Steve Huff's M type 240 review is up

[upceci]

People need positive reviews in order to reinforce their decision to buy a product, which they had decided to buy before hand, Huff's reviews are perfectly tailored to this group of consumers in camera market.

Huff is a perfect example of an internet trend where people are more interested in justifying their own irrational desires to buy a product by a second opinion rather than actually looking to reviews in order to make up their mind.


And a Leica camera will sell because it is a Leica camera not because Huff, who does not know how to use a camera if his life depended on says so or not.

Lets cut down all the huff and puff and just buy the camera and justify the cost with some decent work.

 

[thegman]

People need positive reviews in order to reinforce their decision to buy a product, which they had decided to buy before hand, Huff's reviews are perfectly tailored to this group of consumers in camera market.

Huff is a perfect example of an internet trend where people are more interested in justifying their own irrational desires to buy a product by a second opinion rather than actually looking to reviews in order to make up their mind.


And a Leica camera will sell because it is a Leica camera not because Huff, who does not know how to use a camera if his life dependent on says so or not.

Lets cut down all the huff and puff and just buy the camera and justify the cost with some decent work.

I agree with all of the above, except that I think it's a bit harsh to say that Steve Huff does not know how to use a camera. I don't have much of an opinion one way or another on his work, except to say that if he can't take good photos, 99% of us lot here can't either.

 

[semilog]

And if you're willing ot put up with the slow, under engineered M9 because it's so magical well, Hasselblad is selling their H4D-31 for $7500 with an 80 and if you can't get yer magic off that thing well then yer doing it wrong.

Or the Pentax 645D... Currently $8800 with the 43mm-eq 55/2.8 included.

 

[jaapv]

You guys must all be Hercules. Why on earth would I buy an oversize medium format brick with lenses to match when there is a lovely compact full-frame 135 system on the market? 😕

 

[f16sunshine]

You guys must all be Hercules. Why on earth would I buy an oversize medium format brick with lenses to match when there is a lovely compact full-frame 135 system on the market? 😕

You guys must be Saudi Princes. Why on earth would you buy a $7ooo Camera when there are $2ooo ones that performs the same or better? 😉

 

[furcafe]

I don't read that as a contradiction. I believe he's saying the M has more DR than the M9/M-E, but that, like other digitals, it loses DR at higher ISOs.

Agreed about the lack of high ISO shots in craptacular lighting (I think that's probably why his assessment of noise compared to the RX1, etc. is different from Reid, et al.).

*BTW, if someone from Leica is monitoring this thread, I hereby volunteer to be the official craptactular lighting tester for all future M digitals as I only use digital in terrible lighting (good light calls for film).* 😉

That statement above, to me, sort of contradicts a statement made earlier in the review:

So which is it? do we lose DR with the new M or do we gain DR with the new M?


There's a few other statements in his review that are a bit "odd" but overall he
Regarding his high ISO shots - I still have yet to see some that are in dimly lit, really craptacular lighting. That's where you'll be able to tell just how bad (or good) the camera is. If the ISO3200 is usable without banding in those situations, then I'm all for this new CMOS sensor.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[T&E]

Shame...

Shame...

Judging from the samples I've seen, it just doesn't have "the look" we've come to know and love from Leica.

Also, the lone "M" looks awkward...

I'd take a M6 w/35mm summicron over this any day of the week.

 

[SaveKodak]

You guys must be Saudi Princes. Why on earth would you buy a $7ooo Camera when there are $2ooo ones that performs the same or better? 😉

Hahaha I mean I'm not suggesting a Leica is the same as a Hasselblad but people make so many excuses for CCDs and the 'look' or whatever. I'm just saying if all that matters is that then go big or go home. It's like the same money. To me the M240 is an ideal version of a digital Leica. Faster lenses performing better in low light, sealed against rain and dust,. less lag, longer shooting times on one battery. For a reportage camera these are important improvements. If these features are NOT important to you then I might wonder why you're even bother to use a Leica at all. A film Hasselblad will get you 'back to basics.' Some notion of CCD magic or "pop" to me would be secondary considerations to the best appications of the camera design.

 

[dcsang]

I don't read that as a contradiction. I believe he's saying the M has more DR than the M9/M-E, but that, like other digitals, it loses DR at higher ISOs.

Agreed about the lack of high ISO shots in craptacular lighting (I think that's probably why his assessment of noise compared to the RX1, etc. is different from Reid, et al.).

*BTW, if someone from Leica is monitoring this thread, I hereby volunteer to be the official craptactular lighting tester for all future M digitals as I only use digital in terrible lighting (good light calls for film).* 😉

Ahhhh.. ya.. I can see that now.

And yes.. I just want those awful lighting situations we can all find ourselves in to be shown - I mean, really.. did you see the high ISO samples over here?
http://leica.bresson.no/2013/03/08/first-impression-of-the-new-leica-m-by-damian-heinisch/

I don't buy those at all. Put the camera in a seedy dimly lit bar. Not outdoors, at night, in Las Vegas or Singapore where exterior lighting can mean "High ISO" usage of ISO800.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Fraser]

Ahhhh.. ya.. I can see that now.

And yes.. I just want those awful lighting situations we can all find ourselves in to be shown - I mean, really.. did you see the high ISO samples over here?
http://leica.bresson.no/2013/03/08/first-impression-of-the-new-leica-m-by-damian-heinisch/

I don't buy those at all. Put the camera in a seedy dimly lit bar. Not outdoors, at night, in Las Vegas or Singapore where exterior lighting can mean "High ISO" usage of ISO800.

Cheers,
Dave

Yes high iso looks good when there are no shadows!

 

[Nigel Meaby]

It's not much but these are worth a look for high ISO http://www.farines-photo.com/wp/?p=697

 

[raid]

I would just calm down and continue enjoying your Leica equipment.
Photography can be done well with many types of cameras.
Next year, we may see the M330 model, with turbo film advance and improved mileage and "even better colors" that beat Velvia and .....

This is really a fun killer for me.
It makes me want to pick up my Standard Leica and take some photos.

 

[semilog]

Hahaha I mean I'm not suggesting a Leica is the same as a Hasselblad but people make so many excuses for CCDs and the 'look' or whatever. I'm just saying if all that matters is that then go big or go home. It's like the same money. To me the M240 is an ideal version of a digital Leica. Faster lenses performing better in low light, sealed against rain and dust,. less lag, longer shooting times on one battery. For a reportage camera these are important improvements. If these features are NOT important to you then I might wonder why you're even bother to use a Leica at all. A film Hasselblad will get you 'back to basics.' Some notion of CCD magic or "pop" to me would be secondary considerations to the best appications of the camera design.

Absolutely. People are comparing the very first images out of the M240 (for which essentially no one has established good color profiles or workflow) to images from the M9/ME (for which the workflow is well-established).

It is premature to dwell on subtleties of color cast, contrast, etc. These parameters are far too sensitive to post-processing routines to draw any conclusions about the sensor's overall capabilities.

The 240 is going to make great images. The images won't be technically much different than from than a 6D with a good lenses but, then, that's been true of Leica M's vs. SLRs since the introduction of the Nikon F.

It's just as silly to think that you're spending money for some special characteristics inherent in a Leica sensor as it would have been to think that Tri-X behaves differently in an M vs. an F3. The sensors in those cameras were identical, and everyone knew it, but some people still preferred an M4 or M6 (me among them).

If you buy an M9 or an ME or an M240, you are paying for a certain, slightly eccentric user interface, and for the ability to use M-mount glass, not for a magic sensor.

 

[semilog]

You guys must all be Hercules. Why on earth would I buy an oversize medium format brick with lenses to match when there is a lovely compact full-frame 135 system on the market? 😕

That's precisely why I currently use an X-E1. It's about half the weight of a digital M and 1/7 the price. And any incremental difference in image quality is utterly swamped by the fact that I generally shoot handheld, not on a tripod. If I want better IQ, I'll shoot medium format.

 

[dcsang]

That's precisely why I currently use an X-E1. It's about half the weight of a digital M and 1/7 the price. And any incremental difference in image quality is utterly swamped by the fact that I generally shoot handheld, not on a tripod. If I want better IQ, I'll shoot medium format.

Alright... NOW we're getting somewhere 😀

Cheers,
Dave

 

[MCTuomey]

And yes.. I just want those awful lighting situations we can all find ourselves in to be shown .... Put the camera in a seedy dimly lit bar.

Cheers,
Dave

Agree. I shoot a lot in dives. I plan to try the monochrom and, if/when I have refilled my savings, the M240 for this kind of work. Typical reviewer images and internet high iso "test" files don't help me much. Far far better lighting than what I have at the clubs I inhabit.

 

[jsrockit]

So, did he say "Best.Camera.Ever." ??? I can't bring myself to read it. No offense to him, but I'm not interested in spending this kind of cash on cameras anymore so its better to ignore it. 🙂

 

[upceci]

Alright... NOW we're getting somewhere 😀

Cheers,
Dave

I'm sure people in fuji are doing exactly the same thing as Colbert, watching Leica M240 being compared to their $1000+ cameras and losing in most cases.

Fuji killed Leica.

 

[Keith]

Serious reviews should never be written by individuals who are obviously smitten by the brand they are reviewing IMO.

I like Steve Huff and I like his site but a review of any product shouldn't/needn't be accompanied by it's documented unboxing ... but it's his choice to do it that way because that's who he is ... and good luck to him.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I'm sure people in fuji are doing exactly the same thing as Colbert, watching Leica M240 being compared to their $1000+ cameras and losing in most cases.

Fuji killed Leica.

I do find this funny sorry but they are apples and oranges. If Fuji killed Leica don't tell all those on waiting lists for the M and still waiting for the MM. FF is a big reason I went Leica. I have a very good bud has a Fuji and an M9 and likes his M9 A LOT better. Nice to have choices.