Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
p.1026 #1Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty and if I trust these people who are more professional and put their prestige on stake claiming something, may be the IQ is different but not worse than M9. So all in all I found M240 for the price a better option.
I am writing this hoping that someone in my state of debate over the m240 vs M9 or a7 can get some help in the decision making.
I am very grateful to all of you who have written in response to my post on this debate and I hope someone else find this useful as well.
I am writing this hoping that someone in my state of debate over the m240 vs M9 or a7 can get some help in the decision making.
I am very grateful to all of you who have written in response to my post on this debate and I hope someone else find this useful as well.
Nov 14, 2014 at 01:37 PM
p.1026 #2Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
jfreak wrote:
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty...Show more →
Think in terms of how you wish to use the camera. I was all set to take the plunge of purchasing the M240 to use with all of my R lenses and to supplement these with a couple of M wide angle lenses. There were just too many issues that soured the M240 for me. These included the inability of the camera to move the focus point (scroll) when using lenses with the add on EVF. This is a necessity to me for using longer lenses and macro work in particular. The M240 has a maximum shutter length of 60 seconds for some ISOs and still shorter for others. This was a 2nd strike against the camera. I need to have the option of using a bulb setting for potentially long exposures for work in some lighting conditions and using some ND alone and with Polarizing filters. The M240 is really designed as a hand held camera that allows you to mount the camera to a tripod. In order to access the camera to change the batteries and the SD cards you must remove the bottom of the camera and remove it from the tripod and re-position the camera on the tripod if you need to replace the battery or the SD card. In order to use a flash with M240 if you are using the add on EVF you must use the additional Multifunctional grip or the standard grip and to add a 2nd hot shoe. The A7 series cameras, the A7r in particular is a nature and landscape camera performing better on a tripod and probably better for tripod usage than the M240.
The M-240 is without question a better built camera than any of the A7 series cameras. But the M240 is 4 times the cost of the A7. I opted for the A7r because I found it to be a better R solution than the M240 would be. In order to get an M240 with the features that I required even living with the issues that I mentioned it would have cost me almost $8500 for the camera, the EVF, the Multifunctional Grip, 2 extra batteries, and the R to M adapter. The A7r only cost me about $2700 for the camera and 3 extra batteries and the Novoflex R to M adapter. And the A7r has a superior EVF that is built in that does not need to be added or removed for usage and protection of the camera and EVF when removed from or stored in my camera bag.
I opted for a Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens which is the latest incarnation of the Leica C 40mm f2 Summcron as my normal walk around lens on my A7r. I had hoped to get the M 21mm f3.4 SEM, but unfortunately I had to decide against this due to its poor performance on the A7r. I also had to reconsider which lenses that I would get for my wide angle lenses to perform well on the A7r. So, I opted for the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit Version II which is the best performing 28mm lens on the A7r. And, I now have an order in for the M Wide Angle Tri-Elmar lens which is one of the best performing ultra wide angle lenses to perform on the A7r. The other Leica M wide angle lenses and many Zeiss lenses may perform better on the M240 and the M9 than the Tri-Elmar, but it is still a fine performer on these cameras. Consider that much of the performance of many of the M lenses on the M9 and the M240 is from the internal processing of these cameras.
Rich
Edited on Nov 14, 2014 at 02:17 PM · View previous versions
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty...Show more →
Think in terms of how you wish to use the camera. I was all set to take the plunge of purchasing the M240 to use with all of my R lenses and to supplement these with a couple of M wide angle lenses. There were just too many issues that soured the M240 for me. These included the inability of the camera to move the focus point (scroll) when using lenses with the add on EVF. This is a necessity to me for using longer lenses and macro work in particular. The M240 has a maximum shutter length of 60 seconds for some ISOs and still shorter for others. This was a 2nd strike against the camera. I need to have the option of using a bulb setting for potentially long exposures for work in some lighting conditions and using some ND alone and with Polarizing filters. The M240 is really designed as a hand held camera that allows you to mount the camera to a tripod. In order to access the camera to change the batteries and the SD cards you must remove the bottom of the camera and remove it from the tripod and re-position the camera on the tripod if you need to replace the battery or the SD card. In order to use a flash with M240 if you are using the add on EVF you must use the additional Multifunctional grip or the standard grip and to add a 2nd hot shoe. The A7 series cameras, the A7r in particular is a nature and landscape camera performing better on a tripod and probably better for tripod usage than the M240.
The M-240 is without question a better built camera than any of the A7 series cameras. But the M240 is 4 times the cost of the A7. I opted for the A7r because I found it to be a better R solution than the M240 would be. In order to get an M240 with the features that I required even living with the issues that I mentioned it would have cost me almost $8500 for the camera, the EVF, the Multifunctional Grip, 2 extra batteries, and the R to M adapter. The A7r only cost me about $2700 for the camera and 3 extra batteries and the Novoflex R to M adapter. And the A7r has a superior EVF that is built in that does not need to be added or removed for usage and protection of the camera and EVF when removed from or stored in my camera bag.
I opted for a Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens which is the latest incarnation of the Leica C 40mm f2 Summcron as my normal walk around lens on my A7r. I had hoped to get the M 21mm f3.4 SEM, but unfortunately I had to decide against this due to its poor performance on the A7r. I also had to reconsider which lenses that I would get for my wide angle lenses to perform well on the A7r. So, I opted for the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit Version II which is the best performing 28mm lens on the A7r. And, I now have an order in for the M Wide Angle Tri-Elmar lens which is one of the best performing ultra wide angle lenses to perform on the A7r. The other Leica M wide angle lenses and many Zeiss lenses may perform better on the M240 and the M9 than the Tri-Elmar, but it is still a fine performer on these cameras. Consider that much of the performance of many of the M lenses on the M9 and the M240 is from the internal processing of these cameras.
Rich
Edited on Nov 14, 2014 at 02:17 PM · View previous versions
Nov 14, 2014 at 02:00 PM
p.1026 #3Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
jfreak wrote:
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty...Show more →
M240 is a great choice! I'm sure you will be happy with your decision. It is one of the best cameras I have ever used...
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty...Show more →
M240 is a great choice! I'm sure you will be happy with your decision. It is one of the best cameras I have ever used...
Nov 14, 2014 at 02:17 PM
p.1026 #4Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Rich, these merits that you mentioned on a7 series is exactly what I feel are the ones that made me question everything about m240. I cant agree more with each word you say. I am more into shooting people then landscape kind and have felt the a7 left me wanting for something I had seen with M8. Is this real I dont know but I see it. I saw it with M8 which is not a fancy things anymore. I got all my leica lens mounted on a7 but felt it still needed what I want to see. Not always or in every picture but quite often to register in my mind.
I do agree that the in camera processing of M lens in Leica is what creates it. But, I guess it does not matter for the final picture what makes it that. And, I don't think we can change this or apply the in camera processing in a7 to make M lens work same way. So the question remains, does the M lens magic that we seen on M9 etc is real or not. If it is and I can't get that on a7 then I have no option but Leica. Coz, I do find that a7 falls short many times on that feeling about a picture. I don't want to sound like Leica fan boy coz I am not. I am just explained what drove me to this conclusion.
May be it will change when I use m240. May be my weaknesses as photographer will come in my face more obvious when I have m240. If that happened, it would be very well received by me coz that will save me more money and time in future. If that does not happen, man, I would still be very happy coz I made the right decision to embrace Leica and all that.
Here are a couple. The first one when I got m8U and 75/2.5 in 2010. Never did I capture that kind of picture again. I did few times with M8 but never with what my canon 1dmkIV and zeiss lens.
Next is few days ago. Poor light in bedroom with two lights, one on right of my son (BTW both are his pictures) and one on ceiling. What I like is how the light is all around his face giving volume to face. This is with 50 lux. I dont see that with a7 at least not consistently. If you zoom in a7 is very sharp but look as a whole and this volume look appears on leica. One may or may not agree with our bias opinions about our gear but there are many such shots that impressed me on many occasions.
l1000607 by vazad, on Flickr
L1001558 by vazad, on Flickr
Edited on Nov 14, 2014 at 02:59 PM · View previous versions
I do agree that the in camera processing of M lens in Leica is what creates it. But, I guess it does not matter for the final picture what makes it that. And, I don't think we can change this or apply the in camera processing in a7 to make M lens work same way. So the question remains, does the M lens magic that we seen on M9 etc is real or not. If it is and I can't get that on a7 then I have no option but Leica. Coz, I do find that a7 falls short many times on that feeling about a picture. I don't want to sound like Leica fan boy coz I am not. I am just explained what drove me to this conclusion.
May be it will change when I use m240. May be my weaknesses as photographer will come in my face more obvious when I have m240. If that happened, it would be very well received by me coz that will save me more money and time in future. If that does not happen, man, I would still be very happy coz I made the right decision to embrace Leica and all that.
Here are a couple. The first one when I got m8U and 75/2.5 in 2010. Never did I capture that kind of picture again. I did few times with M8 but never with what my canon 1dmkIV and zeiss lens.
Next is few days ago. Poor light in bedroom with two lights, one on right of my son (BTW both are his pictures) and one on ceiling. What I like is how the light is all around his face giving volume to face. This is with 50 lux. I dont see that with a7 at least not consistently. If you zoom in a7 is very sharp but look as a whole and this volume look appears on leica. One may or may not agree with our bias opinions about our gear but there are many such shots that impressed me on many occasions.
l1000607 by vazad, on FlickrL1001558 by vazad, on FlickrEdited on Nov 14, 2014 at 02:59 PM · View previous versions
Nov 14, 2014 at 02:36 PM
p.1026 #5Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
naturephoto1 wrote:
I am writing this hoping that someone in my state of debate over the m240 vs M9 or a7 can get some help in the decision making.
I am very grateful to all of you who have written in response to my post on this debate and I hope someone else find this useful as well.Think in terms of how you wish to use the camera. I was all set to take the plunge of purchasing the M240 to use with all of my R lenses and to supplement these with a couple of M wide angle lenses. There were just too many issues that soured the M240 for me. These included the inability of the camera to move the focus point (scroll) when using lenses with the add on EVF. This is a necessity to me for using longer lenses and macro work in particular. The M240 has a maximum shutter length of 60...Show more →
As an owner of both an A7r and the M240, I'm in full agreement with you, Rich, until your final statement. It's not the internal processing that yields the performance of the M lenses on the digital M bodies, if it were it could be replicated on the A7r and other bodies in post processing. It is the fact that the Leica M digital bodies have been designed with the aim of extracting the best performance from these lenses which has led to design decisions that are different from other manufacturers.....primarily the relatively thin filter stack over the sensor. While wider Leica lenses generally need software correction (internal) for light falloff and colored edges they generally do not suffer (as much) from the smeared edges that other bodies do with the lenses. Smearing AFAIK is primarily a 'hardware' problem and can't adequately be corrected in software.
I enjoy using the A7r with adapted lenses, but I've come to the conclusion that for me the best way to use my M mount lenses is on my M240.
jfreak wrote
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty and if I trust these people who are more professional and put their prestige on stake claiming something, may be the IQ is different but not worse than M9. So all in all I found M240 for the price a better option.I am writing this hoping that someone in my state of debate over the m240 vs M9 or a7 can get some help in the decision making.
I am very grateful to all of you who have written in response to my post on this debate and I hope someone else find this useful as well.
As an owner of both an A7r and the M240, I'm in full agreement with you, Rich, until your final statement. It's not the internal processing that yields the performance of the M lenses on the digital M bodies, if it were it could be replicated on the A7r and other bodies in post processing. It is the fact that the Leica M digital bodies have been designed with the aim of extracting the best performance from these lenses which has led to design decisions that are different from other manufacturers.....primarily the relatively thin filter stack over the sensor. While wider Leica lenses generally need software correction (internal) for light falloff and colored edges they generally do not suffer (as much) from the smeared edges that other bodies do with the lenses. Smearing AFAIK is primarily a 'hardware' problem and can't adequately be corrected in software.
I enjoy using the A7r with adapted lenses, but I've come to the conclusion that for me the best way to use my M mount lenses is on my M240.
Nov 14, 2014 at 02:57 PM
p.1026 #6Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
jfreak wrote:
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty...Show more →
Wow, that's a great price for a refurb/demo body. I would definitely pick it over an M9 in the $3000-4000 range. I bought a demo body back in February and the US equivalent price was about $6000... I wonder if there is a bit of an oversupply causing such attractive pricing?
I agree with your statement: "the [M240] IQ is different but not worse than M9."
IMO, a lot of the Leica pro-CCD articles are fairly biased, and very much opinions. As someone with extensive prepress/PP experience, there are differences between each camera, but the general 'character' of each can be modified to closely match the other. Where some of the M9 preference has validity, is in ease of achieving that particular 'filmic' look, as decided by Leica for the M9, perhaps intentionally due to the sensor's dynamic range characteristics. The M240 needs a bit of PP to get the 'filmic' look of higher contrast and blocked up shadows. Interestingly for my introspection, towards the end of my use of the M9 as my sole M camera, I was frequently PPing its files to greatly reduce contrast and extend tonality. It would seem for my current PP tastes, that the M240 does this more easily 'out of the box.'
As I think I mentioned, IMO, the M240's improvements over the M9 are in overall refinement. It's more responsive, quieter, longer battery life, deeper buffer, faster card write speed, higher rez LCD, live view, EVF, cleaner high ISOs, etc. It feels more polished, more in line with one would expect from a digital camera of the last few years.
Richard has some good points, and particularly the reminder of the Leica M core use model - that of handheld reportage style work. Within this envelope I believe the M is tough to beat. Compared to the a7, for my needs, it is superior. Yet, I also have a Canon DSLR kit for specific capabilities, many of which an a7 camera also would not be able to touch. Therefore, for me, the M and DSLR systems cover somewhat opposite use extremes and overlap in the middle. An a7 camera would sit somewhere in that middle zone, not excelling at any of the extreme, more specialized uses of the other systems. If you're wondering what those extremes are for me, it's responsiveness, fps rate and AF performance of the DSLR and compact size and outstanding wide angle lenses of the M (see the whole "what wide to get for a7/R/S" discussion to see how difficult it is to solve for that system, at least when trying to keep lens size to a minimum).
Charlie also made a good point - you need to give the system time.
I also ultimately feel that Leica M digital is not about pixel peeping. Yes, many of the lenses are outstanding and capable of extreme sharpness/clarity and invite very close image examination. But the system seems to work better in a fluid style of shooting which at times may result in compromises as far as absolute technical image quality is concerned. Sometimes you will miss focus with it, either due to missed anticipation and hand/eye coordination
, or working at very shallow depth of field, or not compensating adequately for field curvature in wider aperture focus and recompose situations. You'll have to ask yourself what is of higher priority - perfect placement of the plane of focus, or the moment captured in the image? With its limited amount of interference by layers of electronic systems between pressing the shutter release and exposing the image, the M is a great system for capturing fleeting moments, if you disable the auto-sleep function, or keep tapping the shutter release to keep it awake (and not to imply that other cameras can't be fast, too).
The High Line at its southern terminus:
M240 & 2x 21SEM, 28 Cron, 90 Summarit, ZM50/2
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty...Show more →
Wow, that's a great price for a refurb/demo body. I would definitely pick it over an M9 in the $3000-4000 range. I bought a demo body back in February and the US equivalent price was about $6000... I wonder if there is a bit of an oversupply causing such attractive pricing?
I agree with your statement: "the [M240] IQ is different but not worse than M9."
IMO, a lot of the Leica pro-CCD articles are fairly biased, and very much opinions. As someone with extensive prepress/PP experience, there are differences between each camera, but the general 'character' of each can be modified to closely match the other. Where some of the M9 preference has validity, is in ease of achieving that particular 'filmic' look, as decided by Leica for the M9, perhaps intentionally due to the sensor's dynamic range characteristics. The M240 needs a bit of PP to get the 'filmic' look of higher contrast and blocked up shadows. Interestingly for my introspection, towards the end of my use of the M9 as my sole M camera, I was frequently PPing its files to greatly reduce contrast and extend tonality. It would seem for my current PP tastes, that the M240 does this more easily 'out of the box.'
As I think I mentioned, IMO, the M240's improvements over the M9 are in overall refinement. It's more responsive, quieter, longer battery life, deeper buffer, faster card write speed, higher rez LCD, live view, EVF, cleaner high ISOs, etc. It feels more polished, more in line with one would expect from a digital camera of the last few years.
Richard has some good points, and particularly the reminder of the Leica M core use model - that of handheld reportage style work. Within this envelope I believe the M is tough to beat. Compared to the a7, for my needs, it is superior. Yet, I also have a Canon DSLR kit for specific capabilities, many of which an a7 camera also would not be able to touch. Therefore, for me, the M and DSLR systems cover somewhat opposite use extremes and overlap in the middle. An a7 camera would sit somewhere in that middle zone, not excelling at any of the extreme, more specialized uses of the other systems. If you're wondering what those extremes are for me, it's responsiveness, fps rate and AF performance of the DSLR and compact size and outstanding wide angle lenses of the M (see the whole "what wide to get for a7/R/S" discussion to see how difficult it is to solve for that system, at least when trying to keep lens size to a minimum).
Charlie also made a good point - you need to give the system time.
I also ultimately feel that Leica M digital is not about pixel peeping. Yes, many of the lenses are outstanding and capable of extreme sharpness/clarity and invite very close image examination. But the system seems to work better in a fluid style of shooting which at times may result in compromises as far as absolute technical image quality is concerned. Sometimes you will miss focus with it, either due to missed anticipation and hand/eye coordination
, or working at very shallow depth of field, or not compensating adequately for field curvature in wider aperture focus and recompose situations. You'll have to ask yourself what is of higher priority - perfect placement of the plane of focus, or the moment captured in the image? With its limited amount of interference by layers of electronic systems between pressing the shutter release and exposing the image, the M is a great system for capturing fleeting moments, if you disable the auto-sleep function, or keep tapping the shutter release to keep it awake (and not to imply that other cameras can't be fast, too).The High Line at its southern terminus:
M240 & 2x 21SEM, 28 Cron, 90 Summarit, ZM50/2
Nov 14, 2014 at 02:59 PM
p.1026 #7Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
An a7 camera would sit somewhere in that middle zone, not excelling at any of the extreme.
I very much agree and I have to say this is one line summary for my feeling about a7 too. Thanks Ron.
I very much agree and I have to say this is one line summary for my feeling about a7 too. Thanks Ron.
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:11 PM
p.1026 #8Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
ricardovaste wrote:
You should also not fart in the company of strangers, especially in confined spaces, but this is similar to the third point above.
You should also not fart in the company of strangers, especially in confined spaces, but this is similar to the third point above.
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:18 PM
p.1026 #9Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
jfreak wrote:
Rich, these merits that you mentioned on a7 series is exactly what I feel are the ones that made me question everything about m240. I cant agree more with each word you say. I am more into shooting people then landscape kind and have felt the a7 left me wanting for something I had seen with M8.
The difficulty I had photographing people with manual focus lenses on the a7 vs. M system was that it felt like I was looking at the world through a small TV screen, that while pretty sharp, felt somewhat disconnected and didn't really let me get a comfortable feeling for where the lens was optimally focused. At least not without zooming in, but then the moment would usually be lost. I don't have kids, but have friends with kids ranging in age from under one to ~11. They tend to move around really fast. With the a7 I could never get comfortable nailing focus on anything other than stationary scenes. I'm much more proficient with the M, though sometimes a 1DX and AF lens can't be beat. But when it comes to manually focusing, it's difficult to best the rangefinder patch because the OVF allows you to look through it at the scene while the rangefinder patch simultaneously gives a very precise indication of where focus is - whether it's bang on or slightly off. As you stop down, you can let perfect rangefinder coincidence slack a bit and concentrate more on capturing decisive moments because depth of field should be adequate.
While there are tools like focus peaking to help the a7, once stopped down a bit, or with wide angle lenses, its too indiscriminate to tell you precisely where the plane of focus is located, and you can end up with a scene swimming in focus peaking artifacts.
M240 & 2x 28 Cron, 2x ZM50/2
naturephoto1 wrote:
The other Leica M wide angle lenses and many Zeiss lenses may perform better on the M240 and the M9 than the Tri-Elmar, but it is still a fine performer on these cameras. Consider that much of the performance of many of the M lenses on the M9 and the M240 is from the internal processing of these cameras.
Rich
CVickery wrote:
As an owner of both an A7r and the M240, I'm in full agreement with you, Rich, until your final statement. It's not the internal processing that yields the performance of the M lenses on the digital M bodies, if it were it could be replicated on the A7r and other bodies in post processing. It is the fact that the Leica M digital bodies have been designed with the aim of extracting the best performance from these lenses which has led to design decisions that are different from other manufacturers.....primarily the relatively thin filter stack over the sensor. While...Show more →
Great points Cal and wholly agree with your point about M lenses performing to their maximum potential on a digital M camera.
And I totally glossed over Rich's last sentences! There is no indication that Leica applies any kind of lens sharpening in software. They state it is for vignetting and color shift corrections. As Cal points out, the image degradation seen on the Sony cameras when used with many M wides is a hardware limitation/incompatibility that no software is available (or able) to fix.
Edited on Nov 14, 2014 at 03:27 PM · View previous versions
Rich, these merits that you mentioned on a7 series is exactly what I feel are the ones that made me question everything about m240. I cant agree more with each word you say. I am more into shooting people then landscape kind and have felt the a7 left me wanting for something I had seen with M8.
The difficulty I had photographing people with manual focus lenses on the a7 vs. M system was that it felt like I was looking at the world through a small TV screen, that while pretty sharp, felt somewhat disconnected and didn't really let me get a comfortable feeling for where the lens was optimally focused. At least not without zooming in, but then the moment would usually be lost. I don't have kids, but have friends with kids ranging in age from under one to ~11. They tend to move around really fast. With the a7 I could never get comfortable nailing focus on anything other than stationary scenes. I'm much more proficient with the M, though sometimes a 1DX and AF lens can't be beat. But when it comes to manually focusing, it's difficult to best the rangefinder patch because the OVF allows you to look through it at the scene while the rangefinder patch simultaneously gives a very precise indication of where focus is - whether it's bang on or slightly off. As you stop down, you can let perfect rangefinder coincidence slack a bit and concentrate more on capturing decisive moments because depth of field should be adequate.
While there are tools like focus peaking to help the a7, once stopped down a bit, or with wide angle lenses, its too indiscriminate to tell you precisely where the plane of focus is located, and you can end up with a scene swimming in focus peaking artifacts.
M240 & 2x 28 Cron, 2x ZM50/2
naturephoto1 wrote:
The other Leica M wide angle lenses and many Zeiss lenses may perform better on the M240 and the M9 than the Tri-Elmar, but it is still a fine performer on these cameras. Consider that much of the performance of many of the M lenses on the M9 and the M240 is from the internal processing of these cameras.
Rich
CVickery wrote:
As an owner of both an A7r and the M240, I'm in full agreement with you, Rich, until your final statement. It's not the internal processing that yields the performance of the M lenses on the digital M bodies, if it were it could be replicated on the A7r and other bodies in post processing. It is the fact that the Leica M digital bodies have been designed with the aim of extracting the best performance from these lenses which has led to design decisions that are different from other manufacturers.....primarily the relatively thin filter stack over the sensor. While...Show more →
Great points Cal and wholly agree with your point about M lenses performing to their maximum potential on a digital M camera.
And I totally glossed over Rich's last sentences! There is no indication that Leica applies any kind of lens sharpening in software. They state it is for vignetting and color shift corrections. As Cal points out, the image degradation seen on the Sony cameras when used with many M wides is a hardware limitation/incompatibility that no software is available (or able) to fix.
Edited on Nov 14, 2014 at 03:27 PM · View previous versions
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:19 PM
p.1026 #10Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Don't you guys have anything better to do that post a bunch of photos that nobody wants to see on the internet? I mean really... 
Hey guys, long time. I've been in a complete and total funk most of this year. I've not been cheating on you all, I just haven't felt photography for a while... I'm still not there, but, I am hanging onto my Leica stuff. Nikon, thinning down to special stuff mostly. Keeping a old body or two. For me, photography is no longer about the "gear". It's just about shooting what I want when I want. I'll use Mason jar lenses if I have too. I really just don't care that much about latest bells and whistles anymore. That said, I will likely hang onto my 4 lens 2 camera Leica setup. Let it age with me. I completely skipped fall of this year, and that is usually something I get quite excited about. It's complicated.
Part of it is being bit by the music bug. I took up guitar a few months ago, and revived my drum set from mothballs and mildew. I'll try to shoot a a few Leica shots soon, at least of guitars if nothing else. :-)
I'll go back and visit a few pages back at least. Maybe catch the bug again, lol. You know, the photo bug...
I need to check roll call and see who all still frequents other than Edward and Charles, haha. not that I don't love you guys, you know that I do. lol. I see Ron and Gary still put in some great stuff. Cool.
Hey guys, long time. I've been in a complete and total funk most of this year. I've not been cheating on you all, I just haven't felt photography for a while... I'm still not there, but, I am hanging onto my Leica stuff. Nikon, thinning down to special stuff mostly. Keeping a old body or two. For me, photography is no longer about the "gear". It's just about shooting what I want when I want. I'll use Mason jar lenses if I have too. I really just don't care that much about latest bells and whistles anymore. That said, I will likely hang onto my 4 lens 2 camera Leica setup. Let it age with me. I completely skipped fall of this year, and that is usually something I get quite excited about. It's complicated.
Part of it is being bit by the music bug. I took up guitar a few months ago, and revived my drum set from mothballs and mildew. I'll try to shoot a a few Leica shots soon, at least of guitars if nothing else. :-)
I'll go back and visit a few pages back at least. Maybe catch the bug again, lol. You know, the photo bug...
I need to check roll call and see who all still frequents other than Edward and Charles, haha. not that I don't love you guys, you know that I do. lol. I see Ron and Gary still put in some great stuff. Cool.
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:21 PM
|
p.1026 #11Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
....but then the moment would usually be lost.....
You are absolutely on this one too.
But I don't enjoy using AF. It feels like I am no better then my wife in taking pictures coz its just "point to it and press the button". Well jokes aside, I do enjoy manually focusing where I want it. On canon to by the time I select the focus red square, the moment is gone. Yes the keeper rate is better but pleasure of shooting not so much...
@ Doug: That happened to me too and I was more into programming for fun. But wife threatened me that I spend too much time on programming. That I don't even have time to take pictures of kids anymore. That was my indicated reason to jump back. well, I was kinda bored of programming too. Now I am approved more funds too so even better...
You are absolutely on this one too.
But I don't enjoy using AF. It feels like I am no better then my wife in taking pictures coz its just "point to it and press the button"
. Well jokes aside, I do enjoy manually focusing where I want it. On canon to by the time I select the focus red square, the moment is gone. Yes the keeper rate is better but pleasure of shooting not so much...@ Doug: That happened to me too and I was more into programming for fun. But wife threatened me that I spend too much time on programming. That I don't even have time to take pictures of kids anymore. That was my indicated reason to jump back. well, I was kinda bored of programming too. Now I am approved more funds too so even better...
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:26 PM
p.1026 #12Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
3D.Doug wrote:
I need to check roll call and see who all still frequents other than Edward and Charles, haha. not that I don't love you guys, you know that I do. lol. I see Ron and Gary still put in some great stuff. Cool.
Hey Doug - no worries! I've been slacking off too and just started posting again over the last few pages. Charles sold his Leica bodies for Sony, but kept the glass... though I think he's checking in regularly. Seems Gary, Edward and others have been keeping the lights on, along with a number of recent additions, which is awesome to see.
As with you, the images I post here are very much about what I want to shoot, what I've seen and experienced. No pretense about greatness, rather, trying to achieve the best I can at that moment in time.
BTW, I met up with Joe (Joe88) a couple weeks ago! Great guy and a really nice evening. Too bad the weather was awful, otherwise we might have got in a bit of shooting too. I think that makes it 5 members from this thread I've been able to meet and/or shoot with in person.
I need to check roll call and see who all still frequents other than Edward and Charles, haha. not that I don't love you guys, you know that I do. lol. I see Ron and Gary still put in some great stuff. Cool.
Hey Doug - no worries! I've been slacking off too and just started posting again over the last few pages. Charles sold his Leica bodies for Sony, but kept the glass... though I think he's checking in regularly. Seems Gary, Edward and others have been keeping the lights on, along with a number of recent additions, which is awesome to see.
As with you, the images I post here are very much about what I want to shoot, what I've seen and experienced. No pretense about greatness, rather, trying to achieve the best I can at that moment in time.
BTW, I met up with Joe (Joe88) a couple weeks ago! Great guy and a really nice evening. Too bad the weather was awful, otherwise we might have got in a bit of shooting too. I think that makes it 5 members from this thread I've been able to meet and/or shoot with in person.
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:41 PM
p.1026 #13Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
CVickery wrote:
I am writing this hoping that someone in my state of debate over the m240 vs M9 or a7 can get some help in the decision making.
I am very grateful to all of you who have written in response to my post on this debate and I hope someone else find this useful as well.Think in terms of how you wish to use the camera. I was all set to take the plunge of purchasing the M240 to use with all of my R lenses and to supplement these with a couple of M wide angle lenses. There were just too many issues that soured the M240 for me. These included the inability of the camera to move the focus point (scroll) when using lenses with the add on EVF. This is a necessity to me for using longer lenses and macro work in particular. The M240 has a maximum shutter length of 60 seconds for some ISOs and still shorter for others. This was a 2nd strike against the camera. I need to have the option of using a bulb setting for potentially long exposures for work in some lighting conditions and using some ND alone and with Polarizing filters. The M240 is really designed as a hand held camera that allows you to mount the camera to a tripod. In order to access the camera to change the batteries and the SD cards you must remove the bottom of the camera and remove it from the tripod and re-position the camera on the tripod if you need to replace the battery or the SD card. In order to use a flash with M240 if you are using the add on EVF you must use the additional Multifunctional grip or the standard grip and to add a 2nd hot shoe. The A7 series cameras, the A7r in particular is a nature and landscape camera performing better on a tripod and probably better for tripod usage than the M240.
The M-240 is without question a better built camera than any of the A7 series cameras. But the M240 is 4 times the cost of the A7. I opted for the A7r because I found it to be a better R solution than the M240 would be. In order to get an M240 with the features that I required even living with the issues that I mentioned it would have cost me almost $8500 for the camera, the EVF, the Multifunctional Grip, 2 extra batteries, and the R to M adapter. The A7r only cost me about $2700 for the camera and 3 extra batteries and the Novoflex R to M adapter. And the A7r has a superior EVF that is built in that does not need to be added or removed for usage and protection of the camera and EVF when removed from or stored in my camera bag.
I opted for a Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens which is the latest incarnation of the Leica C 40mm f2 Summcron as my normal walk around lens on my A7r. I had hoped to get the M 21mm f3.4 SEM, but unfortunately I had to decide against this due to its poor performance on the A7r. I also had to reconsider which lenses that I would get for my wide angle lenses to perform well on the A7r. So, I opted for the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit Version II which is the best performing 28mm lens on the A7r. And, I now have an order in for the M Wide Angle Tri-Elmar lens which is one of the best performing ultra wide angle lenses to perform on the A7r. The other Leica M wide angle lenses and many Zeiss lenses may perform better on the M240 and the M9 than the Tri-Elmar, but it is still a fine performer on these cameras. Consider that much of the performance of many of the M lenses on the M9 and the M240 is from the internal processing of these cameras.
RichAs an owner of both an A7r and the M240, I'm in full agreement with you, Rich, until your final statement. It's not the internal processing that yields the performance of the M lenses on the digital M bodies, if it were it could be replicated on the A7r and other bodies in post processing. It is the fact that the Leica M digital bodies have been designed with the aim of extracting the best performance from these lenses which has led to design decisions that are different from other manufacturers.....primarily the relatively thin filter stack over the sensor. While...Show more →
Yes Leica has gone to great lengths to get the most performance our of their lenses with their internal processing of their cameras. But, it has also taken some real effort and tweaking for Leica and Zeiss to get such high performance out of their lenses. The first M camera, the M3 was introduced in 1953. The newer M8, M9, and M240 have now been around for a considerably shorter time. But, Leica and Zeiss have struggled to get their ultra wide angle lenses to perform as they do no the M bodies. In the case of Sony and Zeiss, they have had a much much shorter time to develop lenses for the A7 series cameras. As to the smearing issue for the A7 series cameras, this has been a disappointment for many of us. And unfortunately for many of us, it has not been a priority of Sony to allow the ultra wide RF M mount lenses to perform nearly as well as we would have liked or hoped. There is no question that the M wide and wide angle lenses as a whole perform and will continue to perform better on the M platform the system for which these lenses were designed. The smearing issue observed by the A7 series cameras for the bulk of the M RF ultra wide and and wide angle lenses is as a result of the short distance from the camera sensors and the sensor filter stack. So, for those of us interested in using M RF ultra wide and wide angle lenses we have to be highly selective in a short list of lenses (including the WATE) that perform well on these cameras. We then have to supplement these specific lenses mainly with SLR/DSLR lenses that perform well on this platform (including as mentioned the R 28mm f2.8 V2 lens since no M RF performs as well on the platform as this particular optic). Sony and Zeiss have had a relatively short time to design FF E-mount lenses. But, hopefully Sony, Zeiss, and possibly some of the independents will be able to design much better performing lenses for the platform. I even suggested to some of the Leica Reps that I know at Leica Camera USA at PhotoPlus that they may wish to consider some new lens designs for the A7 series cameras. Brian Bell, the National Rep for Leica Sport Optics USA indicated that it is possible that Leica may have sufficient staff now with the completion of the new Factory in Wetzlar.
By the way for those that are unaware, I have a Leica fan and have been a Leica R user (now with 17 R lenses) since 1984 and have been using Leica cameras and lenses now for 30 years. I intend to continue to use Leica lenses and we will also have to wait to see if the hinting by Steffan at the Leica Camera USA Booth at PhotoPlus was made regarding a possible new camera that will work well with R lenses will actually materialize. We have heard these promises from Leica since 2009.
Rich
Edited on Nov 14, 2014 at 04:36 PM · View previous versions
naturephoto1 wrote
jfreak wrote
I think I would like to correct myself. After reading all the CCD and CMOS and Ashwin's article, I was quite convinced that M240 was all about the newest and fastest and bestest etc and in terms of picture quality the M9 is probably still the best. Then I read some more and felt may be not so and as some have pointed out, m240 has higher DR and little more ease in shooting wide lens with live view help, has higher resolution screen, shutter sound and more res. So for 2k more, I get all this and 2yr warranty and if I trust these people who are more professional and put their prestige on stake claiming something, may be the IQ is different but not worse than M9. So all in all I found M240 for the price a better option.I am writing this hoping that someone in my state of debate over the m240 vs M9 or a7 can get some help in the decision making.
I am very grateful to all of you who have written in response to my post on this debate and I hope someone else find this useful as well.
The M-240 is without question a better built camera than any of the A7 series cameras. But the M240 is 4 times the cost of the A7. I opted for the A7r because I found it to be a better R solution than the M240 would be. In order to get an M240 with the features that I required even living with the issues that I mentioned it would have cost me almost $8500 for the camera, the EVF, the Multifunctional Grip, 2 extra batteries, and the R to M adapter. The A7r only cost me about $2700 for the camera and 3 extra batteries and the Novoflex R to M adapter. And the A7r has a superior EVF that is built in that does not need to be added or removed for usage and protection of the camera and EVF when removed from or stored in my camera bag.
I opted for a Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens which is the latest incarnation of the Leica C 40mm f2 Summcron as my normal walk around lens on my A7r. I had hoped to get the M 21mm f3.4 SEM, but unfortunately I had to decide against this due to its poor performance on the A7r. I also had to reconsider which lenses that I would get for my wide angle lenses to perform well on the A7r. So, I opted for the R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit Version II which is the best performing 28mm lens on the A7r. And, I now have an order in for the M Wide Angle Tri-Elmar lens which is one of the best performing ultra wide angle lenses to perform on the A7r. The other Leica M wide angle lenses and many Zeiss lenses may perform better on the M240 and the M9 than the Tri-Elmar, but it is still a fine performer on these cameras. Consider that much of the performance of many of the M lenses on the M9 and the M240 is from the internal processing of these cameras.
Rich
Yes Leica has gone to great lengths to get the most performance our of their lenses with their internal processing of their cameras. But, it has also taken some real effort and tweaking for Leica and Zeiss to get such high performance out of their lenses. The first M camera, the M3 was introduced in 1953. The newer M8, M9, and M240 have now been around for a considerably shorter time. But, Leica and Zeiss have struggled to get their ultra wide angle lenses to perform as they do no the M bodies. In the case of Sony and Zeiss, they have had a much much shorter time to develop lenses for the A7 series cameras. As to the smearing issue for the A7 series cameras, this has been a disappointment for many of us. And unfortunately for many of us, it has not been a priority of Sony to allow the ultra wide RF M mount lenses to perform nearly as well as we would have liked or hoped. There is no question that the M wide and wide angle lenses as a whole perform and will continue to perform better on the M platform the system for which these lenses were designed. The smearing issue observed by the A7 series cameras for the bulk of the M RF ultra wide and and wide angle lenses is as a result of the short distance from the camera sensors and the sensor filter stack. So, for those of us interested in using M RF ultra wide and wide angle lenses we have to be highly selective in a short list of lenses (including the WATE) that perform well on these cameras. We then have to supplement these specific lenses mainly with SLR/DSLR lenses that perform well on this platform (including as mentioned the R 28mm f2.8 V2 lens since no M RF performs as well on the platform as this particular optic). Sony and Zeiss have had a relatively short time to design FF E-mount lenses. But, hopefully Sony, Zeiss, and possibly some of the independents will be able to design much better performing lenses for the platform. I even suggested to some of the Leica Reps that I know at Leica Camera USA at PhotoPlus that they may wish to consider some new lens designs for the A7 series cameras. Brian Bell, the National Rep for Leica Sport Optics USA indicated that it is possible that Leica may have sufficient staff now with the completion of the new Factory in Wetzlar.
By the way for those that are unaware, I have a Leica fan and have been a Leica R user (now with 17 R lenses) since 1984 and have been using Leica cameras and lenses now for 30 years. I intend to continue to use Leica lenses and we will also have to wait to see if the hinting by Steffan at the Leica Camera USA Booth at PhotoPlus was made regarding a possible new camera that will work well with R lenses will actually materialize. We have heard these promises from Leica since 2009.
Rich
Edited on Nov 14, 2014 at 04:36 PM · View previous versions
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:43 PM
p.1026 #14Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Not to go too OT, but has anyone had the a7R sensor stack replaced with a physically and/or optically thinner cover glass?
It would seem Sony's choice of ~2.5mm thick topping somewhat shot themselves in the foot when it comes to their own native lens designs. From what I've heard via others is that Zeiss is finding this and the short register distance quite challenging. Combined with the narrow mount diameter, just moving all of the optics farther away isn't really a feasible solution.
It would seem Sony's choice of ~2.5mm thick topping somewhat shot themselves in the foot when it comes to their own native lens designs. From what I've heard via others is that Zeiss is finding this and the short register distance quite challenging. Combined with the narrow mount diameter, just moving all of the optics farther away isn't really a feasible solution.
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:50 PM
p.1026 #15Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
rscheffler wrote:
The difficulty I had photographing people with manual focus lenses on the a7 vs. M system was that it felt like I was looking at the world through a small TV screen, that while pretty sharp, felt somewhat disconnected and didn't really let me get a comfortable feeling for where the lens was optimally focused. At least not without zooming in, but then the moment would usually be lost. I don't have kids, but have friends with kids ranging in age from under one to ~11. They tend to move around really fast. With the a7 I could never get...Show more →
Rich
I enjoy using the A7r with adapted lenses, but I've come to the conclusion that for me the best way to use my M mount lenses is on my M240.
Ron,
I never suggested that Leica used any sharpening in their processing. I was referring specifically to their issues with color and vignetting particularly for the wide and ultra wide angle lenses as well as the overall appearance of the processed digital files. The processing of the appearance of the digital files has also been observed and noted by many including Doug (telyt) for the DMR files.
Rich
jfreak wrote
Rich, these merits that you mentioned on a7 series is exactly what I feel are the ones that made me question everything about m240. I cant agree more with each word you say. I am more into shooting people then landscape kind and have felt the a7 left me wanting for something I had seen with M8.naturephoto1 wrote
The other Leica M wide angle lenses and many Zeiss lenses may perform better on the M240 and the M9 than the Tri-Elmar, but it is still a fine performer on these cameras. Consider that much of the performance of many of the M lenses on the M9 and the M240 is from the internal processing of these cameras.Rich
CVickery wrote
As an owner of both an A7r and the M240, I'm in full agreement with you, Rich, until your final statement. It's not the internal processing that yields the performance of the M lenses on the digital M bodies, if it were it could be replicated on the A7r and other bodies in post processing. It is the fact that the Leica M digital bodies have been designed with the aim of extracting the best performance from these lenses which has led to design decisions that are different from other manufacturers.....primarily the relatively thin filter stack over the sensor. While wider Leica lenses generally need software correction (internal) for light falloff and colored edges they generally do not suffer (as much) from the smeared edges that other bodies do with the lenses. Smearing AFAIK is primarily a 'hardware' problem and can't adequately be corrected in software.I enjoy using the A7r with adapted lenses, but I've come to the conclusion that for me the best way to use my M mount lenses is on my M240.
Ron,
I never suggested that Leica used any sharpening in their processing. I was referring specifically to their issues with color and vignetting particularly for the wide and ultra wide angle lenses as well as the overall appearance of the processed digital files. The processing of the appearance of the digital files has also been observed and noted by many including Doug (telyt) for the DMR files.
Rich
Nov 14, 2014 at 03:53 PM
p.1026 #16Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Hey Ron, thanks for the near immediate update. Rich, Going to have to reread that analysis.
JFreak, programming for fun, boy, I forgot what that is, being a programmer/guy for day job, lol. After 25 years, I keep my home computer time pretty simple. Post on forums, email, and photo processing.
I knew that Charles had a thing going with the Sony cameras, but last I knew, he still owned both, but I guess it became apparent, that he wasn't using his Leica bodies anymore, as it had been to me for a while, seeing his FB posts. Can't blame him with the results he gets now. Beautiful images.
I wish I had kept my M9, not got the M in a way, but I still like the camera too. The MM, well, what's not to like about it! But really, I am not sure I want to do a lot of experimenting to find what works now. I'll just stay with my Leica bodies for now likely. I admit a little surprise with Charles. But I fully expect he will be back next generation.
I just got to a point I put way to much into this, equipment that stressed my funds too much. Then I have regrets when I sell stuff. I hated the cycle. That's why I say I am trying to just not care. Although I do have 4 of the best Leica lenses made for sure, that makes it easier to be content with a 4 lens kit. 3 lux's and a Cron. It's pretty well ideal from my perspective. Then let Nikon take over after 75mm. Even there, I have thinned down too. Ok, part of that was money needs for my guitars. I pushed the limits there. oops. So I just sold my Nikon 70-200vrii to help with my guitar payoff plan. I got a couple of Zeiss for sale too. No Leica sales though!
Doug
JFreak, programming for fun, boy, I forgot what that is, being a programmer/guy for day job, lol. After 25 years, I keep my home computer time pretty simple. Post on forums, email, and photo processing.
I knew that Charles had a thing going with the Sony cameras, but last I knew, he still owned both, but I guess it became apparent, that he wasn't using his Leica bodies anymore, as it had been to me for a while, seeing his FB posts. Can't blame him with the results he gets now. Beautiful images.
I wish I had kept my M9, not got the M in a way, but I still like the camera too. The MM, well, what's not to like about it! But really, I am not sure I want to do a lot of experimenting to find what works now. I'll just stay with my Leica bodies for now likely. I admit a little surprise with Charles. But I fully expect he will be back next generation.
I just got to a point I put way to much into this, equipment that stressed my funds too much. Then I have regrets when I sell stuff. I hated the cycle. That's why I say I am trying to just not care. Although I do have 4 of the best Leica lenses made for sure, that makes it easier to be content with a 4 lens kit. 3 lux's and a Cron. It's pretty well ideal from my perspective. Then let Nikon take over after 75mm. Even there, I have thinned down too. Ok, part of that was money needs for my guitars. I pushed the limits there. oops. So I just sold my Nikon 70-200vrii to help with my guitar payoff plan. I got a couple of Zeiss for sale too. No Leica sales though!
Doug
Nov 14, 2014 at 04:04 PM
p.1026 #17Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Hey I thought I might also add my piece
I jumped ship from Canon 5D II, L and ZE lenses in early 2010, just after the arrival of the M9's in Australia, and at the time when this thread first started. There was nothing as light and ergonomic to travel with for street photography then. The cost blew me away and I ended up selling all my Canon gear and lenses, and loved the M9 and still do. I remember continually supporting my view on how good the M9 was at the time. This M9 is still an excellent camera, and more so now that the price is now at an affordable level. In some ways the M9 is an easier camera to maintain than the M240, as a lot of the repair work, other than the sensor replacement can be done within a week turn around. The same applies for the legendary MM.
My issue with the M240 was that I was about to send my backup M240 to Solms again for RF calibration, just months after I sent my first M240. The turn around was 2 months for each!! The M240 is an excellent advancement from the M9, but support for maintenance does need to be addressed. The M240 is a beautifully built camera, but the electronics, EVF do need to be advanced to be current. Had the repair of the RF been only few days as it is with the M9, and the EVF/electronics was fast and responsive, I would have kept both the M240's.
I love the Leica M lenses, and there is a personality that they portray that cannot be easily duplicated by the others, but it is at a cost! I do thank Leica for this as we have a choice. I do get frustrated by dialogue in the threads complaining how expensive Leica M lenses are. Truth is, they are expensive to manufacture and they offer a choice.
I now have A7r/A7s as my system for travel. My wife loves the A7s with the FE 35. The system for her is very light, quick and works in virtually darkness. Marisa tried the M240 a number of times, but did not enjoy the RF way! So for travelling having one set of batteries/chargers/leads keeps it very simple and fun. More importantly, spare batteries/chargers and accessories can be purchased from almost anywhere while you are travelling and are not expensive.
Recently on a trip to Thailand, the diopter correction lens had unscrewed and I had lost in the streets. I could not purchase the correction piece at the time in Bangkok anywhere, so I was somewhat at a loss to use the RF. Instead I just used the LV. After that I always kept a spare correction lens.
I am really enjoying watching this thread, and liking of course. I still waiting for Leica's next offering, and still keeping all my Leica M lenses.
The A7r/A7s combined with WATE, 24 Lux Asph, 35 Lux FLE, 50 Lux Asph, 50 Cron DR, 50 Noct f/1.0, 75 Lux, 75 Cron , 90 Cron AA work amazingly well when combined with the right A7r/s and adapter. And of course the FE 35 and 55 are excellent in their own right too.
The M9 is a great camera, particularly at its pricing level now. The M240 is excellent, with its improved RF accuracy and having the option with LV/EVF which for me is a must now.
There is no perfect system, and it is just what works for me now Maybe the new Sony offerings may reset the landscape! We will see ...
Great shots everyone!!!
I jumped ship from Canon 5D II, L and ZE lenses in early 2010, just after the arrival of the M9's in Australia, and at the time when this thread first started. There was nothing as light and ergonomic to travel with for street photography then. The cost blew me away and I ended up selling all my Canon gear and lenses, and loved the M9 and still do. I remember continually supporting my view on how good the M9 was at the time. This M9 is still an excellent camera, and more so now that the price is now at an affordable level. In some ways the M9 is an easier camera to maintain than the M240, as a lot of the repair work, other than the sensor replacement can be done within a week turn around. The same applies for the legendary MM.
My issue with the M240 was that I was about to send my backup M240 to Solms again for RF calibration, just months after I sent my first M240. The turn around was 2 months for each!! The M240 is an excellent advancement from the M9, but support for maintenance does need to be addressed. The M240 is a beautifully built camera, but the electronics, EVF do need to be advanced to be current. Had the repair of the RF been only few days as it is with the M9, and the EVF/electronics was fast and responsive, I would have kept both the M240's.
I love the Leica M lenses, and there is a personality that they portray that cannot be easily duplicated by the others, but it is at a cost! I do thank Leica for this as we have a choice. I do get frustrated by dialogue in the threads complaining how expensive Leica M lenses are. Truth is, they are expensive to manufacture and they offer a choice.
I now have A7r/A7s as my system for travel. My wife loves the A7s with the FE 35. The system for her is very light, quick and works in virtually darkness. Marisa tried the M240 a number of times, but did not enjoy the RF way! So for travelling having one set of batteries/chargers/leads keeps it very simple and fun. More importantly, spare batteries/chargers and accessories can be purchased from almost anywhere while you are travelling and are not expensive.
Recently on a trip to Thailand, the diopter correction lens had unscrewed and I had lost in the streets. I could not purchase the correction piece at the time in Bangkok anywhere, so I was somewhat at a loss to use the RF. Instead I just used the LV. After that I always kept a spare correction lens.
I am really enjoying watching this thread, and liking of course. I still waiting for Leica's next offering, and still keeping all my Leica M lenses.
The A7r/A7s combined with WATE, 24 Lux Asph, 35 Lux FLE, 50 Lux Asph, 50 Cron DR, 50 Noct f/1.0, 75 Lux, 75 Cron , 90 Cron AA work amazingly well when combined with the right A7r/s and adapter. And of course the FE 35 and 55 are excellent in their own right too.
The M9 is a great camera, particularly at its pricing level now. The M240 is excellent, with its improved RF accuracy and having the option with LV/EVF which for me is a must now.
There is no perfect system, and it is just what works for me now
Maybe the new Sony offerings may reset the landscape! We will see ... Great shots everyone!!!
Nov 14, 2014 at 07:33 PM
p.1026 #18Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
If any of you out there are going to be in Chicago in March. Come buy and check it out on the 6th Scroll down to March
http://www.tamarkin.com/leicagallery/upcoming-shows
http://www.tamarkin.com/leicagallery/upcoming-shows
Nov 14, 2014 at 07:50 PM
p.1026 #19Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
rscheffler wrote:
Not to go too OT, but has anyone had the a7R sensor stack replaced with a physically and/or optically thinner cover glass?
It would seem Sony's choice of ~2.5mm thick topping somewhat shot themselves in the foot when it comes to their own native lens designs. From what I've heard via others is that Zeiss is finding this and the short register distance quite challenging. Combined with the narrow mount diameter, just moving all of the optics farther away isn't really a feasible solution.
Hi Ron. I have this option with the A7r for this glass to be replaced with a thinner covering at Camera Clinic for a cost of about 1,000 AUD. With the new bodies to be introduced, and enjoying the A7s, I have since put this on hold. The A7r and the WATE is a great setup in its own right, and is the lightest/smallest landscape/seascape combination I have had. I also have two VM-E adapters which are excellent and allow close focusing for all my M lenses. With WATE on the A7r, I can now focus down to about 4", and allow for a lot more creativity. When the A7r gels, it works brilliantly with the increased DR and resolution. The A7s is more fun though...
Congrats Allen !!!
Not to go too OT, but has anyone had the a7R sensor stack replaced with a physically and/or optically thinner cover glass?
It would seem Sony's choice of ~2.5mm thick topping somewhat shot themselves in the foot when it comes to their own native lens designs. From what I've heard via others is that Zeiss is finding this and the short register distance quite challenging. Combined with the narrow mount diameter, just moving all of the optics farther away isn't really a feasible solution.
Hi Ron. I have this option with the A7r for this glass to be replaced with a thinner covering at Camera Clinic for a cost of about 1,000 AUD. With the new bodies to be introduced, and enjoying the A7s, I have since put this on hold. The A7r and the WATE is a great setup in its own right, and is the lightest/smallest landscape/seascape combination I have had. I also have two VM-E adapters which are excellent and allow close focusing for all my M lenses. With WATE on the A7r, I can now focus down to about 4", and allow for a lot more creativity. When the A7r gels, it works brilliantly with the increased DR and resolution. The A7s is more fun though...
Congrats Allen !!!
Nov 14, 2014 at 08:06 PM
p.1026 #20Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
charles.K wrote:
It would seem Sony's choice of ~2.5mm thick topping somewhat shot themselves in the foot when it comes to their own native lens designs. From what I've heard via others is that Zeiss is finding this and the short register distance quite challenging. Combined with the narrow mount diameter, just moving all of the optics farther away isn't really a feasible solution.Hi Ron. I have this option with the A7r for this glass to be replaced with a thinner covering at Camera Clinic for a cost of about 1,000 AUD. With the new bodies to be introduced, and enjoying the A7s, I have since put this on hold. The A7r and the WATE is a great setup in its own right, and is the lightest/smallest landscape/seascape combination I have had. I also have two VM-E adapters which are excellent and allow close focusing for all my M lenses. With WATE on the A7r, I can now focus down to 7", and...Show more →
I am using the Phigment Adapter for my Leica M to Sony E-mount adapter which can provide EXIF data between the lens and the A7 series cameras. I have it set for my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 lens. But, I will also set the adapter for the WATE when it arrives. Though the adapter suffers from vignetting for lenses 75mm and longer due to its being designed initially for the APS-C size lenses, Paul is considering in the future to make an adapter that will cover FF but this will require retooling the adapter with a new sensor assembly. Additionally, Paul is considering the introduction of a Helicoid for a future adapter as well. Unfortunately, at this point Paul is only supplying the adapters in North America, but I have already sent one of the V1.1 to Xavier in Spain. I may opt for the Voigtlander Helicoid if Paul does not release the adapter soon after the arrival of my WATE.
Rich
rscheffler wrote
Not to go too OT, but has anyone had the a7R sensor stack replaced with a physically and/or optically thinner cover glass?It would seem Sony's choice of ~2.5mm thick topping somewhat shot themselves in the foot when it comes to their own native lens designs. From what I've heard via others is that Zeiss is finding this and the short register distance quite challenging. Combined with the narrow mount diameter, just moving all of the optics farther away isn't really a feasible solution.
I am using the Phigment Adapter for my Leica M to Sony E-mount adapter which can provide EXIF data between the lens and the A7 series cameras. I have it set for my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 lens. But, I will also set the adapter for the WATE when it arrives. Though the adapter suffers from vignetting for lenses 75mm and longer due to its being designed initially for the APS-C size lenses, Paul is considering in the future to make an adapter that will cover FF but this will require retooling the adapter with a new sensor assembly. Additionally, Paul is considering the introduction of a Helicoid for a future adapter as well. Unfortunately, at this point Paul is only supplying the adapters in North America, but I have already sent one of the V1.1 to Xavier in Spain. I may opt for the Voigtlander Helicoid if Paul does not release the adapter soon after the arrival of my WATE.
Rich
Nov 14, 2014 at 08:18 PM