Cost analysis and opinion: Is it really worth buying the M-E over the M 240?

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Suppose you want to buy a Leica M body and three Leica lenses, all new, and suppose that you don't have a preference for the CCD over the CMOS sensor. Is it not a better idea to buy the M?</p>

<p>The M 240 is only about a thousand dollars more, and you can save much more than that with lenses, because you don't need the Summiluxes. You can make do with Elmarits and Summarits because the M has at least two stops over the M-E in terms of sensitivity. Even if you wanted two bodies (if you're a pro, you'll want two or three bodies) you're still way ahead with the M.</p>

<p>Here are the numbers for the lenses only. Prices are rounded where appropriate and are obtained from Amazon USA (90/2.5 price is from Adorama):</p>

<p>A. 28/2.0 ASPH + 50/1.4 ASPH + 90/2.0 APO = $4,200 + $4,000 + $4,000 = $12,200</p>

<p>B. 28/2.8 ASPH + 50/2.0 + 90/2.5 = $2,200 + $2,300 + $2,150 = $6,650</p>

<p>Of course, some of the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses are good substitutes for the focal lengths in set B, and your choice of lens set will probably be different than this one. Subjective qualities will also come into it and may override price differences.</p>

<p>The 90/4.0 Macro Elmar costs about the same as the 90/2.0, so if you want that as your 90mm, set A's price is almost unchanged, whereas set B's price grows by about $2,000. You can save $650 by choosing the 50/2.5 over the 50/2.0. Etc, etc.</p>

<p>Despite all the number crunching, the M-E makes no sense to me at the price it sells for. I am not saying it's a bad camera - I love the images it makes. But if you're spending that kind of money, what's another thousand or two, even if the lenses don't come into it?</p>

[rgerraty]

<p>The M is bigger as in deeper in the body. The review I just read in the latest Black & White tells me that the low noise exposure comes in at 1/30s or anything slower. If that double exposure time was slowing down my 1/15, 1/8 and 1/4s shots I'd find that maddening. I would then definitely go with the ME. As it is I have the M9-P and Monochrom and will be sticking with them as long as possible.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Well, you don't need the Summiluxes... until you do. Most people I've met who went for the faster lenses

did so for the look they give rather than for the extra light-gathering abilities.

 

So I guess the choice of body would depend on how highly one values certain lenses and how important it

is to have them now, especially as one's lens choice will long outlive the body.

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I am using the Voigtlander <a href="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7392/12775124214_3ab06f377c_o.jpg">50/1.5</a> and <a href="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5511/12747596943_7f1557ec58_o.jpg">75/1.8</a>. Both great lenses at a fraction of the cost over the Leica ones.<br /> A pro friend did side by side tests with mine and his Summiluxes and sold the Leica lenses the next day. At 20% of the cost of the Leica glass, they were a no brainer for me. I got a LNIB M9 and 4 lenses for less than the price of a used M240 body. I also have the <a href="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7316/12695413863_bb7b4e75b7_o.jpg">35/2.</a>5 and the <a href="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3708/12400460794_cb1f8df003_h.jpg">21/4</a>. (Here is another from the <a href="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/12711024695_c68ddce2e3_o.jpg">75</a> and from the <a href="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7378/12462192324_b0a02101de_o.jpg">35</a>.)<br /> That was my first outing with the M9, so focus isn't perfect, but I think it still gives an idea of what they can do. There is some magenta in the southwest corner on the 2nd 35mm shot that I solved later by using the in-camera profiles. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.673723966022928.1073741847.171846589544004&type=3">I have a larger gallery of the M9 images here</a>. </p>

[carbon_dragon]

I considered those things and selected a used M9 (which is essentially the same as the M-E). There were advantages

and disadvantages. I had no CCD or CMOS bias and I liked the idea of 24MP. However the UI for the 240 was a bit more

complex and I thought I'd rarely if ever use the EVF or the back screen to focus. I also preferred the more traditional feel

of the M9 and it was cheaper. I think it was the right solution for me.

 

 

I'm sure the M would have been fine too, but it didn't seem to offer anything worth the added price.

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>Despite all the number crunching, the M-E makes no sense to me at the price it sells for. I am not saying it's a bad camera - I love the images it makes. But if you're spending that kind of money, what's another thousand or two, even if the lenses don't come into it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think everyone is spending that kind of money. I suspect most people in the market for either camera already have a set of lenses (and a film M), so the price difference between the ME and M240 is still a significant factor. On the other hand, if money is an issue (as it is for many of us!) the secondhand market is probably a more viable option than any of Leica's 'economy' products. By most standards, the M-E is still a very expensive camera, just as the Summarits are very expensive lenses (nobody but Leica would have the cheek to sell a 50/2.5 for £1000 GBP, a reportedly nice but artificially slow lens that exists solely for product differentiation with the even more absurdly expensive Summicon). But you can pick up a decent M9 for about half the price of an M240, and a recent Summicron (or an older Summilux) for less than a new Summarit. Buyers may be wary of used digital cameras, or course, but lenses are generally a very safe bet (and there are excellent third party alternatives).</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>Karim. Just as a matter of interest, what photo equipment do you actually own? I assume you have an M-E, or are you speaking only from looking at M-E images downloaded from the web? The reason I ask is that you often post these rather analytical posts that imply you are about to buy something and then a month later you post another one which may be on an entirely different equipment theme, suggesting that this is some kind of mental exercise rather than a genuine desire to use any information obtained. Are you requiring some confirmation that you made the right choice...or something? I guess I am saying that giving opinions on these questions often seems rather pointless as nothing seems to be resolved for you and it all seems so academic, as if you are researching some recondite topic beyond our ken. Just wondering.</p>

[henry_wayne_gardner1]

<p>A minor point for most, but critical for those with color-perception deficiency, is the reported superiority of the M typ 240's JPEGs. Eight percent of American men are color deficient, 7% red-green. For us, JPEGs rather than raw files are easier. I've heard of "color-blind" photographers who have mastered the arcana of color codes, etc., but many of us prefer JPEGs because it is more like using film where the lab technician balances the color. For that reason alone, I am working toward buying an M typ 240; the improved display and ability to use R [zoom] lenses is an added benefit. I already have a reasonable quiver of M lenses from film days, so it is an easy choice for me.<br>

S/F Wayne Gardner</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Does anyone use jpegs these days? It seems like dng just gives you more options.

[Ian Taylor]

<p>JPGs on my M9 are terrible. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

As far as used equipment goes, that

certainly is another dynamic altogether.

 

Ian, I love the bokeh of the 35mm

shots! Heaven forbid that backgrounds

can be out of focus with an f/2.5 lens.

Nice photos, BTW. I am. It surprised

that your friend swapped his Leica

lenses for the CVs. Some of then seem

a bit pointless, such as the Noctilux or

even the 50/1.4. However, some would

call the Summarits pointless even

though I like them (as do you - at least

the 35mm!).

 

Robin: I own a few cameras but

nothing fancy. A few film bodies, a pair

of base level NEXes. I have a bunch of

lenses, most of them inexpensive and

use them mostly with the Sonys via

adapters. My most used lens is the

cheap but good 50-135/3.5 Nikon. I

wish it was a 50-150 though!

 

It is very much a mental exercise for

now. As I have no immediate need to

buy into a new system, I can research

cameras, world without end. One idea I

am playing with is to have two

systems. One for real-time events such

as theatre or street, which could be the

OM-D. One for commercial oriented

work which could be the M or Sony A7.

I have a fairly good collection of lenses

so that part has been taken care of.

 

Now that Leica has a new camera, the

T, I will be curious to see whether or

not I will choose it over the OM-D. It's

due to be launched within 24 hours.

Lucky me: I can sit back and watch the

circus!

 

As for JPEGs, I see little point. However... if the camera's algorithm was a good one, and you used a tone curve to preserve all the available highlight information, then it makes a lot of sense.

 

And BTW, shooting RAW is no substitute for filters when it comes to WB. JPEGs might actually force you to use filters as opposed to relying on the temperature control in software. This might result in better images.

 

I shoot RAW because I prefer to underexpose than set ISO where possible. I wish cameras let you set compensation to -6 or -7 in AE mode.

[rgerraty]

I'm not so upset by the M9 jpegs, but I've not shot many and I haven't printed any. The M9 black and white jpegs are

good, often very good. I'm not sure Karim what it is you say about filters and ISO with raw. For white balance in raw I

have sometimes used a Whibal card. Indoors at night it can produce a disturbingly natural effect that I don't really like. At

other times it can be very useful. I generally prefer the M9's As shot WB to the Auto WB in Lightroom.

[stric]

<p>A few months ago, I finally had a chance to use a Leica M-E. I actually wanted one for a long time and I was on a waiting list for about a year. After I finally received it I returned it after only a day of use. In spite of being a beautiful camera (I actually like very much the gray finish and the overall execution and “rangefinder feel”) I just could not get over the outdated technology (the whole rear interface, LCD, ISO sensitivity etc.) I think that at such a high price one deserves more than just an outdated technology packaged in a nice gray body. The new M seems to be a camera that actually is making up for many flaws that M9/M-E generation had but even that camera is still far from an ideal Leica for me. Yet if you have that kind of money to spend then go for it (I’d go for one if I could find a rational explanation for such a high price). If you still want to stick with digital Leicas but don’t want to spend so much money, get a used M9/P series. Frankly, I am not awfully impressed with Leica’s digital cameras. They are playing a catch-up game with other digital camera manufacturers and it appears that the only way they draw attention is by slapping high prices on their cameras. Therefore, I still keep my beloved film Leicas with me and shoot with them all the time. </p>

[chuck_albertson1]

<p>I'd likely get an M-E (or a used M9) because it uses the same batts as my Monochrom. Don't need the agro of humping around two sets of batts, two types of chargers on a trip. Also, I don't shoot video and don't bother with live view.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>People are different. For me, I'm not especially bothered by the lower pixel count on the back of the M9. Yes my Nex7 is better in that regard, not to mention the EVF, but I like the bright clear rangefinder better and the back is fine for reviewing pictures till I get home. And I like the Leica menus WAY better than the Sony ones (and Sony is better than the Canon ones on my 5D). Some might like the M better but I just recently decided in favor of the M9 rather than the M. </p>

<p>If the "outdated" technology bothers you buy a Sony. My Nex is a great camera and the new A7R has 36MP of sensor and it's full frame and a ton of features. Go for it. But the M type camera has something special, and not just because I was an M2 user for quite a while. It could be that the M UI has been around for so long because it's a good interface. The trick for Leica is to change it in a way that improves it. For some cameras any change in the interface would be an improvement.</p>

<p>The new Leica T is interesting. A very Apple like design, great industrial engineering and maybe a good UI too … maybe, I'd have to try it in person. At least it's Leica trying to get ahead of it's competitors a tiny bit, at least in the form factor if not the internals.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

Chuck, good points.

 

Richard, what I mean is this:

 

- If you want to tone down or eliminate

the ambient colour cast in a scene,

filters are better than RAW

adjustments, because you are not

starving any of the colour channels

when you make the exposure.

 

- If the colour cast is exactly how you

want it, nothing needs to be done

either way. Just shoot at 5500K.

[rgerraty]

Thanks Karim. And I agree very much with David W Griffin. Initially I hated the M9 LCD but after a time I couldn't

remember what the problem was. The fact is it is no use for checking critical focus, but I only need to do that if I have

some doubt about the lens itself, which I almost never have. Or if I'd dropped the camera, which I never have.

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I love the images from my M9. No complaints at all.</p>

 

[baisao]

<p>In B&W I notice significant tonal deprecation when switching to JPEGs (8bit) from PNG or TIFF (16bit). These are scans of medium format negatives so perhaps it's more obvious than with 35mm digital, I can't say. However, I do wish my local printers could process 16bit images because the tonality is so much richer than on a JPEG. </p>