M240: Current Price vs Reliability

[jarski]

Maybe more like 1mm... I compared the baseplate from my M8 vs the M240, and it's very little difference in width... but there is a difference. And it's visually obvious when looking at the two top plates. I don't mind!

thats how I remember it also, not sure what we are seeing in that picture.

speaking of M's, it's time to start documenting this year with them. have to confess of taking short new year holiday snaps with just a phone

 

[shorelineae]

A safe bet... although the LCD stopped working when I fell over with it around my neck. The camera barely touched the ground and I nearly hurt myself trying to ensure it didn't touch, but it _touched_ the ground lens first (15mm Voigtlander). My guess is it's a loose wire somewhere.

Apart from that, no issues. I used it in cold and hot weather alike without. (I use an EVF now).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The more I look at this picture, the more off it seems. The base plate in front is either from an M8 or M9. The brass on the base plate in the back (supposedly from an M240) is thicker; The is is not the case in actuality. So what are actually we looking at?

Just provide yours already.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Just provide yours already.

I have had both, just not at the same time - and I never noticed a difference except in weight. In fact, currently I have neither.

There differences are described here - but I had always assumed the differences were as a result of the thumb bump.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have had both, just not at the same time - and I never noticed a difference except in weight. In fact, currently I have neither.

There differences are described here - but I had always assumed the differences were as a result of the thumb bump.

Camerasize.com have them to compare as well.
Honestly, I don't care for bottom plate size this much. I wear camera via neck strap and top plate view is the only view I observe. Looking from the top, M9 control wheel is also protruding.
Not to mention half-case.

 

[raid]

We are still discussing getting or keeping a M240 here. I never got such a camera, but I used one for 8 months as a loaner camera from Leica. I did not like its bulky depth, but I did not see any other flaws in it other than it felt too large in my hands. I was lucky to have saved some money to eventually get an M10, or I would have most likely gotten an M240.

 

[CLAdictic]

Looking at all this back and forth, versus this, versus that, because of this, etc., makes me glad I bought a new CL.

 

[kshapero]

Ultimately your choice, but I would stay away from any ageing Leica bodies, rangefinders especially. If you have any M mount lenses and want to use them get yourself a Fujifilm X-T3 and a Fujifilm M to X mount adapter. I’ve had bad experience with M9 and M9P, M 240 was trouble free, but I sold it after using it for 2 years to finance SL. The SL has been a trouble free after two years of usage. For travel and walk around I use X-T3.

Totally disagree. I have great value and reliability with both Leica Film and Digital cameras. Presently using a slightly used M-P 240 with great success. Always buy from a reliable source.

 

[peterm1]

I think the M240 is inherently reliable as far as it goes.

But after thinking it over a little more I feel I should add this to my earlier post on this thread. I suspect the main problem anyone buying a Leica M240 is likely to experience is the same as the problem that every other Leica M have experienced or will experience eventually - the damned rangefinder which relies on wholly mechanical linkages goes out of specification, resulting in M lenses no longer focussing properly when mounted on that camera. I have read of some M shooters budgeting to send their camera back to Leica every year or 18 months to have this issue fixed. This problem can happen inexplicably even if the camera is molly-coddled and babied as mine tend to be. I had it happen to my M8 when going on a holiday - I suspect caused by nothing more than the camera sitting in my camera bag in a plane's overhead locker and experiencing the normal vibration that comes from a passenger jet flying from point A to point B. If you look this issue up on Google the posts about this kind of thing are many, if not legion.

Usually this requires a trip to a technician who knows what he is doing and hence there will be a cost and time spent without access to the camera.

At least I suppose the M240 has an alternative - the top mounted electronic finder - assuming you ante up another $400 for one. And while I am about it, I should mention that if your eyes are no longer 20:20 you will also need to pay for a diopter as Leica has never seen fit to try to engineer a Leica M finder with inbuilt diopter adjustment.

Though I was strongly tempted, several considerations did lead me, in the end, to buy a Leica Q instead of a Leica M240 when I decided to upgrade my Leica M8 a couple of years ago. Part of it was the autofocus available in the Q (combined with excellent MF) and its superb lens. But I think the above consideration was also at the back of my mind although not at the forefront of my decision making at the time. Having said all of this, as I said in my other post, I would still love an M240 for all of that. Damned Leica's they get under your skin.

 

[shawn]

For the finder get the Olympus branded version for half the cost or around $100 used. And of course in an emergency you can always use the LCD for live view too.

Shawn

 

[Rob-F]

I think the M240 is inherently reliable as far as it goes.

I suspect the main problem anyone buying a Leica M240 is likely to experience is the same as the problem that every other Leica M have experienced or will experience eventually - the damned rangefinder which relies on wholly mechanical linkages goes out of specification, resulting in M lenses no longer focussing properly when mounted on that camera. I have read of some M shooters budgeting to send their camera back to Leica every year or 18 months to have this issue fixed. This problem can happen inexplicably even if the camera is molly-coddled and babied as mine tend to be. this issue up on Google the posts about this kind of thing are many, if not legion.

Funny, I've had my M2 for over 60 years and the rangefinder hasn't gone out of alignment yet. Same goes for my two m5s. I haven't had my M6 TTL, M7, or MP for nearly as long--15 to 20 year range--no problems with those either. The rangefinder did go out of alignment on my M6 Classic. I fixed it.

 

[kshapero]

I think the M240 is inherently reliable as far as it goes.

But after thinking it over a little more I feel I should add this to my earlier post on this thread. I suspect the main problem anyone buying a Leica M240 is likely to experience is the same as the problem that every other Leica M have experienced or will experience eventually - the damned rangefinder which relies on wholly mechanical linkages goes out of specification, resulting in M lenses no longer focussing properly when mounted on that camera. I have read of some M shooters budgeting to send their camera back to Leica every year or 18 months to have this issue fixed. This problem can happen inexplicably even if the camera is molly-coddled and babied as mine tend to be. I had it happen to my M8 when going on a holiday - I suspect caused by nothing more than the camera sitting in my camera bag in a plane's overhead locker and experiencing the normal vibration that comes from a passenger jet flying from point A to point B. If you look this issue up on Google the posts about this kind of thing are many, if not legion.

Usually this requires a trip to a technician who knows what he is doing and hence there will be a cost and time spent without access to the camera.

At least I suppose the M240 has an alternative - the top mounted electronic finder - assuming you ante up another $400 for one. And while I am about it, I should mention that if your eyes are no longer 20:20 you will also need to pay for a diopter as Leica has never seen fit to try to engineer a Leica M finder with inbuilt diopter adjustment.

Though I was strongly tempted, several considerations did lead me, in the end, to buy a Leica Q instead of a Leica M240 when I decided to upgrade my Leica M8 a couple of years ago. Part of it was the autofocus available in the Q (combined with excellent MF) and its superb lens. But I think the above consideration was also at the back of my mind although not at the forefront of my decision making at the time. Having said all of this, as I said in my other post, I would still love an M240 for all of that. Damned Leica's they get under your skin.

Of course, I am aware of these stories and know they are true. But in my 40 years of shooting Leica's I have never had this problem.

 

[oldwino]

Every single used Leica digital camera I have purchased has needed a rangefinder adjustment.
I think the adjustment is far more critical on the digital cameras than on the film cameras.

 

[shawn]

I think the adjustment is far more critical on the digital cameras than on the film cameras.

And it i s more obvious if it is wrong on a digital camera due to being able to instantly check focus after taking the shot, while also looking at focus at what is likely a higher magnification than a negative would be printed at.

Shawn

 

[brusby]

Much easier to fix it oneself on a digital camera.