Steve Huff's M type 240 review is up

[MCTuomey]

Do you love the camera because you spent 8K on it or would you have loved the camera regardless of how much it was or what brand it was?

These alternatives aren't mutually exclusive. If I saved and sacrificed to buy it for $8K, I would tend to like it, yes. And at the same time, I would tend to like it because it's a fine camera at any price, no matter the brand or whatever.

 

[airfrogusmc]

These alternatives aren't mutually exclusive. If I saved and sacrificed to buy it for $8K, I would tend to like it, yes. And at the same time, I would tend to like it because it's a fine camera at any price, no matter the brand or whatever.

I totally agree.

 

[bwcolor]

If I were single, I would purchase the 240 in a second and wait an eternity for delivery.

As it is, I've an X100S on order and will keep my eyes open to other Fuji and Sony offerings. I am tempted to sell equipment to fund purchase, but I'm so attached to my film cameras. By the time I decide to go ahead, the next Leica iteration will be here. Enjoy your new M 240s. I'll certainly enjoy the images from many of you much more skilled/talented than I. This new Leica looks to be a real winner for Leica and the end user. APS-C is the prosumer sweet spot in today's market, but FF is making a real impact in the enthusiast market. For the mass market, people are using their cellphones. Maybe having a limited high-end niche isn't such a bad marketing strategy.

 

[semilog]

I can pull so much more usable info out of the shadows than I ever could from the M9 oh and I forgot to mention killer 6400 ISO from the MM

Sensitivity ≠ dynamic range.

Proof: put an ND8 filter on the front of a Monochrom. Sensitivity changes; DR does not.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Sensitivity ≠ dynamic range.

Proof: put an ND8 filter on the front of a Monochrom. Sensitivity changes; DR does not.

But I can pull info out of the shadows that the noise would have kept me from doing with the M9.

 

[splitimageview]

Actually if you look at the trends from Leica, Canon and Nikon they are all moving to more and more FF models. You did bring up popularity?

More models doesn't equate to popularity. 🙂 It's about units sold.

By its nature, a silicon chip (sensor) the size of a full frame (24x36) costs about 13 times as much to produce as an APS-C sensor, in that ballpark anyway. I did the actual math calculations in a post here about two years ago. This is due to simple area differences (the larger the chip the fewer are on each wafer) and also due to yield differences. As the technology advances yields improve.

Ergo, this is one of the primary reasons why a full frame camera costs a lot more than APS-C. It's not the only factor of course. And ergo, why there are many more APS-C cameras sold into the market.

There are many reasons why Nikon and Canon are pushing full frame, not the least of which, is as technology progresses, they get to offer new models to their existing installed base. And when they buy into full frame, many of them have to buy lenses that work on full frame. Very few people are upgrading from Nikon 5100s to 5200s, there simply isn't enough advancement between the models. In the old days, the D200 cost $2k; now you can get a D600 full frame for that. So as technology progresses, they have a ready market of people who will upgrade at the appropriate time that the customer chooses.

Since APS-C dominates the market, the technological advances are faster than they are with full frame. The same can be said when comparing full frame to medium format, but to a much greater degree. The number of medium format sensors sold into the marketplace is trivial, relatively speaking. The technological improvements are therefore much slower than in the high volume markets. This is why high ISO/low noise is far more advanced with the smaller sensors.

This is one reason why Apple moved to Intel processors a few years ago. It was extremely difficult to keep up with the technological advancement, because Intel was producing huge multiples of CPUs as compared to IBM and Mot PowerPC for Apple. The same concept applies, although in smaller ratios, between APS-C and full frame chips.

This huge volume advantage and resulting technological advancement is why many of the APS-C sensors sold today are extremly close to the performance of full frame sensors. Not equal, but for many applications, essentially little to no difference between the two.

This is the basis for my comment that APS-C is the 'new full frame.' The marketplace has spoken. 🙂

Just look at how often Leica introduces a new model...it's been 3 1/2 years between the M9 and the M. Or, how about the time frame between the D700 and the D800.

How many APS-C models have all the camera manufacturers introduced during those periods? It's an incredible pace.

 

[airfrogusmc]

But at one time APS-C was what everyone had except Canon. Now Nikon Canon and Leica M have all moved to FF with their top models and Canon and Nikon are producing more and more FF models every time they announce new cameras.

When I first went digital Canon was the only FF camera in the game.

So if APS-C was the norm in the beginning and more and more FF cameras are being produced now than ever wheres the logic to that statement?

 

[Jubb Jubb]

Just look at how often Leica introduces a new model...it's been 3 1/2 years between the M9 and the M. Or, how about the time frame between the D700 and the D800.

How many APS-C models have all the camera manufacturers introduced during those periods? It's an incredible pace.

You do know this isn't necessarily a good thing right? Sure technology advances and things get better. But at the cost of cameras now, they lose their value a lot quicker than your standard Leica.

 

[Keith]

If auto manufacturers took the same approach to development that Leica demonstrates we'd be driving cars with no crumple zones, side valve engines with carburetors, points and coil ignition, drum brakes ... and a computer to manage it all! 😀

 

[semilog]

But at one time APS-C was what everyone had except Canon. Now Nikon Canon and Leica M have all moved to FF with their top models and Canon and Nikon are producing more and more FF models every time they announce new cameras.

When I first went digital Canon was the only FF camera in the game.

So if APS-C was the norm in the beginning and more and more FF cameras are being produced now than ever wheres the logic to that statement?

The fraction of FF cameras vs. total DSLRs sold is increasing, but we do not know by how much. The TOTAL number of DSLRs being sold is flat or declining. Look at Nikon's profits over the last year.

 

[segedi]

Value doesn't necessarily lower a camera's usefulness or ability to create fine images. I had a Canon 10D and used it for nearly six years before upgrading to a 50D. And sure the value dropped, but it still made great 6 megapixel images. The marriage of consumerism and corporate marketing are responsible for the disposable nature of our products.

To answer airfrog's question, the marketing of full frame, its usefulness to pros and its ability to create shallower DOF, especially for video are the big sell. But the manufacturers would rather sell more APS-C as it's more profitable. And they've sold a ton. I think the days of the APS-C DSLR are numbered though as the chips and consumers move to CSC and more and more people are using mobile phones for photos. Promoting full frame makes sense to keep DSLR sales afloat; to keep lens sales afloat as well.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Value doesn't necessarily lower a camera's usefulness or ability to create fine images. I had a Canon 10D and used it for nearly six years before upgrading to a 50D. And sure the value dropped, but it still made great 6 megapixel images. The marriage of consumerism and corporate marketing are responsible for the disposable nature of our products.

To answer airfrog's question, the marketing of full frame, its usefulness to pros and its ability to create shallower DOF, especially for video are the big sell. But the manufacturers would rather sell more APS-C as it's more profitable. And they've sold a ton. I think the days of the APS-C DSLR are numbered though as the chips and consumers move to CSC and more and more people are using mobile phones for photos. Promoting full frame makes sense to keep DSLR sales afloat; to keep lens sales afloat as well.

I mean I see no logic in the statement APS-C is the new FF. When I first went digital Canon made the only FF camera. Now there are a lot of choices if you want to buy FF. I would say FF is the new APS-C would be more appropriate especially with Nikon introducing two new FF models in the past year and if you count the M-E MM and M Leica 3 FF Ms in the past year or so.

 

[splitimageview]

You are confusing the number of models with the volume of sales.

For the same reason that Leica doesn't sell many $8k cameras, Nikon didn't sell nearly as many $8k D3s as they did $1k D7000s.

There simply is a far larger installed base of all APS-C cameras than full frame. And since the quality of APS-C is within an eyelash of full frame, for reasons outlined above, this is the basis for the statement that APS-C is the new full frame, and it's entirely logical. You don't have to believe it, but it's true. 🙂

 

[splitimageview]

You do know this isn't necessarily a good thing right? Sure technology advances and things get better. But at the cost of cameras now, they lose their value a lot quicker than your standard Leica.

I didn't imply it was good or bad. It just is. 🙂

 

[semilog]

But the manufacturers would rather sell more APS-C as it's more profitable.

Can you point to data showing that profit margins are higher on APS-C bodies v. FF?

 

[Richard G]

Enjoyable review and even more enjoyable thread here. I did like the composition of Steve's cat picture. I agree with a lot of Dave's observations here. Loved the question earlier about where was Steve Huff when the M5 came out. That's very good. Thicker, heavier than the M9 and cyclops ugly, it nevertheless sounds like a very good camera. It makes it easier for me to buy a Canon or Nikon than ever it was, but in the meantime I'll stick with my M9.

 

[segedi]

I read it somewhere in the Internet so it must be true...

A full-frame DSLR might actually be more profitable unit to unit, but the volume of APS-C DSLRs makes the manufacturers more dough.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

I read it somewhere in the Internet so it must be true...

A full-frame DSLR might actually be more profitable unit to unit, but the volume of APS-C DSLRs makes the manufacturers more dough.

Stack 'em high sell 'em....err still rather, quite expensively 😀

 

[noimmunity]

I see finer gradations, perhaps more tonality in the new M image. It's a bit deceiving though as the shot isn't identical. There is a shadow on the M-E version under the eye on the right. That combined with the yellow tones mixing with the skin tone gives a different look. And not a better one in my opinion.

And there are differences in the exposure. Differences in metering maybe. If you look at the new M image, top left corner there looks to be more vignetting as well. I don't think it's as well corrected as the M-E, but firmware should take care of that.

Overall, the differences might not make much of a difference. But, there are other advantages to the new M over the M-E which should sway anyone wanting to drop a lot of money to buy the latest offering.

Thanks for taking a second (or probably third) look and sharing your observations back here.

I think the final paragraph is really the key.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

In the 'old days,' when someone "loved" a camera, they kept it until it couldn't be repaired. Nowadays, "love" means fanatical blog prose, for six months, until the company/another company sends you a new box to open in front of your video cam.

Not much of a 'review.' And while some folks seem to like the non-tech aspects, i'm not sure how it serves anyone when there are no comparisons to... anything significant. I'd like to know how this $15,000 package does those pictures better than a $4,000 Canon or Nikon package. Is that relevant? I guess not, to the leica crowd, which wouldn't be caught dead with one of those beastly plastic doodads.

So, where's the money going? The experience? The status? Congratulations.

But, i still haven't seen an M9-infinity photograph that is better than those i used to see on Altphotos, made by Eastern Block kids with cast-off film cameras. Where is the money going?