Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6              8       9       end
  

Archive 2014 · Leica M240 Purchase

  
 
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · Leica M240 Purchase


freitz wrote:
Are the ZM's better then the Crons?


Depends on your needs/wants/preferences. Research the output of the lenses and determine for yourself what you prefer. You will get such a varied response here as each one of us has a different opinion....



Sep 01, 2014 at 11:15 AM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · Leica M240 Purchase


First off, what I wrote below ended up being quite long. It could of course be much longer diving into even greater nuances, but hopefully it gets my point across and the OP takes the time to read it.

freitz wrote:
Are the ZM's better then the Crons?


Back in 2010 when I got the M9 and was unsure I'd like the rangefinder concept, I started with several ZM lenses - 21/2.8, 35/2.8 and 50/2. I'm still with Leica M and have considerably more lenses, too. My day to day kit now is 21/28/50/90, and they're all Leica lenses.

It's not because the ZMs are bad. In fact, they're excellent, especially for the price, and I still have all of them. It's more a factor of lens rendering characteristics, how I feel about that, and the seemingly minor 'extras' you get by spending 2-3x more for the Leica equivalent. As you're probably well aware with Canon gear, you can spend a lot more on L glass for seemingly incremental performance improvement. It's the same with rangefinder lens choices, though IMO, the variation from worst to best is much tighter, with there being very few rangefinder lenses that are outright bad. The low end might apply to the technical performance of some of the lower cost Voigtlander lenses, but you have to put those into perspective too. You cannot expect a $600 CV35/1.4, which was intentionally designed to mimic 'classic' 1960s optics, to be the technical equivalent of a 35 Lux FLE (though the CV35/1.2 is probably very close). If you spend around $1000 or more, you're going to get quality glass with the difference being in how each lens is optimized for specific parameters.

First of all, the differences in rendering.... Not having shot with the ZE/ZF or vintage C/Y Zeiss glass, I'm not sure how the ZM line compares to those, but typically, Zeiss glass is admired for its boldness and clarity and is great if you like a punchier rendering. It also seems to be pretty uniform in overall rendering throughout the aperture range (though IMO the 35/2 is an exception due to some spherical aberration 'glow' wide open, that pretty much disappears after one stop down). Combined with the narrower dynamic range of the M9 and my feeling was the ZM glass definitely allowed a filmic E6 process look. For certain kinds of subject matter, such as urban scenes, I really liked it. Combined with liberal doses of clarity and contrast in Lightroom and it was really addictive, if perhaps overdone, because for me at the time, I had never experienced that combination of qualities from my Canon images.

Leica's lens rendering, in general, seems not as bold and high contrast as the ZM glass, though is very rich in color quality. Many lenses, especially the faster ones, seem to be dual personality. They have a certain quality when shot wide open and a different quality when stopped down. Usually this is referred to as “Leica glow” as a euphemism for uncorrected spherical aberration. While I have experience with the 28 & 90 APO Summicron lenses, I'm not familiar with the other Crons. But what I see in the modern Summilux lenses I own, and also with the 90 APO, wide open, is a tendency for subtle spherical aberration that takes the edge off very fine details, which slightly mellows the overall rendering, resulting in a pleasing combination of sharpness and lush richness. Stop the lenses down and that SA disappears, resulting in very high detail sharpness. IMO, Leica's subtly refined lens rendering philosophy is not as easy to extract from spec sheet stat comparisons. The tradeoff for this, with some lenses, seems to be fairly complex field curvature, especially in the middle aperture range where depth of field isn't sufficient to mask it. To determine which lenses behave like this, you really need to interpret MTF values, but yesterday's blog post by Roger at Lensrentals does a great job at illustrating the field curvature characteristics of some Leica lenses. Take a look especially at the 35mm lens graphs (unfortunately the 35 Lux is not included): http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/08/some-m-mount-field-curvatures

What are the 'extras' you get for spending 2-3x more on Leica glass? It seems trivial at first. Things like 6-bit coding and focusing tabs. But after a while, sometimes it's the little things that make a big difference. While you can send away your ZM lenses to have the lens flange engraved for 6-bit coding, the most common solution is to use a coding mask and a Sharpie marker, which works, but not perfectly. For example with the ZM21/2.8, I found that if direct sunlight was shining on a certain area of the lens mount, it would be enough to cause the camera's 6-bit reader to not recognize the Sharpie-marker code on the lens, resulting in sequences of images with some coded, some not. And this lens needed to be coded to correct for color shift. I'd end up with images I wanted to keep that were both coded and uncoded, which resulted in more work in post to equalize. Some lenses, more so 35mm and longer, don't really need to be coded, though then you won't get a focal length value in image EXIF. You can set the code value manually in the camera, but if you shoot with more than one lens, you'll inevitably forget to change the code and end up as I did, shooting a 90mm lens set to 21mm, which resulted in overcorrection for vignetting and color shift, and was a hassle to fix in post.

As I got more familiar with the rangefinder system, and started using the 28 Cron a lot more, use of the lens tab on the focusing ring to anticipate and preset focus distance became more intuitive. It's something I definitely relied on with the wedding reception images I posted earlier, to get me in the ballpark, and sometimes amazingly close to bang on, before I even lifted the camera to my eye. Some ZM lenses feature a nub on the focusing ring, which isn't quite the same, though I suppose with time and practice, could be comparable.

You're also paying for Leica's philosophy of smallest possible lens with greatest possible optical performance. In the traditional rangefinder sense, you want a small lens to minimize obstruction of the viewfinder image. But it's easier to make high performance lenses if they can be larger, which tends to be Zeiss’s approach. A stark example is the Zeiss Otus vs. the 50 Lux ASPH or 50 Cron APO. For a purely rangefinder lens example, consider the Voigtlander 35/1.2 and the 35 Lux ASPH. Highly corrected small lenses, with fewer lens elements require use of expensive glass types and techniques, such as aspherical surfaces and floating element groups. Apparently some of these rare glass types have very infrequent production and involve lengthy processing.

Most using this system and commenting here do so for personal work. Therefore, end results, including camera, sensor and lens rendering characteristics, become very subjective aspects of why they use what they use. It’s not about appealing to those ‘consuming’ the images. Most laypeople looking at this kind of thing would not appreciate the subtleties you will in your own work, therefore, you'll need to distill what you learn here and elsewhere down to the factors you think will best suit your needs and wants. My feeling is you could be at the beginning of a new round of equipment purchases as you sort through this yourself.

It's also really easy, because perhaps the combined price of a camera and lens will top $10K, to dwell on technical expectations. There seems to be a near epic expectation that for the price, it must be perfect. That the lens must be beyond technical reproach. That it's the pinnacle of 35mm photography... Forget that. IMO, rangefinder photography is about managing a set of parameters to keep them within a range of 'good enough' to obtain the results you need. If you're shooting at f/5.6 or f/8, you don't need to spend endless time getting perfect rangefinder patch coincidence, because depth of field will cover it. If the scene is distant, you just set the lens to infinity, which is easy to do without even looking, because these lenses have hard, real, infinity stops. It's a matter of knowing when to take the time to be precise, which primarily will be when shooting wide open. The system seems to be at its best, at least for me, when I work intuitively, and trust it to work. If you think about the technical complexity of matching a rangefinder system with the tight lens alignment and calibration required to place the shallow zone of correct focus at the right point on the sensor's surface, it can seem a wonder that the system works at all. But it does so, amazingly well (most of the time ).

Lastly, since it looks like you're going to do this, I would highly recommend you give yourself ample time to use the system, to learn it as well as you can, before concluding whether or not it's going to work for you. You're going to be told that a rangefinder system is very limited compared to DSLRs and that it can't do everything. Obviously, there's something about the do-it-all DSLR system you want to unload that doesn't meet your expectations, therefore you may be better served by a more specialized system. While no system can do everything well, there seems to be an impression that rangefinder systems are slow. They're not. It's the operators who are slow. There is nothing slow about pressing the shutter release and making an exposure. There is no delay because AF decides to hunt for focus. All of those layers of automation between you and the shutter, designed to protect you from screwing up, that create variables in time delay in other systems, are gone. Instead, the onus is on the operator to be ready for the shot. That could mean pre-focusing, using hyperfocal distance, lens tab position to anticipate and be ready, if such spontaneity is required. This can be both very refreshing and very frustrating as you initially stumble without the backups customary in other systems keeping your head above water.

You’re not going to make an epic mistake choosing a ZM lens over a Leica, or a Summicron over a Summilux.

Bottom line, IMO, is to approach it with an open mind, learn the system and its quirks, and just try to have fun with it.



Sep 01, 2014 at 11:48 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · Leica M240 Purchase


Said very eloquently and convincingly, Ron!


Sep 01, 2014 at 12:06 PM
joakim
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · Leica M240 Purchase


edwardkaraa wrote:
Said very eloquently and convincingly, Ron!


+1



Sep 01, 2014 at 12:17 PM
telyt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · Leica M240 Purchase


Jman13 wrote:
These stories are frankly unbelievable given the cost of this gear. There is no excuse for that. I keep hearing about the precision and craftsmanship and amazing quality of Leica gear, and to hear that these fully manual lenses need service regularly and take months to get adjusted? What exactly are you paying for again?


In my case it's one particular copy of one particular lens model. Every other R lens I've used has just plain worked for years and years and years, no problems. It just so happens this one lens is the one I use for 90% of my money photos so the periodic repairs and the long repair turnaround are aggravating. As I wrote earlier, I put up with it because of the spectacular image quality this lens produces when I do my part. Nothing else has been anywhere near as suitable.

The R8 with all the frequent flier miles had worked without any problems for 16 years before the aperture control mechanism became erratic. It worked fine in New Jersey but not in California. I put up with this repair turnaround time because the R8 works with the 280mm f/4 APO and its viewfinder is far more suited to manual focus lenses like the 280 than any of the contemporary CaNikon models, and because it can use the DMR. I expect that CaNikon digital cameras will either be retired or recycled before they are used for 16 years.

I frankly don't know why people put up with the CaNikon colors, lenses and viewfinders.



Sep 01, 2014 at 01:01 PM
zlatko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · Leica M240 Purchase


telyt wrote:
I frankly don't know why people put up with the CaNikon colors, lenses and viewfinders.


Canon colors, lenses and viewfinders are excellent on their better models. I don't know what there is to put up with other than size & weight. When repairs are needed, they are done within a few days.



Sep 01, 2014 at 01:09 PM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · Leica M240 Purchase


Gary Clennan wrote:
Depends on your needs/wants/preferences. Research the output of the lenses and determine for yourself what you prefer. You will get such a varied response here as each one of us has a different opinion....



Gary REALLY likes his 35 Summicron-ASPH. And I was happier with my 35/2 ZM.

No wrong answer here, but I'll tell you one thing in honesty. I could have stuck with the 35Summicron and been perfectly happy.. I sold both it and the ZM, ended up with a 35FLE and haven't looked back.



Sep 01, 2014 at 01:48 PM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · Leica M240 Purchase


rscheffler wrote:
First off, what I wrote below ended up being quite long. It could of course be much longer diving into even greater nuances, but hopefully it gets my point across and the OP takes the time to read it.

..."Most laypeople looking at this kind of thing would not appreciate the subtleties you will in your own work, therefore, you'll need to distill what you learn here and elsewhere down to the factors you think will best suit your needs and wants."...

..."You’re not going to make an epic mistake choosing a ZM lens over a Leica, or a Summicron over
...Show more

Well said. I like these three points the best in connection with the original question. But a very good read overall!!



Sep 01, 2014 at 01:59 PM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · Leica M240 Purchase


zlatko wrote:
Canon colors, lenses and viewfinders are excellent on their better models. I don't know what there is to put up with other than size & weight. When repairs are needed, they are done within a few days.



I'm very confused these days. Maybe in two years from now, living in a different place (hopefully), I'll have a better idea of it all. My gut feeling, the M system makes me the happiest, even with all the quirks. I wish repair times were faster, I wish the gear was cheaper. I wish a lot of things.. I still like my M the best.

I have all the high end Canon gear FYI. L lenses, Sigma ART lenses, Otis, 1Dx, 5D3... All of it. I'm not a fan of Canon colours one bit.. But they're better then Sony and Nikon (w/sony sensor tech). So that's the pro setup I have right now. Though the best lenses for Canon are ZE lenses, and they're harder to MF then RF lenses.. So really not much of an advantage to Canon other then repair times. Which BTW suck here, about 1-2 weeks. Which admittedly is better then Leica at 2 months.

Thinking of selling off my Canon gear, I dislike shooting with DSLRs so much now. But there are times when it's just easier to use a DSLR then to use the RF.. Times when you're not worried about having fun, but just worried about getting the work done. Not that the Leica couldn't do the work, but just that it's not worth turning your brain on. Lifestyle/fashion/corporate portraits.. Really no point to break out my Leica. Easier just to automate and call it a day. But when you do use the Leica, and are sitting around admiring the end result. It's the Leica rendering that'll put a smile on your face. That and, who really wants to lug around so much Canon gear 24/7?



Sep 01, 2014 at 02:23 PM
Jon Tainton
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · Leica M240 Purchase


telyt wrote:

I frankly don't know why people put up with the CaNikon colors, lenses and viewfinders.


adamdewilde wrote:
I have all the high end Canon gear FYI. L lenses, Sigma ART lenses, Otis, 1Dx, 5D3... All of it. I'm not a fan of Canon colours one bit.. But they're better then Sony and Nikon (w/sony sensor tech).


Ah, Note to Fred - specific request for 'tact and awareness pills' and 'empathy supplements' adverts for telyt and Adam's FM sessions



Sep 01, 2014 at 03:14 PM
telyt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · Leica M240 Purchase


zlatko wrote:
Canon colors, lenses and viewfinders are excellent on their better models. I don't know what there is to put up with other than size & weight. When repairs are needed, they are done within a few days.


Sure, compared with the lesser models. My experience with L lenses and 1-series viewfinders was not happy.



Sep 01, 2014 at 03:25 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · Leica M240 Purchase


Jon Tainton wrote:
Ah, Note to Fred - specific request for 'tact and awareness pills' and 'empathy supplements' adverts for telyt and Adam's FM sessions


Hm.. they put up with CaNikon colors, lenses and OVFs simply cause they think there isnt anything better. Most fanboys see it that way.

And most on alt forum dont see it that way. Obviously. We know whats best for us, which is why some members here use rather awkward ultra-expensive, but very rewarding tools for making photos.


But, Canon 1D/s MK3 colors are fine IMHO and for example 5Dc made rather nice colors too. Days of past tho. Nikon only woke up with D4s and D810 now (glad they did, colors from these two dont make me cry ). Not sure about Sony tho.. I think their colors are actually one of best? Or at least A900/A99 are. Sure its not Kodak, but well.. what its. Last year snow, we cant get this back.. unfortunately.



Sep 01, 2014 at 03:32 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · Leica M240 Purchase


telyt wrote:
Sure, compared with the lesser models. My experience with L lenses and 1-series viewfinders was not happy.


You have one of best "Kodak" colors paired with Leica lens and tech. Nothing can beat that. There simply isnt anything new thats even close to it. And wont be.



Sep 01, 2014 at 03:36 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · Leica M240 Purchase


Jman13 wrote:
These stories are frankly unbelievable given the cost of this gear. There is no excuse for that. I keep hearing about the precision and craftsmanship and amazing quality of Leica gear, and to hear that these fully manual lenses need service regularly and take months to get adjusted? What exactly are you paying for again?


It's a furfy to equate the cost of gear with repair times or service requirements. Leica are expensive for three reasons. They're hand assembled. They have more mechanical moving parts, And finally because Leica can.

The first two lead to increased cost but they also lead to increased service and service times. Most other cameras have electronics do all the work. If something fails replace the part and move on. Leica need to be tweaked and adjusted. It's part of the price of ownership.

I have a mechanical watch and a couple of digital ones. I paid more for the mechanical one but it needs to go away every couple of years for calibration and frankly it's not as accurate as the clock in my phone. I like my mechanical watch. I enjoy wearing it and I enjoy winding it although it would be easier to just change a battery every two years. I prefer my Leica's over my Sony's and Olympus' in exactly the same way.

All hand assembled goods require some services and regular maintenance. All modern devices with mechanical parts seem to cost more than their purely electronic counterparts. They're actually more likely to need adjustment. Not less. People should understand this going in. Most Leica owners do.

That's not to say I think Leica's service is all roses. I have large issues with the local repair agent in Oz. They suck. Big time. They need a hot poker in the right place to get them to give a shit. But that's piss poor service not the product.

Repair times for Leica are long and calibration is a necessary evil. But considering the positives I get from using the system, it's worth it.

Gordon



Sep 01, 2014 at 03:44 PM
freitz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · Leica M240 Purchase


Wow Thank you everyone for the great comments.

I am going to pull the trigger on the M240 (I don't think I need the M240 P I don't shoot sports and the gorilla glass should be fine with some time of protector over it no?)

Also I am stuck between the 50 Summilux ASPH or the 35 Summilux ASPH FLE.

Anyone care to shed light on these two? Also the 35 is about 1,000$ more then the 50.



Sep 01, 2014 at 04:26 PM
zlatko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Leica M240 Purchase


Mescalamba wrote:
Hm.. they put up with CaNikon colors, lenses and OVFs simply cause they think there isnt anything better. Most fanboys see it that way.

And most on alt forum dont see it that way. Obviously. We know whats best for us, which is why some members here use rather awkward ultra-expensive, but very rewarding tools for making photos.

But, Canon 1D/s MK3 colors are fine IMHO and for example 5Dc made rather nice colors too. Days of past tho. Nikon only woke up with D4s and D810 now (glad they did, colors from these two dont make me cry ). Not
...Show more

I've used Canon digital for 12+ years and the color from the current models is better than ever, certainly better than 5Dc. At the same time, the software has gotten better. So I don't see what was better in the past.

I used the M9 for two years and, although the color was interesting, it was often less accurate. Occasionally skin tones were quite unnatural, way into magenta. I haven't used the M240.

Someone has people convinced that the M9's color was modeled after Kodachrome. That doesn't make sense when you consider the look of Kodachrome, a 1930's film whose popularity probably peaked in the 1960's and was in decline since the 1980's. Kodachrome was more likely to produce yellow skin tones (google Steve McCurry's last roll of Kodachrome for examples), while the M9 was more likely to produce magenta skin tones -- not similar to Kodachrome even if it has a Kodak sensor. Kodak had films far newer than Kodachrome, so I'm not sure why they'd go back to their earliest color slide film as a model for a digital sensor.



Sep 01, 2014 at 05:02 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · Leica M240 Purchase


Talking about color with digital cameras is an often nebulous and difficult discussion to have, because it is diluted with raw converter profile differences, jpeg differences, accurate colors vs. pleasing colors, WB, etc.

If we're talking about the quality of color filters, Canon started sacrificing color for high ISO around the time of the 5Dii, and Nikon started to do so after the D2x. Here is a great reminder link from theSuede about color: link



Sep 01, 2014 at 05:31 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #18 · p.5 #18 · Leica M240 Purchase


I don't understand the comments about great colour from Canon, their colour is easily documented to be the least accurate of all the major manufacturers at this point. Their skin tones are pleasing to some (I find them much too pink), the noise levels are low at high ISO (although so is sharpness), and that is where the advantages for Canon's current sensor technology ends.

If you are saying that you personally prefer Canon's colours, in an opinion kind of way, well, that is your choice.

The main problem with the M9 colours is that this camera is still much too sensitive to IR light. With proper filters, or in broad daylight, this shouldn't be a problem.



Sep 01, 2014 at 05:38 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #19 · p.5 #19 · Leica M240 Purchase


My biggest problem with my M9's color was skin tones under artificial light. The magenta splotchiness could be a real issue in that setting.


Sep 01, 2014 at 05:47 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #20 · p.5 #20 · Leica M240 Purchase


carstenw wrote:
I don't understand the comments about great colour from Canon, their colour is easily documented to be the least accurate of all the major manufacturers at this point. Their skin tones are pleasing to some (I find them much too pink), the noise levels are low at high ISO (although so is sharpness), and that is where the advantages for Canon's current sensor technology ends.

If you are saying that you personally prefer Canon's colours, in an opinion kind of way, well, that is your choice.

The main problem with the M9 colours is that this camera is still much too sensitive
...Show more

1D/s MK3 have different CFA than any other Canon. Its Sony like quality, with proper ICC, it can easily look and be accurate as such. But only these were like this..



Sep 01, 2014 at 07:26 PM
1       2       3       4      
5
       6              8       9       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6              8       9       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.