Jump to content

First M -> 240 used or 262 new as set


plantagoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Folks,

 

I had the chance to toy around with the M Type 262 and Type 240 today.

 

I chose to buy a Summicron 50/2 (Version 3). But the test shots look not as good as the once I shot with the Summarit 50/2.4. I can't see any difference in BQ between 240 and 262.

 

What surprised me is that I really like the pictures made with the Summarit - and they have a nice Bokeh. The Summicron is brighter and should be THE 50 to go - at least Version 3. Or maybe the pictures look flat becaus the lens is not coded yet and I completely forgot to set up the lens in the menu.

 

The question is: Should I take the 262 as new in the bundle kit with the Summarit (& flash & bag) für 6k€ or a used 240 (in this case with 8 month Leica guarantee left) together with the "old" Summicron for 5.5k€?

 

What do you think?

 

TIA

 

Greetings

Erik

 

PS: Sorry for my bad english...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

 

I had the chance to toy around with the M Type 262 and Type 240 today.

 

I chose to buy a Summicron 50/2 (Version 3). But the test shots look not as good as the once I shot with the Summarit 50/2.4. I can't see any difference in BQ between 240 and 262.

 

What surprised me is that I really like the pictures made with the Summarit - and they have a nice Bokeh. The Summicron is brighter and should be THE 50 to go - at least Version 3. Or maybe the pictures look flat becaus the lens is not coded yet and I completely forgot to set up the lens in the menu.

 

The question is: Should I take the 262 as new in the bundle kit with the Summarit (& flash & bag) für 6k€ or a used 240 (in this case with 8 month Leica guarantee left) together with the "old" Summicron for 5.5k€?

 

What do you think?

 

TIA

 

Greetings

Erik

 

PS: Sorry for my bad english...

 

Coding the 50 summicron v3 will not change its rendering or the way your sample behaves. Try shoot both lenses in the same conditions . Double check that the lenses are well RF calibrated ... even the brand new Summarit and the new digital M body ...  That's when you'll appreciate the M240 and live view !

Edited by jmanivelle
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would refrain from choosing a camera because i like or dislike whatever lens. Do you intend to use an EVF and/or video from time to time? Do you prefer matrix metering? If so the M240 is made for you. As for IQ, i suspect the difference you've seen comes from the fact that the 50/2 v3 is a bit less contrasty and/or was not recognized by the camera or the raw converter. I would redo the test more seriously to be sure. Otherwise i have no experience with the 50/2.4 but the 50/2.5 is a great little lens indeed. Only flaw it can flare badly when a strong light source is outside the frame (typically the sun at 10:00 AM) so a good hood is advisable if the 50/2.4 behaves the same way. As for the 50/2 v3, it was my very first Leica lens 30+ years ago. I liked it much but i preferred the smaller size and shorter focus throw of the 50/2 v4 then. Optically they were very close as clear as i recall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ignore questions regarding using the EVF or video when it comes to deciding on whether the 240 or the 262 is the camera for you. Most users of the 240 hardly ever use the EVF and video use is a very rare exception... In fact, most of us switch it off permanently. The video is simply a result of the 'live view'. All you are doing is recording the video stream you are getting off the sensor anyway. There is no 'cost' to doing that. The EVF can be very useful, but it is not essential... 

 

I think your best advice is to check out Torstens Leica M review... its over 40 pages, but it will answer all your questions and, more importantly, give you a 'feel' for the M camera.

 

http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M-Type-240-aka-Leica-M10-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-44-Focusing-the-Leica-M-with-Manual-Focus-EVF2-Visoflex-Electronic-Viewfinder.html

 

The 262 appeals to me in many respects, but I know that had I bought one as my first digital M I would have had a much longer learning curve... and would probably have sold it by now and returned to Nikon again.

 

Instead, I am more happy with my M today than I was two years ago when I first bought it...and it keeps getting better!

 

262 for my second M, when I am fully familiar with everything about digital M and rangefinder photography? Possibly.

 

But as a first M...?

 

Absolutely not.

 

Get the 240... preferably the M-P and then spend the next two years or so on a very enjoyable learning curve... both in terms of using the camera properly and learning to PP in Lightroom (and then maybe moving onto plug ins like Silver Efex Pro and so on if that appeals)... and ending up with final, printed, results that you couldn't have believed possible...

Edited by Bill Livingston
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think a pretty big advantage of the 240 over the 262, as a result of the LV, is going to be apparent if you ever want to test and adjust the RF calibration yourself. As an M9 user I do crave for the LV, not for video shooting but convenience when doing RF calibration tests and adjustments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 262 appeals to me in many respects, but I know that had I bought one as my first digital M I would have had a much longer learning curve... and would probably have sold it by now and returned to Nikon again.

 

Instead, I am more happy with my M today than I was two years ago when I first bought it...and it keeps getting better!

 

262 for my second M, when I am fully familiar with everything about digital M and rangefinder photography? Possibly.

 

But as a first M...?

 

Absolutely not.

 

 

Sorry for going a bit OT but what are the reasons for you writing this ? Why is the 262 more difficult to learn than the 240 ?

As I wrote in another thread since getting my M9 back in 2009 I haven't been keeping up to date with the subsequent releases but now I am thinking of getting a new M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing it. The M262 is as silly simple to use as an M6 is for anyone used to standard center-weighted metering and manual exposure, with the benefit of instant feedback via the review on the back LCD and a very uncomplicated menu system. If anything, the M240 is more configurable/more to learn, but anyone thinking either of these bodies is a challenge should open up the menus in any Olympus OM-D camera. It'll change your whole perspective on what's complicated.

 

If all you need or want is something for still photography, there's nothing easier to use/learn than an M262.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one has mentioned the lesser weight of the 262 vs 240 and that was one reason why I went that way. Don't miss live view except that occasional macro would be nice (and the contraption for rangefinder focus with 90macro is extremely expensive!). I had a Summarit 50 2.4 for a time and frankly found it difficult to differentiate from 50 Summilux ASPH files. Luckily a 50APO came up in mint condition at a very low price: now that really is something else…. 

Edited by microview
Link to post
Share on other sites

As already said by some, it all depends if you need LV and EVF. I wouldn't have come back to Leica M without those, but I do fine art not street. I also would go with the Summarit, unless you really need f2. A brand new camera and lens is better than second hand, especially considering the frequent problems of alignment of the rangefinder/lens. 

Edited by Giulio Zanni
Link to post
Share on other sites

It really comes down to how flexible a camera you desire and what you intend to do with it.  If it were my only camera, I'd go 240. But after my experience with a used M240 over the past year, if somehow it was destroyed, I'd replace it with a 262. About the only reason I use live view is for the 21 SEM in crucial framing situations and even then most times I just guestimate/bracket/chimp when needed.  I do prefer spot to center weight, but live view is slower in use and does drain batteries more rapidly.  In the end, you learn the ups and downs of classic mode and things are simpler for it.  That said, a year or two after the next M arrives, if its significantly improved in those areas, I'd probably flip on my answer as my used M has otherwise performed flawlessly.  But at this point, for what I do, I find that while they are nice to have, it would not be much of an imposition to live without the added features of the 240 and while I love my M, it would be nice to have a camera that you know the full history of. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only you can know

 

My experience is haveing owned a type240 for 2 years and very seldom used live view/EVF (only view times on the display for 21mm).

However I disliked the increased weight over older M bodies.

So I decided to replace it with a 262. (Many would say it is economically not really a wise decision)

Lower weight, less buttons and even simpler menues as well as quit shuuter are a welcome.

 

I do however own other cameras if I want to shoot tele.

 

If you like 35/50 a lot I think rangefinder is great. If you plan to ften shoot 90or even 135 as well or ultra wide the option of EVF might be an advantage. I still think and feel if I shoot a Leica M I want to shoot rangefinder. I want simplicity. The 240 allows this, the 262 is even a little more simple and pure.

 

Regarding Summicron vs Summarit....I would suggest to buy what you prefer when you look at the images.

I believe Summarits are underrated, at the same time I also like the Summicrons.

If I didnt have a 50 and didnt have a M I would go for the M262+50 Summarit, but thats me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all the old 50 v3 will need more extra contrast applied in PP. This is always the case with lenses that old. Secondly, are you sure the 50 v3 was up to spec?

At this age a CLA would do no harm.

 

Even in perfect condition the character of the summicron will always be a bit softer at first sight, but I think this is an advantage. Adding contrast is always possible in post, removing contrast is harder to do.

 

If you want more contrast but not too much, a v4 or v5 Summicron 50 would be a very good option.

To my eyes the pre-ASPH look is more natural pleasing than the ASPH very contrasty look of the Summarit. But that is personal.

 

IQ apart and EVF considerations aside, did you consider the economical aspects of your choice?

The second hand combination will not lose as much value in the first year compared to the new combination. If you would want to resell your set 2 years from now, you will get more money for the M240 + Summicron 50 v3. Difference might be around 1000 Euros. 

 

So you get more possibilities and better trade in value if you go second hand.

More security (warranty) and lighter weight if you go for new.

 

Just my 2 cents…

Edited by dpitt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

thank you very much for all your interesting input.

 

As for the 240: the arguments regarding the Liveview are easily understandable. But I'm quite sure that I wouldn't really use it. I must admit that I have to check that out. I'm quite sure I won't use an additional EVF. And I did movies only for testing with all my other cameras in the past.

 

As for the argument of adjusting the RF calibration with help of the LV I must tell you that I live about 40 Minutes away from Wetzlar. So I could go there, drink a coffee, talk to the nice Leica people and get my RF calibrated if I would need that...

 

I completely mixed up the Summicron v3 with the v4 which I really intented to get my hands on.

 

What I will do now is to examine if I really need/or would use Liveview. I sometimes use it on my Q but here I have the AF - I never quite liked manual focussing using the LV with focus peaking there.

 

Greetings
Erik

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

 

I had the chance to toy around with the M Type 262 and Type 240 today.

 

I chose to buy a Summicron 50/2 (Version 3). But the test shots look not as good as the once I shot with the Summarit 50/2.4. I can't see any difference in BQ between 240 and 262.

 

 

 

Erik, the main reason I chose the M-P 240 over the 262 was the brass versus aluminum body.  As the M-P 240 ages with time you will get that really cool black/brassy look as you can see on the Lenny Kravitz Reporter special edition Leica.  The 262 lacks some key features I really prefer to have:  live view, sapphire glass, 2GB buffer, brass hardware.  If you cannot afford a new M-P then you can definitely find some respectable deals on used or like-new versions.  B&H Photo has used M-P for sale (www.bhphotovideo.com) and there are many Leica dealers that sell refurbished Leica M's with their own warranty -- such as Tamarkin ( www.tamarkin.com) 

 

On the Leica lens issue you've seen, I've read a lot of Leica literature recently (as well printed books) and something you may not realize is that the latest Leica lenses have been "tuned" for the digital M cameras.  So it's not surprising that you might get better optical performance.  I'm not completely sure of the technical reasons, but from what I can tell, this is more of an issue with the wider lenses (50mm and wider.)  For example, it could be that the lenses are calibrated differently versus developing a new glass lens from scratch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the argument of adjusting the RF calibration with help of the LV I must tell you that I live about 40 Minutes away from Wetzlar. So I could go there, drink a coffee, talk to the nice Leica people and get my RF calibrated if I would need that...

 

 

I have done that, but just don't turn up, make an appointment first !!  Or you could combine it with a factory visit if they still do that. It's well worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts which reflect how different opinions/preferences can be.

For my part I do use my Ms and do not baby them but still havent achieved to treat it bad enough that the brass under the black coating would show up. So for me the only difference between a brass top plate and an alluminum top plate is the lower weight of the aluminum plate, which (in combination with the more silent shutter) I see as a factor which makes the M262 to feel closer like a fil M than the M type 240.

 

I think both are great and it mainly comes down if the additional features of the type 240 are omething you think you would want/need or if you prefer the simplicity of the 262.(Like me)

 

As for calibration: live view helps you to check calibration but if a lens or camera does need calibration you have to bring it to Leica anyways, no matter if it has live view or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the one thing I wish my m9 had is live view would make adjusting rf much easier for me but also would mean could shoot with different lenses using adapters, even though i'm still happy with my m9 (just got a new sensor). I would choose the body first then go for a lens. They both have the same sensor anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...