"best" review of Leica M240?

[Troll]

<p>My question is: What is the best review to read, particularly including the warts (no IS) as well as the bouquets?<br>

Gawd help me, but after seeing the recent thread on the 28/35/50 lens, I've suddenly gotten a (censored/erotic) lust for a M 240 with one of those lenses. I've been shooting Leicas for over 60 years and it's the first time that I've considered a digital one. I've been through II, IIIf, IIIg, M2, M3,M4, M5, M6, CL, C1-AF<br>

This may be my last one, but if I'm still around I'll definitely buy whatever they sell for the 100th anniversary in 2025.</p>

<address> </address>

[JDMvW]

<p>After sorting out the obvious "claque" reviews, and usually they're reasonably obvious,<br>

just read all you can find and ponder the issues raised or not raised.</p>

<p>Aside from here, DPReview is often fairly good:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_m240 </p>

 

[Troll]

<p>What's with the viewfinder? There doesn't seem to be any secondary window to provide light for the framelines? </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>LED illumination for the frame lines. But I think it's still through a mechanical mask, which is stupid. The frame lines should be an LED array that is simply lit in the correct pattern, allowing a full frame, and full parallax correction, including frame size. (Or even a backlit LCD if LEDs are too expensive.)</p>

 

[james_elwing]

<p>I suppose that even though frame lines are artificially illuminated, they don't have to redesign the rangefinder assembly.</p>

[michael_chmilar]

<p>On the subject of the LED lit framelines in the viewfinder, there are two criticisms of it:<br>

1) You have to turn the camera on to see the framelines.<br>

2) The frameline preview selector has been removed, so you can no longer use it to decide what lens to attach.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the LED illumination eliminates some of the criticisms about the optical illumination (ie. that it becomes very dim in low light, or if something is blocking the window). It also provides the choice of white or red framelines.</p>

<p>When you speak of the 28/35/50 lens, I assume you mean the Tri-Elmar (often referred to as MA-TE to distinguish it from the 16/18/21 Tri-Elmar WA-TE).</p>

<p>One nice thing about the MA-TE on the M 240 is that changing the lens between 28, 50, and 35 will bring up all of the different frameline combinations, so it makes up (somewhat) for the lack of frameline preview selector.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Try typing some search strings into YouTube. There are some good ones there. Huff seems a bit of a booster but I like his

review and I like the DigitalRevTV one too. Really you get a passable live view mode, the privilege of paying too much for

a decent but not great EVF, and a new 24MP sensor. I bought a used M9 instead but everyone is different. I may be an

old curmudgeon fork plink engine the M9 better, esp since I don't own the 240.

[aplumpton]

<p>Try Put's Part 1 review of the M or his part 2 which is more technical:<br>

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/leica-m-part-2-comparison.html<br>

Unless you want Live view or the video capabilities or higher ISO range, the M-E or M9 will give you a very high performance for much less dollars. The Higher precision of manufacture of the M is important only if you use the new extremely expensive APO Summicron 50 or its Zeiss counterpart, but not many of us can afford to do so.</p>

 

[michael_ward12]

<p>If one is thinking of buying any lens for M mount it is really worth the money to subscribe to reidreview.com for a year.<br />luminous-landscape.com is excellent with half a dozen good essays. <br>

The other review I related to was the 6 July 2013 edition of the UK's Amateur Photographer - a few dollars from Zinio. I find their sensor comparisons quite useful.<br>

leicatype240.com has had a few good articles on using Canon lenses on the Mtype 240 as well!</p>

[ray .]

"It also provides the choice of white or red framelines."

 

What would be the point of that?

[michael_chmilar]

 

 

<p><em>"It also provides the choice of white or red framelines."</em><br>

<em>What would be the point of that?</em></p>

 

Does frameline color choice create some disadvantage?

 

As to its advantage, if your subject is mostly white, the white framelines might be difficult to distinguish, so switch to red. Invert for red subjects.

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>As someone who moved from the M8 (I still have it) to the M240 I have a few observations that may be of interest. The M8 was really just a digital M7 and you could mainly ignore the digital bits (you really just formatted the card, changed ISO and checked the battery / card on the rear screen). It had to be shot RAW and processed later.<br>

The M240 is a bit different - it is a lot more digital than any previous Leica (The M9 is similar to the M8) and so you have to be prepared to deal with the digital bits a lot more frequently. While this is a lot quicker and easier than on my Canon DSLRs it is still a bit of a different shooting experience from previous Leicas. It does have some good features however. The High ISO performance is good - even 3200 is usable. The EVF is very useful if using and adapted lens or very wide angle lenses (e.g. my 12mm CV) and the faster frame rate / bracketing feature can be very useful. The electronic frame lines are not a big deal nor do I really miss the rangefinder preview frame feature. The battery life is a big plus and I have actually played with the video feature which is very good. In general I am very happy with mine and still use it like a rangefinder. While I shot more shots with this than I did with my M8 I don't shoot it like a DSLR - still more like I use my M6.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

This is Thorsten Overgaard's multi-part

review:

 

http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M-Type-

240-aka-Leica-M10-digital-rangefinder-

camera-page-30.html

 

From what I have seen, the M240 does

a much better job than the M9 of

rendering strong light sources.

[Troll]

<p>I was really hot-to-trot when I started this thread, but I hate to say it that in reading the reviews I've come to the conclusion that Leica is still 'way behind the state of the arts with the M 240. (Nothing new there.)<br>

Guess I'll wait another generation.<br>

I'm still lusting for a Tri-Elmar, though.</p>

 

[michael_chmilar]

<p>Bill, the eternal question with the digital M Leicas is: when is it time to jump in.</p>

<p>I waited through the M8 and M9 models because I felt that the compromises were too great, considering their prices.</p>

<p>When the M 240 came out, I was more interested because Live View enabled some new capabilities, such as using longer lenses, and wider lenses without external viewfinders. I still waited quite a while until some consensus was found amongst reviewers and users about the strengths and weaknesses of the new 240 before I decided to buy one.</p>

<p>Given the high price of the M digital cameras, it is not something I will consider "upgrading" every two or three years. In fact, one of my dilemmas was whether to wait another three years for Leica's next generation, or buy the 240, knowing that I would be keeping it for a long time and not dropping another seven grand for its successor.</p>

 

[carbon_dragon]

The M240 is suppressing the price of the M9. Hence this was my chance to get the M9, not the 240.

[ray .]

It is kind of cool that with live view and viewfinder you have two ways you can shoot with it while seeing

the subject. I assume live view gives exact framing? If so then it's almost like having two cameras in

one.

[phil_brown3]

<p>I've had a 240 for about 8 months now and just got back from England and Paris with it, 4 ienses-50 Summicron, Contax 28-80 zoom, Nikkor 20 and a Nikkor shift 28-and my Blad with a 150. <br>

I'm a 40 year Leica shooter so that colors my opinions. And 80% of the time I use a 50 on the Leica or an 80 on the Bald. I had reasons to take the Nikkors. the 20 was to shoot a famous bike shop in Paris and the shift was for York Minster. I had the zoom on a lot.<br>

Here's my review: it's a great digital camera with the Leica viewfinder system on it. If you like the Leica viewfinder you'll love it and if you want it to be a pseudo DSLR it can be. <br>

BUT it's not a modern auto everything camera. You still gotta do the work for the most part. You gotta figure out the ISO and settings yourself but isn't that part of the gig? Control of light? If you frame and pray it isn't for you.<br>

If you've never used a Leica and want to get a 240 I think it would be a good idea to find a used M2 or M3 and find out if you like the viewfinder. It's different.<br>

And you can use most any lens you can think of.The camera doesn't care. My favorite adapter is the Alpa/M that's RF coupled for those of you with extra Macro Switers cluttering up the place. You can send the overflow to me.<br>

Did I mention I really like mine?<br>

Phil Brown</p>

[Troll]

<p>Thanks, Phil.<br>

See my original post for a list of 65 years of Leicas that I've used.<br>

I see no reason that Leica can't/won't make the frame-lines show 100% of the image at "infinity," since for close-ups the live view can be used for exact framing. I resent having to continue using my Imarect finder for exact framing.</p>

[ray .]

Tonight, after checking out some images made by a very good photographer with the M240, I am reminded

of this...

 

Yes, like all Leicas, the M240 may not have the most modern features, certainly doesn't have the best high ISO

capability, you can complain about the viewfinder.... etc etc...

 

But wow, when handled nicely and used to do what it is good at, it can produce images that are rendered

beautifully, and are in some respects unsurpassed. You've got to be in tune with that for it to be worthwhile,

and if you're not, just use something else that costs less.

 

It just depends what you want. I think people miss the point when they criticize the camera for what it is

not, and not meant to be.

[ray .]

Bill, of course you know all these years shooting a rangefinder you could have gotten 100% with an SLR

or DSLR, and still could.

 

That said, I got my M240 yesterday and just took it for a walk around the block. The frame lines, though

still not perfect, seem in general to be much more accurate than the M8 and M9, and possibly the same as the M8.2 (I didn't own

that model). Though I didn't think I'd use it much, Live View works well, even if focusing with the

rangefinder patch. It's been overcast today, so I can see using it at least under those conditions. With sun I'm

not sure how useful it will be without adding an EVF. Still, if 100% is what you really want, the best answer

might still be a DSLR, or a camera like the Fuji X100 or Leica Q with built in EVF. The M240 seems to be a fantastic camera though. It's like a souped up and refined M9. Only drawback I can see is the slight weight increase, but that seems to be a fairly minor disadvantage.

 

Added note: I think that with most if not all digital cameras, you can generally ignore the features you

don't want to mess with, or set them once and forget about them, and shoot much like a more traditional

basic camera.