In-depth review of the Leica M262

<p>After a few weeks of using the new Leica M262 I posted a <a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/2015/12/leica-m-typ-262/">review</a> along with a few videos. One video compares the sound of the shutter to the the M-E. </p>

<p>That's the one I'd want. Need no EVF or video.</p>

<p>Video, no, EVF, no. That's fine. But not having live view when a monitor is there and it is so easy to include it is a no brainer and would make the camera that much more versatile (Occasional R lens use, split grade filters, polarizers, etc., etc.). Just put an on-off switch to the live view for those who don't want it. Being retro for retro sake is OK but let us not forget that Leica (Leitz) provided Visoflexes and other add ons to the basic M2 and M3 in the days of basic no frills RF cameras. I don't think any purists of the basic camera ideal objected very much.</p>

<p>Arthur, I can up with two reasons why live view is not on the 262:<br>

1. The sensor in the 262 is technically different than the sensor in the 240 according to an article in LFI 1/2016, Page 47. That subject was <a href="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/254414-m-262-sensor-is-technically-different-to-m-240/">thrashed about on this post</a>.</p>

<p>Perhaps the sensor being used is not capable of video, which makes the sensor less expensive to produce and implement. For example an original Canon 5D sensor vs the sensor in the 5DMKII. Was Leica looking for every cost saving to get the 262 at the $5K price point?</p>

<p>2. The sensor in the 262 really can handle live view and Leica has it turned off simply to differentiate the 262 from the 240.</p>

<p>Without implementing LV there is no need for a shutter to open and stay open outside of the camera taking a photo. Could any of this play into the 262 shutter engineering allowing it to be quieter than the 240's? I would like to hear a side-by-side comparison between the 262 and 240. </p>

<p>If you think you want or will need LV or video then you still have the 240 series. </p>

<p>You can get a car with electric windows and you might get one with old school crank windows that will outlast the electric. But if your a Leica person you would just want windows that do not open at all and insist on a higher price.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>2. The sensor in the 262 really can handle live view and Leica has it turned off simply to differentiate the 262 from the 240.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This will be the fundamental reason, whether or not they've changed anything in the sensor package. It's the same reason they sell a 50/2.4, one of the slowest (and most expensive) double Gauss 50s ever made for a 35mm camera, without even being that much smaller or lighter than the Summicron. And in the strange world of Leica marketing they can even make a virtue out of 'less is more' - the 262 is of course a 'purer' body designed for uncompromising traditional photographers, who have no need of fripperies like live view, a standard feature of every $100 camera.</p>

<p>Live view has to be standard on all $100 cameras. Otherwise, you couldn't see what you were taking a picture of since they almost all have no other type finder.</p>

<p>If I really want or need Live View, I have an Olympus E-M1 for that. It also shoots movies like all $100 cameras, but in the three years I have owned it I have not captured a seconds-worth of video.</p>

<p>I still have an M9 to wear out first, but the 262 is one I would gladly replace it with at some point.</p>

<p>Thank you for the review.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Live view has to be standard on all $100 cameras. Otherwise, you couldn't see what you were taking a picture of since they almost all have no other type finder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough! But it's also standard on $300 SLRs, and indeed on pretty much every other current camera, whether or not it has a viewfinder. Only on Planet Leica is a basic digital camera feature with an insignificant implementation cost excluded from the entry level model, a $5000 camera.</p>

<p>Joking aside I think one of the things that set the Lecia apart from other camera's is the rangefinder. If your just going to hold it up and shoot from the LCD it kind of kills it to me. I think no live view is a good idea myself. I am not buying one or anything but I do wish I had an M6. </p>

<p>The best of both worlds: A non-obscuring optical VF and optico-mechanical proven RF of the Leica and a live view imaging function in the same body. Now, if they could only do that in an M digital without the need for video and perhaps the frame selector, we might have a decent still camera from the manufacturer at less than $5000. </p>

<p>Jim, I know it takes time and effort to do these sort of reviews, so thank you for doing this for us. </p>

<p>As a die-in-the-wool Leica rangefinder user for over 40 years, this new camera is on my serious consideration list. I had tried the M240 for a few weeks as a replacement for my M9P (which I prematurely sold in anticipation). I passed on the M240 at the time because it had a lot of added stuff I couldn't care less about, and I wasn't loving the color rendering, especially skin-tones. I've stuck with my M9/Monochrome since then … a camera I intend driving until the wheels fly off.</p>

<p>I have a Sony A7R, and was about to get the A7R-II (an overly complex system with slowish native lenses (or huge fast ones), that I have no particular love for after years of use … but I'm still considering the MK-II version because it is still small, and they fixed the shutter lag issue of the A7R) … that is, until Leica announced this M246 camera.</p>

<p>I get why some people like and want Live-View. I liked Live-View on my now sold Sony A99 SLT camera a lot due to it's incredibly articulated LCD … a nice feature for DSLR type use that I valued for the sort of work I did with that camera (but no longer do). However, for rangefinder work, Live-View is of no interest to me at all. All I want is a place to hang ALL of my M lenses and get on with the rangefinder type work I've done my entire adult life as simply and cleanly as possible.</p>

<p>In that regard, this M246 looks like a long term keeper.</p>

<p>The only remaining question I have is about image qualities/color rendering … so I look forward to downloading the comparison images you provided. Any further insights you may have on that subject would be welcome. PM me if you prefer. Thanks again!</p>

<p>Marc Williams<br>

FOTOGRAFZ</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>May I echo Raid and Marc's thanks to Jim. It is an excellent review and the camera does provide essential RF features at a reasonable price (for Leica). It took some time for me to absorb its features (or lack of some), which is a bit odd since I have lived happily with the Leica RF type of photography for the past 30 years. It may be of only minor importance, but the lack of live view may help in keeping the sensor free of contamination, in situations where rapid lens change is necessary. I don't have the professional knowledge and skills of Marc (seeing his imaginative and well composed images in the web portfolio was a treat) but I would be interested as he is in the color fidelity of the M262 sensor, which as Jim says may well be a different performer to the M240 or my M9. An improved automatic white balance that is claimed may work in insuring a good response, but the sensor and its analogue to digital transformation software may be responsible for most of any difference. </p>

<p>It may be late to hope for the M8 and M9 to be included in such a comparison, but a rigorous comparison of three or four Ms (M8, M9, M240, M262) with regard to color rendition using three or four differing subjects under identical conditions for the three or four cameras might make a worthwhile study. </p>

<p>Thanks Arthur Raid and Marc.<br>

Once more 262's get into the wild it will be interesting to see 240-262 file comparisons. I took a photo walk one day at lunch shooting the same scenes with the rented 262 and my Fuji X100T (both in RAW mode). I was struck how similar the colors were from both cameras with the default LR profile. They were much closer than my 262 vs M-E comparisons.<br>

Marc, please shoot me an email if you have time to examine the files and have any thoughts. </p>

<p>Jim - good review. It's got me thinking. That's always dangerous when it comes to Leica stuff.</p>

<p>More than thinking at this point, I'll have one within the next 3-4 months. Never bought a new Leica before, but here we go....</p>

<p>Thank you very much for taking the time to do the review, <strong>Jim</strong>. <br>

I only have 2 Leicas, a IIIf and a just-acquired M3. I greatly enjoy shooting with them, and so far, I've resisted the temptation to add a digital Leica to my bag, as I found something a little lacking in the shooting experience, compared to the film bodies. I'll have to try the M262 to see if it can alter my impression! :) </p>

<p>IMHO, with the M262, Leica has come quite a bit closer to perfection in a digital M camera.<br>

Though most of my work over the last two decades has been with 4x5 and medium format film, and more recently Nikon DSLRs, I've also been a Leica M user along the way. I've always loved the film Ms, but I didn't find the M8 or M9 compelling enough given their cost. Fuji's X-Series arguably offered a better digital solution in a rangefinder-like profile. The Leica M240 was in many ways an improvement with a lot of admirable qualities, but the rather hefty weight (for an M) coupled with a number of features that are uninteresting to me in that type of camera (live view, EVF support, video, etc.), left me cold.<br>

Then along comes the M262, digital Leica I'd been waiting for. Image quality is exceptionally good across the native ISO range, the weight has been decreased substantially, and Leica have returned to their roots, offering the simple, straightforward photographer's tool that every M camera should be. It delivers everything a digital rangefinder camera needs, and nothing it doesn't. It also represents a rather good value, considering that, adjusted for inflation, the M262 only costs $1500 more than a new M6 did thirty years ago, and meanwhile one saves the cost of film and processing. The only improvements that would make me happier with the M262 would be slightly better performance at ISO 3200 and above, and a slightly slimmer body size the same as an M6 (though engineering realities and the laws of physics may render the latter impossible).</p>

<p>I agree with Justin. In my opinion the only characteristics that sets digital Leica M apart from other digital cameras are the rangefinder and its small size (well, they used to be small). It appears that Typ 262 is a step in right direction. It’s lost some weight and it’s slightly slimmer than Typ 240. Yet, it’s still not as small as M6 but hopefully the next generations will get there. The bloating of digital Leicas is a total buzzkill.</p>