Leica M Typ 240 : Tests and Reviews
Leica M Typ 240 side by side comparisons
Leica M Typ 240 versus predecessor
/vignette2.jpg "Leica SL (Typ 601)")
Leica M Typ 240 versus Canon model
Leica M Typ 240 versus Nikon model
Leica M Typ 240 versus rival model with similar score
Try our side-by-side camera comparison tool
Further readings for the Leica M Typ 240
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
 |
The Leica SL was predicted in some quarters but was a surprise for others. As a mirrorless camera, it marks a move away for the company from the use of the rangefinder or an optical viewfinder. Instead, the Leica SL adopts one of the highest-resolution electronic viewfinders to date and marries this with a completely new body and lens mount. It also has a 24-Mpix full-frame CMOS sensor similar to that in the earlier Leica Q. Read on to find out how well this camera with its intriguing new system performs. |
 |
The Leica Q borrows heavily from the Leica rangefinder form, yet dispenses with tradition by adopting a fixed 28mm Summilux lens developed especially for a new full-frame 24-Mpix CMOS sensor, and features the highest-resolution electronic viewfinder to date. Read on to find out how well this new intriguing new addition to the lineup performs. |
 |
If you read the forums on colleagues’ sites lots of users lament the selling of their old full-frame Canon EOS 5D, Nikon D700 or even their bulky Nikon D3 or D3s. Practically every user, so it seems, says their pictures from those old models had something special that the newer models lack. Sony think they may be on to something and have introduced the A7S a full-frame model with a newly-developed 12.2-Mpix CMOS sensor. Read on to find out well this new model performs? |
 |
As the lower pixel count of the two full-frame A series mirrorless models from the firm the Sony A7 has been somewhat overshadowed by its pricier sibling. But with a less demanding 24-Mpix sensor and on-chip phase detection AF, the A7 sounds promising for legacy glass as well as offering faster focusing with the existing E and new FE mount lenses. Read on to find out how this intriguing new model performs. |
 |
Announced at Photokina 2012 the new Leica M digital rangefinder camera is available for pre-order and expected to ship soon. Although the 4th rangefinder in the M range to feature a full frame sensor, Leica have changed from the previously used Truesense 18Mp CCD to a CMOSIS 24Mp CMOS model. With new features added too expectations are running high, so lets get under the hood and see what it has to offer. |
Comments
|
Added by tjholowaychuk |
June 14 , 2015
Bullshit
The dynamic range of this sensor is terrible, good luck recovering shadow detail it looks like garbage
Reply |
|
|
Added by mrtrik71 |
October 03 , 2013
i dont know what to buy need help
Sony Rx1 5d mark-iii or a Leica price range 3000 t0 3400 is all i have i love my photography but all this pixel peeping and the shame of buying a camera that's half a percent worse than the better scoring one is really taking away the purity and romance of photography im a street / art photographer /beginner/getting good results with my current 7d but can some one please give me advice on a camera for street/art photography i love the 5D mark iii ,but its not really discreet as a street camera ?what do you guys or gaLs advise .mike "trik" foto.
Reply |
|
|
Added by LCN |
July 21 , 2013
Is Leica cutting edge?
At this price level, no discussion, you have to expect the very best on the market. Concerning the M-cameras, DxO proofs this isn't fully the case. You buy with Leica a name, a style, an entry ticket for the golf club but all of that is having no meaning to a real photographer. Mechanics & optics are key competences Leica can manage in the most perfect way, but electronics and the according ergonomics are a different story... but unfortunately, in 2013 this makes the camera a winner or a loser. A lot of parts are purchased from and manufactured by others like CMosis, Jenoptik, Olympus... About the lenses there is a lot more to say in terms of IQ, but also here we see Zeiss, Voigtlander,... and be honest, if you compare these M-lenses with the very best you can get in the DSLR and even premium compact-world, you'd be surprised. They are not stupid in Asia, having lens-factories that produce glass at nano-level precision, also compensated designs with complex multiple aspherical lenses. Everyone has to judge for himself, but I'm no Leica-believer anymore, no longer, this M is only half a step forward where Leica had to take at least 3 steps to be on par with truly the best you can get.
Reply |
|
|
Added by Nick932 |
April 21 , 2013
Validity
I just wonder why all pictures that I have seen taken with a Leica look better than the ones taken from Nikon. However the marks are not very great. It seems that there factors that are not measured. I did return my D800E back. It seems that the Technology is not there yet.
Reply |
|
|
Added by Nerval |
March 15 , 2013
As good as it is...
The point of shooting rangefinder, and any way investing in a Leica M is not cracking burst shots at sport events, I take it...
One thing though, Leica did really make a fuss about this new sensor and all, well at least here in Europe, got some friends who were invited to a couple of events by the store in London (they're customers and Leica tends to take care (cling onto) their customers, well Leica does not sell potatoes...). And, here is the result, you'd think given what they ask for a M, they would fit it with top notch sensor technology (I'm thinking what Canon or Nikon (I mean Sony) manage to achieve). But the SNR curve is not that impressive and most of all the dynamic range, which is wrongfully labeled as landscape here on DxO, drops quite rapidly to below APS-C sensor average past ISO 800. And well DR at base ISO does not tell you the whole story, it's quite the opposite. At base ISO you'll barely even use more than 12 ev, unless you fancy over-everything radioactive HDR finish. BUT DxO measures DR from where the noise levels cripple the shadows to the highest reproducible gradations in highlights. Thing is, as you increase the amplification of the signal, the highlights are always maintained very well, the shadows however... that's a different story. Meaning, despite the score of ISO 1800 in acceptable SNR, the shadows turn to mush quite fast, which means the camera is already under-performing above ISO 800. Canon for instance has never done too well in the low ISO DR department, however what made their cameras perform "low light miracle" is that they manage to keep a reasonably good DR at high ISO, on par or even better than their Sony (I mean Nikon) counterparts. Sony's chip manage a tad cleaner SNR. My point is it's better to have a better headroom than sacrificing tones for the sake of a bit cleaner file... Cause when you have 8 ev of DR in your Raw file, in general it's game over, and well, the M does it two full stops earlier than its competitors, or so it seems cause the graphs do not display the data, DxO has not updated the site as of now. Isn't it a bit disappointing? (guess it still is an improvement over the M9). Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by MikjoA |
March 17 , 2013
Re: As good as it is...
Why dynamic range would be wrongfully called landscape, since having a good dynamic range is mostly important for landscape ?
The curve may be steep, but who would take landscapes at 800 ISO ? Most people shot landscapes at 100 iso or even less if the camera allows it. Anyway, 84 is surely a good score, but I'd expect it to matches Sony's sensor... Reply |
|
|
Added by bobn2 |
March 14 , 2013
The problem
Looks like rather low quantum efficiency.
Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by Nerval |
March 15 , 2013
Re: The problem
Well, the dynamic range has a rather linear curve, so you could say that it follows a more ideal path of analog signal amplification than the 6D for instance... Except that it's not right, because the curve for this Leica is... well... Rather steep.
Reply |