marcg Posted September 14, 2016 Share #1 Posted September 14, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can somebody tell me whether the M262 is the same size as the M240 or is it closer to the M9?Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 Hi marcg, Take a look here M262 dimensions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
edwardkaraa Posted September 14, 2016 Share #2 Posted September 14, 2016 Same size as the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #3 Posted September 14, 2016 Ta. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 14, 2016 Share #4 Posted September 14, 2016 However, the M240 is the same size as the M9, so the question cannot really have an answer.... I think we had this discussion before Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #5 Posted September 14, 2016 I'm sorry, but I don't think that this discussion has been held with me.I thought that I had noticed in several places people hoping for a future M to return to the size of an M9. I had rather gather that an M9 was slightly smaller than their latest Leica M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 14, 2016 Share #6 Posted September 14, 2016 Is this still an unresolved mystery?! If you ignore the little thumbwheel on the back plate it should be the same size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 14, 2016 Share #7 Posted September 14, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sorry, but I don't think that this discussion has been held with me. I thought that I had noticed in several places people hoping for a future M to return to the size of an M9. I had rather gather that an M9 was slightly smaller than their latest Leica M The thumbwheel obviously sticks out a few mm, but height and width are identical and the M9 is 0.4 mm thinner. Leica is responsible for this silly internet myth, by publishing the dimensions of the M240 including the thumbwheel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #8 Posted September 14, 2016 Is this still an unresolved mystery?! If you ignore the little thumbwheel on the back plate it should be the same size. Apparently not. It seems that it is nearly half a centimeter thinner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted September 14, 2016 Share #9 Posted September 14, 2016 Apparently not. It seems that it is nearly half a centimeter thinner Where do you get this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #10 Posted September 14, 2016 From here The thumbwheel obviously sticks out a few mm, but height and width are identical and the M9 is 0.4 mm thinner. Leica is responsible for this silly internet myth, by publishing the dimensions of the M240 including the thumbwheel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 14, 2016 Share #11 Posted September 14, 2016 0.4 mm is not 5 mm.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #12 Posted September 14, 2016 That's right - which is why it is only nearly half a centimeter smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 14, 2016 Share #13 Posted September 14, 2016 As far as I recall, the M240 is 0.6 mm thicker than the M9. The M262 has exactly the same measurements as the M240 but the top plate is similar to the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #14 Posted September 14, 2016 Thanks.Most important thing for me is whether or not it is larger than the M9 – and apparently it is. One view is that it is 4 mm bigger. Another view is that it is 6 mm bigger so will say that it is roughly half a centimetre larger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 14, 2016 Share #15 Posted September 14, 2016 It's really 0.6 mm not 0.6 cm, if you don't count the protruding thumb wheel. They're practically the same size. My M240 fits in the M9 half case perfectly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted September 14, 2016 Share #16 Posted September 14, 2016 Weather forecasters give sometimes two numbers for the temperature, the actual number as measured by a thermometer and another one, the " perceived temperature " or impression of temperature depending on the wind and humidity. Leica maybe should do the same with the dimensions of the Leica M. Could be something like six centimeters to 30cm wide, depending on who is looking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #17 Posted September 14, 2016 0.4 mm is not 5 mm.... Whoops. Ta. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted September 14, 2016 Share #18 Posted September 14, 2016 If some images could help : without base plate, Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! then from top, another view last, front view Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! then from top, another view last, front view ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/264525-m262-dimensions/?do=findComment&comment=3112380'>More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted September 14, 2016 Share #19 Posted September 14, 2016 Pictures from a. noctilux are very helpful, and we know from his namesake that he sees things not visible with the naked human eye , per Leica advertising. I can now add comments about how the bodies feel in hand, which takes into account the haptic values of the differences between the mass and exact shape of the bodies (and avoids the precision of the Leica specs that Jaap referred to). Because of the nearly 100g greater weight, the M240 feels much larger than an M262 when you shoot both. My M6 actually feels almost chunkier than my M262, given that it is slightly heavier, but hard to compare because of the exceptional utility of the film advance lever. When I shot an M9, it felt to me like a heavy M6, but similarly thin in hand. The thumbwheel was particularly irritating IMHO. Because it is as smooth and inspiring as an M6, the M-D 262 feels smaller and nimbler than an M240. Ergonomics of the M-D are also preferable to me vs. M9. I hope this is a helpful subjective account, which might provide a different view than the ambiguity from Leica's supposed measurements or the fine nuance of a.noctilux's fine body porn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted September 14, 2016 Share #20 Posted September 14, 2016 Sorry... post in error Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.