Old 08-08-2017   #201
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by forceusr View Post
I just bought a like new 240 2 weeks ago and paid $3300 for it. I'm sure I could have maybe found one a bit cheaper but couldn't complain about the condition.
I'm not sure what your point is... my post was from 03-03-2017, so are you trying to say that I was wrong about going prices then?
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #202
Mudman
Registered User
 
Mudman's Avatar
 
Mudman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs
Posts: 1,113
I just got a M-P for $3300. I've sen some M 240's pushing $2700, it seems from shops they range from $2900-3300 generally right now.
__________________
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
~Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #203
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 5,003
I've been a little tempted to get an M-P 240, at the present prices. But I'm concerned that the 24 MP file size will eat up too much disc space. I've was happy with 10Mp of my M8.2 and X100, 12Mp of my D700; not sure why I need the 16 or 18 Mp of my M9. And I believe the M-P 240 has 24Mp. Maybe If I had one I would see why it's good to have such a large file size.

Anyone else have a similar concern?
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #204
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
I've been a little tempted to get an M-P 240, at the present prices. But I'm concerned that the 24 MP file size will eat up too much disc space. I've was happy with 10Mp of my M8.2 and X100, 12Mp of my D700; not sure why I need the 16 or 18 Mp of my M9. And I believe the M-P 240 has 24Mp. Maybe If I had one I would see why it's good to have such a large file size.

Anyone else have a similar concern?
Yes at one time but not concerned any longer.
Disc space is the least scarce of all photographic tools.... it's become cheap!

I don't think an upgrade to M240 from M8/M9 is about more pix..... it's about more processing stability, iso headroom, and live view capability.
The M240 is a much more refined camera than the previous digital M's and, more capable of image capture in varied lighting situations.

As far as models prior to the M10, it's the only choice I would make in 2017.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #205
Mudman
Registered User
 
Mudman's Avatar
 
Mudman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs
Posts: 1,113
I had the same concern going from my d3 to the d750. It hasn't been an issue so far. The quality of the files makes up for the use of space. And space is cheap to buy.
__________________
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
~Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #206
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
I've been a little tempted to get an M-P 240, at the present prices. But I'm concerned that the 24 MP file size will eat up too much disc space. I've was happy with 10Mp of my M8.2 and X100, 12Mp of my D700; not sure why I need the 16 or 18 Mp of my M9. And I believe the M-P 240 has 24Mp. Maybe If I had one I would see why it's good to have such a large file size.

Anyone else have a similar concern?
First off your computer is not for storage of large amounts of data for various reasons. External drives are cheap. Use two the same, one being back up.

Second is moire. As image degradation is no longer being done in camera with a blur screen infant of sensor, the choice is getting moire or more MP.
Moire shows up in certain clothing ( I see it all the time on TV) and with repetitive structures on buildings.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #207
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,005
I use 4 external drives for the DNG files, plus save the images on my computer and at smugmug.com the JPG files. A 4TB drive is not expensive these days.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #208
Lux Optima
Registered User
 
Lux Optima is offline
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 19
Very interesting thread, thanks for all opinions!
I consider it very interesting that an old M3, perfectly maintained through all the decades and carefully restored, with a proper old lens is now only a little bit cheaper than a 240 (unlike my beautiful old Pentax ME Super that hasn't any value but an emotional one).
Have analog and digital cameras and in my opinion - despite the perfection of the digitial age - that the true value of a camera is not to be measured by numbers for me.
__________________
Cheers, Stefan
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #209
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
Anyone else have a similar concern?
No, HD space is relatively cheap to camera prices...
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #210
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
I've been a little tempted to get an M-P 240, at the present prices. But I'm concerned that the 24 MP file size will eat up too much disc space.
A two terabyte (2TB) portable hard drive costs around $75. It will hold an insane amount of 24MP images. Space usage should not be a consideration.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #211
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
I've been a little tempted to get an M-P 240, at the present prices. But I'm concerned that the 24 MP file size will eat up too much disc space. I've was happy with 10Mp of my M8.2 and X100, 12Mp of my D700; not sure why I need the 16 or 18 Mp of my M9. And I believe the M-P 240 has 24Mp. Maybe If I had one I would see why it's good to have such a large file size.

Anyone else have a similar concern?
It depends a great deal on how aggressively you crop and how large you print.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #212
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
I've been a little tempted to get an M-P 240, at the present prices. But I'm concerned that the 24 MP file size will eat up too much disc space. I've was happy with 10Mp of my M8.2 and X100, 12Mp of my D700; not sure why I need the 16 or 18 Mp of my M9. And I believe the M-P 240 has 24Mp. Maybe If I had one I would see why it's good to have such a large file size.

Anyone else have a similar concern?

I'm with you. That's one thinng I cannot stand about my Sony compact: 20mb files. Ten or 12 mb would be more appropriate for my need, so I reduce the file size, but that forces me to use jpg (not really a big deal for me because I shoot digital like I shoot slides and I don't push files much).

Storage is certainly not an issue, as many have pointed out, it's cheap. I have two tetrabyte drives mirroring each other, but why deal with large files if I don't need too? Smaller files are faster to open, faster to move, faster to back up.

Still, you might find out that for your needs the extra file size is actually useful (aggressive cropping, enlargements, manupilations, etc).
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #213
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,005
For smaller image files, I have my old M 4/3 cameras.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #214
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by conyon View Post
An increase in supply of M240s puts downward pressure on prices; the decrease in demand puts downward pressure on prices. It is to be expected, I'm afraid. It might, too, have happened to the prices of M9? But the M240, I suppose, is the previous model and so most likely to be affected...
You will lose money if you trade or sell; if you don't want to be taken to the cleaners on your M240, keep it. It is still an outstanding camera.

I would like to have an M10 (who wouldn't??) but I will not sell/trade my M-P Safari kit to help get it.

I don't like losing my shirt.
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #215
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,005
Digital cameras depreciate in value. This is a fact of life.
I love my M8 and M9, and I am not selling either one.
I may get an M240 one day. It has everything that the M10 has for better quality images.

ebay shows M240 cameras for about $3,500.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #216
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,888
Ah, such a cool new moniker: "M10: the Destroyer!"

The only reason to be concerned about the value of your existing camera being depressed by the M10 is that you want an M10 and were expecting to sell your old camera to get it.

Life is tough.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #217
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 5,003
OK, good answers; but what about the other part of my question: is there a need for 24MP? I can answer my own question somewhat. I calculate that a 20 x 24 print would use the whole file, while at 11 x 14 or 11 x 17, the 18MP of the M9 is enough. Who is making prints large enough to need 24MP? How large do you print from M240 files? What sizes?
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #218
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,005
I have been using a loaner M 240 since I sent out my M9 for repair, and I am getting used to this camera. It is not just about an increase in MP. The ISO capabilities are known, but there is also the capability to take several photos quickly one after another without the camera to freeze up, as it happens with my M9. The battery is larger in size, and I don't have to worry much about the camera dying due to battery being dead. The LiveView allows me to focus better, when needed, and I could use SLR lenses with the appropriate adapters if I wanted to do so. The screen on the back of the M240 is much better than the screen on the M9.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #219
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Digital cameras depreciate in value. This is a fact of life.
The camera with the absolute worst resale value is the Leica M7.
Current production model, new is $4550. The moment you pay for it it is worth $2400. I got my perfect late model one for $1600.
The M-A and M-P are similar, but not as bad.
It is arguably the best out of all my film RFs (M3, M4, M5) for sheer speed and usability.
So it's not just digi cameras that lose value!
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #220
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
OK, good answers; but what about the other part of my question: is there a need for 24MP? I can answer my own question somewhat. I calculate that a 20 x 24 print would use the whole file, while at 11 x 14 or 11 x 17, the 18MP of the M9 is enough. Who is making prints large enough to need 24MP? How large do you print from M240 files? What sizes?
What you're calculating makes little sense to me.

The old standard of a 35mm slide or negative that was well exposed and well focused was the ability to make a clean 16x20 inch print, viewed at normal viewing distances of about 3-4 feet. The standard for making such a print from an inkjet printer is 300 ppi output density.

A 16x20 is a 4:5 ratio image where 35mm format is 2:3 ratio, so we can only approximate the size, full frame. If the long dimension of a 35mm frame is fitted to the long dimension of a 16x20 sheet of paper at 300ppi, that means 20" @ 300ppi = 6000 pixels. The short dimension of the frame at that resolution will come out to 13.3 inches, at 4000 pixels. 6000 x 4000 pixels is 24 MegaPixels.

I don't normally print that large myself, but it's good to know that my camera can achieve a quality print with sufficient native density at the classic standard for a good 35mm negative or slide. If nothing else, the 24Mpixel files provide a lot of head room for cropping and editing, and they can be downsized for printing much more easily, and with greater quality, than a smaller file can be upsized.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #221
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
OK, good answers; but what about the other part of my question: is there a need for 24MP? I can answer my own question somewhat. I calculate that a 20 x 24 print would use the whole file, while at 11 x 14 or 11 x 17, the 18MP of the M9 is enough. Who is making prints large enough to need 24MP? How large do you print from M240 files? What sizes?
When I was a kid my dad had a ford Galaxy 500 with a nice 289 v8.
He was and still is the slowest driver on the road.
His saying was..."sometimes it's just nice to be sitting on the power".


The M240 was released when 24mpx was/is sort of the benchmark for FF sensors.
I don't think we would expect any makers to release smaller at this point.
24mpx is easy to make use of even if you don't need it.
Cropping ability is an asset as good as any other.

The processor is the key over earlier models.
It's the first Leica DRF that buffers/writes without getting it's bits in a twist.
The M8/9 was kind of a joke sometimes. How many times I remember taking the bottom off the camera and releasing the battery because the camera tripped on itself
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #222
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 5,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
What you're calculating makes little sense to me.

The old standard of a 35mm slide or negative that was well exposed and well focused was the ability to make a clean 16x20 inch print, viewed at normal viewing distances of about 3-4 feet. The standard for making such a print from an inkjet printer is 300 ppi output density.

A 16x20 is a 4:5 ratio image where 35mm format is 2:3 ratio, so we can only approximate the size, full frame. If the long dimension of a 35mm frame is fitted to the long dimension of a 16x20 sheet of paper at 300ppi, that means 20" @ 300ppi = 6000 pixels. The short dimension of the frame at that resolution will come out to 13.3 inches, at 4000 pixels. 6000 x 4000 pixels is 24 MegaPixels.


G
That is consistent with what I calculated myself. at 300dpi, and using the whole sensor, 24MP would only make a 13.3" by 20." A 4:5 aspect ratio would use 20MP of the 24MP available. To cover 16" x 20" with 20MP would result in 250dpi. That's a bit lower than the standard; it's fudging a little; but for me, I couldn't see any difference between 300dpi vs. 250 with the Canon 9000 printer I had. So I was just thinking in approximate real-world terms when I wrote that. I don't see any disagreement, I think we are on the same page. (If we must have 300dpi from 20MP at 4:5 ratio, we are limited to 13.33 x 16.66 inches.)

Rob
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #223
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 5,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
I have been using a loaner M 240 since I sent out my M9 for repair, and I am getting used to this camera. It is not just about an increase in MP. The ISO capabilities are known, but there is also the capability to take several photos quickly one after another without the camera to freeze up, as it happens with my M9. The battery is larger in size, and I don't have to worry much about the camera dying due to battery being dead. The LiveView allows me to focus better, when needed, and I could use SLR lenses with the appropriate adapters if I wanted to do so. The screen on the back of the M240 is much better than the screen on the M9.
One thing I fuss over is frameline sizes. I like the frames in, say, my M2 and M5 more than the M6/M7/MP because the latter are too small. I liked the framelines in My M8.2 quite a bit. They were the right size for my customary shooting distances (I seldom shoot at minimum focus). I have no serious quarrel with the M9 framelines, although I felt the M8.2's were better.

So. Raid, and others who care to comment: how do the ones in the M-P typ 240 compare with those of the M8.2 or M9?
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #224
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,005
I never thought of the framelines, Rob! They are projected very brightly in the VF. You can pick between red and blue (I think). When using the LiveView, focusing results in either a 5X or 10X magnification for focus assist. Cool.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #225
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
That is consistent with what I calculated myself. at 300dpi, and using the whole sensor, 24MP would only make a 13.3" by 20." A 4:5 aspect ratio would use 20MP of the 24MP available. To cover 16" x 20" with 20MP would result in 250dpi. That's a bit lower than the standard; it's fudging a little; but for me, I couldn't see any difference between 300dpi vs. 250 with the Canon 9000 printer I had. So I was just thinking in approximate real-world terms when I wrote that. I don't see any disagreement, I think we are on the same page. (If we must have 300dpi from 20MP at 4:5 ratio, we are limited to 13.33 x 16.66 inches.)

Rob
So you've just deduced why you need a sensor with only 20 Mpixel. You just changed the resolution standard downwards based on your personal ability with your printer to see a difference between one resolution and another. From that you can deduce further that you can make up any arbitrary reason to 'need' anything, larger or smaller doesn't matter.

Where does that leave you? I don't know. All I can tell you is that if you want a state of the art, 35mm format Leica digital camera today, you'll buy a 24 MPixel camera.

24 MPixels was the standard I defined as my desire in a digital camera in 2001, before I even bought my first digital camera, because I wanted that level of capability based on my calculations of a good 16x20 photo as I defined above. Since then, I've owned .7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, and now 24 mpixel cameras. I've produced probably 12,000 photographic prints in sizes from 1x1.5 inch to 30x45 inch with them. None of the lower resolution cameras dissuaded me of the need for 24Mpixel resolution: It's obviously easier to do the larger sizes in that range with more pixels than with less. I've now got two current Leica cameras ... M-D and SL ... and their 24 mpixel sensors make photographs that finally satisfy me, much as I expected they would.

So ... I don't know what to recommend to you. There's little downside to this resolution class nowadays: storage is cheap, processing power is cheap, etc. You either go for it, or you stay out of it. What else can be said?

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #226
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,005
Having a 24MP camera cannot hurt you in any way. It is a dream come true for many photographers.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #227
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 5,003
Relax, Godfrey. Take a stress pill and take the rest of the day off.

Thanks for the response, Raid. I'm feeling encouraged.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #228
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
Relax, Godfrey. Take a stress pill and take the rest of the day off.

Thanks for the response, Raid. I'm feeling encouraged.
Why? do you feel stressed? I don't.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #229
chuck77
Registered User
 
chuck77 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 12
I paid ~2750 for a minty M240. Did I get a good deal or not so?

The thing is, I love the rendering of my M8, and although I love it and won't sell it, it's not practical camera with its crop factor and quirks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #230
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck77 View Post
I paid ~2750 for a minty M240. Did I get a good deal or not so?
Horrible, terrible terrible sad deal. So sad.

You should have paid more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #231
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 671
I defined above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Since then, I've owned .7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, and now 24 mpixel cameras. I've produced probably 12,000 photographic prints in sizes from 1x1.5 inch to 30x45 inch with them. G
Wow 12'000 prints, that must have cost a small fortune in ink cartridges, and then where do you store them all?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:43.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.