Leica announced Leica M (Typ 262)

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The M in its purest form - essentially the M (240) without all the things the Leica purist didn't want anyway.<br /> http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/LEICA-M-Typ-262<br /> http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/2015/11/leica-m-typ-262/?utm_source=20151119en&utm_medium=E-Mail<br /> Price: € 5,500 (incl. VAT), <a href="http://leicastoremiami.com/products/leica-m-typ-262#a_aid=4ec1e34531802" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">$5,195 in the US</a></p>

<ul>

<li>no video</li>

<li>no LiveView</li>

<li>100g lighter (body made of durable aluminum)</li>

<li>smaller Leica red dot logo</li>

<li>quieter shutter compared to the M 240</li>

<li>the camera's menu consists only of two pages</li>

<li>body design closer to the M9</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Compact digital M camera concentrating solely on the traditional rangefinder focusing and picture taking methods</li>

<li>Top plate made from durable aluminum, making it lighter</li>

<li>Streamlined and simplified menu system, consisting of only 2 pages</li>

<li>Dedicated button on the back of the camera for White Balance (WB)</li>

<li>Quieter shutter mechanism for more discreet shooting</li>

<li>24 megapixel CMOS sensor (still-pictures only) ensures exceptional image quality (same as M/M-P (Typ 240)</li>

<li>Leica Maestro processor for fast recording of captured images</li>

<li>ISO values up to 6400 ensure great quality images in low light</li>

<li>Fast and accurate manual focusing</li>

<li>All the essential controls and functions logically and ergonomically placed</li>

<li>LCD made of scratch-resistant Corning Gorilla Glass</li>

</ul>

<p>There's now a Leica M (Typ 240) à la carte programme - but who is going to buy a M (Typ 240) now anyway?</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>I trust the M-E will be phased out?</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>So cheaper top plate, quieter shutter and no video. Is it as fat as the M240, or have they slimmed it back down to M9 dimensions?<br>

Edit: Looks just as thick.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Every company should offer a no video less expensive option.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Every company should offer a no video less expensive option.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Why? In most cameras it's a close to zero cost feature. I've never heard anyone complain about free video in a still camera except on web forums.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>It could just be used as an excuse or reason to offer a less expensive version-which is what Leica has done in part.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Can't really see any advantage to no live view myself, this does seem a silly omission.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>So we now have a trimmed down M240 with some apparent operational improvements but without a higher resolution sensor. I can see little reason to drop the live view feature. It shouldn't bother those wanting only a traditional optical RF experience as that was already there in the M240, as I presume the rear monitor is still there which adds to the build cost.</p>

<p>If they are not ready to upgrade their sensor Leica might at least have given increased flexibility of framing with live view and a tiltable monitor. We are not all street photographers and that improved viewing would be a definite plus for many other photographic subjects (landscapes, architecture, still-life, some street photography, subjects requiring inventive angle shots, etc.). Things evolve slowly at Leica (nonethless kudos for the monochrome version for those who can afford it as well asa color camera) and often much behind other leaders. It's frustrating for those who have remained loyal to their products. </p>

<p>Leica occasionally listens. I remember requesting an improved version of the 50mm collapsible Elmar back in the 80s. Although a single request may not have then had much effect, others probably also requested a lighter improved black version, and we got it. Maybe Leica needs more input from its consumer clan?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A new M262 for the same price as an used M240? I use video frequently, but I could live without it in a camera like this. Live view is another matter. Once you have it, there's no going back, especially with an eye-level EVF. I dug my M9 out this morning, and it's a jewel of a camera. If it had live view, it would probably still be in my bag instead of a Sony A7Rii.</p>

<p>Gorilla Glass is tough and relatively scratch resistant, but not as tough as sapphire glass. My M9P has the latter, and bears a scratch from the previous owner. Where there's a will, there's a way.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Kudos to Leica marketing. I don't know of any other company that has so assiduously nurtured such a mystique around a camera system where they can produce a stripped down product costing almost $6000 and convince people that lack of features is a brilliant idea while subtly insulting users by suggesting things like video and live view detract from the pure photographic experience that they are offering.</p>

[etienne_w]

"while subtly insulting users by suggesting things like video and live view detract from the pure photographic experience

that they are offering."

 

Isn't it what Nikon tried to do with the Df a little while ago?

I personally dig this approach. To me the photographic experience in its purest form is a fully manual camera,

preferably medium format film. Love my Df when shooting digital and I would consider an M if it was not so expensive.

(Side note, the Df has live view, and although I don't use it often I cannot imagine being without.)

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>So we now have a trimmed down M240 with some apparent operational improvements but without a higher resolution sensor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO Leica isn't moving above 24Mpx anytime soon. However, the next SL might go beyond that, if it can maintain a high shutter speed. The next M might get the same sensor used in the SL. A lot of photographers are probably hoping that the next M will have a CCD and will focus only on photography.<br>

<br>

Leica also won't introduce a tilting LCD, although this feature is very, very useful to me. Most DSLRs don't have it either.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe Leica needs more input from its consumer clan?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've sent them a lot of suggestions. Ones which I think are useful, not just "more this, more that".<br>

<br>

Anyway, I think it's great news if you want a digital RF. Film still tempts me...</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I think the 262 is a nice idea. - If I could afford CMOS Leicas, I'd probably get one along with two 240s. - I (probably) don't need the live view on the 35 (or 50)mm body, but its surely nice to have with a long lens or an ultra wide, once in a while.<br>

I have no clue how succesful the 262 might become, but right now it seems like a right move to offer it. - I heard enough folks desiring a rear LCD less M body and assume the live view on the 240 isn't entirely lag free either? - Anyhow, after just having one of my RFs fixed after dropping the camera, I 'd be grateful to have live view as a workaround or backup, to safe the rest of a vacation instead of zone focusing only. <br>

Not sure what to say about video in still cameras: I don't really crave it as a feature. - I mean: I know why I am no videographer. But yes, although I hit the video record buton on something by accident about 3 times so far I don't mind having video built in as an option. I am just wondering if Leica M are really the right platform for it and I am fine with no video as an excuse to sell cameras cheaper. - Too sad they don't offer such a variant of the monochrom version too.</p>

[ray .]

<b><i>"...stripped down product costing almost $6000"</i><p></b>

 

$5195 is $805 less than 6000, and almost $1200 less than what a new M240 costs. I know people who

don't use live view or video, so what's wrong with giving them the option of a camera at less cost without those features? <p>

 

<b><i>"If they are not ready to upgrade their sensor Leica might at least have given increased flexibility of

framing with live view and a tiltable monitor."</i></b><p>

 

A tilting monitor changes the body in a way that some, including me, have no interest in. There are

plenty of other cameras with tilt monitors that you can choose from, and some with higher pixel count and better low light capability if that's critical to you.<p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Oh, you have me Ray. OK, $5200, now continue on.</p>

[ray .]

Someone I won't say who spends I-don't-know-how-much on small German cars........ : )

[Uhooru]

<p>Those little cars eschew GPS systems, instead they throw a hard copy Thomas Guide in the side panel, (other counties are available from the boutique at a premium) and then raise the price of the car for allowing you that pure navigating experience we all crave, the essence of getting back to what we loved about driving.</p>

[jim_a]

<p>This is going to be a big seller, at least in terms of digital M body sales. It you look at what Leica did with the film M-A body, this is along the same lines of thinking. I applaud the purist approach for this camera. If I want to make a quick video of something the iPhone is a much better solution. Have you seen the video out of an iPhone 6s Plus? It's stunning. And it has IS. If I'm serious about making videos I'm not going to be using a Leica M240. There are much better solutions on the market.</p>

<p>Leica has taken the Leica M9/M-E and upgraded it with newer technology. If you enjoy the pure rangefinder way of seeing, with minimal technical BS, and pages of menus and like to actually focus the camera yourself, this is a camera for you.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>The Leica M "<a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/03/why-do-i-want-the-leica-m-edition-60-so-badly-by-brad-husick/">Leica 60</a>" is the true minimalist digital Leica.<br>

If a thinner form of that model were to be offered with cost cutting production, then at a reduced price, it should be an obvious choice for the purest.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Can't really see any advantage to no <strong>live view</strong>" <em><strong>Robin S.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I totally agree, this one feature (Live-view), takes care of <strong>at least</strong> two issues that are unaddressed by rangefinder <strong>only</strong> usage.<br>

<strong>1.</strong> Most all lenses to some extent, experience "focus-shift". <br>

<strong>2.</strong> "Wide view" viewfinders allowing the use of 28mm lenses etc., also cause the unintended consequence of <br>

inaccurate "small" framing & focusing, even with minor telephotos. <br>

<br>

When the situation allows, both of these accuracy issues are negated by the simple use of a Live-view or EVF feature...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I had fully expected the next Leica M to ditch the rangefinder altogether and put in an EVF instead - especially after the release of the Q. Instead we get a Typ 262 that's a step in the wrong direction.</p>

<p> </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>They have made RF for 83 years, bit hard to ditch it now. Some people like it.<br>

They are making other models that don't. </p>

[stric]

<p>Ditching RF would be tough. Leica M is almost a synonymous with rangefinder. Even its name means that M=Messsucher=rangefinder. Perhaps they can develop a creative way of combining rangefinder with an EVF (similar to some Fujifilm X series cameras, but with a real RF). It's like asking Porsche to ditch rear mounted engines in its 911 models, or ask Ducati to forget about Desmotronic valve timing. These are companies that have managed to continuously improve and fine tune (one can easily argue somewhat outdated technologies and engineering solutions) and they simply thrive in this process of continuous improvement.<br>

Leica Q is a promissing camera in its own right. Had they made it with interchangeable lens mount, or even better, M mount then, we'd be talking about a potential M killer. But that's another topic and I am digressing.<br>

Anyway, I quite like this M, Typ 262. I'm glad that it's trimmed down version of Typ 240 but I think that omission of LV is not good. Not that I would use it a lot but they can come in quite handy with wide angle lenses. If I understand well it makes this camera obsolete when it comes to using R lenses (with adapter).<br>

If I remember the Typ 240/262 have 0.68 viewfinder. What are the widest possible frame lines that can be displayed? 28 mm? 24mm? <br>

Thanks!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I am surprised that some here like Ray, who specialize in street photography, see little use for live view and a tiltable monitor. On the contrary, I believe that former great street photographers like Cartier-Bresson would probably not hold so religiously to past Leica RF design dogma and limitations and quite happily embrace such new advances. And once again, Leica R photographers with their wide range of optics are also left out in the cold with the new model. Leica can surely cut prices in a better way than this. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Leica R photographers with their wide range of optics are also left out in the cold with the new model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, the M that needed all kinds of attachments that made it look like a Frankenmonster was never the "R solution" - which now finally arrived in form of the Leica SL. Too late - and like all things Leica too expensive - for me to matter anymore, I sold my R lenses years ago.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Leica Q is a promising camera in its own right. Had they made it with interchangeable lens mount, or even better, M mount then, we'd be talking about a potential M killer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't shed a tear if Leica wouldn't produce another M camera - what little advantage the rangefinder concept and camera incarnation held in the film era is no more in light of what an EVF equipped mirrorless offers today.</p>

 

[ray .]

<i>"what little advantage the rangefinder concept and camera incarnation held in the film era is no more in

light of what an EVF equipped mirrorless offers today."</i><p>

 

Being able to see the physical object you're photographing through a clear window still seems like a very good

option to have available to me. Very basic and fundamental. Adding an EVF is fine, but I don't see the

need to abandon one of the most attractive features of a Leica M.

<p>

Arthur, I do use live view occasionally, and a tilt screen would be fine if it was seamless enough not to

interfere with ergonomics and solidity of the body, but I haven't seen a design like that yet.