Leica Leica 262

Mijo

Veteran
Location
San Francisco
Not surprising at all, very much in keeping with M-E (eliminating some features of the current model). I wondering if this is the new M-E though? If so why didn't leica adopt the same paint scheme as the CCD M-E? Or will there be another M-E in addition to the 262?

While I'm not that interested in the 262 itself, I am interested in how this will effect the 2nd hand market for the CCD based M bodies.
 
It will be interesting to see if the High-ISO banding issue is less than what the M240 suffers. Without Liveview/Video the electronics can be simplified, clock speed reduced.

I am surprised that Leica chose the "262" model number. Hard to ... "Swallow"... (anyone? Aircraft trivia) They seem to have a knack for this, the original M Monochrom is a "10760"- after the DCS-760, last monochrome Digital SLR made? I saw Adolph Galland at a seminar talking about the ME-262. An amazing aircraft, but had a 4-hour MTBF on the engines. The American Allison J-33 was more reliable- 80 hours.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ricoh

Regular
In terms of running a business, I don't think it would make sense expending engineering effort changing the processing engine, or altering the clock speed. Just a tweak or two to the firmware, and some button reassignment.
 
Tweeking the clock is trivial, firmware is just typing. Getting rid of the video means they have a new degree of freedom to optimize for still photography. The Df uses the same sensor as the D4, video removed, clock video removed, less noise at high ISO. So they could if they want to, and there is a benefit if they do.

30 years ago I'd use the phrase "It's just software". After almost 40 years of writing code for a living, 35 years of that working with embedded systems, "It's just typing".
 

Ricoh

Regular
Tweeking the clock is trivial, firmware is just typing. Getting rid of the video means they have a new degree of freedom to optimize for still photography. The Df uses the same sensor as the D4, video removed, clock video removed, less noise at high ISO. So they could if they want to, and there is a benefit if they do.

30 years ago I'd use the phrase "It's just software". After almost 40 years of writing code for a living, 35 years of that working with embedded systems, "It's just typing".
Right, sounds like FPGA territory with uncommitted gates and functional blocks to be reconfigured by typists. I was in the mindset of software running on predetermined hardware.
 

VINCETAN

Top Veteran
Right, sounds like FPGA territory with uncommitted gates and functional blocks to be reconfigured by typists. I was in the mindset of software running on predetermined hardware.

Just a few lines of codes, how hard could it be? LOL. That was the on going joke back when I was working for a consumer electronic company. Hardware design is usually quick and on time, software on the other hand, no matter how simple we think it is, like removing some features or tweaking some, it always ends up being the cause of the delay.
 
Anyway- if Leica optimizes this camera in a fashion similar to Nikon optimizing the Df spun off from the D4, they could reduce noise at high ISO. I would like to see better High-ISO performance, something closer to my Df.

What is a disappointment: The Leica M used to be the premier camera from Leica. The sensor and processor used in this camera is the same as the Model 240. The 24MPixel sensor in the Leica Q is superior, shows the advances in CMOS technology. I would have hoped that the Sensor and new processor (which is Little-Endian) used in the Q would get a microlens array suitable for the M-Mount and incorporated into the new model M. This M-262 is a replacement for the M-E, which is basically a 6-year old design. Leica has walked away from CCD's, which have improved over the last 6 years as well. Phase 1 still uses CCD's for their monochrome camera, and a 32MPixel 24x36 version of that CCD is manufactured.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

VINCETAN

Top Veteran
You forgot to mention that it is also a little lighter. I wished that retool a bit and make it a little thinner. But I am sure that is not good for their balance sheet.
 

uhoh7

Regular
It's quite a bit lighter than the 240, 15 grams heavier than the M9, and has a much more quiet shutter than either :)

The lower price is good too.

Not a revolution, but a nice edition :)
 

carlb

All-Pro
Neat concept and executions. But nothing there to pull me away from the M9 and M240. And not an inkling of pull on me from the Leica S.

Here's what I'd buy next: "M+" mount, Q camera's EVF, autofocus for new lenses, back-compatible with M-mount, and the Q's sensor and performance. Keep the body to Q-size.

C'mon, Leica. I triple-dog-dare you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ricoh

Regular
Having recently purchased an M240 it makes me really pleased to understand it's composed of aging components. I thought the life cycle of the iconic Leica far exceeded cameras of Japenese origin, but there we are. I'm not upgrading, I'm more interested in building my lens collection.
 
I've worked with computers for 40 years and digital imaging for 35 years. Advances in terms of speed, memory, resolution, signal to noise ratio, etc- has been mind boggling and continues at rapid paces. I use an 18 year old computer for writing code for embedded systems. I like it, am comfortable with it, do my best work on it. Same with cameras. I like the M9, M Monochrom, and M8. I'm comfortable with them, they produce the look that I like, and I've written my own code to process DNG files from them.

If you like the camera you have, and it produces the look that you want- it's all you need. The Geek side of me would like to see Leica use a Back-Side-Illuminated sensor as it should do better with RF lenses compared with standard CMOS and give back the advantage that CCD sensors had.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom