Leica M (Type 240) Digital Camera Review (NEW)

N

noisycheese

Normal(ish) Human
Local time
1:47 PM
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,291
Here's a new review of the Leica M 240 that I just discovered. Please read and post your reactions to the reviewer's thoughts.

Leica M (Type 240) Digital Camera Review

By TJ Donegan March 25, 2014

A Leica M with live view and video? Besser spät als nie (better late than never)

There are few cameras in history more revered than those from the Leica M series. But since the M3 debuted in the 1950s, Leica's rangefinders have mostly remained the same, even as technology advanced and the photography world transitioned from film to digital. Leica's rangefinders have never been at the forefront of these changes, with the M series sticking with film all the way until 2006's M8 finally included a digital sensor—nearly 10 years after digital cameras first rose to prominence.

The M8 was replaced by the M9 in 2009, and the M9-P in 2011. But though technology continued to advance, the M9/M9-P seemed stuck in the past, eschewing modern features, such as live view and video recording, that had become commonplace. Leica has remedied these faults, however, with the debut of the Leica M (MSRP $6,950.00). Announced back in 2012, the M is the bold step forward technologically that Leica fans and broke daydreamers have long waited for.

Leica cameras are designed and manufactured in Germany, though the components are usually sourced globally.
Oddly enough, the Leica M brings modern features to the venerable M series just as the desire for retro camera designs has skyrocketed. The M is poised to take advantage of this movement, as there's a classic sensibility to using a camera that combines the analog charm of a rangefinder with the modern advances other top-shelf cameras enjoy. And even with all the new bells and whistles, the M is a camera that makes you stop and think about what you're doing. The idea of a digital rangefinder may be anachronistic, but it's also timeless, and the ostensibly staid design belies massive performance gains under the hood....
Click to expand...
Read the rest of the review and see the video clip here:
http://cameras.reviewed.com/content/leica-m-type-240-digital-camera-review
 
Certainly sounds like a very nice camera. I hope Leica sells lots of them. For me the M9 certainly does everything I need except be an MM. Still saving for that one.
 
"Compared to most cameras in it's class. . . "
I'll always read a review, especially a hands-on, but comparisons are a snore.
 
AusDLK said:
sold mine. returned to an M9. let me count the reason why.
Click to expand...

Let me guess the top 10:

1. Cost being too high
2. Exhibiting masochism or similar DSM IV condition
3. Experiencing nostalgia for Atari era electronics
4. Buying into the "CCD" thing
5. Feeling like batteries lasting more than 200 shots promote carelessness
6. Exhibiting too much transparency to outbound Eyefi signals
7. Having to do a battery-out reset every so often with M9 giving time to reflect on life
8. Oversophisticated flash systems leading to too few surprise disappointments
9. Not being available in faux ostritch leather until 2015
10. Leica dot being too big

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
Let me guess the top 10:

10. Leica dot being too big

Dante
Click to expand...

Man, this was the deal breaker for me. :D

Seriously though, once in a while a product comes along that just "fits." It works the way you want it to, is intuitive, does what you need it to do and doesn't have a lot of extra stuff to wade through. The M9 is that for me. I bought a used $200 Panny GX-1 that does most of the stuff the M240 does (albeit with a 4/3rds sensor, of course) when I want it (live view, & video) and I seldom use it. The M240, for me, was a solution in search of a problem.

But then, I drive an '07 FJ 'Cruiser with a six speed manual transmission too. ;)
 
Dante_Stella said:
You will wonder why you ever put up with the M8/9. You'll also wonder why Leica stuck us with those in the first place.

Dante
Click to expand...
Only if you don't see, or don't care about, the unique (and, in my view, superior) color rendition of the M9. For me that trumps any of the improvement in the rangefinder, or other, hardware and handling improvements of the M240.

—Mitch/Potomac, MD
Tristes Tropiques
[Direct download link for PDF file of book project]
 
Dante_Stella said:
Let me guess the top 10:

1. Cost being too high
Click to expand...

Wow I certainly expected more than the s-hole 'envy' card that everyone who owns one of these always plays to 'trump' any criticism of the camera. Is this the same guy who's blog I often read about a whole load of film cameras or has someone stolen his identity? Hmmm - sadly removes bookmark from Chrome, shaking head.
 
Since Dante brought it up - yep.. the cost IS too high (but so is the rent if you listen to Jimmy McMilan). Had an opportunity to buy one (new) after I put in a pre-order back in April of 2013.... tick tock... waited till December.. finally was ready.. but Leica was too late.

Sony beat them to the punch. Full frame, accepts M-Mount lenses with excellent Voigtlander or Novoflex or (insert other decent adapter maker name here) and I have the same sensor as I currently have in my D600 - ridiculously good up to ISO 12,800 - all in a smaller mirrorless package for 1/3 (or more) the price.

I love Leica's film bodies - even if I were to buy brand new - I have my heart set on a new MP for my 50th in a couple years - but digital - meh...

We've said it here before; Leica is what it is - it is no longer a brand that is at the forefront of camera technology or leading the way in terms of new ideas or change. They are a luxury brand; a status symbol; a piece of jewelery that happens to take photos.

They are, however, the only digital rangefinder around....

So if you want to play you have to ante up... :)

Cheers,
Dave
 
Dante_Stella said:
You will wonder why you ever put up with the M8/9. You'll also wonder why Leica stuck us with those in the first place.

Dante
Click to expand...

Actually, I wonder why I ever put up with DSLRs. ;)

And I like both my M8 AND M9. :D

It's truly different strokes for different folks. For me, the DSLR experience is just... well... is less than satisfying.

And if I had a bunch of R glass lying around waiting for a digital body, the M240 would probably be attractive. As it is, the M9 does exactly what I want it to, so all's good.
 
malland said:
Only if you don't see, or don't care about, the unique (and, in my view, superior) color rendition of the M9. For me that trumps any of the improvement in the rangefinder, or other, hardware and handling improvements of the M240.

—Mitch/Potomac, MD
Tristes Tropiques
[Direct download link for PDF file of book project]
Click to expand...

Actually, I just bought one of those obsolete, nasty, dirty M9's. They call it an M-E now. :angel:
 
Got it-Like it

Got it-Like it

Dante_Stella said:
You will wonder why you ever put up with the M8/9. You'll also wonder why Leica stuck us with those in the first place.

Dante
Click to expand...

Yes, proving to be better for my likes than M9, which I did like:
1)Basically no chroma noise in shadows at 3200-but haven't pushed it in LR yet
2)Color is not an issue. I shoot DNG and adjust color as I like, therefore camera color is NEVER an issue. JPEGs look fine.
3)I can actually evaluate a lens from the LCD on back. Bad news, my Cosina 21mm f4 is very soft on the left side-may have to think about the Leica 21mm.
4)Very quiet shutter
5) I like the auto ISO

Too heavy for Leica, but better than my Canon 5DII which is gone.
Still have my Fuji X-E1 which I will put in my coat pocket with the 27mm.

Cheers,
denton
 
Denton said:
...2)Color is not an issue. I shoot DNG and adjust color as I like, therefore camera color is NEVER an issue...
Click to expand...
This, indeed, is the bone of contention: some people state that the M240 files can be processed to look exactly, or "very much," like M9 files — and have more dynamic range too boot. While the DR is there, in my view, there simply is a difference despite extensive processing, and I have a great preference for the M9 color rendition (after processing the DNGs). While people have different color vision and different preferences for color (which is why there were so many different types of color film), my view is supported by the experience of two photographers whose color shots I like a lot: Peter (Prosophos Blog) and fotorafz (Marc), who both returned the M240, because of its color rendition after extensive trials in two weeks. fotografz, who was concerned about the skin tones, felt that with the M240 he had constantly had a battle (mostly unsuccessful) to fix the skin tones. Incidentally, in the end he greatly preferred the color rendition of the A7 (or A7R, I don't recall).


—Mitch/Potomac, MD
Tristes Tropiques
[Direct download link for PDF file of book project]
 
Took me two weeks to understand and be happy with the M240 colours. Yes, they differ, but I do not have the arrogance to call either better. Actually, in the end, I prefer the M240, which fortunately lacks the lollipop tendency I have always been fighting on the M9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom