Gary Clennan wrote:
You cheeky bugger Ron! I actually stopped wearing it around my neck when working on my patients. It kept bumping my hand when I was doing some important drilling (not good). Being a rich dentist, I really shouldn't bother with trying to impress people with my Leica but I just can't stop...
I could say "for f sake stop" but that would be rude.
With that Leica (I'm assuming a special edition) around your neck does it ever confuse you into asking a patient to "open up your aperture wide" when trying to get oral access?
Jack Thompson wrote:
I was just chuckling to myself that the best thing about the M10 (to me) is that it might make finding a decently priced used M240 even easier. Now, it seems like a no brainer to me that the M system is a fantastic street camera where the rangefinder benefits are manifold. I absolutely get the perspective that in decent light, zone focusing with smallish apertures can yield great results and a shooting experience folks feel is overall superior to any other type of camera. We've all seen some of the greatest street photography ever come out of this arrangement.
Many of the types of photography the M was not designed to do are totally obvious, but one thing is still a bit unclear to me.
Fast glass for shallow depth of field images with the subject off the center focus window: I've gotten very used to being able to shoot portraits, and various scenes with fast lenses in all kinds of light through an EVF, moving the focus point away from the center. For shallow depth of field/low light images, I don't have to recompose and risk blowing the zone of focus, I just make my composition what I want it to be, and move my focus box to where I want it. Portraits I've been taking this way with fast Leica and Zeiss glass have been so lovely, and a breeze. Shots with missed focus? Hardly any.
Now with the rangefinder focus window only in the center, am I correct in assuming that shooting at 1.4 at closer distances, getting accurate focus off center is a bit more of a dicey proposition? And if this is the case, it would seem to me that for closer subjects, fast M glass (perhaps excluding wides like the 24 summi) is for experts only who have some seriously awesome technique to shoot off center. Is that accurate?
I'm not at all the kind of person that thinks a Leica M should be able to behave like a DSLR or a mirrorless camera simply because it costs a lot of money, but I want to weed through the fan boyism where people front and stick up for the shortcomings of rangefinder focusing as if they are personally responsible for the design. I'd rather be real about it so I can make an informed decision.
In looking around for some good feedback on this issue in the wilds of the interwebs, I've seen a decent amount of terrible information that has centered around people using their tools outside of their design parameters, followed by an avalanche of complaints about bad results. Or unabashed gushing/hyper criticism on websites that could be called "showcasing mediocre photography through the world's finest optics.com."
I'm not going to say it's easy but a Leica M is basically a very manual camera forcing you to work in a very similar maner all the time when you use it, there's no AF or an EVF (at least not a good one ) to fall back on when you feel like it so if you are dedicated to using the camera and appreciates the range finder then you quickly will become better and better at using it since there are no shortcuts. You'll learn how to move the camera when you recompose or tricks like focus bracketing by slightly tilting your upper body back and forth but it will not happen on day one so some consistency, endurance and patience will be needed
In many ways a good EVF will be better if you're using a fast short tele wide open but for a 50mm it will in my experience be doable without an EVF at 1.4.
Jack Thompson wrote:
I was just chuckling to myself that the best thing about the M10 (to me) is that it might make finding a decently priced used M240 even easier. Now, it seems like a no brainer to me that the M system is a fantastic street camera where the rangefinder benefits are manifold. I absolutely get the perspective that in decent light, zone focusing with smallish apertures can yield great results and a shooting experience folks feel is overall superior to any other type of camera. We've all seen some of the greatest street photography ever come out of this arrangement.
Many of the types of photography the M was not designed to do are totally obvious, but one thing is still a bit unclear to me.
Fast glass for shallow depth of field images with the subject off the center focus window: I've gotten very used to being able to shoot portraits, and various scenes with fast lenses in all kinds of light through an EVF, moving the focus point away from the center. For shallow depth of field/low light images, I don't have to recompose and risk blowing the zone of focus, I just make my composition what I want it to be, and move my focus box to where I want it. Portraits I've been taking this way with fast Leica and Zeiss glass have been so lovely, and a breeze. Shots with missed focus? Hardly any.
Now with the rangefinder focus window only in the center, am I correct in assuming that shooting at 1.4 at closer distances, getting accurate focus off center is a bit more of a dicey proposition? And if this is the case, it would seem to me that for closer subjects, fast M glass (perhaps excluding wides like the 24 summi) is for experts only who have some seriously awesome technique to shoot off center. Is that accurate?
I'm not at all the kind of person that thinks a Leica M should be able to behave like a DSLR or a mirrorless camera simply because it costs a lot of money, but I want to weed through the fan boyism where people front and stick up for the shortcomings of rangefinder focusing as if they are personally responsible for the design. I'd rather be real about it so I can make an informed decision.
In looking around for some good feedback on this issue in the wilds of the interwebs, I've seen a decent amount of terrible information that has centered around people using their tools outside of their design parameters, followed by an avalanche of complaints about bad results. Or unabashed gushing/hyper criticism on websites that could be called "showcasing mediocre photography through the world's finest optics.com."
Most cases, focus and recompose is ok, the focus error is negligible and well within DOF window. Only once you are getting very close, say 1m with 50mm at f1.4 or 0.95, you need compensate that error in your mind before shooting, sometimes focus closer and sometime focus further. It is not that difficult. Rangfinder focusing is all about distance judge anyway (by judge how far away you close or past the focusing patch)
Once you get use to it, it is actually the fastest way shooting even compare modern AF at certain condition. each system have their plus and minus.
the mid zone dip could be real problem because of field curvature of certain Leica fast glass. but I personally not finding that is big problem for me, It still be sharp just not as good as it can be in center. Also, most cases require fast action and wide aperture, absolutely AF accuracy is not a must IMO.
I find a lens with good useful DoF scales to be an invaluable tool for the street and really fast shooting situations. No auto focus in the world is faster than being pre focused. Also I have no problems shooting wide open with my 35 Lux and rangefinder focus. I buy Leica Ms and prefer the cameras without all the stuff. M-E, MM and M 262.
Heres a peice that kinda describes why I shoot Leica M. I am a fan boy only in regards to the fact Leica M is a camera that matches the way I see and work perfectly. When I am working it just gets out of the way and lets me create. A link to the piece on the Leica blog site that explains why I shoot with Leica M. http://blog.leica-camera.com/2016/12/15/spontaneous-relationships/
Leica Ms are not for everyone. They do take a little time to get to know but many find them to be amazing tools. I know I find them to be that.
Steve Spencer wrote:
If you get the M10 and the external EVF 020 you put in the hotshot, then you could still shoot portraits with fast glass exactly as you are now, and that is one big advantage of the M10 over the 240. The M10 can move the center focus point when using the EVF (and you get spot metering there too), and the EVF is miles better. The 240 in addition to having a crappy EVF, you can't move the focus magnification off the center, so it is not really useful for the type of shooting you are describing.
Thanks all. Sigh...yeah, the M10 really seems like the complete, less compromised system and when comparing M240 and the M10 in that wholistic way, the M8 to M240 looks like Leica stumbling into the modern day rather than confidently striding into it. I think now as I almost came close to buying a used 240 that no amount rangefinder purist insight can dissuade me that this would be a step backwards for me. I think I'd hold the 240 up and be haunted by my logical mind saying, "This represents Leica fumbling around for its identity." I'm not a purist, and I like too many varied photography styles to not embrace a camera like M10 while being bewildered by the shortcomings of the 240.
"Stop being so logical!" some might say. I know, I know. Lets get back to the debate about which M is the thickest.
Jack Thompson wrote:
Thanks all. Sigh...yeah, the M10 really seems like the complete, less compromised system and when comparing M240 and the M10 in that wholistic way, the M8 to M240 looks like Leica stumbling into the modern day rather than confidently striding into it. I think now as I almost came close to buying a used 240 that no amount rangefinder purist insight can dissuade me that this would be a step backwards for me. I think I'd hold the 240 up and be haunted by my logical mind saying, "This represents Leica fumbling around for its identity." I'm not a purist, and I like too many varied photography styles to not embrace a camera like M10 while being bewildered by the shortcomings of the 240.
"Stop being so logical!" some might say. I know, I know. Lets get back to the debate about which M is the thickest. ...Show more →
I think that's a bit unfair to the M240... you're looking at it with 2016/2017 eyes and have to consider it was announced in 2012 and obviously in development before then... It shipped before all the Sony a7 cameras existed. Yes, in some ways its live view, EVF and video aspects are stop-gap features. But at its heart as an RF camera, it's not compromised (ignoring the debate about size).
If you consider the digital/electronics progress Leica made between the M8 and M240, it is quite impressive for a company that late out of the digital gate (despite a couple small scale earlier digital releases: DMR, S1).
While IMO the M9 wasn't a huge functional leap from the M8, the M240 was a huge step forward. Much, much more refined (like making a decade's worth of progress in one product cycle). And this is what we're seeing again with the M10, if not by quite as large a leap. Unfortunately the M release cycle is 3-4 years. If you prefer to capitalize on freshly superseded past generation cameras at attractive prices, it means settling for ~4 year old technology. Or buy the M10 from the EU and save about $800. Or wait a year for the inevitable demo (Leica refurbs) to trickle out.
As for RF focusing fast lenses... As Michael pointed out, it's more challenging nearing MFD. He also touched on the tendency for many fast Leica lenses to have wavy field curvature that deviates the most in the mid zone area. I've found with my Luxes I have to intentionally front focus by a certain amount to hit the right off center focus distance. The amount depends on the lens and distance to the subject. Also, over time the RF calibration will inevitably start to drift and some lenses might also drift. You can either pull your hair out trying to get Leica to calibrate everything perfectly for you, or you can just keep a mental note of which lens is slightly off and make the necessary RF mis-focus adjustment on the fly. I've found this is very consistently repeatable so long as you use the gear rather frequently to maintain familiarity with the various little quirks. In some ways, it makes matters worse for me when everything is 'fixed' and I have to break the habit of intentionally mis-focusing a given lens by a certain amount.
rscheffler wrote:
I think that's a bit unfair to the M240... you're looking at it with 2016/2017 eyes and have to consider it was announced in 2012 and obviously in development before then... It shipped before all the Sony a7 cameras existed. Yes, in some ways its live view, EVF and video aspects are stop-gap features. But at its heart as an RF camera, it's not compromised (ignoring the debate about size).
If you consider the digital/electronics progress Leica made between the M8 and M240, it is quite impressive for a company that late out of the digital gate (despite a couple small scale earlier digital releases: DMR, S1).
While IMO the M9 wasn't a huge functional leap from the M8, the M240 was a huge step forward. Much, much more refined (like making a decade's worth of progress in one product cycle). And this is what we're seeing again with the M10, if not by quite as large a leap. Unfortunately the M release cycle is 3-4 years. If you prefer to capitalize on freshly superseded past generation cameras at attractive prices, it means settling for ~4 year old technology. Or buy the M10 from the EU and save about $800. Or wait a year for the inevitable demo (Leica refurbs) to trickle out.
As for RF focusing fast lenses... As Michael pointed out, it's more challenging nearing MFD. He also touched on the tendency for many fast Leica lenses to have wavy field curvature that deviates the most in the mid zone area. I've found with my Luxes I have to intentionally front focus by a certain amount to hit the right off center focus distance. The amount depends on the lens and distance to the subject. Also, over time the RF calibration will inevitably start to drift and some lenses might also drift. You can either pull your hair out trying to get Leica to calibrate everything perfectly for you, or you can just keep a mental note of which lens is slightly off and make the necessary RF mis-focus adjustment on the fly. I've found this is very consistently repeatable so long as you use the gear rather frequently to maintain familiarity with the various little quirks. In some ways, it makes matters worse for me when everything is 'fixed' and I have to break the habit of intentionally mis-focusing a given lens by a certain amount....Show more →
Thanks rscheffler, and thank you very much for the insight regarding RF calibration and focusing nuances, it is great to get some real world perspective of these things.
When I roll your characterizations of the evolution of the digital Ms and the refinement of the 240 and try them out, I realize I just don't have the disposable cash to pat them on the back in good humor for their efforts in light of their incredibly slow evolution. Thank goodness others did so they could finally get to where they are today. The M8? Bring your filters...and the M9? Bring something to read for the 7 month waiting line you're in to get your sensor replaced. And the 240? Come on, I'm not looking at that with 2017 eyes, I was moving the focus magnifier window around on my 5DII in 2009. Leica themselves put their opposable thumbs up for everyone to see with the 240 in a show of support of evolution, in support of the notion that rangefinder doesn't have to be synonymous with luddite, confidently labeling the 240 simply "M". To me thats fantastic (especially because I didn't buy one), making the 240 with crap video and crap live view was like saying, we understand the present and we'll catch up eventually. But it was a turtle ride that was way too expensive and impractical for the likes of me.
No wonder so many people jumped on the Sony and Fuji train. The tickets are affordable and no one pees on your leg and tells you its raining.
You guys rule, thank you for engaging, I appreciate it, can't wait to see shots with all of your kick ass M10s soon. Seems like the Leica M has finally arrived.
Different perspectives. Different user expectations.
I realize you're coming at this from a mirrorless/DSLR perspective... but you have to remember the M system is first a rangefinder camera, even the 'bloated' M240. Live view, video, etc.. it's all add-on 'gravy' to expand usability. Sure, Leica's marketing will make it sound like the greatest thing ever and totally ignore all the other, more advanced options out there.
For the money, maybe you'll be happier with something like a Fuji mini-MF?
Really got me interested since my CL's 40/2 would make a great little lens to accentuate the svelteness of the new body. Just need a small 24ish and a portrait lens and that would make a nice travel set. Monochrom though, yep monochrom.
That's one of the more amusing critiques of Leica I've ever read: "...and tells you its raining." Thanks for that, especially because I can't disagree, despite the fact that I aspire to the M240, and the M10 that much the more so.
About the M10, then, I think the only thing to do is quote Ferris Bueller/John Hughes: "if you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up."
...and if you don't, no worries. The M8 is still a compelling option, and film is a realistic choice for those of us with access to development. I'll say that my largest regret, as far as photographic gear goes, is waiting so long to try a rangefinder. This approach just does what it needs to do and gets out of the way for everything else. I'd rather shoot an M8 than an SLR, and that's well preferred over an EVF, although the SL seems to promise that EVFs might get there someday ... might ... maybe ... sigh. I like cheap, but I like the process of photography more. And, for me, M is king.
As mentioned by Ron and Allen, the M is essentially a rangefinder camera. If rangefinders are not your thing, using one will be an exercise in frustration. Like Allen I prefer my M as simple as possible, hence my decision to finally opt for the M262, having used the M240 for two years and a short failed relationship with the SL
As for focus and recompose I really never had a problem with that. I understand some Leica glass has a wavy curvature, but this can be an advantage in some situations. Since I use Zeiss glass, which is more well behaved regarding curvature, it may explain why I don't consider this as a problem. What I like also about the ZM is the proper focusing ring since many Leica lenses seem to be primarily designed to be focused by the tab.
rscheffler wrote:
While IMO the M9 wasn't a huge functional leap from the M8, the M240 was a huge step forward.
Good lord, Ron. The M8, a great camera with IR issues but incredible clarity, was a crop sensor, better than APS-C, but well under full frame. The M9 was the biggest jump up fundamentally from the starting Model. Images look great to this day, actually preferred by no small number of Leica shooters.
Of course that last is highly debatable, there is less debate the M9 does better justice to the 28 cron and 50 Lux asph, to this day. Still arguable I grant you.
I take your points on the 240 as adding many features, not least the battery (now gone) and the better RF. LV the EVF etc.
I agree the M8 and M9 are really near identical outside the sensor. That change was enormous.
As for the OVF, why can't Leica implement a two-magnification RF so that I can shoot a 24/21mm lens without an external finder? Fuji manages to do it with a live view overlay *and* a pop-up display of the focus area.
Yes, this is one of the many Leica mysteries. Why no rangefinder with a two-stage magnification? Can it really be that hard? Leica is most useful with its wides, since they can be better than other brands and considerably smaller, so why not solve the considerable ergonomic deficit when using 24mm and wider?
Also, you can shoot a 24mm and 21mm lens on the M without an external finder. 24mm is slightly bigger than the 28mm framelines and 21mm is basically the entire viewfinder with your eye pressed right up against it.
This is less than optimal without glasses, and does not work at all when you wear glasses. So there is plenty of room for improvement.
wolfloid wrote:
Yes, this is one of the many Leica mysteries. Why no rangefinder with a two-stage magnification? Can it really be that hard? Leica is most useful with its wides, since they can be better than other brands and considerably smaller, so why not solve the considerable ergonomic deficit when using 24mm and wider?
It used to be possible to order a la carte several magnification levels for film cameras. There must be a technical limitation for digital. Voigtlaender also used to offer three magnifications.
Jan 24, 2017 at 06:21 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
wolfloid wrote:
Yes, this is one of the many Leica mysteries. Why no rangefinder with a two-stage magnification? Can it really be that hard? Leica is most useful with its wides, since they can be better than other brands and considerably smaller, so why not solve the considerable ergonomic deficit when using 24mm and wider?
The M10 solves this with a quite good EVF. Let's see how that solution works. I expect it will work pretty well for wides and will be very nice for longer lenses.
As for the OVF, why can't Leica implement a two-magnification RF so that I can shoot a 24/21mm lens without an external finder? Fuji manages to do it with a live view overlay *and* a pop-up display of the focus area.
wolfloid wrote:
Yes, this is one of the many Leica mysteries. Why no rangefinder with a two-stage magnification? Can it really be that hard? Leica is most useful with its wides, since they can be better than other brands and considerably smaller, so why not solve the considerable ergonomic deficit when using 24mm and wider?
edwardkaraa wrote:
It used to be possible to order a la carte several magnification levels for film cameras. There must be a technical limitation for digital. Voigtlaender also used to offer three magnifications.
The Fuji doesn't have to accommodate a mechanical rangefinder mechanism which I imagine complicates the design of a dual magnification OVF. My guess is it's probably be a cost factor, whether dual-magnificaiton or designing, manufacturing and stocking two or three different magnifications for build-to-order options.
As Steve mentioned, the EVF is one solution that addresses a number of uses and in theory enhances a camera with a single standard OVF magnification by providing decent wide framing and more precise telephoto focusing options. No, it's not an analog solution. For me at least, this is a feature I like about the M240 with the EVF. I focus UWAs with the RF and if desired, frame with the EVF.
Charlie - I was referring to the electronic guts of the cameras. IMO the M8/M9 are early 2000s digital cameras and perform as such (separate from the sensor's image quality). The M240 was, at least for me, a significant improvement in responsiveness and usability in highly dynamic situations.
I actually stopped wearing it around my neck when working on my patients. It kept bumping my hand when I was doing some important drilling (not good). Being a rich dentist, I really shouldn't bother with trying to impress people with my Leica but I just can't stop...
) to fall back on when you feel like it so if you are dedicated to using the camera and appreciates the range finder then you quickly will become better and better at using it since there are no shortcuts. You'll learn how to move the camera when you recompose or tricks like focus bracketing by slightly tilting your upper body back and forth but it will not happen on day one so some consistency, endurance and patience will be needed