Advice for those thinking of a M240 in 2021

[padam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/10/2021 at 7:13 PM, UltraDan said:

Slightly insulting take on my post but you are entitled to your opinion, I stand by what I said and dispute what someone else said about me offering opinions dressed as facts - your results may vary. For me the M240 was lacklustre as far as the whole shooting experience goes and poor as far as image output but I accept I'm surrounded by much better photographers here. We're all entitled to our opinions, I was just sharing mine, sorry if it didn't fit the mantra. 

That wasn't really the main point, there were other things. It was simply to give a fairer (clearer, more useful) assessment like this:
- Reasons to not buy it (in 2021)
- Reasons to buy it (in 2021)
And the conclusion "the IQ is inadequate, so if you can't afford to get an M10, buy from another manufacturer" is one-sided.
Quite a lot of people buying the M10 had the M240 (or M9, etc.) before. Yes, it is a considerable step up, but it was the M240 that brought them to that point in the first place.

The M240, M9, M8 etc. being more limited compared to the M10 (or a Sony, etc.) is that really a "big deal" for people looking to buying into a digital Leica M in the first place?
Some didn't even feel they really needed any of the extra features and bulk of the M240 over the M9, making it less appealing to them.
With all of these drawbacks, they became cheaper in today's Leica market (despite being younger), making it an interesting option to try out.
Imho, this is is more of how it should be perceived, and it has more to do with choosing a Leica in general, rather than choosing this particular model, and I'm pretty sure those kinds arguments constantly appear in the comment sections on any news related to Leica.
As I said, we already had cameras with "capable image output" like the A7R II right back in 2015, and the 3-year-old M240 already had the same "problems" as it has now (and now both cameras are much more affordable than they were back than), that's why these kinds of threads don't seem bring anything new to the table.

[Advertisement]

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

[RayD28]

If one accepts the limited ISO (1600) and extra 3mm in thickness, the M240 is a bargain.  I have an M-P that has been as reliable as a the sun rising from the east.  I came from an M-9 and I did cartwheels the first time I went for an outing and took about 400 shots over 12 hours and didn't have to replace the battery.  

Used M240s are going for about $2,500, usually with at least an extra battery and thumbs up.  To me, that is cheap for a reliable Leica digital rangefinder.

PS -- Nik DeFine software does a great job reducing noise if you have to shoot ISO 3200.  

[UltraDan]

1 minute ago, RayD28 said:

If one accepts the limited ISO (1600) and extra 3mm in thickness, the M240 is a bargain.  I have an M-P that has been as reliable as a the sun rising from the east.  I came from an M-9 and I did cartwheels the first time I went for an outing and took about 400 shots over 12 hours and didn't have to replace the battery.  

Used M240s are going for about $2,500, usually with at least an extra battery and thumbs up.  To me, that is cheap for a reliable Leica digital rangefinder.

PS -- Nik DeFine software does a great job reducing noise if you have to shoot ISO 3200.  

"If one accepts the limited ISO (1600) and extra 3mm in thickness, the M240 is a bargain."

Used Leica M240 = £2400 upwards

used 5Dmk 2 = £250 upwards

I personally rate the colours, image quality and Iso of the 5D2 to be superior in all cases so your idea of a "bargain" is laughable for me personally. 

[Casey Jefferson]

I reckon that if anyone feel the need to debate further, take a chill pill and go out to shoot some photos.

I recently started shooting M9, inferior in every way compared to M240, except the way it render images. I'm actually happier to shoot with it than with M240. Shortcomings are not the reason you're sad, because you don't learn to see the good side of things. Been there, done that. Had RX1R for its incredibly small and versatile one lens solution; A9 for the incredible AF and long battery life; GFX 50R for its ultimate resolution and dynamic range. Since then, I went backwards in technology...

[Anbaric]

37 minutes ago, UltraDan said:

"If one accepts the limited ISO (1600) and extra 3mm in thickness, the M240 is a bargain."

Used Leica M240 = £2400 upwards

used 5Dmk 2 = £250 upwards

I personally rate the colours, image quality and Iso of the 5D2 to be superior in all cases so your idea of a "bargain" is laughable for me personally. 

In another thread, you mentioned looking at a film M in the £2000-4000 range as a possible future purchase. Why not buy an Eos-3 for about the same price as that 5D Mk2?

[RayD28]

22 hours ago, UltraDan said:

"If one accepts the limited ISO (1600) and extra 3mm in thickness, the M240 is a bargain."

Used Leica M240 = £2400 upwards

used 5Dmk 2 = £250 upwards

I personally rate the colours, image quality and Iso of the 5D2 to be superior in all cases so your idea of a "bargain" is laughable for me personally. 

Dan, I was referring to Leica M digital options.  You know more than me about other brands so I don't dispute your opinion.  

 

[epand56]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 2/12/2021 at 3:57 PM, UltraDan said:

a beautiful camera that takes some great images but is very much lacking by today's technology standards

90% of the most famous and beautiful pictures in the history of photography have been taken with cameras that could provide a far worst quality than the M240. 15 years ago the highest ISO you could use was 400. 1600 are a good compromise to me. Plus I do not really like those aseptic perfectly exposed, perfectly focused, totally grainless pictures provided by modern mirrorless and SLRs cameras (such like the Canon 5D Mark 2/3/4). I love the kind of quality my M240 provide me with and also its limits. And I love the size and the lenses. But I bought it years ago, so I'm not really concerned with this post.

[Gibbo]

I agree with epand56!

 

[Luke_Miller]

Regarding camera technology:

Just completed a week of travel, first since the beginning of the pandemic. Went to some very photogenic locations plus a wedding.  Despite having an arsenal of high tech cameras I picked my M240 and 28 & 50 'crons for the trip.  Got some great shots in Savannah GA,  at the wedding (as a guest), and the reception as the designated photog.  While I appreciate modern camera technology such as eye autofocus, stratospheric ISO performance, and a bevy of other features I did not want them for this trip.  Since it was my first serious photography outing in a year and I wanted to refresh my atrophied skills. The M240 was perfect for that purpose.  It did only as I directed, producing some great images and a lot of satisfaction.

[plaidshirts]

1 hour ago, Luke_Miller said:

...producing some great images and a lot of satisfaction.

THIS is all that matters to me.

[kivis]

Waiting on an M-P 240 to arrive. Question: Are folks using RAW or Jpg? or both? 

[84bravo]

RAW! It's the only way with all of the Leicas.

[boojum]

4 hours ago, kivis said:

Waiting on an M-P 240 to arrive. Question: Are folks using RAW or Jpg? or both? 

Being more catholic I have used both apart and both in conjunction.  I am still looking for the rule book on digital formats.  I believe it is around here somewhere.  I would rather devote my energies to the content,  A review of the old "classic" photos will reveal that while they can be quite enchanting they are also sometimes grainy and/or out of focus.  This is an illustrative reality.

Edited May 3, 2021 by boojum

[UltraDan]

On 4/15/2021 at 2:13 PM, Anbaric said:

In another thread, you mentioned looking at a film M in the £2000-4000 range as a possible future purchase. Why not buy an Eos-3 for about the same price as that 5D Mk2?

Because I love shooting my Analog M? It's a system that was brought out 80 yrs ago and because of that and the nature of film (36 shots per roll) I feel it works wonderfully to slow things down and be precise. With the digital M I personally found that that same shooting experience didn't transfer at all, bar the focussing the experience of taking a shot was completely different, no magic, just a clunky way of taking pics that required multiple retakes to hit the exposure (granted that was likely my fault) all in all I felt that if your gonna take digital pics just use all of the the technology available to you - especially if you are gonna pay such a high cost. Also I have an EOS 1, great camera but again for analog I'm more than happy to shoot my M with all of its good and bad points. 

[Liveview]

 

To me, the M240 is the perfect camera, I also have a Leica M2 that I loved, so it is the perfect combo.

To be honest, if you don´t shoot pro, the M240 is more than enough, or any other camera from 5 years ago, but the Leica M range cameras give something the other camera brands don´t offer, is just I use it more often than any other cameras I had previously.  

[wizard]

Am 13.2.2021 um 14:34 schrieb LocalHero1953:

This is just a question of practice and understanding the difference in how film and digital sensors respond to light.

If you are coming from slide films, digital sensors are not that different at all.

Andy

[Herr Barnack]

On 4/15/2021 at 8:46 AM, Casey Jefferson said:

I reckon that if anyone feel the need to debate further, take a chill pill and go out to shoot some photos.

I recently started shooting M9, inferior in every way compared to M240, except the way it render images. I'm actually happier to shoot with it than with M240. Shortcomings are not the reason you're sad, because you don't learn to see the good side of things. Been there, done that. Had RX1R for its incredibly small and versatile one lens solution; A9 for the incredible AF and long battery life; GFX 50R for its ultimate resolution and dynamic range. Since then, I went backwards in technology...

@Casey Jefferson I see that you have 168 posts, which means you are somewhat of a new member here.  Therefore, let me acquaint you with an unspoken and unwritten but nonetheless crucial and time honored forum rule:  The L-Camera-Forum Rule of 500.

The L-Camera-Forum Rule of 500 states that no thread/discussion/debate on this forum can be considered complete until there have been at minimum 500 posts with numerous insults, disparagements, thinly veiled threats of bloody noses, observations regarding the legitimacy of other poster's parentage and baseless claims about the sexual proclivities of the mothers of the belligerents being hurled to and fro with reckless abandon. 

Only then can the thread be considered successfully concluded with all the bases properly covered.

(note to mods - you know I speak in jest.  More or less... 😊)

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[kivis]

Shoot at 200 outside and 1600 or 3200 inside. Completely satisfied with my M-P 240 in 2021.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Anbaric]

On 5/5/2021 at 3:22 PM, UltraDan said:

Because I love shooting my Analog M? It's a system that was brought out 80 yrs ago and because of that and the nature of film (36 shots per roll) I feel it works wonderfully to slow things down and be precise. With the digital M I personally found that that same shooting experience didn't transfer at all, bar the focussing the experience of taking a shot was completely different, no magic, just a clunky way of taking pics that required multiple retakes to hit the exposure (granted that was likely my fault) all in all I felt that if your gonna take digital pics just use all of the the technology available to you - especially if you are gonna pay such a high cost. Also I have an EOS 1, great camera but again for analog I'm more than happy to shoot my M with all of its good and bad points. 

My question was more than a bit rhetorical of course. I share your enthusiasm for the film Ms. But while you may well be right that an M240 is no bargain compared to a much cheaper and more sophisticated digital, much the same could be said for our favourite rangefinders. Your EOS-1 is by most definitions far more capable than any film M, with a much wider range of shutter speeds, a more sophisticated meter, fast AF and a built-in winder. And it costs a fraction of the price of an M (though it was probably in the same range when it was first made). And there are other options for that old fashioned analogue magic too.This morning I was checking the meter of a new (to me) camera against an old one. Each camera has pretty basic and quite similar specifications including a mechanical shutter speed range of 1-1/1000s, manual focusing, manual film wind, a self timer, and not much else. They are both the products of venerable optics companies with histories that go back over a century, are built to a quality that can last a lifetime, and are compatible with some superb lenses that have been used to take legendary pictures. The old one is my M6. The new arrival is a Nikon FM, which cost about 5% of the replacement price of my Leica.

[Steve Ricoh]

On 5/6/2021 at 2:50 PM, Liveview said:

 

To me, the M240 is the perfect camera, I also have a Leica M2 that I loved, so it is the perfect combo.

To be honest, if you don´t shoot pro, the M240 is more than enough, or any other camera from 5 years ago, but the Leica M range cameras give something the other camera brands don´t offer, is just I use it more often than any other cameras I had previously.  

If I could add my two-penneth...

I use and own an M240 and an M6, and a couple of Nikon F’s: an FM2n and an FM3a. 
I like ‘shooting’ wide using the 50mm f1.4 lux and the Nikkor 50mm f1.2, respectfully.
I hit focus far more often with the RFs than with the SLRs. Back focus can be a problem but LV on the M240 is a great help. The problem with the SLRs is that the focusing screen cannot discriminate focus between f2.8 or wider, eg f1.2, even though both are fitted with the K3 screen.
RFs and SLRs are different tools and I use them appropriately, and sometimes as the mood takes me.
I would say the FM3a is a good alternative to the M7 in terms of having aperture priority, with the bonus that the FM3a it can be used with or without the battery offering full shutter speeds.