Leica M240

[ray .]

I am 'toying' with the idea of getting an M240. May well not happen; I'm kind

of letting it soak in for awhile.... The kind of expense involved requires some

consideration, to say the least.

 

Anyway, does anyone know if lenses need to be coded to show EXIF information

on files? Pretty sure proper frame lines must show up without the coding, just

not sure about the EXIF.

 

Also, for anyone who has one, are you happy with the camera?

 

TIA

[SCL]

<p>There's over 1200 threads on this topic here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-type-240/</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I only have indirect advice: quite a few people have stayed with or returned to the M9. I don't disagree with this decision. But I like the M240's files, from what I've seen.</p>

<p>The M9 has a higher useable ISO than many give it credit for. But remember that it has a noisier shutter than the 240. And there are a few issues with corrosion on the sensor's cover glass with some units. Personally I'd choose the 240, price aside.</p>

<p>I imagine that coding would be necessary to give EXIF data. Otherwise the camera can't know how to distinguish between a 28mm or a 90mm etc., let alone specific versions.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>If you are into color (based) work, its probably almost a no brainer to get an M240 at a sufficient wealth level. - I grabbed an MM instead, but I am a quirky old fool in a special situation and it took me quite a while to realize that high end color Leicas aren't for me. - Desaturating M240 files costs not more than one f-stop, compared to MM, so its probably the right way to go, for almost everybody, until there will be an MM240.<br>

MM EXIF shows lens I dialed in. - M240 allows manual lens selection too doesn't it? - Since we can't pick the lens later, during RAW conversion, it would make sense to code what you have, if you change lenses once in a while.<br>

Giving the camera lens info adds to IQ.<br>

Upon expense involved: It is surely just a question of time that M240 beaters will hit the used market. - Right now I'm just seeing reduced demos & similar. - No, I don't believe that digital Leicas will last forever but honestly: I don't insist on pocketing a brand new replacement motorcycle, invested in camera <em>cosmetics</em>. Causing the umpteenth minor scratch or 4th ding feels much better than causing the 1st ones. And 3 beaters behind the lens line shoot much faster than a single new body.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>You get a limited amount of EXIF data from an uncoded lens. The Date, Time, ISO and shutter speed are internal to the body. It will even estimate the f/stop based on the light admitted to the sensor relative to the ambient light measurement (guessing at that). It will not, of course, record the focal length nor any data peculiar to that lens. Even coded lenses do not convey electronic data to the body. It's just a lens with a bar code on the bottom.</p>

<p>The frame lines are activated by the lens mount. It's a mechanical function, and works with coded or non-coded lenses equally. The preview lever has been omitted. I addition to having 20% higher resolution than the M9 (square root of the pixel ratio), the M240 has live view, and can accept an EVF accessory - clunky but effective. Live view opens a lot of new worlds for Leica, including precision focusing, closeups and lenses longer than 90 mm. (You can buy a 135, but I dare you to focus it wide open.) All this if you have plenty of time to take the shot.</p>

<p>Don't waste your time and money on templates to "code" your own lenses. It's unreliable, and if there's a screw in the wrong place, impossible. You're better off dialing in the lens in the menu, or nothing at all. Any corrections applied by the camera can also be done off line in Lightroom, for example.</p>

[Eddie1664878514]

<p>I am happy with it generally. But in terms of the "feel" in my hand, MM is better (similar to M6 has a better "feel" in my hand than MM).<br>

M240 is a little bit too big and too heavy, but in return you get enough battery power. Now that I have MM and M240, I observed that I tend to use M240 much more than MM (likely caused by color and battery and a newer model..., etc.). But for my own "hit rate", MM is overwhelming, about 70% of the photos I pick and like are taken by MM (consistently for about 1.5 year). I don't know why. </p>

[Alex_Es]

I have one and love it. Execellent rf and frames. Longer battery power. Add on grip brilliant. May be the best rf camera

ever made. Full frame live view is serviceable. If you only want full frame mirrrorless get the Sony A7s.

 

The señor tends to be a dust magnet.

[jim_a]

<p>Ray, have you rented an M240?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Really Right Stuff has an L-bracket for digital M's with an optional hand grip which is highly functional. Using a Leica on a tripod seems to be a cultural taboo, however it is the only way to take advantage of the exceptional resolution of the sensor and lenses. If you are using or interested in the Arca-type QR system, this is the way to go.</p>

<p>The RRS plate is expensive, but it replaces the entire base plate of the M with one machined out of a solid aluminum billet, and is very strong. This is less important for the M240, in which the tripod socket is part of the body rather than the bottom plate (e.g, the M8/9). The entire RRS assembly costs less than the genuine Leica hand grip alone. The hand grip gives you much better control of the camera with your right hand.</p>

<p>There are two downsides. With both the vertical bracket and hand grip, the fit against the body is tight, and you have to jiggle the strap attachments to remove or re-attach the bottom plate. Secondly, for some reason I tend to block the rangefinder window using the hand grip, something I never did with the unadorned M body. Perhaps it's because you no longer have to curl your pinky under the bottom to support the weight.</p>

[iangillett]

<p>I'm very happy with mine. I tried an M8 when they first came out but didn't like the idea of a crop sensor - my favourite lens is the 35 Summilux and I would only have got f2 if I had bought a 28mm to compensate. You can enter the lens data manually; which is OK if you don't change lenses often (and forget). I have looked into getting my lenses coded but it is quite costly to get them done by Leica and they are away for quite a while.<br>

Here's an image from the Red Arrows display at the Farnborough Air Show earlier this year.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

I like mine and the lack of EXIF is not a big deal. You can paint the marks on the bottom of an old ring (e.g. Sharpie) to get the auto

settings if you like. In terms of not setting the lens, the viewfinder frame is correct but you lose the image correction and eXIF. The

camera (even in RAW) will apply a vignette correction at the edges which is noticible with a very wide lens - especially wide open (for

example my CV 12 mm). You should also be aware that even when corrected and with Leica lenses the aperture data is not always

exactly right in the EXIF. I like my M240 a lot but find it a bit more digital in operation than my M8. Switching between a coded Leica lens

and uncoded lens is a few button presses if you want to manually code the older lens.

[ray .]

Philip, are you saying setting the lens focal length manually does exactly the same thing as using a coded

lens?

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I've tried using a template and Sharpie marker to code old lenses, but so far only one worked, and then only for a short time before the markings were rubbed off. IMO, if only some or none of your lenses are coded, it's better to turn lens recognition OFF. The last time I checked, Leica charged $250 to code a lens, and they will not code non-Leica lenses (e.g., Zeiss and Voigtlander). One lens, a Summicron 90 (early version) has a screw in the middle of where the code would go.</p>

<p>Lenses 50mm and longer do not require corrections. Shorter lenses, particularly symmetrical lenses like the Zeiss Biogon, vignette badly and create a purple cast due to the steep angle of impingement on the sensor. Lightroom has several means of correcting these faults, including dedicated plug-ins.</p>

<p>How ever did we get along without EXIF data using film? I couldn't expect processors to consistently number rolls in order. Where technology fails, there's always pencil and paper. That got drilled into me working for a newspaper, and later on, shooting events.</p>

[ray .]

Hmm, my 28 Asph is coded but not the 35mm Summicron. With a 50 in addition then I suppose the only

corrections needed might be for the 35...

[philip_wilson]

Ray. You can manually chose a lens from the list in the camera which has the same effect as putting a coded lens on. Of course if the

lens is not a Leica lens then you have to choose a Leica equivalent. In terms of coding the lens yourself a dremmel helps the sharpie ink

stay on and you need a lens where the adapter (or ring) does not let light in and is close to the sensor in the lens mount- this is not the

case with all lenses or LTM adapters.

[aplumpton]

<p>Perhaps someone knows that if I use the lens selection on the M9 (presumably like the M240), will it apply all the corrections, like correction for light fall-off correction in the corners or edge of the field or false color tints, etc., or does one need on the lens coding to achieve that? </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The M9 applies the same corrections for a given lens, automatically if it is coded or if entered manually. If your lens is not listed, try alternate selections for that focal length and aperture.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks, Edward. </p>

<p>I will also try to find Leica "equivalents", if there are any, for my C-V 12mm and C-V classic 35mm f2.5 optics. </p>