holding you back because it's "too big", some of these options come in quite small packages, such as the Canon G7X and the Sony RX100.

Agree with this. Sounds to me like you should be looking at a well featured compact camera to take out as a smaller alternative to the Nikon, and keep the Nikon for the occasions when you need a more capable camera.

[Joshua Lowe]

I'd tend to suggest the Q because it has an EVF that doesn't lag and comes with macro capability.  But it is a lot of money for a fixed lens camera.  The M mount gives you access to a pretty vast array of quality glass that will always be relevant.  But I don't think the M lines up to your requirements as well as the Q.

 

You mentioned a 75 or 90 lens... focusing those with a rangefinder can be a trying experience.  Especially on the fly.  You can use Live View (or EVF) and focus peaking with those lenses on the M240.  However, the M240's LV/EVF has a lot of lag.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steve Ricoh]

Yes, at the moment I use a Nikon with just one zoom lens. Well, I haven't actually touched the camera since Christmas. The Nikon may be nice and whatnot but I've lost interest. The camera is also too bulky to take out in a lot of places and is not very discreet.

 

The reason why I want to come to Leica is "a bit of everything" really: I fancy a challenge (albeit one that doesnt need hours of practice everyday to overcome), something new, I like the looks and shape of camera, I have been attracted by the famous sharpness of Leica lenses, I been won over by the hype and so on.

 

In terms of lenses a 35 and a 75 (or 90) would do fine for me.

 

Based on all recommendations so far it looks like the 240 is the way forward. I might go and rent one for a few days to try it out.

 

You really need to try an M (eg the M240) before making a purchase, RF focusing isn't for everyone and unless you are a natural at it you will need to put in hours upon hours of practice to become anywhere close to AF in terms of speed. I'd suggest you start with a 35/f2 cron and take it from there. This has a wider tolerance to focusing innacuracies compared to the faster lux, eg the 50/f1.4. I wouldn't rush at a longer focal length, such as the 75 or 90 you mention, until you've really conquered RF focusing.

[ECohen]

Have you posted this same question to the folks on the Q thread ?

 

The Q and the M are very different cameras...I wonder what the Q owners suggested ?

 

Also to consider, is that the M is kinda big and heavy  too.

 

I wish you hadn't said you lost interest in the Nikon....perhaps I misunderstood