Leica M typ 240 vs. Leica M typ 262

M240. I use the LiveView to calibrate my lenses. Incredibly useful for that. Also because of the LiveView you can adapt other lenses. And use the level feature for architectural/landscape use.
 
I've used both for extended periods of time. The 240 is my recommendation for the following reasons:

1. Live view is handier than you'd think (framing accuracy at min focus distance for example)
2. The sensors are not identical, I prefer the color from the M240
3. Live view permits 1. focus check for adapted lenses and 2. use of any focal length without needing an OVF. I use small SLR lenses (M42 Takumar and Olympus OM) on my M240 and it is a joy.
4. The weight difference is negligible.

The 262 never quite made sense to me. But I'm no purist. :)
 
I had to choose between the two. I chose the 262. I didn't want to pay for the features I will never use. No regrets.

It's good others chose the 240 and got exactly what they wanted.

Here's an idea: lets all buy the model we want (or can afford). Also, the price at the time was definitely not the same!
 
Bike Tourist said:
I didn't want to pay for the features I will never use.
Click to expand...

I've always assumed that Leica disabled the LV functionality of the 262 through software. Is there additional (cost increasing) hardware that the 240 has (and the 262 lacks) to permit LV on the rear screen?
 
I used digitals with EVF since I came back to photography in 2009—M43, Fuji X, Sony.

At the same time, on a diverging axis, I was exploring film rangefinders, eventually settling on Leicas (M4, M5, M7, M3).

On retirement in 2017, when I decided to invest in a digital rangefinder, I chose the M-D 262 because its handling is filmlike, because distraction (chimping, menu-diving, button-fiddling) is minimized, and because there’s no excuse to interrupt the creative act with equipment-driven editing.
 
I already had a Leica SL when I decided between the M240 or the M262. I chose the later because they complement each other well.
 
262. My mobile phone will out beat any Leica for video, but any phone is nowhere close to any m for stills.

262 is more expensive than 240 on used market, it seems.
 
My black M-P240 is the nicest camera I’ve ever had. Brassing is beautiful, battery life is awesome, sapphire glass is amazing. I can simplify it to act just like a Film M, or I can use the modern convenience of live view or EVF when needed. I like the versatility.
 
Ccoppola82 said:
My black M-P240 is the nicest camera I’ve ever had. Brassing is beautiful, battery life is awesome, sapphire glass is amazing. I can simplify it to act just like a Film M, or I can use the modern convenience of live view or EVF when needed. I like the versatility.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can disable the dedicated video recording and live-view buttons via the M240 menu. Now you've got the same "pared-down" 262 feature set.
 
sleepyhead said:
I already had a Leica SL when I decided between the M240 or the M262. I chose the later because they complement each other well.
Click to expand...

I should add that if I didn’t have the SL as well, then I would have chosen the 240, for the occasional use of LV. There is no doubt that the 240 is a more versatile camera.
 
You really cannot go wrong either way. I use my M262 for a lot of landscape/nature imaging like these I captured this morning with a 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar.







and 35mm f2.4 Summarit..



 
Like some others, I won't say what I 'd do hypothetically but what I did actually do: I got the M262.

I'd been eyeing the M9 for FF, (count me in the 'not-a-fan-of-cropped-sensors-because-i-still-mostly-shoot-film' camp) still wasn't jazzed with low light performance or the surprisingly high resell price. Left the M240 and M262. I was finding the latter in better condition for a lot lower prices, despite being a nominally newer camera. I guess people will really pay a premium for LV and a frame line preview lever.

But I really don't mind buying used and dinged gear, so more of a factor was the rumored better lowlight of the 262: supposedly same sensor, but different signal processing. No, it's still not A7-levels of performance, but hey, I'm shooting an M for a reason, and I'd rather trade mediocre live view for it, since after dark is when switch film for silicon. A nice minty camera was a plus.

My thoughts on LV: I don't use it, or want it, at all. Used to use a Nikon D3s for work and it came in handy for unusual shots, but it was an otherwise atrocious experience; same went with the X100 EVF. From what I understand, the 240 wasn't that much better. Even on modern cameras I've played with in person, I still prefer an optical finder. I'll admit some curiosity, since I'd love to see what some of my Bronica lenses look like on digital, but eh. Wasn't worth it. But that's just my personal usage...if I had a lot more vintage SLR lenses, I might be more inclined.
 
While I was in the market for my first digital Leica I to compared the M240P to the M262 and tried both and my deciding factor with why I went with the M240P was simply because of it having Live View. I find that for certain situations live view is a big help so having that was my main factor in why I picked up the 240.
 
So, if price and condition of the cameras is equal, why not get the one with the most features, especially if they can be disabled if you don't use them. I have an MP240 and seldom crimp and have used it for a video once in two years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom