Leica M Typ 240 or ............ Q?

[analog-digital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everybody

Does anyone have a Leica Q and a Leica M Type240 (28mm lens)?

If yes why? What are pros and cons?

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

One major con would be not being able to shoot anything but a 28mm lens.

[marchyman]

I have a Q and an M 262 with a 35mm lens available.  Not quite the same, but close.   I typically carry the M with 75mm lens and the Q.   It's faster to switch cameras than to change lens.   The 35mm lens for the M is used when I don't want to (or don't have the space to) carry two cameras.

The advantage of the Q is autofocus when desired.  I usually use my Q with manual focus.  The advantage of the M is interchangeable lens and -- a big one especially with the 262 -- battery life.   My Q has terrible battery performance, much worse than what others typically report.   When traveling with the Q I carry two additional batteries.  The M 262 goes forever on a charge.

[OR120]

I'm going along with marchyman -- what he says. I have a ME typ240 (no 28mm) because I also have the Q. And what marchyman says regarding his M 262 -  my ME 240 battery goes on forever. My Q goes through batteries quickly. In most cases - I use my Q when I know I won't have much time to shoot -- it's very fast with wonderful autofocus. I take the ME 240 out when I know I'll have a little more time with my subject/location. I prefer the feel of the ME 240 because it feels like the old M bodies I grew up with ---------- and again as marchyman says - I do enjoy the Q even more when I use manual focus (but the autofocus is fast). I really think they make a good pair. Just depends on your subjects and style of shooting. Just wanted to add -- like marchyman says -- my 35 is just about glued to my ME 240.

Edited January 30, 2020 by OR120
sp

[ravinj]

I had the Q, now have the Q2. I also have the M 240 with assorted lenses including Elmarit 28MM. IMHO Q / M 240 are not mutually exclusive and the difference goes beyond the fixed lens vs interchangeable. If I were going on a fast moving hike, Q/2 would be my choice. Q/2 also nails exposure flawlessly all of the time. I find two batteries sufficient for a day's use. For occasions where I have more time, I prefer the M240 - there is something to be said about using rangefinder.

If I were a 28mm shooter it would be the Q. With the Q2 at 50 ISO, the images are so smooth that it is hard to go back to lesser cameras.

Both Q/M deliver solid results, you need to pick one and start shooting:

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!

 

[jaeger]

Sorry to say this in Leica blog, why Leica?  For the same price, you can get any nice mirrorless camera that do much better jobs and for the same price you'll have many more lenses to play with and still have some changes. 

[analog-digital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@jaeger

My dear friend of light. I know that too. But I'm exactly asking my (Leica) question here. Is that ok for you?

But please explain what "much better" means EXACTLY?

Counter question: I can also take perfect pictures with EVERY analog, medium and full format, point and shoot camera ($ 250.-). Why do I need a digital mirrorless there?

Edited January 31, 2020 by analog-digital

[jaeger]

33 minutes ago, analog-digital said:

@jaeger

My dear friend of light. I know that too. But I'm exactly asking my (Leica) question here. Is that ok for you?

But please explain what "much better" means EXACTLY?

Counter question: I can also take perfect pictures with EVERY analog, medium and full format, point and shoot camera ($ 250.-). Why do I need a digital mirrorless there?

Is that ok?  nobody says you can't, where was that negative thought come from?

To find out what's "much better" you probably have to gone through the whole cycle to experience Leica and other professional grade mirrorless camera(s) (not point and shoot).  Some people ended up worship their favorite logo regardless of the truth.  So you will ask what exactly is the truth, that also need to find out. 

Back to the first line, why Leica in your head?  It's exactly a Leica question.

[analog-digital]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb jaeger:

" ....where was that negative thought come from?"

From you!

 

I don't know what exactly you want here. I interpret this more as a confused contribution.

Believe me, more Leica's went through my hands than you can imagine. So your contribution, for me, is incomprehensible.

I do NOT want a "Leica or not" discussion. Why do you start with it?

So, end the discussion!

[jaeger]

That's wasn't my intention but again it's all negative thoughts.  

To make it up for you, or just to please you... so I'd say....  Leica is amazing you can't go wrong with either one.  Go for it, you won't regret. 

[marchyman]

3 hours ago, jaeger said:

For the same price, you can get any nice mirrorless camera that do much better jobs and for the same price you'll have many more lenses to play with and still have some changes. 

True.  But, for me at least, you don't get the same ergonomics.  I like rangefinders and mirrorless that act like rangefinders.   I want a manual focus that feels good.  I don't want eleventy seven buttons on the body and/or lens of the camera.  I want an aperture ring at the end of the lens.   I want full frame.  Note: these are all wants, not necessarily needs.  I've tried other cameras.  My M and Q are among the most pleasurable to use.

Since I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a very good photographer my operating pleasures are more important than cameras that might do a technical "better job".

[louys]

I have a Q-P and an M240P. This is how I tend to use them.

The 240 I use when I take time over the ingredients of making a picture: walking back and fore, trying out out different viewpoints, waiting for the light to change or for obstacles to move out of view, and so on. Of course there is no reason why you can’t do this with the Q. But the Q is most useful when you don’t have time to stand around. For example, on holiday exploring a city, It can be used set to auto focus and exposure so I can record scenes and events as I encounter them. With the 240 in this situation I would either not get many shots taken or I would be left behind as my wife goes on ahead of me and then we get lost. This can happen with the Q too!

The Q is convenient because of the fixed lens. If needs be you can manage with a crop for a 50 mm shot. This is where the 240 scores because you change lenses. But that takes time! You can't do that easily when you’re  in a tour. And carrying spare lenses when you are on holiday adds to the luggage weight.

This makes it sound as though the Q is just for holiday snaps. No! It’s an example of how the Q can be used in ways in which it would be less convenient to use the 240. 

[ChicagoMatthew]

I think if you don’t absolutely want autofocus or a closer focus distance than just buy a 28mm summicron and use it on an M body. 
My reasoning is technology changes. Already the Q1 is “outdated”... yes it’s a great camera, but the Q2 is packing more of a punch...  unfortunately digital has brought Leica into the camera upgrade cycle... but that cycle doesn’t really apply to lenses so much. 
 

On a more personal note, my buddy just got a Q and he has been using an M for a long time. He said it’s surprisingly difficult to get used to autofocus. Haha.