Going DRF: Used M240 M-P, New M262 or Used M9-P as a first and only DRF?

[Ken Ford]

I'm doing my due diligence before I plop down for a new digital rangefinder to replace my NEX7 kit. I was planning on going with a X-Pro2, but I got to thinking about spending the extra money and just getting what I really want - a digital M. I still think that the cost is (much) more than I should spend, but as the old saying goes the pain of high cost is soon forgotten…

Anyways, I figure I have three real choices:

1. A used M240 M-P, which gets me the cosmetics I want in a fairly recent body and a sensor that is unlikely to need to be replaced;
2. A new M262, which gets me a factory warranty; or
3. A used M9-P with the latest sensor replacement, which saves me a few bucks.

At this point I'm leaning towards a used M240 M-P, but I'm definitely wanting to hear other people's comments and suggestions.

Thanks!

 

[Out to Lunch]

If you don't need video, live view and other bells and whistles, I'd go for the new M 262 also since it allows you to capture images in JPEG and other modes other than RAW and this will save you money: no need for large cards; no need to upgrade your processor, RAM and a dedicated video card, and buying a lot more external storage. It will also prevent you from spending more hours in your digital darkroom dealing with RAW.

 

[jsrockit]

If you don't need video, live view and other bells and whistles, I'd go for the new M 262 also since it allows you to capture images in JPEG and other modes other than RAW and this will save you money: no need for large cards; no need to upgrade your processor, RAM and a dedicated video card, and buying a lot more external storage. It will also prevent you from spending more hours in your digital darkroom dealing with RAW.

I'd have to ask why someone would spend $5195 on a camera if they couldn't afford the other expenses in order to do RAW and why you would feel you need a $5195 camera in order to do jpegs? Don't get me wrong, jpegs are fine for many things...but I would imagine that if you like photography enough to own a M262, then you probably would like your files to be as versatile as possible.

 

[Ken Ford]

I'm in the early research stages here, so please forgive the question - the M240 M-P will not shoot in-camera JPEGs?

 

[Ken Ford]

Peter, I have a brand new 27" iMac Retina being delivered tomorrow, so processing horsepower isn't a concern for me. The time spent converting RAW files might be, but probably not - I tend to shoot less volume with a RF.

 

[KM-25]

I'd just get a used M240, that is what I did and have pounded thousands of frames through it without fail in less than a year. I got mine ( not M-P ) for $4K and now they go for even less. The thing about the M240 over the M262 is that if it is your only digital RF, then you can use live view to check the calibration of lenses and also more easily compose photographs that have precisely aligned layering that otherwise might be thrown off by parallax error in just using the optical VF.

I bet the 262 is nice and all but good used M240's are plentiful and have proven largely trouble free. Smart money is on the 240 in my opinion.

Also, I would hardly worry about converting 240 raw files, 90% of the time they are good to go right out of camera, for me at least.

 

[Ken Ford]

I also have the option of a refurb/ex demo M240 M-P from Leica with a one year Leica USA warranty... this is tempting for only a $300 premium over the used prices I'm seeing.

 

[nobbylon]

Very happy with my M9-P. i don't need live view or video and this feels the closest to shooting with a BP M2 or M4.

 

[35photo]

Ken- I have an M9 that I got almost 3 years ago now bought it used for about 4k from a Leica Miami... At the time I didn't feel like paying full price for an M 240... I had a CMOS camera at the time already so I decided the M9 with its quirks would work... I've been pretty happy with it, If I was going to do it today I would get the 240 probably... The difference between the CCD and CMOS is slim.. you just need to process the CMOS image a bit more..

Check this article out...
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-2/

 

[Godfrey]

I'm in the early research stages here, so please forgive the question - the M240 M-P will not shoot in-camera JPEGs?

Utter silliness that someone would intimate anything like this... ALL Leica M digital cameras except for the limited edition "M Edition 60" and the new M-D typ 262 render JPEGs in-camera. Indeed, the M-P makes excellent in-camera JPEGs, much better than the M9 did.

My choice would be an M-P typ 240 unless I had other cameras, in which case if I were doing it again I would buy the M-D typ 262. (I already have both the M-P and the SL.) I had an M9 and wouldn't want another. If the full LCD and EVF are not important to you, the M typ 262 is a bit lighter and, as you said, a bit less expensive so you can get a new one with warranty.

G

 

[Darthfeeble]

This may be all in my head but I think the files from an M9 CCD sensor are "crisper" than those from a CMOS sensor. I've only had the opportunity to see M 240 files online so it's really hard to compare but I do know they are different from the ones from my Canon 6D.

 

[f16sunshine]

I also have the option of a refurb/ex demo M240 M-P from Leica with a one year Leica USA warranty... this is tempting for only a $300 premium over the used prices I'm seeing.

This is what I would do in your position.
The M240 M-P is a really good looking beast that will satisfy for years.
Live view is a huge bonus with this camera. Just think of the flexibility it gives for studio, macro, weird non-native adapted lenses etc....

I mentioned in the other thread,... I would not go for the M9versions considering other options from Leica.
The M240/M-P model is the most flexible for a single DRF set.
If it was your second one maybe a different choice. For the first/only go for this one.. yeah

Best!

 

[Ken Ford]

About 90% decided to go with the M240 M-P; I've read several reviews and the manual, and like what I see.

The implication above that the M240 couldn't store in JPEG startled me, and I'm happy to see that isn't the case. I've been trying to push my digital workflow to primarily using in-camera JPEGs and only falling back on the RAW files when needed.

 

[Ken Ford]

Done did it. I just committed to a M-P Typ 240.

If I went with a M262 or a M9-P there would always be a part of me that really wanted the M-P. Screw it, life is too short, and it's just money - the last year has taught me that. Let the mirrorless selloff begin!

Thank you all for your input!

 

[Matthew Runkel]

I have an M9-P and considered moving to the M-P before deciding to stand pat. My use for a digital M is similar to my use for a film M--optically-focused still photography. I like the M9-P a lot but wanted somewhat better high-ISO performance and an end to write-speed/buffer inadequacies and the resulting camera lockups. Live view and video were of minimal interest. Use of R lenses would have been of interest if I had not already Leitaxed them for another system (Sony A99). I love my M lenses but am not sure I will stick with them through multiple body upgrades. This led me to think about changing from the not-quite-there-yet M9-P to the fully-realized M-P in order to be able to shoot my lenses without restriction for many years.

I decided to stay with the M9-P and live with its limitations. I think the high-ISO performance is still better than a film M, and is also close to the limit of the optical rangefinder. M-P would allow shooting stopped down in dim light, and in much darker settings with the EVF, but I have other digital cameras for that (and I don't believe the M-P's high-ISO performance is close to state-of-the-art today). The file-transfer lockups mostly occur in atypical shooting situations and have stopped bothering me.

Bottom line for me was that the cost of moving to the M-P was not worth it for the benefits I would realize in my shooting, and I didn't want to give up the intangible CCD "look" of the out-of-the-camera M9 images. If it were going to be my only digital camera, I would rethink everything and probably go for the M-P.

I also have an X-E2 with an M adapter that I never use. It's not a satisfactory experience compared to using M lenses with an optical rangefinder. X-Pro 2 would be similarly unsatisfactory.

Edited to add: Good choice. Definitely the most fully-realized digital M platform.

 

[nobbylon]

I have an M9-P and considered moving to the M-P before deciding to stand pat. My use for a digital M is similar to my use for a film M--optically-focused still photography. I like the M9-P a lot but wanted somewhat better high-ISO performance and an end to write-speed/buffer inadequacies and the resulting camera lockups. Live view and video were of minimal interest. Use of R lenses would have been of interest if I had not already Leitaxed them for another system (Sony A99). I love my M lenses but am not sure I will stick with them through multiple body upgrades. This led me to think about changing from the not-quite-there-yet M9-P to the fully-realized M-P in order to be able to shoot my lenses without restriction for many years.

I decided to stay with the M9-P and live with its limitations. I think the high-ISO performance is still better than a film M, and is also close to the limit of the optical rangefinder. M-P would allow shooting stopped down in dim light, and in much darker settings with the EVF, but I have other digital cameras for that (and I don't believe the M-P's high-ISO performance is close to state-of-the-art today). The file-transfer lockups mostly occur in atypical shooting situations and have stopped bothering me.

Bottom line for me was that the cost of moving to the M-P was not worth it for the benefits I would realize in my shooting, and I didn't want to give up the intangible CCD "look" of the out-of-the-camera M9 images. If it were going to be my only digital camera, I would rethink everything and probably go for the M-P.

I also have an X-E2 with an M adapter that I never use. It's not a satisfactory experience compared to using M lenses with an optical rangefinder. X-Pro 2 would be similarly unsatisfactory.

Edited to add: Good choice. Definitely the most fully-realized digital M platform.

well said.

 

[Ken Ford]

I have an M9-P and considered moving to the M-P before deciding to stand pat. My use for a digital M is similar to my use for a film M--optically-focused still photography. I like the M9-P a lot but wanted somewhat better high-ISO performance and an end to write-speed/buffer inadequacies and the resulting camera lockups. Live view and video were of minimal interest. Use of R lenses would have been of interest if I had not already Leitaxed them for another system (Sony A99). I love my M lenses but am not sure I will stick with them through multiple body upgrades. This led me to think about changing from the not-quite-there-yet M9-P to the fully-realized M-P in order to be able to shoot my lenses without restriction for many years.

I decided to stay with the M9-P and live with its limitations. I think the high-ISO performance is still better than a film M, and is also close to the limit of the optical rangefinder. M-P would allow shooting stopped down in dim light, and in much darker settings with the EVF, but I have other digital cameras for that (and I don't believe the M-P's high-ISO performance is close to state-of-the-art today). The file-transfer lockups mostly occur in atypical shooting situations and have stopped bothering me.

Bottom line for me was that the cost of moving to the M-P was not worth it for the benefits I would realize in my shooting, and I didn't want to give up the intangible CCD "look" of the out-of-the-camera M9 images. If it were going to be my only digital camera, I would rethink everything and probably go for the M-P.

I also have an X-E2 with an M adapter that I never use. It's not a satisfactory experience compared to using M lenses with an optical rangefinder. X-Pro 2 would be similarly unsatisfactory.

Edited to add: Good choice. Definitely the most fully-realized digital M platform.

We probably have a similar philosophy when it comes to equipment - if it's good enough to purchase, it's probably good enough to keep and use until it completely breaks down. I've never been one to chase the latest and greatest, but when I do buy I try to get something close to state of the art to give it the longest possible service life.

I'm 54 this year. With any luck I'll be able to shoot this M-P until it's time for me to tickle grassroots.

 

[Doug]

Done did it. I just committed to a M-P Typ 240....

Congrats, Ken, on a good decision! Fine camera for the long haul.

 

[Ken Ford]

Long haul? Gawd, I hope so - my budget can't afford another one of these!

 

[willie_901]

Good call!