Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here’s a question I can’t answer, one which I really don’t know the answer but truly wish I did. Is a digital Leica, the M240 or M10, a worthwhile camera? I’m not talking about whether it’s affordable or worth the money. I’m asking how it stacks up against other digital cameras.
Obviously, different cameras have different features that appeal to different photographers because of what they want to do with their photography. But the Leica does fall into a growing group of relatively small cameras that are easy to keep with you and quick to go to work. At the same time, it is unique in that it and several Fuji cameras are currently the only cameras with bright line finders. The Leica finder has the advantage in brightness and parallax compensation. The Fuji X Pros have the advantage in variable frame magnification and the ability to switch to a TTL finder which gives them an additional advantage in both focusing and framing certain lenses. Oh - and the Leica has another unique feature; it only has manual focus.
Critics often point out the limitations of a camera design whose basics are still in place after almost 100 years. Supporters decry the needless complexity of endless menus and unnecessary features of other small cameras. I don’t know who is right. When Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Kodak and others dropped out of the rangefinder business and SLRs got bigger and added motors and zooms, the Leica had little competition as a go anywhere camera. It was a very good camera, but it also didn’t have any competition. It’s got a lot of competition now.
Here is my question. Do you have or do you want a digital Leica? And most important and a real help in clarifying my thoughts - why. Thank you for your help.
Obviously, different cameras have different features that appeal to different photographers because of what they want to do with their photography. But the Leica does fall into a growing group of relatively small cameras that are easy to keep with you and quick to go to work. At the same time, it is unique in that it and several Fuji cameras are currently the only cameras with bright line finders. The Leica finder has the advantage in brightness and parallax compensation. The Fuji X Pros have the advantage in variable frame magnification and the ability to switch to a TTL finder which gives them an additional advantage in both focusing and framing certain lenses. Oh - and the Leica has another unique feature; it only has manual focus.
Critics often point out the limitations of a camera design whose basics are still in place after almost 100 years. Supporters decry the needless complexity of endless menus and unnecessary features of other small cameras. I don’t know who is right. When Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Kodak and others dropped out of the rangefinder business and SLRs got bigger and added motors and zooms, the Leica had little competition as a go anywhere camera. It was a very good camera, but it also didn’t have any competition. It’s got a lot of competition now.
Here is my question. Do you have or do you want a digital Leica? And most important and a real help in clarifying my thoughts - why. Thank you for your help.
Axel
singleshooter
Maybe some day it would be nice to have a digital M Leica.
But, since my long used and loved M6, nearly everything in the camera market has changed.
In my opinion the digital M Leicas are not relative small. They are thicker than the film Ms
which were bigger than the screwmounts...
So my small and fullframe alternative is a Sony A7. With a smaller sensor it is a Fuji X-E.
I think that optical viewfinders become more and more obsolet. Personally I am very familiar with EVFs meanwhile.
So for me the question of Leica is even what the Leica is - like a good whisky or a nice car...
You won´t begin to argue about practical aspects when the day comes you want it.
My 5ct
But, since my long used and loved M6, nearly everything in the camera market has changed.
In my opinion the digital M Leicas are not relative small. They are thicker than the film Ms
which were bigger than the screwmounts...
So my small and fullframe alternative is a Sony A7. With a smaller sensor it is a Fuji X-E.
I think that optical viewfinders become more and more obsolet. Personally I am very familiar with EVFs meanwhile.
So for me the question of Leica is even what the Leica is - like a good whisky or a nice car...
You won´t begin to argue about practical aspects when the day comes you want it.
My 5ct
icebear
Veteran
The short answer is get a loaner, a lens of your favorite focal length and try it yourself.
You will know after 1 hr latest if it is for you or not.
It's about your vision and the camera allows you to capture it. And it goes out of the way during the process.
If you can handle an M3 and take a look into the short manual of a digital M, you'll be able to handle it.
Try that with the latest from any of the big players...
It's not about you maxing out all capabilities and features the latest and greatest camera on the market has to offer ... it is about maxing out your creative abilities.
You will know after 1 hr latest if it is for you or not.
It's about your vision and the camera allows you to capture it. And it goes out of the way during the process.
If you can handle an M3 and take a look into the short manual of a digital M, you'll be able to handle it.
Try that with the latest from any of the big players...
It's not about you maxing out all capabilities and features the latest and greatest camera on the market has to offer ... it is about maxing out your creative abilities.
Lee Rust
Member
I have am M262. For me, the bright line optical viewfinder and rangefinder manual focus are the main attractions. Manual focus is so easy with a rangefinder that I can't understand why people put up with the complexities of autofocus. I've tried the mirrorless types with EVF's and even the best of them create a visual and temporal disconnect with the live scene that I find very annoying. Optical finder DSLRs are great, but too bulky for me to carry around on a constant basis. That doesn't leave many digital alternatives besides the Leica M and the late, lamented Epson R-D1.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I loved shooting Ektachrome EPP-100, loved the vibrance and saturation of the colors, and I used it in school, so I'm sure there's a certain nostalgia thrown in there as well. About 8 years ago I picked up a used Leica M8.2 and found the colors reminded me of the Ektachrome which is now no longer available. But the crop factor really bothered me.
So I saved up to get one of the last CCD cameras Leica made, the Leica M-E, and I find the colors are as beautiful on it, as they were on my M8.2, and they do remind me of the old Ektachrome.
I've got a few Full Frame DSLR's that have CMOS sensors, so I figure they render similar to the latest Leica Digitals, M240, M10. And they were less expensive than the current Leica's, do much better in low light, and are "customizable" for many different shooting situations, where I find the Leica digitals lacking.
Just personal taste I believe.
Hope that helps.
Best,
-Tim
So I saved up to get one of the last CCD cameras Leica made, the Leica M-E, and I find the colors are as beautiful on it, as they were on my M8.2, and they do remind me of the old Ektachrome.
I've got a few Full Frame DSLR's that have CMOS sensors, so I figure they render similar to the latest Leica Digitals, M240, M10. And they were less expensive than the current Leica's, do much better in low light, and are "customizable" for many different shooting situations, where I find the Leica digitals lacking.
Just personal taste I believe.
Hope that helps.
Best,
-Tim
Contarama
Well-known
If I already had the glass...
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Seemingly, Lightroom has gotten the Xtrans sensor sorted out. I see clarity in my shots from my X-E3 that rival the ones from my M9. I had thoughts of a M10 or even a used M (240) but now I'm perfectly content with my Fuji assortment. Yes, cost difference is an issue, but were things to continue with the problems with the Fuji sensor I would have gone with the newer Leica offerings. Not now. I don't find a need for full frame either, most likely 'cause I'm not that good.
pluton
Well-known
I use D800s and Fuji 16MP X-Trans cams.
A good friend of mine acquired an M10 about 6 months ago. From what I've seen on the 5K iMac screen, the imager in the M10 is very, very good....at least D800 good, if not better.
That cannot be said, IMO, about the M9 and M240.
In terms of the imager, Leica no longer lags behind the DSLRs.
A good friend of mine acquired an M10 about 6 months ago. From what I've seen on the 5K iMac screen, the imager in the M10 is very, very good....at least D800 good, if not better.
That cannot be said, IMO, about the M9 and M240.
In terms of the imager, Leica no longer lags behind the DSLRs.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Not any more.
I still use my three film bodies when I can but more often my M glass sits on Sony bodies.
More flexible for my needs and I find the peak focussing faster than RF focussing.
For my day to day stuff (broadly sports) manual focus isn`t the best option anyway which is a further disincentive to sinking money into a camera design which doesn`t meet my needs.
DwF
Well-known
I agree with Klaus that a loaner would be useful, although your question feels rhetorical in the sense of initiating a good discussion.
As one who has tried many different cameras, I can say for sure that I have always felt most inspired to press the shutter by what I see in the Leica rangefinder window than from finders in other cameras. The Sony RX1R II (a great camera) comes to mind because using it recently, I found the EVF distracted from the moment and what was in out in front of me. Hard to explain but that's how I felt. I've never been a fan of SLR cameras either, because of the sense I was looking in to rather than through the camera.
Again, as Klaus says above "it's about your vision and the camera allows you to capture it" I feel this way. Getting my MM back after 9 months at Leica, I felt the immediacy of seeing and shooting my first outing with it and realized I'd missed that!
The Fuji X Pro 2 also works well with it's hybrid window, features (like AF) ; the design and feel of the X Pro 2 is really nice, and for me a nice compliment to the Leica. The image quality from the digital Leica M cameras is more than satisfactory for my purposes and what I am able bring out in post process.
David
Richard G
Veteran
The M9-P seems so much like my M2 that the habits of 30-40 years allow intuitive use still. There are few mode problems and the size of this full frame camera, with a compact f2.8 or even f5.6 lens is great for every day use. I can use lenses from 1932 to 2018. The Monochrom is special and the menus and handling are almost identical. And I haven't risked a new system and a whole slew of new lenses, possibly to move on yet again.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I have sold off most of my Nikon equipment in order to purchase an M 262 (not mentioned in your OP but presumably included in your M 240 reference). There were several reasons or justifications or excuses for this turn of events.
I suspect nostalgia played a part. Back when I first became a photographer in the army, in Germany, in the 1950s, because the army said I was, I soon replaced the government-furnished 4x5 Pressman and Rolleiflex with an M3 furnished by me. Publications weren't supposed to like any pictures taken with the 35mm format, but I never told them and they never asked.
Recently, having ridden the microstock bandwagon for many years and seeing the incredible dilution and diminished sales in that segment, I decided that I was getting too old to try to derive any more retirement income from that dead horse. So what was left for me? Well, to just shoot personal stuff and have fun. When that decision was reached, the only camera that came to mind was an M and the 262 seemed to be made for me, except the price, which seemed almost within reach. It was. And even a 50/2.4 Elmarit. (I thus avoided taping a foil pinhole over the lens flange.)
The " sacrifice" was totally worth it for me. I'm as creative as an old guy can be. I feel I have control over the images. With manual focus I can place it where I think it should be. I don't agonize over what lens to use. The rig is so light I take it everywhere. People seem less intimidated by the M. Nobody pays any attention.
Sorry to be so wordy.
I suspect nostalgia played a part. Back when I first became a photographer in the army, in Germany, in the 1950s, because the army said I was, I soon replaced the government-furnished 4x5 Pressman and Rolleiflex with an M3 furnished by me. Publications weren't supposed to like any pictures taken with the 35mm format, but I never told them and they never asked.
Recently, having ridden the microstock bandwagon for many years and seeing the incredible dilution and diminished sales in that segment, I decided that I was getting too old to try to derive any more retirement income from that dead horse. So what was left for me? Well, to just shoot personal stuff and have fun. When that decision was reached, the only camera that came to mind was an M and the 262 seemed to be made for me, except the price, which seemed almost within reach. It was. And even a 50/2.4 Elmarit. (I thus avoided taping a foil pinhole over the lens flange.)
The " sacrifice" was totally worth it for me. I'm as creative as an old guy can be. I feel I have control over the images. With manual focus I can place it where I think it should be. I don't agonize over what lens to use. The rig is so light I take it everywhere. People seem less intimidated by the M. Nobody pays any attention.
Sorry to be so wordy.
Dogman
Veteran
"Here is my question. Do you have or do you want a digital Leica? And most important and a real help in clarifying my thoughts - why. Thank you for your help."
History was my minor in college and tradition has always been important to me. I'm fascinated by the foundations and roots of cultures and institutions and how we got to the place we are today--as well as where the evolution of these foundations are likely to lead us in the future. By that token, I have a great deal of respect for icons. The 35mm Leica rangefinder camera, by any definition, is an icon and the digital Leica is an evolution of that icon. For that reason alone, I would want to own a digital Leica.
But there are practical barriers to my romantic notions. Cost is certainly a factor, for both the camera and the optics. But other factors also come into play. Having owned a meager few film Leicas in the past, I know for a fact that any decent AF system in existence is superior to my ability to focus a rangefinder with either speed or accuracy. I can't see paying a premium for frustration in this regard. Then there is also the question of reliability. While others might disagree, I see a considerable number of posts of these forums concerning newer Leicas needing repairs and the long waits for warranty work to be done. I don't see the volume of reports for other brands like I do for Leicas. Again, I wouldn't want to deal with this type of frustration. And finally, I would not be comfortable carrying and displaying a multi-thousand dollar camera. It's simply not acceptable to me.
In conclusion I would answer, "Yes, I want a digital Leica." But for reasons of tradition, nostalgia, history. Those aren't good enough reasons, in my opinion.
History was my minor in college and tradition has always been important to me. I'm fascinated by the foundations and roots of cultures and institutions and how we got to the place we are today--as well as where the evolution of these foundations are likely to lead us in the future. By that token, I have a great deal of respect for icons. The 35mm Leica rangefinder camera, by any definition, is an icon and the digital Leica is an evolution of that icon. For that reason alone, I would want to own a digital Leica.
But there are practical barriers to my romantic notions. Cost is certainly a factor, for both the camera and the optics. But other factors also come into play. Having owned a meager few film Leicas in the past, I know for a fact that any decent AF system in existence is superior to my ability to focus a rangefinder with either speed or accuracy. I can't see paying a premium for frustration in this regard. Then there is also the question of reliability. While others might disagree, I see a considerable number of posts of these forums concerning newer Leicas needing repairs and the long waits for warranty work to be done. I don't see the volume of reports for other brands like I do for Leicas. Again, I wouldn't want to deal with this type of frustration. And finally, I would not be comfortable carrying and displaying a multi-thousand dollar camera. It's simply not acceptable to me.
In conclusion I would answer, "Yes, I want a digital Leica." But for reasons of tradition, nostalgia, history. Those aren't good enough reasons, in my opinion.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The 240 is a great camera as an M mount RF ... as a mount for other lenses using the optional EVF and an adapter it's too slow to be practical in my opinion and a Sony would be a better option.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I resisted the M8, 9, 240 ...but when I tried the M10 I was convinced and bought it.
One year later I'm very satisfied. Why? Because I can use it as I was doing (and still do) with my M7. A small camera and one lens is what I need. Sometimes, after a few months a change the lens.
Simplicity is a key factor for me.
Image quality? I do not care much about, I believe most of today's cameras can give absolutely good images. I'm not a pixel peeper.
Of course I'm a pure amateur and this makes things easier
robert
PS: the main disadvantages are price and long time for technical service in case of problems...I think we all know this!
One year later I'm very satisfied. Why? Because I can use it as I was doing (and still do) with my M7. A small camera and one lens is what I need. Sometimes, after a few months a change the lens.
Simplicity is a key factor for me.
Image quality? I do not care much about, I believe most of today's cameras can give absolutely good images. I'm not a pixel peeper.
Of course I'm a pure amateur and this makes things easier
robert
PS: the main disadvantages are price and long time for technical service in case of problems...I think we all know this!
presspass
filmshooter
Yes, I have a digital Leica - the very first one. I bought an M8 when they first came out and it still works just fine. I wanted a digital for color when I needed it while carrying film M cameras. It still produces files that are as sharp or sharper than the Canon EOS digitals I use for work. It's certainly not the ideal camera - crop sensor, quirky color without an IR filter, and much noiser than an M6. That said, it has been a good camera and, after a decade, still produces files I can use. But I'm not sure I would buy a new digital Leica if the M8 dies; the costs have risen so much that I really can't justify it.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Fuji is cropper with its own lenses. Is it better camera? I have seen them, I have hold them, I don't need them. I don't need magnifier, it is nothing new and I have it in Live View at my 2008 made DSLR. I don't need super TTL gismo, I do it with single on camera TTL flash and sometimes add optical slaves.
Sony FF mirrorless, they are kind of Toyotish and not so good with some nothing special for Leica lenses.
The rest of mirrorless is cute bunch of croppers without OVF.
But I have two digital P&S and they are just as good.
Do I want more menus, buttons and switches, wheels and for less - no, it is not better camera, but worse.
For me Leica is better camera, it has less useless menus, less wheels, buttons and switches. And I could use lenses on it just as on film rangefinder. By real rangefinder, not a fake. And it renders just as I like.
How many X-Pro 1 users would rave about thier camera comparing to M8 users? And why OP compares only M240/M10 with his cameras?
Then I was giving choice for which camera to get, I could afford Fuji and Sony, but took the last availible as new M-E. I'm happy with it like a dog.
Using it for street, documentary and portraiture. And it does it just as I want it to be. As simple as possible, just like with film.
Sony FF mirrorless, they are kind of Toyotish and not so good with some nothing special for Leica lenses.
The rest of mirrorless is cute bunch of croppers without OVF.
But I have two digital P&S and they are just as good.
Do I want more menus, buttons and switches, wheels and for less - no, it is not better camera, but worse.
For me Leica is better camera, it has less useless menus, less wheels, buttons and switches. And I could use lenses on it just as on film rangefinder. By real rangefinder, not a fake. And it renders just as I like.
How many X-Pro 1 users would rave about thier camera comparing to M8 users? And why OP compares only M240/M10 with his cameras?
Then I was giving choice for which camera to get, I could afford Fuji and Sony, but took the last availible as new M-E. I'm happy with it like a dog.
Using it for street, documentary and portraiture. And it does it just as I want it to be. As simple as possible, just like with film.
raid
Dad Photographer
I hesitated a lot before I bought a M8 so that I could use my M lenses on a digital camera. I wanted the rangefinder experience to continue with the beautiful ltm and M lenses. I then bought a Leica M9 and I kept on using these two cameras as a set. I like the resulting images, but I still find the film based images more beautiful. I needed (again) to have Leica replace the M9 sensor last July, and I received an M240 as a loaner from Leica. As Keith has said above, this camera has no faults. It is maybe too chunky, but it functions very well. There is no real advantage to get the M10 other than the camera being slimmer than the M10.
In my case, using a digital M requires less time and money than using my M3 or M6 and then having to worry about film, developing, and scanning. I bought my M8 and M9 used, so there was no major drop in value felt.
In my case, using a digital M requires less time and money than using my M3 or M6 and then having to worry about film, developing, and scanning. I bought my M8 and M9 used, so there was no major drop in value felt.
NickTrop
Veteran
I've stated my criteria for how I purchase a digital camera on other posts: 1. Must be full frame 2. Must have high value propostion with great price/perfomance 3. Sensor must score high -- 90 at minimum on DXOmark 4. Should be reasonably small (but not a huge factor).
Or -- the highest quality sensor at the lowest cost. Burst speed, video, etc are ancillary nice-ities but a distant second to the sensor, which you're stuck with. Leica and Canon are lagging behind Sony and Nikon -- at least according to DXO. Canon insists on using their own sensors. I don't know what the deal with Leica is, since they are forced to outsource their sensors.
The M10 rates an 86 iirc on DXO -- this is in the range of higher quality crop sensors, behind Nikon (Sony, Tower Jazz sensors) and Sony in bit depth, dynamic range, and high ISO performance. The D850 rates 100. The D600 rates a 94. A D600 costs around $600-700 used and has a still very relevant/current/all you need 24MP resolution. For "who they are" and "what they charge" Leica should be class leader in sensors. At or near the very top of the full frames -- not languishing with specs of crop sensor cameras. They should have the best sensors available in every digital camera they make -- and the fact is, they don't.
So, no. They're not worth it. Unless, perhaps, you have lots of great Leica glass and want a digital Leica body on which to slap that glass on.
They are like a great, stylish sport cars with an underpowered engine. All show and no go.
Leica excels at making fantastic glass, for which they charge a premium and were fantastic mechanical engineers. They have not transitioned to computers/electronics competitively. As for all their lenses being manual -- that's not a feature. That's a lack of a very useful feature. I can always shut off AF an manual focus. I can't AF on a manual lens. Fact is, under most conditions, auto focus is faster and more accurate.
presspass
filmshooter
As to Nick's comment on autofocus - I wouldn't be without it when shooting soccer or football. That's what my Canon DSLRs are for. But the rangefinder focus, properly adjusted, is more likely to be accurate than autofocus. Leicas, as Bill well knows, are also excellent when used with the lens set at hyperlocal distance. When that's done, the Ms are quicker than an autofocus camera.