Well, come on now... it feels like a toy because it isn't superficially beefed up with the finest of metals to feel like a mechanical film camera? Ok, but I've been using the X-Pro2 since day one and it has been reliable, feels right in the hands, and the fact that it weighs substantially less than M is a pro not a con IMO. That said, I'm not photographing in war zones, so YMMV.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
Which is why I am reluctant to sell it. It is a fantastic camera.
raid
Dad Photographer
Just a reality check here; what is the current "average market selling price" of a clean M240?
ktmrider
Well-known
I may have posted earlier but I purchased a mint black MP240 about a year ago. It has been used and not babied. I don't normally care about things like red dots but I like the plain black finish and frame selector lever.
I have not shot video but like having the capability and I find the EVF fun to use, especially with superfast lenses. It will be going around the world with me this fall along with a new Fuji X100F. I say go for it.
I have not shot video but like having the capability and I find the EVF fun to use, especially with superfast lenses. It will be going around the world with me this fall along with a new Fuji X100F. I say go for it.
micromontenegro
Well-known
About 2,600. I've been shopping.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks. This is a reasonable cost for such a capable camera.
bayernfan
Well-known
I've been offered a mint M-P 240 right around $3k. Seems like good value to me.
raid
Dad Photographer
I would go for it.
Mcary
Well-known
When shooting for B&W conversion what do you feel is the max usable ISO of the M262? I've already decide that I prefer the M262 over the M240 due no video and that it weighs about 4 oz less than the M240. Now I just need to decide if the M262 is enough of an upgrade in max ISO capability from the M9 or if I should spend the extra $$ for a used M10.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
EDIT: (didn’t realize the ISO question was the 262, I’m referring to the mp240)
1600 and under for BW is good. 3200 is Still acceptable to me. However I don’t use a Leica for crazy high ISO perfection. I use it because I like manual focusing and I like being able to carry my camera everywhere and use fast, small glass. I find that the way I personally use my Leica is to gather quick moments on a high quality system so I can keep the memories of my kids growing up etc. In these cases specifically, the content FAR outweighs the technical perfection.
I realized this while looking through the magnum contact book and others, that the documentary or travel style of shooting which the Leica is suited for. Many images are not pin sharp. They don’t have to be in order to have visual impact. Getting off topic, but it’s my favorite camera to use right now. So, if you have a couple M lenses already, go for it. Worst case is that you don’t like it and sell it for very close to what you paid.
Mcary
Well-known
First off thank you for your reply. Right now I'm shooting with the M9 and I'm very happy with the results I get a ISO 1600 for B&W so going to M262/240 would give me a 1 stop boost. Like yourself I don't mind a bit of softness or blur due to a slower shutter speed and some time even prefer it depending on the subject scene.
jja
Well-known
Did you get it?
peterm1
Veteran
A slight side diversion.......As I think I indicated in another thread here at RFF, I came within a hair's breadth of buying an M240 but at the last minute decided on a comparably priced and utterly mint Leica Q instead - the seller was selling it at a good price in order to have funds to buy the then soon to be released Q2.
It was a close decision. I wanted the M240 as an upgrade to my M8 as I have indicated in this thread below. And I especially liked the idea of having focus peaking etc when using the top mounted EVF (though like everyone else I have asked, I do not like the look of the EVF perched on top of the camera though I have a couple of other cameras that use similar EVFs and know they work OK - in fact perfectly they work well given their ability to adjust the viewing angle which is sometimes useful). And I like the far better dynamic range and usable ISO range offered by this camera over the older models.
In the end what decided me I think was (a) the autofocus of the Leica Q (my eyes are no longer so good as I would like them to be) and (b) the stellar reports of the performance of the 28mm f1.7 lens. In neither respect am I in the least disappointed. It did take some heavy thinking about whether to limit myself to a 28mm fixed lens or not given my tendency to prefer longer lenses but in the end thought damn it, it is time I forced myself to use at least some wider lenses. And though I did not much like the idea of in camera cropping at first, I have found the ability to throw up the 35mm framelines useful sometimes as it helps in framing and given I always shoot in RAW (DNG) I can always change this in post in any event. I also understand that if cropped to 35mm the final image cropped to this will be about 15 megapixels - approximately the same as my Olympus OM D EM5 which is certainly no slouch in terms of the image details saved.
Though I would kinda still like an M240 to back this up.............. damn the G.A.S.! And damn the M240 for being so good.
It was a close decision. I wanted the M240 as an upgrade to my M8 as I have indicated in this thread below. And I especially liked the idea of having focus peaking etc when using the top mounted EVF (though like everyone else I have asked, I do not like the look of the EVF perched on top of the camera though I have a couple of other cameras that use similar EVFs and know they work OK - in fact perfectly they work well given their ability to adjust the viewing angle which is sometimes useful). And I like the far better dynamic range and usable ISO range offered by this camera over the older models.
In the end what decided me I think was (a) the autofocus of the Leica Q (my eyes are no longer so good as I would like them to be) and (b) the stellar reports of the performance of the 28mm f1.7 lens. In neither respect am I in the least disappointed. It did take some heavy thinking about whether to limit myself to a 28mm fixed lens or not given my tendency to prefer longer lenses but in the end thought damn it, it is time I forced myself to use at least some wider lenses. And though I did not much like the idea of in camera cropping at first, I have found the ability to throw up the 35mm framelines useful sometimes as it helps in framing and given I always shoot in RAW (DNG) I can always change this in post in any event. I also understand that if cropped to 35mm the final image cropped to this will be about 15 megapixels - approximately the same as my Olympus OM D EM5 which is certainly no slouch in terms of the image details saved.
Though I would kinda still like an M240 to back this up.............. damn the G.A.S.! And damn the M240 for being so good.
raid
Dad Photographer
Peter: it is great that we have such options available to us.
How do you find the 28mm view from your Q?
How do you find the 28mm view from your Q?
peterm1
Veteran
Raid I think like you, that we are very lucky.
As to the 28mm view in general I find it a bit wide for me for many shots, but have been pleasantly surprised at the amount and quality of the bokeh this lens produces, which to my way of thinking helps me cope with the 28mm FOV. (Having everything in focus all the time is something I reserve for landscape photos - and not even all of them). One thing I still have to teach myself is to get closer when taking street shots. I do find this hard - my philosophy is that street shots should be candid and the idea of "candid" shots is that the subject is not disturbed. That's harder to do when a camera is shoved into their face........ Still the ultra high speed of the Q's AF is so good that this problem is minimized and that is one reason I find the Q to be much more acceptable than I feared it might be for me.
But as also indicated, I am finding the in camera 35mm "crop" more useful than I thought it would be too, as I prefer 35mm to 28mm in general. And because of how the camera works when saving images as DNG images the cropping can always be undone or modified in post (though I have been told - I have not yet tried). I think I would prefer 50mm crop in camera except that the file size by then is beginning to be a bit too small for my liking.
This in camera crop feature would be even more valuable with the Q2 and its (near) 50 megapixel sensor, which means that even when cropped to 35mm (or 50mm for that matter) the files are still huge.
So for me - a personal surprise is that I do not mind the in camera crop as much as I thought I would and find it a little more useful than I believed I would (given I can do it in post in any event if this feature were turned off.)
raid
Dad Photographer
I may one day get a M240. I enjoy using many different lenses.
For travel, the Q will be perfect and sufficient and reliable.
So would the M240.
I am missing out on improved digital cameras.
For travel, the Q will be perfect and sufficient and reliable.
So would the M240.
I am missing out on improved digital cameras.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I'm thinking about an M240 too..but me thinks..that Leica may come out with a new one partnered up with Panasonic internals soon..maybe with 4k video..and that would be a nice improvement..albeit at a Leica cost..
bayernfan
Well-known
umcelinho
Marcelo
it's a fantastic camera. to me, the only downside would be the high iso performance, but that's coming from me being spoiled by the A7Rii/RX1Rii fantastic sensor. I shoot at iso 1600 max with the MP240 and usually it's enough, pairing to an f1.8 or f1.4 lens. But sometimes shadow recovery or colour rendering is a bit messy. For the price the camera is currently being sold for though, it's extremely worth getting one.
rcubed
Canadian
Great deal on a Silver MP240 at Leica Miami right now: https://leicastoremiami.com/collect...chrome-extra-battery-5?variant=14290502025260