Leica M Typ 240 vs Fujifilm X-T1

Leica M Typ 240
Fujifilm X-T1

Reasons to buy the Leica M Typ 240

Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.68x
High true resolution
True resolution
23.7 MP
Really small
Size
Standard size (139×80×42 mm)
Thin
Thickness
1.7"
 

Reasons to buy the Fujifilm X-T1

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Weight
Light-weight
440 g

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Fujifilm X-T1.

competitors

Leica M Typ 240 Competitors

Leica M (Typ 262)

Leica M (Typ 262)

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$4,628 - $4,995 body only

$6,499 with 50mm lens

GPS Has a GPS
Lowest price Cheaper
Live view No live view
Leica M-P (Typ 240)

Leica M-P (Typ 240)

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$5,769 - $6,495 body only

$6,995 with 50mm lens

GPS Has a GPS
Lowest price Slightly cheaper
Leica M10

Leica M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$6,895 - $7,295 body only

$8,220 with 50mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
GPS Has a GPS
Weather sealed No weather sealing

Fujifilm X-T1 Competitors

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm X-T2

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,238 - $1,399 body only

$1,591 - $1,699 with 18-55mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
True resolution Much higher true resolution
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life
Fujifilm X-T10

Fujifilm X-T10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$599 body only

$793 with 16-50mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Weather sealed No weather sealing
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$444 - $448 body only

$525 - $548 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Viewfinder size Significantly larger viewfinder
Weather sealed No weather sealing

discussion

Leica M Typ 240
M Typ 240
Leica

Report a correction
Fujifilm X-T1
X-T1
Fujifilm

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments