Jump to content

So tell this old film guy why I should get a Typ 262 instead of a Typ 240


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... and if you buy the 240 you will wish you bought the M-P 240. There is barely any difference in price but you will get a better camera.

 

Whatever @jdlaing: thinks I can assure you that without visible branding most people think I am carrying an old film camera. Friends are really surprised to know that it is digital. I don't tell bandits (or foes) for obvious reasons!

 

BTW, the word 'hogwash' is so archaic I had to look up it up in the dictionary. It means pig swill, in other words food for pigs. Our locally reared pigs get organic (bio) feed (swill) and their meat is sublime. Looking forward to summer and barbecues using vine cuttings for flavouring. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not M-D (262)? I had M240 for three year and never once used liveview or video and only ever used the screen to set ISO and format the SD card - I picked up a used M-D and cant say I miss the M240 - it's just a pity the M-D does not have the proportions of the classic film MP.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an M4-2; I had an M-P 240. The M-P was much better camera than my M9 was in every respect. Then the M-D typ 262 came out: it is now my favorite M of all the Ms I've had, and just about my favorite camera for most things.

 

Shutter sounds: Leica shutter sounds

 

I don't hear a heck of a lot of difference between the M-P 240 and M-D 262. The M4-2 has a different sound, as I would expect a horizontally running, cloth shutter would compared to a vertically running metal shutter. The SL has the quietest shutter of them all. None of them vibrate enough to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are plenty of advantages to 'going digital for the heck of it' ...

 

You pay more up front for the body, but nothing per exposure thereafter. Over time, the reduction in costs can mean the digital body is less expensive.

 

The sensitivity can be adjusted on a per frame basis ... no longer are you "stuck" with fast or slow film in the camera in the wrong circumstances. Also, you have much more sensitivity to work with (higher ISOs) than you can get with film at better quality.

 

One charge on the battery and a 16G card in the camera means you have about 500 exposures to go before you need to 'reload'.

 

With any model except the M-D, you can do all your image processing in-camera with the JPEG controls so the only further expense to handing someone a print is to either have a good quality printer or send the exposure to a print service to put it on paper. (The M-D only captures exposures into a raw file, so you must at least learn how to convert that into a finished JPEG or TIFF image once it is out of the camera.)

 

The biggest negative to 'going digital' is the fact that it is your responsibility to manage your exposures ... what to do with them, how to render and finish them, etc. I find this a pleasure, but it can be burdensome to someone used to just dropping off the film at the shop and picking up the finished products.

 

With any Leica digital you buy today, I wouldn't worry too much about getting on the hamster wheel of progress. Any of today's digital cameras are basically good enough to last you for as long as you want to shoot with them, and are quite likely robust enough to outlast you (at least if you're over 50...

). I suspect I'll be shooting with the M-D until I find it difficult to pick up a camera at all.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, this old film guy woud have sold his soul to the devil in exchange for seeing the results of his labours within seconds.

I think if you bought into Leica Digital you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of advantages to 'going digital for the heck of it' ...

 

You pay more up front for the body, but nothing per exposure thereafter. Over time, the reduction in costs can mean the digital body is less expensive.

 

The sensitivity can be adjusted on a per frame basis ... no longer are you "stuck" with fast or slow film in the camera in the wrong circumstances. Also, you have much more sensitivity to work with (higher ISOs) than you can get with film at better quality.

 

One charge on the battery and a 16G card in the camera means you have about 500 exposures to go before you need to 'reload'.

 

With any model except the M-D, you can do all your image processing in-camera with the JPEG controls so the only further expense to handing someone a print is to either have a good quality printer or send the exposure to a print service to put it on paper. (The M-D only captures exposures into a raw file, so you must at least learn how to convert that into a finished JPEG or TIFF image once it is out of the camera.)

 

The biggest negative to 'going digital' is the fact that it is your responsibility to manage your exposures ... what to do with them, how to render and finish them, etc. I find this a pleasure, but it can be burdensome to someone used to just dropping off the film at the shop and picking up the finished products.

 

With any Leica digital you buy today, I wouldn't worry too much about getting on the hamster wheel of progress. Any of today's digital cameras are basically good enough to last you for as long as you want to shoot with them, and are quite likely robust enough to outlast you (at least if you're over 50...

). I suspect I'll be shooting with the M-D until I find it difficult to pick up a camera at all.

 

 

plenty of reasons, dozens .....ofcourse.... but .i was asking the poster his reasons in hopes to provide the advice they were looking for 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about the digital M 240 or M10, I have one and unless Leica release a 36mp M11 sometime soon, I have no desire nor reason to upgrade. It's an amazing camera that I've been using with joy for three years solid. If no upgrade came like that, I would happily keep using this camera until it stopped working.

 

Stick with film Digital is Just an entry into constant upgrades and "digital rot" . Of course I have a 240 and love it.. But now I am in therapy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 262 is slightly lighter in weight and cheaper than the 240, I think - especially the M-P240. So, if you don't use live view for focusing, don't use video at all, and prefer to meter in center weighted all the time, then the 262 is the perfect camera for you. And it might save you a little bit to boot!

But if you want any of the aforementioned features, then you'll have to go with a 240.

Simple as that really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t term any digital M as “cheap”. Less expensive is probably more appropriate, LOL.

 

Been using the M262 now for a couple of years and love the thing. Now considering either a second body (used black paint MP240), or a new 35mm f1.4 FLE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t term any digital M as “cheap”. Less expensive is probably more appropriate, LOL.

 

Been using the M262 now for a couple of years and love the thing. Now considering either a second body (used black paint MP240), or a new 35mm f1.4 FLE.

 

Unless you absolutely need a second body for your shooting, try to think how much a 35 FLE will sell in 5 years from now, and how much a MP240, after the same time

Edited by Steve McGarrett
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a purely personal basis of course, I think that this is a quite interesting thread, although I could not help but smile at the topic title of "So tell this old film guy why I should get a Type 262 instead of a Type 240".  Myself as an old chap and as someone who has for some years used the M 240, last year changed to the M 262.  I found the M 240 to be a superb Leica, although I was quite excited about the launch of the M 262.  This has been rattled off goodness how many times before and as such I apologise, however and personally, I very rarely used the Video, LV and/or EVF facilities of the M 240.  I knew of the impending launch of the M 10 when I changed to the M 262, however I still went ahead.  There are some features of the M 10 that I would like to have with the M 262 to include the slimmer body, reduced weight and a spot metering facility, however and without appearing to be a Luddite, I have no interest in LV, GPS or WiFi.  I suppose that the motive for this response is merely to state the blindingly obvious that shooting with an M is both highly personal and subjective.

 

I have never used an ERC, designer strap or indeed a camera bag and instead, the M 262 is slung over my shoulder or across my chest.  Again, mentioned only to make a clumsy reference to the wonderful individuality of using the Leica M, rather than for us to adopt a "one hat fits all" mindset.

 

My main use lens at the moment is the APO-Summicron 2/50 and together with the M 240, is on many occasions an unforgiving combination.  I have absolutely no nostalgia whatsoever for film, however how I currently shoot with Leica is subjectively perfect.

 

Regards and best wishes,

 

David

  

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...