This new camera has quite a few positives over my M9, but the start time is a big issue, for me. That used to drive me nuts with some of my mirrorless cameras and certain lenses (NEX and Sigma 30, etc.) Using a longer standby time wouldn't really work, for me. Hopefully they fix it.
The funny thing is that I can get my M9 to at least an ISO 5000 equivalent without banding, if I'm not shooting a bunch of shots continuously, so, while the M 240 may be technically cleaner at ISO 2500, it may be less usable in lowlight, since banding kills an image, IMO. It'll be interesting to see what happens in firmware updates.
I've recently paid in full for mine. I need a M body that sees colour, and this seems like the best fit for me.
Right now when I travel I have a D800 with a 16-35mm glued to it for my early morning landscape shooting, I'll be interested to see if the M240 can be "good enough" for my purposes, as it would be nice to only carry one system.
douglasf13 wrote:
This new camera has quite a few positives over my M9, but the start time is a big issue, for me. That used to drive me nuts with some of my mirrorless cameras and certain lenses (NEX and Sigma 30, etc.) Using a longer standby time wouldn't really work, for me. Hopefully they fix it.
Do you turn off your cameras all the time? If so, that might be an issue. Jono Slack's comment on this.
rscheffler wrote:
Do you turn off your cameras all the time? If so, that might be an issue. Jono Slack's comment on this.
Nope, I leave mine on most of the time with the one minute standby on. I'm not so much worried about start up when I'm on a specific photo walk, but, when I'm out and about with the camera on a strap, quick grabs are annoying when there's delay.
I can't help but thinking Leica should have remained in the conservative camp and released an M10 with a 24 mp CCD sensor, improved high iso and processing speed, higher resolution screen (but same size as the M9), no LV, no video, no CMOS. Leica should have reserved LV and video to the other mirrorless series (they said it was going to be at least APS-C), but unfortunately they decided to make 2 in 1, which does not seem to work properly in my opinion. With a FF or APS-H sensor, EVF, no RF mechanism, Leica could have afforded to use a new processor and the R lens owners would have been very happy.
Yeah, I'm not sure a few mechanical improvements are enough to make me want to upgrade to the M anytime soon, and the startup time thing and banding is worrisome. Plus, on a much less important note, I kind of think the camera is a little uglier than my M9.
I frequently use ISO 5000+ (through pushing) with my M9, and the files don't look all that bad with a little work, and they maintain some detail. Banding on the new M would really bum me out, if it isn't fixed. Plus, it doesn't sound like the camera is "ISO-less," and I've been enjoying shooting that way.
Agreed, Douglas. Moreover, it seems the M9 remains the king of low iso performance judging from Ming Thein comments and Sean Reid comparison shots (my membership expired but I read some comments about them). Ming Thein places the M between the M9 and the D800E in terms of color rendering and sparkle. I think this is inevitable with the move from CCD to CMOS, and perhaps lighter CFA toppings to improve the high iso performance.
I agree with Edward. 2 cameras, one "pure" RF to take up where the M9 leaves off, and one "pure" mirror less for those who want to use Leica lenses on a compact, high quality FF, would have been a great lineup and game plan.
I wouldn't read too much into color performance before proper profiles are available. The primary difference in the 'look' of the M240 files vs. the M9 boils down to lower contrast of the M240 due to wider dynamic range of unprocessed files. I'm not so sure it's a CMOS vs. CCD difference, rather, 2005-2008 era sensor technology vs. 2012. Take the Phase One IQ180 80MP CCD sensor. According to DxO, it measures about 13.5 stops dynamic range at ISO 100. The D800's CMOS is just over 14. The M9's CCD is around 11.5. By the sounds of it, the M240's is probably in the 12.5-13 stop range. Transparency film is what, somewhere around 6 stops? Slide the contrast slider a bit more with M240 files than you do with M9 files and I suspect much of the difference will disappear.
For me, it's the operational improvements over the M9 that are the most appealing. As I mentioned in a thread on LUF, such aspects are difficult to evaluate until actually using the camera. For example, on the Canon side of my kit, I was reluctant to upgrade the 1DIV for a 1DX because on paper the spec differences weren't dramatic, yet the price increase was considerable. But once I actually used the 1DX for various sports event, it became clear very quickly that the extra 2fps, the better AF system, the deeper buffer and faster card write speed, the latter of which I've been critical of all 1D bodies I've owned until the 1DX, resulted in nearly a 50% increase, on average, in my production per event. While I don't expect such miracle numbers from the M240 vs. the M9, I do expect that when things get frantic and I'm shooting very quickly, that the camera won't hit the buffer limit nearly as frequently, and if it does, will clear to the card much faster. I also expect that it won't announce my presence as obviously as the M9's quite loud shutter does, even in relatively noisy environments. It's just that the M9's shutter noise is the wrong kind for blending in with ambient noise.
That said, as I've stated, I'm on the fence until Leica demonstrates whether or not they've been able to resolve the banding issue.
philber wrote:
I agree with Edward. 2 cameras, one "pure" RF to take up where the M9 leaves off, and one "pure" mirror less for those who want to use Leica lenses on a compact, high quality FF, would have been a great lineup and game plan.
I think that would be a difficult decision for Leica, as it would significantly split the M product line and imply that the rangefinder system isn't worth modernizing. It also wouldn't appeal to 'moderates' in the Leica camp, such as me. I'd rather have a single solution than two separate, even if the single solution was somewhat compromised, as the M240 certainly is.
Beyond the ME, I'd be surprised to see a more traditional body anytime soon. But I could see an eventual EVF only rangefinderless camera. I think that one will depend a lot on how the M does in the short term and also what else comes to market in the higher-end FF mirrorless segment. If there is much competition, as much as Leica seems to like to think they operate in a vacuum, it may force their hand. But in the near term, such a camera would likely seriously undermine M240 sales. Therefore I doubt they'll pull a Fuji and release such a camera so soon on the heels of the flagship. Maybe in 18-24 months? That should also give enough time to reinvest some M240 earnings into fixing the live view mistakes with proper hardware/software... But will it be too late for anyone to care by then?
I have no reason to doubt that the 240 is a worthy improvement over the M9, which should please "core" M9 owners.
That said, I remember vividly a management seminar I attended quite some time ago at the Sloane School of management with a few dozen high-level managers from all over the world. One of the chaps said that it had taken a very long and hard fight to get the division he ran to benchmark its products against its largest competitor, and not "only" against its own products from the past, as had been done for decades. So now Cadillac, the business he ran, was benchmarking against Lincoln, its main competitor, and ignoring Mercedes, BMW, Lexus et al. who were not "important enough". We know how that story ends. That is why I am very wary of benchmarking against own products, rather than against the class-leaders.
That leads to the defense's argument that Leica M could be in a segment of their own, either as defined by the rangefinder or by the compact FF, as thus not vulnerable to substitution from other segments. That would make Leica "safe" in their niche. I very much doubt that this will prove valid. The triple issue of banding, limited LiveView and blackout lag, all smack of lack of funds/talent/time to cure cureable problems. This means Leica are asking its customers to buy products less good than they might have been just because they couldn't make them "right" the first time. That does not sit well with the luxo price tag and image Leica are after. Too bad. It is a slippery slope down which it is very difficult to reverse a slide.
That said, I hope I'm wrong, as I'd love Leica to succeed, produce more gorgeous lenses and a digital body I can love.
Philippe, I don't necessarily disagree. Leica is aiming quite high with their brand and I do get the feeling there is something missing, preventing them from getting 100% to that level. And it's mostly evident with their cameras. What's 'under the hood' isn't quite jiving with what they're marketing and certainly hasn't been on-par technologically with mainstream manufacturers (though one could argue the M240 is the closest yet).
Maybe it's a glass half full vs. half empty perspective? I mean, before and during the M8, when their outlook was quite grim, compared to now when they're actually doing OK, would imply they're doing more right than wrong. I think some of that was luck from being able to hang on long enough and scrounge enough resources to create a FF digital camera, so that now they're able to release version 2 and be in some respects, a cutting edge MILC option (if only for the FF sensor, just as only the M9's FF sensor probably saved them). But this 'luck' occurring yet again can't be relied on for a guarantee of future success. The M240 certainly isn't perfect and it will be interesting to see how the competition compares over the next year or so. Hopefully, as they seem to have done with the M9, Leica will take critical feedback about the M240 seriously. They're definitely stretching the boundaries of their traditional market and will have to adapt in order to attract and retain photographers who never previously would have considered the system, whether that means improving on the traditional rangefinder and live view/EVF mashup, or splitting the line to cater to divergent, more specialized interests.
As Luka (denoir) quite rightly pointed out a while ago, there's a certain degree of masochism involved in working with a Leica system. But despite this, it can be quite difficult to disregard the end results. Hopefully Leica can considerably ease the pain, because quite obviously, not everyone has the same threshold.
philber wrote:
I have no reason to doubt that the 240 is a worthy improvement over the M9, which should please "core" M9 owners.
That said, I remember vividly a management seminar I attended quite some time ago at the Sloane School of management with a few dozen high-level managers from all over the world. One of the chaps said that it had taken a very long and hard fight to get the division he ran to benchmark its products against its largest competitor, and not "only" against its own products from the past, as had been done for decades. So now Cadillac, the business he ran, was benchmarking against Lincoln, its main competitor, and ignoring Mercedes, BMW, Lexus et al. who were not "important enough". We know how that story ends. That is why I am very wary of benchmarking against own products, rather than against the class-leaders.
That leads to the defense's argument that Leica M could be in a segment of their own, either as defined by the rangefinder or by the compact FF, as thus not vulnerable to substitution from other segments. That would make Leica "safe" in their niche. I very much doubt that this will prove valid. The triple issue of banding, limited LiveView and blackout lag, all smack of lack of funds/talent/time to cure cureable problems. This means Leica are asking its customers to buy products less good than they might have been just because they couldn't make them "right" the first time. That does not sit well with the luxo price tag and image Leica are after. Too bad. It is a slippery slope down which it is very difficult to reverse a slide.
That said, I hope I'm wrong, as I'd love Leica to succeed, produce more gorgeous lenses and a digital body I can love....Show more →
The thing is, leica doesn't have to make a camera u can love. They don't have to make a camera for everyone. They make rangefinder camera's which rangefinder users love.
A camera to walk around with and to be able to focus quickly and catch the moment.
So they decided to make the liveview as how rangefinder users would like and use it. A replacement for the external finders for wides, and the 1,2.5x and 1,4x finder extender for longer lenses.
No longer guessing the focus by the position of the focusknob but being able to frame and focus without moving your eye.
What u want for this is peaking, and being able to quickly zoom in to check the focus. Scrolling around isn't needed at all.
That this method doesn't fit the landscape users who don't need to be fast, but secure, doesn't mean its badly done. Its only done differently for other purpose.
I also don't say the Alpa of Switzerland camera's are bad because its hard to use them as streetcamera's. They are meant for architecture and landscape work and shine in that purpose.
(the blackout I'm sure will be solved soon before release)
Bijltje wrote:
The thing is, leica doesn't have to make a camera u can love. They don't have to make a camera for everyone. They make rangefinder camera's which rangefinder users love.
A camera to walk around with and to be able to focus quickly and catch the moment.
So they decided to make the liveview as how rangefinder users would like and use it. A replacement for the external finders for wides, and the 1,2.5x and 1,4x finder extender for longer lenses.
No longer guessing the focus by the position of the focusknob but being able to frame and focus without moving your eye.
What u want for this is peaking, and being able to quickly zoom in to check the focus. Scrolling around isn't needed at all.
That this method doesn't fit the landscape users who don't need to be fast, but secure, doesn't mean its badly done. Its only done differently for other purpose.
I also don't say the Alpa of Switzerland camera's are bad because its hard to use them as streetcamera's. They are meant for architecture and landscape work and shine in that purpose.
(the blackout I'm sure will be solved soon before release)...Show more →
No, Leica doesn't have to make a camera that we like or want. But, they are losing more and more of its faithful orphaned R users with false promises and suggestions. They have already lost at least half of the R users and their followers are getting smaller and smaller. For people such as myself, I am running out of time as I am aging to have the luxury of waiting too much longer or possibly even the interest in Leica coming up with a suitable R solution. We may just have to accept another platform for our lenses and be done with Leica except to keep our equipment operating as it should.
Bijltje wrote:
That this method doesn't fit the landscape users who don't need to be fast, but secure, doesn't mean its badly done. Its only done differently for other purpose.
Yes, but the M could be a really great lightweight and small landscape system with some minor changes (without sacrificing the performance for street shooters).
But sadly Leica seems to have no interest in fulfilling the requirements of landscape photographers. Although I really love the M lenses I will change back to DSLR.
Biltje, clearly Leica don't "have to" please everyone. Just as they don't "have to" grow, make money and invest. Though it would help their long-term survival. That the M was never you g to be a favorite for, say, studio work, or macro, is both clear and sensible, because it could have compromised the M for their traditional core of users, which must come first. My argument is different. Banding and blackout are plain bad news, and must be sorted out. The limited LiveView will cost sales which would have been "in the bag" for Leica otherwise. And this would not have compromised the M in any other way. My guess, in view of Leica's answer to Boris, is that it comes from Leica's decision to use the old S2 processor. This is clearly a quick and cheap solution, especially if they have them sitting on shelves. But I don't buy the concept that proper LV would have in any way detracted from the M for its core users.
naturephoto1 wrote:
No, Leica doesn't have to make a camera that we like or want. But, they are losing more and more of its faithful orphaned R users with false promises and suggestions. They have already lost at least half of the R users and their followers are getting smaller and smaller. For people such as myself, I am running out of time as I am aging to have the luxury of waiting too much longer or possibly even the interest in Leica coming up with a suitable R solution. We may just have to accept another platform for our lenses and be done with Leica except to keep our equipment operating as it should....Show more →
While I don't disagree with the basic sentiment, I am surprised to hear that Leica's following is decreasing. All sales numbers I have seen appear to indicate the opposite. Do you have any sources?
