rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.841 #17 · Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread | |
Guys thanks again for the feedback. I'll start by apologizing for this fairly long post. Sometimes when I start to write, it just keeps on going...
Cal: Thanks, yes it is.  You're enjoying the M240, I take it?
Charlie: I really like the punch of your recent images. If I dare say so, better than what you were posting with the NEX, though some of that was also with lower contrast vintage glass.. Re: M9 - I guess I'm not looking hard enough. You found a really good deal, by the sounds of it. I remember back during your 28 Cron quest that you managed to unearth one at a great price too, when used M lenses were otherwise going for a premium. My recent browsing has revealed M9s in the $3500-4000 range. Add ~10% exchange rate, cost of shipping to Canada, Paypal fee in some cases, no warranty to address potential problems, and its suddenly somewhat less appealing. As I think I outline below, there are aspects of a mixed system that don't work for me. The problem with the Sony consideration right now is that my Canon gear is vastly more responsive with much better UI and better augments my Leica kit, for my variety of work, even if the Sony's image quality is technically superior. But substitute the a7 with a Canon 6D... As an aside, I recently shot a job with the 1DX and the Sony RX10 filling in on the wide end in place of the Leica kit, just for kicks to see what it could do. Not bad, actually. Yes, at actual pixels you see where the M glass is much superior, but in normal applications, the Sony looked really nice, and the color was great. It has a lot of UI quirks that make it difficult for me to love for such applications, but it's also humbling to be reminded how there's sometimes very little technical difference between the two extremes.
The M240 RF wide lens compromise is that the microlenses are not offset as they are with the M9, though their oblong shape is suppose to provide similar results. Where the M240 seemed to have greater difficulty, at least initially (I haven't kept up with it recently) is worse color shift with some wide lenses (sound familiar?). My feeling is this is more or less a problem of higher pixel density, as we've also seen in the a7 vs. a7R comparisons, or NEX 5N/6 vs. 7, and is waiting for the correct M240 firmware tweak of in-cameara lens profiles. According to theSuede, apparently the M240 uses a much superior quality IR/cover glass compared to the M9, which results in better image edge resolution with wide angle lenses. This is partly what I take Charles is referring to when he says the 21 SEM is amazing on the M... Convenient, because it's certainly one of my favourite lenses. I'm not sure what the M240 & 50 Lux problem is?
Joe: Thanks - yes, I'm thinking live view with the 50 Lux will be handy for those times when I want to be more certain about where focus is. I was thinking about Photokina too, but as you suggest, I doubt there will be a major release, at least in respect to a full frame M body. Yeah, maybe P and/or Monocrom versions. I would be really surprised if there are functional improvements, though that did happen with the M8 to M8.2. But the 8 really needed some fixing. Obviously, eventually something new will come along, but I have to decide if the current offerings are enough.
That's why the decision isn't so easy... I like my images with the M9, for the most part. And I know how it works; its quirks. Usually it's good, but there are definitely situations where I have problems hitting the buffer. An extra fps would be nice too. While I don't necessarily motor it, it just means the shutter can be ready a bit faster. Often I do two frames in quick succession because a fleeting moment suddenly changed.
While two cameras could be an answer, in a given situation, I typically want to shoot with a specific lens and not switch to a different lens on another camera just to avoid this problem. But that said... while out for the past couple wintery walks, having a different lens on two identical cameras would have saved a lot of lens switching!
Live view would at least give me some confidence in tricky focusing situations when shooting wide open with 50 and longer.
Charles - interesting you mention a7/a7R ergonomics, as that's an aspect of the camera that pretty much made my decision not to get one. Maybe my decision was too influenced by winter shooting with gloves, as the button response was very difficult to gauge accurately without precise fingertip control. I find Sony's dials too 'soft' and too easily nudged accidentally. The rear dial/4-way rocker is a particular peeve with me. It's also on the RX10 I'm playing with now and a pain to control precisely, even with thin gloves. That said, I did find peaking worked better than I expected with the a7R and was generally easy to focus. Like you said, it would be an easy choice for longer lens use and I'd probably follow Ryan's lead and get the a7 instead for the higher fps and electronic first shutter curtain option. But for my needs, I'm already well served by an abundance of Canon gear, for which I definitely rely on AF when over 50mm in fast paced action. It will be interesting to see what Sony's 9-series camera will be. And in a couple years I'm sure there will be many more options in this and higher end product categories.
These ergonomic considerations are what I like about the M9. It's easy to shoot with in the cold, or when in a rush and with clear at-a-glance confirmation of important settings. While the 1DX is nearly a polar opposite, it's designed in a way that prevents most accidental setting changes and requires much more conscious actions to make such changes. Sony's dials are just barely 'clicky' and as a result I often under or overshoot where I want to end up, or press too hard while scrolling (the back dial/4-way rocker) and end up diving into a submenu, making undesired setting changes.
Doug: I'm curious what you miss about the M9?
Ryan: thanks. I agree with your points, though the M is somewhat concerning when it comes to low ISO shadow pushing. Possibly not as clean as the M9 in certain extreme cases due to the green color shift, but does benefit from wider dynamic range to start with, so possibly less digging necessary to bring up the shadows. Most important of the three for me is the buffer, its speed and the sound of the shutter. It's my main complaint about the M9. I could live with everything else if only that aspect was improved and was a disappointing aspect of the M-E. If that was the case, I would have less indecision about getting a second M9. Knowing the M240 better addresses this aspect, I'm not thrilled to potentially spend upwards of $4000 on a camera with which I'll be content, but not necessarily satisfied.
Joakim: Your points are very much in line with what I've discussed off-board, with Hilmar (seekuh) back when the M240 started shipping. He also decided to skip it, feeling there wasn't enough of an upgrade. And I can appreciate that too, as a long-time Canon user. Canon is blasted for being too conservative and incremental with upgrades. There is truth to that, but on the other hand, being able to transition to a new camera without too traumatic of a change is beneficial too, especially when the older gear is still in active use with the new. I can see this being a conflict between 'professional' and 'amateur' considerations, as the 'pro' side tends to place more value on consistency, whereas the 'enthusiast' side relishes (or is impatient for) changes that are fresh and exciting; a chance to try something different.
Whatever I add, I'll still be keeping my current M9. Two M9s will provide the best consistency, making the transition from one to the other very transparent. Adding an M240 provides specific improvements and new features that may be a benefit in certain situations, but at the expense of minor UI differences that result in momentary distractions. Two M240s would be good too, but not in the budget.
Andrew: Thanks. Most of my work is in colour and this raises an interesting point. This year I'll be doing more weddings than I've ever done on the past, but it's through a studio where the owner is the one responsible for post production. He likes what I'm doing with the M9, though initially he was quite skeptical of whether I'd be able to use it effectively for weddings. But, he is still very critical of the M9's files, particularly color quality (not so much with high ISO quality) in mixed/indoor environments. The problem is it's too different from the 'Canon look' he likes. Apparently it bogs down his PP workflow when required to custom tweak certain kinds of M9 images. While I'm not sure it's justifiable to pick up an M240 just because of these weddings, the SOOC CMOS look would likely blend better with the Canon files and the look he's going for this year (softer contrast, more muted color palette). BTW, how do you like the 6D? I've thought about getting one and maybe with the new 35/2 IS and perhaps the 24... to keep things small, similar to the Leica kit.
All this sparked by the cold weather M9 lock ups this week. It has rekindled my fear of being left stranded mid-job (though I would have adequate DSLR backup)
All this said, then there is business logic... Do I really *need* to use Leica for what I'm doing? I like the results, but it's not necessarily the best capital investment... at least I have no way of knowing if it actually make more money for me.
Here's a sequence with the 90 Summarit:
|
M9s can be had here for less than $3.5k. From dealers, its starts from approx. $3.6 to 4k which means users are trading them in at about $3k, so its a good time for bargain hunting, and you might be able to pick up a nice M9P for slightly more.
