A good article on Leica M (240) by Tim Ashley

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Tim has a good article on his blog: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/the-m-typ-240---leicas-very-grown-up-new-baby-reviewed

Best regards
Erik

[eronald]

Hi,

Tim has a good article on his blog: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/the-m-typ-240---leicas-very-grown-up-new-baby-reviewed

Best regards
Erik

The next camera will be great

Edmund

[Rob C]

To be honest, I think they are trying to make too many different cameras. The best solution (IMO) would be for them to concentrate their collective design mind on one, single, giant-killer of a cameras that does what the D800 can do, apart from the obvious rangefinder limitations, of course.

Spending so much money on a dedicated b/w camera makes little sense when it does nothing that another top dog can't do better. Indeed, for anyone wishing to emulate b/w imagery, then buy a film camera - it'll cost you far less and deliver the real deal. Black and white photography had its look precisely because it was black and white film photography: its charm came from that. You can't fake love, only sex.

I still have a pristine F3 which I fully expect to use again should I finally remove myself back to the UK at some not-too-distant future date. That's one reason for keeping my set of non-af optics.

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The Leica M is a color camera, Leica new camera with CMOS sensor. The BW camera is called Monochrome.

BR
Erik

To be honest, I think they are trying to make too many different cameras. The best solution (IMO) would be for them to concentrate their collective design mind on one, single, giant-killer of a cameras that does what the D800 can do, apart from the obvious rangefinder limitations, of course.

Spending so much money on a dedicated b/w camera makes little sense when it does nothing that another top dog can't do better. Indeed, for anyone wishing to emulate b/w imagery, then buy a film camera - it'll cost you far less and deliver the real deal. Black and white photography had its look precisely because it was black and white film photography: its charm came from that. You can't fake love, only sex.

I still have a pristine F3 which I fully expect to use again should I finally remove myself back to the UK at some not-too-distant future date. That's one reason for keeping my set of non-af optics.

Rob C

[telyt]

To be honest, I think they are trying to make too many different cameras. The best solution (IMO) would be for them to concentrate their collective design mind on one, single, giant-killer of a cameras ...

Yup, best to put all of one's eggs in a single basket 

[Rob C]

Yup, best to put all of one's eggs in a single basket 

Absolutely, especially if you can finally make a real basket.

;-)

Rob C

[Rob C]

Hi,

The Leica M is a color camera, Leica new camera with CMOS sensor. The BW camera is called Monochrome.

BR
Erik

I know, Eric, and that's my point: a single camera that does all of it properly is a better bet. A company with limited resources, compared with the competition, should be striving to get back to the position it formerly held; and I also think they'd have been better advised to have persevered with their R camera models and stable of lenses instead of drifing upwards in format. Their old R lenses fetch premium prices today; think where they'd be if such lenses were still available new, and in a variety of factory mounts. Blown opportunities, I think.

Rob C

[TMARK]

Rob, the Monochrom come REALLY close to an M6 and film.  The only issue it has, in my test of the camera, is how the highlights clip.  It clips to white very abruptly, doesn't have that film haliation look to blown highlights. 

My ultimate conclusion is that the D800 can produce comparable B&W, but then again, the D800 is a bit bigger than an M, and of course the lenses are different.  The M (240) has a nice file, as well.

I would rather shoot film, but for various reasons I can't make wet prints, and decent scans of 35mm require a very good scanner.  I ran the numbers and realized that getting a Mono costs a little more than getting a good scanner and another M6, and I don't have to scan, so . . .

Now that I have a job I don't have the time to spend scanning and processing film.  I can do medium format on my Epson V750, for smaller prints, but 35mm is another deal entirely.

[Rob C]

Rob, the Monochrom come REALLY close to an M6 and film.  The only issue it has, in my test of the camera, is how the highlights clip.  It clips to white very abruptly, doesn't have that film haliation look to blown highlights. 

My ultimate conclusion is that the D800 can produce comparable B&W, but then again, the D800 is a bit bigger than an M, and of course the lenses are different.  The M (240) has a nice file, as well.

I would rather shoot film, but for various reasons I can't make wet prints, and decent scans of 35mm require a very good scanner.  I ran the numbers and realized that getting a Mono costs a little more than getting a good scanner and another M6, and I don't have to scan, so . . .

Now that I have a job I don't have the time to spend scanning and processing film.  I can do medium format on my Epson V750, for smaller prints, but 35mm is another deal entirely.

T –

You have identified the problems with the current crop of Leicas, and I’d imagine your digital vote probably also depends somewhat on a few lenses that, as an ex-M6 owner, you might still have.

I don’t know what exotic scanners for 35mm film your output requires, but I am perfectly happy with my Canon CanoScan FS 4000 US. I had it from new and all of my chosen Kodachromes and a very few remaining b/w negs went through it. At A3+ prints I have no bones to pick with it. If anything, my prints are way crisper than they were doing them wet.

For anything larger than 135 format traditionally allowed, then I’d consider going back to the film ‘blads to be a good idea. After all, they give the added buzz of a beautiful bit of equipment with which to play.

Maybe the best part of using them (‘blads) again is that they demand thought, and that often helps in the making of pictures, though I do, of course, rule out action stuff in that generalization.

But, different folks, different strokes etc.

;-)

Rob C

[bill t.]

The last picture in the article says it all.

[TMARK]

T –

You have identified the problems with the current crop of Leicas, and I’d imagine your digital vote probably also depends somewhat on a few lenses that, as an ex-M6 owner, you might still have.

I don’t know what exotic scanners for 35mm film your output requires, but I am perfectly happy with my Canon CanoScan FS 4000 US. I had it from new and all of my chosen Kodachromes and a very few remaining b/w negs went through it. At A3+ prints I have no bones to pick with it. If anything, my prints are way crisper than they were doing them wet.

For anything larger than 135 format traditionally allowed, then I’d consider going back to the film ‘blads to be a good idea. After all, they give the added buzz of a beautiful bit of equipment with which to play.

Maybe the best part of using them (‘blads) again is that they demand thought, and that often helps in the making of pictures, though I do, of course, rule out action stuff in that generalization.

But, different folks, different strokes etc.

;-)

Rob C

Yes, and my 501cm is my choice in most situations.  Aside from the wonderful look of a 6x6 piece of film and the lenses, using the camera is intuitive, and the big bright VF with the Accu D screen displaces me from the present and into the image I'm making/taking.  Much like the F3/F4/F5 VF.  Why did Nikon cheap out with the VF?  If they made teh D800 finder as large and bright as the F3/4/5 I'd be in heaven.

And yes, the Leica lenses.  I kept them, at least the ones I like.  And they aren't the most expensive Aspherical lenses either.  In fact, my favorite is a 3.5cm Summaron screwmount in an M adapter.  Uncoated.  Looks good on an M8, stunning on film.

[Petrus]

My ultimate conclusion is that the D800 can produce comparable B&W

Yes, and you can tweak the color to grayscale mapping in post with great freedom, which is not possible with Leica Monochrom. You have to use a limited number of filters on the lens (what?). That alone makes it an easy choice for me; no Leica (no matter how nice files it makes).

[telyt]

I know, Eric, and that's my point: a single camera that does all of it properly is a better bet. A company with limited resources, compared with the competition, should be striving to get back to the position it formerly held; and I also think they'd have been better advised to have persevered with their R camera models and stable of lenses instead of drifing upwards in format. Their old R lenses fetch premium prices today; think where they'd be if such lenses were still available new, and in a variety of factory mounts. Blown opportunities, I think.

So.... they should produce a single camera that does it all and at the same time should not have dropped the R system, and despite the fact that lens production has been limited by production capacity they should have continued to produce marginally-profitable R equipment instead of very profitable M stuff, and should have produced the R lenses in CaNikon mounts so that people could avoid using Leica bodies.  The current R lens pricing is simple supply/demand; there's no new supply.  Would you expect the prices to hold up if the supply were not zero?  Explain this to me again.

[Rob C]

So.... they should produce a single camera that does it all and at the same time should not have dropped the R system, and despite the fact that lens production has been limited by production capacity they should have continued to produce marginally-profitable R equipment instead of very profitable M stuff, and should have produced the R lenses in CaNikon mounts so that people could avoid using Leica bodies.  The current R lens pricing is simple supply/demand; there's no new supply.  Would you expect the prices to hold up if the supply were not zero?  Explain this to me again.

The M and the R were different machines for different mindsets.

Lens manufacturing capacity could have been expanded the same way as everybody else did it. At their pricing levels, they coud have maintained good QC which is where so many others now fall. AFAIK, they didn't manufacture the R cameras themselves (but I might be mistaken), so instead of sharing the profit they could have focussed on things they did make themselves and got it all.

Zeiss isn't doing badly producing optics for many other makers and not making anything much in the camera line anymore.

It's my opinion that opening up the lens line to the world would have given them the world. You may disagree and I'm perfectly happy that you do. It matters as little as does my opinion.

Relax, they won't be listening to any of us.

Rob C

[telyt]

The M and the R were different machines for different mindsets.

And part of the reason Leica dropped the R system was the SLR mindset that demanded a camera with everything including the kitchen sink, which CaNikon are beating each other up trying to provide.  Leica had disappeared in that market.  To compete in the SLR market Leica would have had to compete directly against two much bigger companies, making a huge investment during a global economic meltdown, in order to grab a slice of a saturated market that will only decline as mirrorless cameras improve.  I don't know what business or engineering school you graduated from but Leica's management considered development of the R10 to be suicidal.

Lens manufacturing capacity could have been expanded the same way as everybody else did it.

The way everybody else did it was to ditch the QC.  They added another shift at the Solms facility but they have to train additional people to do the work.  They are building a much bigger facility in Wetzlar but again they need to train people and this takes several years to avoid QC problems.  This expansion is to support the very strong sales of the M and S system.  It would be foolish to invest as much as they have to build slow-selling R equipment.

AFAIK, they didn't manufacture the R cameras themselves (but I might be mistaken)

Yes you are mistaken.   Now, tell me why CaNikon with their vastly greater resources can't just make a single camera that has it all: compact size, 10 f/s, clean 100,000 ISO, 60-point PDAF, live view with CDAF, 1080p, an F3 viewfinder and a retail price under US$3000?  Then once they make it on-sensor PDAF will become practical on a full-frame sensor and the whole SLR paradigm will be obsolete.

[eronald]

The last picture in the article says it all.

Agreed.

Edmund

[stevesanacore]

Zeiss is not doing what Leica would do. I think the lower priced Zeiss lenses are manufactured in Japan. The Leica R lenses would have to be priced much higher in the range of the M lenses. It would be an extremely small market if that were the case. In contrast Leica decided to produce a line of cinema lenses where price is no object in the pursuit of quality, so the business model works. As much as I would love brand new Nikon or Canon mount R lenses, I don't think they could sell enough of them to make a profit.

As far as the Leica M goes, why shouldn't they make two or three versions of the M camera? I'm sure many people buy them both, or maybe all three.

[JeanMichel]

Hi,
My two main cameras now are an M9 and a 5D2. I could make comparisons between the two but that is really of no great import. When I 'went digital' I chose the Canon route with a 5D, traded for a 5D2 and probably will be kept as a backup to a newer body. The Canon is invaluable in much of the work I do documenting art exhibitions, publication illustrations and such. But it is the M9 that I use for almost all my art. I do not crave the newest Leica -- be it the Monochrom or M(240), the M9 will serve for a long time. As did the M3, M4 and M6, each purchased years apart and all working today as well as when purchased. I unfortunately do not expect the same longevity from the M9 but do expect that it will document the burial of all the Canons I acquire.
So using a Canon with IS and AF lenses, Live-view,... is perfect for many purposes. So is using a Leica with old manual lenses, approximate viewfinder..... I suspect that people using the newest M will soon simply use it as an old M and pretty much ignore the screen, mine if turned of and rarely used.
It is good to see that are a few manufacturers (Leica, PhaseOne,...) that are designing and making excellent products for a significant 'niche' market without trying to out-market the mass camera people.
Jean-Michel

[eronald]

I just got a 6-year old 1Ds3 as an exchange for my 5D2, and it has a beautiful finder, focuses spot-on, takes sharp and decently priced Canon primes eg. the 35/1.4 or 85/1.2 which cost a fraction of Leica lenses; and looks like it could last forever. I believe we change cameras because we want to, not because we need to.

Edmund

Hi,
My two main cameras now are an M9 and a 5D2. I could make comparisons between the two but that is really of no great import. When I 'went digital' I chose the Canon route with a 5D, traded for a 5D2 and probably will be kept as a backup to a newer body. The Canon is invaluable in much of the work I do documenting art exhibitions, publication illustrations and such. But it is the M9 that I use for almost all my art. I do not crave the newest Leica -- be it the Monochrom or M(240), the M9 will serve for a long time. As did the M3, M4 and M6, each purchased years apart and all working today as well as when purchased. I unfortunately do not expect the same longevity from the M9 but do expect that it will document the burial of all the Canons I acquire.
So using a Canon with IS and AF lenses, Live-view,... is perfect for many purposes. So is using a Leica with old manual lenses, approximate viewfinder..... I suspect that people using the newest M will soon simply use it as an old M and pretty much ignore the screen, mine if turned of and rarely used.
It is good to see that are a few manufacturers (Leica, PhaseOne,...) that are designing and making excellent products for a significant 'niche' market without trying to out-market the mass camera people.
Jean-Michel

[JeanMichel]

I just got a 6-year old 1Ds3 as an exchange for my 5D2, and it has a beautiful finder, focuses spot-on, takes sharp and decently priced Canon primes eg. the 35/1.4 or 85/1.2 which cost a fraction of Leica lenses; and looks like it could last forever. I believe we change cameras because we want to, not because we need to.

Edmund

Edmund, you are absolutely right. Which is why I prefer working with what I have used for decades, and because they fit my hand and eye the way I learned. It probably is impossible to buy a contemporary camera that cannot produce an excellent image file. It is all a matter of preference, and, I suppose, money!
Jean-Michel