Mudman
Well-known
I just got a M-P for $3300. I've sen some M 240's pushing $2700, it seems from shops they range from $2900-3300 generally right now.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I've been a little tempted to get an M-P 240, at the present prices. But I'm concerned that the 24 MP file size will eat up too much disc space. I've was happy with 10Mp of my M8.2 and X100, 12Mp of my D700; not sure why I need the 16 or 18 Mp of my M9. And I believe the M-P 240 has 24Mp. Maybe If I had one I would see why it's good to have such a large file size.
Anyone else have a similar concern?
Anyone else have a similar concern?
f16sunshine
Moderator
Yes at one time but not concerned any longer.
Disc space is the least scarce of all photographic tools.... it's become cheap!
I don't think an upgrade to M240 from M8/M9 is about more pix..... it's about more processing stability, iso headroom, and live view capability.
The M240 is a much more refined camera than the previous digital M's and, more capable of image capture in varied lighting situations.
As far as models prior to the M10, it's the only choice I would make in 2017.
Mudman
Well-known
I had the same concern going from my d3 to the d750. It hasn't been an issue so far. The quality of the files makes up for the use of space. And space is cheap to buy.
Ronald M
Veteran
First off your computer is not for storage of large amounts of data for various reasons. External drives are cheap. Use two the same, one being back up.
Second is moire. As image degradation is no longer being done in camera with a blur screen infant of sensor, the choice is getting moire or more MP.
Moire shows up in certain clothing ( I see it all the time on TV) and with repetitive structures on buildings.
raid
Dad Photographer
I use 4 external drives for the DNG files, plus save the images on my computer and at smugmug.com the JPG files. A 4TB drive is not expensive these days.
Lux Optima
Established
Very interesting thread, thanks for all opinions!
I consider it very interesting that an old M3, perfectly maintained through all the decades and carefully restored, with a proper old lens is now only a little bit cheaper than a 240 (unlike my beautiful old Pentax ME Super that hasn't any value but an emotional one).
Have analog and digital cameras and in my opinion - despite the perfection of the digitial age - that the true value of a camera is not to be measured by numbers for me.
I consider it very interesting that an old M3, perfectly maintained through all the decades and carefully restored, with a proper old lens is now only a little bit cheaper than a 240 (unlike my beautiful old Pentax ME Super that hasn't any value but an emotional one).
Have analog and digital cameras and in my opinion - despite the perfection of the digitial age - that the true value of a camera is not to be measured by numbers for me.
No, HD space is relatively cheap to camera prices...
ptpdprinter
Veteran
A two terabyte (2TB) portable hard drive costs around $75. It will hold an insane amount of 24MP images. Space usage should not be a consideration.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
It depends a great deal on how aggressively you crop and how large you print.
froyd
Veteran
I'm with you. That's one thinng I cannot stand about my Sony compact: 20mb files. Ten or 12 mb would be more appropriate for my need, so I reduce the file size, but that forces me to use jpg (not really a big deal for me because I shoot digital like I shoot slides and I don't push files much).
Storage is certainly not an issue, as many have pointed out, it's cheap. I have two tetrabyte drives mirroring each other, but why deal with large files if I don't need too? Smaller files are faster to open, faster to move, faster to back up.
Still, you might find out that for your needs the extra file size is actually useful (aggressive cropping, enlargements, manupilations, etc).
raid
Dad Photographer
For smaller image files, I have my old M 4/3 cameras.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
You will lose money if you trade or sell; if you don't want to be taken to the cleaners on your M240, keep it. It is still an outstanding camera.
I would like to have an M10 (who wouldn't??) but I will not sell/trade my M-P Safari kit to help get it.
I don't like losing my shirt.
raid
Dad Photographer
Digital cameras depreciate in value. This is a fact of life.
I love my M8 and M9, and I am not selling either one.
I may get an M240 one day. It has everything that the M10 has for better quality images.
ebay shows M240 cameras for about $3,500.
I love my M8 and M9, and I am not selling either one.
I may get an M240 one day. It has everything that the M10 has for better quality images.
ebay shows M240 cameras for about $3,500.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Ah, such a cool new moniker: "M10: the Destroyer!"
The only reason to be concerned about the value of your existing camera being depressed by the M10 is that you want an M10 and were expecting to sell your old camera to get it.
Life is tough.
The only reason to be concerned about the value of your existing camera being depressed by the M10 is that you want an M10 and were expecting to sell your old camera to get it.
Life is tough.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
OK, good answers; but what about the other part of my question: is there a need for 24MP? I can answer my own question somewhat. I calculate that a 20 x 24 print would use the whole file, while at 11 x 14 or 11 x 17, the 18MP of the M9 is enough. Who is making prints large enough to need 24MP? How large do you print from M240 files? What sizes?
raid
Dad Photographer
I have been using a loaner M 240 since I sent out my M9 for repair, and I am getting used to this camera. It is not just about an increase in MP. The ISO capabilities are known, but there is also the capability to take several photos quickly one after another without the camera to freeze up, as it happens with my M9. The battery is larger in size, and I don't have to worry much about the camera dying due to battery being dead. The LiveView allows me to focus better, when needed, and I could use SLR lenses with the appropriate adapters if I wanted to do so. The screen on the back of the M240 is much better than the screen on the M9.
Huss
Veteran
The camera with the absolute worst resale value is the Leica M7.
Current production model, new is $4550. The moment you pay for it it is worth $2400. I got my perfect late model one for $1600.
The M-A and M-P are similar, but not as bad.
It is arguably the best out of all my film RFs (M3, M4, M5) for sheer speed and usability.
So it's not just digi cameras that lose value!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
What you're calculating makes little sense to me.
The old standard of a 35mm slide or negative that was well exposed and well focused was the ability to make a clean 16x20 inch print, viewed at normal viewing distances of about 3-4 feet. The standard for making such a print from an inkjet printer is 300 ppi output density.
A 16x20 is a 4:5 ratio image where 35mm format is 2:3 ratio, so we can only approximate the size, full frame. If the long dimension of a 35mm frame is fitted to the long dimension of a 16x20 sheet of paper at 300ppi, that means 20" @ 300ppi = 6000 pixels. The short dimension of the frame at that resolution will come out to 13.3 inches, at 4000 pixels. 6000 x 4000 pixels is 24 MegaPixels.
I don't normally print that large myself, but it's good to know that my camera can achieve a quality print with sufficient native density at the classic standard for a good 35mm negative or slide. If nothing else, the 24Mpixel files provide a lot of head room for cropping and editing, and they can be downsized for printing much more easily, and with greater quality, than a smaller file can be upsized.
G
f16sunshine
Moderator
When I was a kid my dad had a ford Galaxy 500 with a nice 289 v8.
He was and still is the slowest driver on the road.
His saying was..."sometimes it's just nice to be sitting on the power".
The M240 was released when 24mpx was/is sort of the benchmark for FF sensors.
I don't think we would expect any makers to release smaller at this point.
24mpx is easy to make use of even if you don't need it.
Cropping ability is an asset as good as any other.
The processor is the key over earlier models.
It's the first Leica DRF that buffers/writes without getting it's bits in a twist.
The M8/9 was kind of a joke sometimes. How many times I remember taking the bottom off the camera and releasing the battery because the camera tripped on itself