onlooker: I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.
I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.
Too few lenses, it's not actually a rangefinder, and it's APSC.
With an adapter, one can use M lenses on Fuji, Samsung, Sony, etc mirrorless APSC bodies, albeit the Samsung requires the use of a screw driver.
So nothing particularly wrong with the EOS-M, but it's not really the subject.
JBurnett: I've always wondered what has prevented other companies from producing a full-frame M-mount camera, maybe with a built-in EVF where the rangefinder is. Body only. No auto-focus to worry about -- maybe focus-peaking with the EVF. No IBIS to worry about. Price it like the Sony A7 body. Maybe pair with a Voigtlander 35 or 50 to create a (relatively) inexpensive kit.
Would there be a market?
I have less of problem with the raws from the A7R. But the raws from the A7S are a problem. (The raws from A6000 are also a problem.)
I suspect that raw compression has less of an effect at lower ISOs where one would most use the A7R.
I'm all for Epson reviving the APSC R-D1, with say a 14MP sensor. R-D1,s,xs in decent condition are not cheap on Ebay--despite only having a 6 or 8 MP CCD sensor.
The A7r doesn't have a curved lens array, and that helps the M-240.
This will change with a new model: But the A7R is way too audible for use in many places. And as of right now the A7S' raws are compressed too much.
So you'd have to focus thru the EVF?
I suspect that would be a problem.
I'd buy an updated Epson RD-1 with say a 12MP CMOS APSC sensor, particularly appealing since replacing it few years later wouldn't be a $7000 event.
Not that I have my Leica M lenses any more.
You're simply wrong about people buying for the name Leica, people are buying for the optical quality of the Leica M lenses.
Leica-Rumors says that as of Sept 1, '14, the price of the basic M240 is going up $300, so this is just a $700 price increase.
Right, the M mount is in the public domain and Sony has the designs from the Konica Hexar RF film M mount rangefinder + Konica lenses for that system.
And Epson did the R-D1 series with the APSC sensor in a Voightlander rangefinder body. But even that modified Voightlander was $2200 for just the body.
JDThomas: Oh, the Leica haters are out again. Leica cameras are ALWAYS going to be expensive. Why are you surprised? Get over it.
This is the same thing they did with the M9. They put out an M9-P and it cost $1000 more. Even used they are going for about $1000 more than a regular M9. This M-P isn't a shocking release. I was actually wondering what took them so long to release it.
If you want a cheap (but fake) rangefinder go buy a Fuji. If you want a real rangefinder save up and buy a Leica.
Getting to use M mount Leica and Zeiss lenses for a system designed for those lenses is value for the monies spend for many people.
If it's not for you, don't buy one, if you think the M 240 expensive, fine. But don't pretend to know the meaning of the word "value".
Retzius: 2GB of ram currently costs about $25...
Can you install that $20 worth of RAM in any old DSLR body?
peevee1: Weather sealing? Any matching sealed lenses?
Like I said below, and directly above:
The Nikon F and F lenses went to war in Vietnam without huge trouble.
So now the computer M body is sort of sealed against weather.
You see, much less to go wrong with an manual focus lens.
And then: Even more dust and water can get into your Nikon D4s when you change a lens in the rain with a stiff wind blowing.
Like I said below:
Petak: How is a camera without a viewfinder a rangefiner-style camera? I'd say it's closer to a tv-style camera :-)))
You mistake my position regarding DXO sensor scores; they're useless for any camera. Not simply a camera I happen to like. You can dig around in the data there at DXO and discover which numbers are based on theoretical lighting.
In your terms: Many of those DXO "measurements" are fake; that's made up from models. That's scientific theory driving a score not measurement; there's a huge difference. I suggest you look into that difference.
How many times do I have to repeat this point? You clearly haven't looked into the scoring that DXO posts; it's pretty easy to find the "theoretical light source" notation.
I will not share my raws, but I stand by my conclusion.
The fact that A6000 raws are compressed is pretty easy to see. This is similar to the problems with the A7S's raws--and explains one of the reasons that the A7S does NOT really challenge the Df/D4s as a high ISO body.
Fewer MPs is another reason the NX30 has better IQ than the Sony.
EthanP99: Weather sealed body for their non weather sealed lenses? Sweet...
Only sort of. Manual lenses mean much less to go wrong--assuming you're referring to the Fuji XT1.
Fogsprig: No dot - no buy!
Thanks for sharing, I'd still buy an M-240+lenses if I had a spare $24,000.
I've scanned plenty of 35mm film in my day without the aid of infra-red dust removal. So I wouldn't lose sleep over the idea of having to clean up images if there were dust on the M's sensor.
justmeMN: At least in the US, Samsung has a brand problem. Why buy a Samsung, when you can buy a camera from a Real Camera Company?
I come here to read the news. Get raws. Once in a while I'll look at a review. I rarely read them in great detail.
Hope you don' think there are several new reviews per-day posted here at DPR.
I realize you didn't cite DXO today. I don't spend a lot of time with the studio comparison tools either, though sometimes that's a source for raws samples.
yonsarh: wise people choose Panasonic more.
But Panasonic doesn't make FF cameras. Or M mount cameras. And the DR of the M-240's sensor is excellent; it's also a good sensor for reasonably high ISOs thru ISO 6400.
You can think whatever you want, I can't prevent that.
However: DXO sensor testing is a joke, so that's easy to dismiss.
I don't spend a lot time studying the conclusions of reviewers like DPR, or Imaging Resource, or print magazines like Popular Photography. So I really don't know if my conclusions contradict those reviewers. Nor do I care. I look at the raws I have, oft times I've shot the raws, so that means I've at least briefly handled the body in question.
You can choose to think I'm lying but I'm not.
Now I may be wrong, or further testing could prove me wrong or incomplete, but those are really entirely different stories.
I realize you can't handle the fact that I stand by my conclusions and the raws I've shot and extracted, it's kind of a puzzle why you're so insistent I just can't possibly know of what I write. Actually the citation of DXO scores tells me a good deal about what you think testing is.
Rage Joe: I bet we get this now for the fifth of the normal price since they have saved not putting the expensive dot on this.
Um, well actually it says there's a price increase.
So no need to "bet", or take the bad side of a bet.
And the basic M240 is also going up in price a bit, better get one today.
There's a full framed Panasonic range finder that takes M mount lenses?
Must have missed that body.