jmahto Posted October 22, 2014 Share #1 Posted October 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Finally took the plunge. Impressions after two days with M. Moving from M9 and not going back. here are my impressions after two days. Pic #1: Very first shot with 90mm 2.8 Tele Elmarit. RF focusing. Pic #2: Macro shot using M-R + R-M + focusing helicoid + extender + 135 TE head and EVF Pic #3: Comparison pic for color (M9 vs M240) with only curve adjustment - not saying which one is which since they are very close. Pic #4: Comparison pic for color (M9 vs M240) with only curve adjustment - not saying which one is which since they are very close. SURPRISE: ======== - When I change to coded lens after a manually entered uncoded lens, the camera automatically identifies the lens. In M9 it will only pickup the new lens code if I switch to automatic lens detection in the menu (or using profile - which I had). Lots of time I used to forget and it would stamp the incorrect focal length in the exif. BETTER THAN M9: =============== - Shutter feel and sound. Suddenly M9 feels whiny. - ISO change is easier. Even in the dark I can hit ISO button since it is eaxctly in the middle. - On shutter dial "A" mark has a distinct sticky feel and I can switch from manual shutter to "A" without looking at the dial. - I like the info button close to my thumb. - I like the thumb wheel much easier to operate (than M9's wheel, which felt cheap). - Image quality indoors. Now I use ISO 1000 as upper limit instead of 640 (for M9) with much cleaner files. Still experimenting with high ISO cutoff. - EVF is very useful for checking rangefinder alignment right away. All my lenses are correct now except 135 TE (see later). - faster. SAME AS M9: =========== - Image quality at the base ISO. - Colors are very close for outdoor shots. Good enough for me. See the comparison pics with M9. - Size and weight. I don't feel the difference. NON ISSUE: ========== - I saw banding in ISO 1600 file pushed two stops. This is non issue so far but too early to comment more. M9 grains are pleasing but I don't get usable file at ISO 1600 (M9) therefore comparison is useless. - Saw banding in the sky at ISO 3200. Would avoid it. SURPRISE (not so good ) ========================== - image quality is Very close to NEX6 with long handheld lens. I tried with 80-200 f4 R and 400 telyt R. M 240 wins slightly in IQ but NEX6 is not far behind in details captured. Of course, The technique is more important to get the best and the files from M are more flexible/pleasing but it is **not a huge** win. Certainly for my usage as an amateur shooter. It means, I will continue to use NEX-6 with long lenses. BAD (well, not All are for the camera): (Not sure whether others also had this experience.) ======================================= - The R-M adaptor is VERY tight on my 80-200 R. It didn't turn all the way to lock. - The 400 telyt showed VERY strong vignetting on all four corners at f6.8 and f8 both. I didn't try smaller aperture. I never tried this lens on M9 with visio therefore I have no comparison of FF sensor. - My 135 tele-Elmar is suddenly not focusing for infinity. Since all other M lenses are fine, I am assuming this lens needs adjustment. - Focus peaking starts showing confirmation a little before/after rangefinder patch alignment resulting into iffy focus if I rely on focus peaking only. With zooming in the focusing is much better. I am using RF focusing on all M lenses which is more accurate. SURPRISE again !! (for 135 Tele-Elmar head use) =============================================== However, I can use the 135 TE lens head with adaptors like, M-R + R-M + focusing helicoid + 135 TE head then it works wonderfully from here to infinity and weighs only 0.2oz more than the complete M lens. In addition I can put an extender in between to make it macro lens or add 2XAPO converter to make it 270mm. WHAT I LEARNED: =============== - In LR5 simply crushing the shadow in the curve a little gives you closer to M9's tonal response. In other way you can say that shadows are already recovered a little bit compared to M9. This also means M9 gave an illusion that you can recover so much details from shadows (since it started with crushed shadows). I am keeping the M and M9 will go. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/235892-took-the-plunge-bye-bye-m9/?do=findComment&comment=2693051'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Hi jmahto, Take a look here Took the plunge ... bye bye M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
DigitalHeMan Posted October 22, 2014 Share #2 Posted October 22, 2014 . SURPRISE: ======== - When I change to coded lens after a manually entered uncoded lens, the camera automatically identifies the lens. In M9 it will only pickup the new lens code if I switch to automatic lens detection in the menu (or using profile - which I had). Lots of time I used to forget and it would stamp the incorrect focal length Good to know. This is my number one frustration on the M9.... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 22, 2014 Share #3 Posted October 22, 2014 Flower photo doesn't have much detail in the petals. Presumably the red channel exposure was blown (easy to do)? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share #4 Posted October 22, 2014 Flower photo doesn't have much detail in the petals. Presumably the red channel exposure was blown (easy to do)? Even with M9, I always had issue with red/orange objects. Often I had to reduce luminescence in LR5. Also in this pic, the petals are out of focus due to shallow DOF. The focus is in the center of the flower. You can tell, I am not that good with macro yet. This was just to show that I can use M 240 now for this kind of pics. Earlier I used NEX6. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Posted October 22, 2014 Share #5 Posted October 22, 2014 Even with M9, I always had issue with red/orange objects. Often I had to reduce luminescence in LR5. Also in this pic, the petals are out of focus due to shallow DOF. The focus is in the center of the flower. You can tell, I am not that good with macro yet. This was just to show that I can use M 240 now for this kind of pics. Earlier I used NEX6. In August I attended a friend's 60th birthday party held in Spain 'al fresco' at midday, The colour theme was red. Red balloons, red tablecloths, red flowers, red parasols, red everything. The photos I took hurt my eyes to look at until I toned them down in LR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share #6 Posted October 22, 2014 Can forum members comment on this part whether I have odd sample? BAD (well, not All are for the camera): (Not sure whether others also had this experience.) ======================================= - The R-M adaptor is VERY tight on my 80-200 R. It didn't turn all the way to lock. - The 400 telyt showed VERY strong vignetting on all four corners at f6.8 and f8 both. I didn't try smaller aperture. I never tried this lens on M9 with visio therefore I have no comparison on FF sensor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted October 22, 2014 Share #7 Posted October 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) After reading all the above, I'm glad I stuck with my film M cameras until the M240 was released. The M9 has its issues, but with the M240, Leica got it right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted October 22, 2014 Share #8 Posted October 22, 2014 Finally took the plunge. Impressions after two days with M. Moving from M9 and not going back. Sheesh I would hope so. I used an M240 extensively before I bought it. Can't imagine doing it any other way with something that expensive. SURPRISE: ======== - When I change to coded lens after a manually entered uncoded lens, the camera automatically identifies the lens. In M9 it will only pickup the new lens code if I switch to automatic lens detection in the menu (or using profile - which I had). Lots of time I used to forget and it would stamp the incorrect focal length in the exif. I'll have to try that. It almost sounds like a fortuitous bug, as it isn't mentioned in the manual. BETTER THAN M9:=============== - Shutter feel and sound. Suddenly M9 feels whiny. +1 except to me the M9 always sounded ridiculously noisy compared even to my 10 yr old Canon 5D. SAME AS M9: =========== - Image quality at the base ISO. - Colors are very close for outdoor shots. Good enough for me. See the comparison pics with M9. - Size and weight. I don't feel the difference. Jpegs are much better in the M240, in fact I don't even bother shooting raw anymore. The M9 jpegs were unusable much of the time. I definitely feel the difference in weight because the dratted thumb wheel hump changes completely how I grip the camera. I find my hand fatigues much quicker than it did with the M9. And I never use the wheel for anything, which makes it even more aggravating. SURPRISE (not so good ) ========================== - image quality is Very close to NEX6 with long handheld lens. I tried with 80-200 f4 R and 400 telyt R. M 240 wins slightly in IQ but NEX6 is not far behind in details captured. Of course, The technique is more important to get the best and the files from M are more flexible/pleasing but it is **not a huge** win. Certainly for my usage as an amateur shooter. It means, I will continue to use NEX-6 with long lenses. I have Nex 6. Frankly I find the IQ very close with all lenses. But it doesn't bother me. The M240 is a rangefinder. That's why I bought it. The Nex 6 is an EVIL, which is why it will never amount to anything more than an emergency backup for me. BAD (well, not All are for the camera): (Not sure whether others also had this experience.) ======================================= - The R-M adaptor is VERY tight on my 80-200 R. It didn't turn all the way to lock. - The 400 telyt showed VERY strong vignetting on all four corners at f6.8 and f8 both. I didn't try smaller aperture. I never tried this lens on M9 with visio therefore I have no comparison of FF sensor. I have the Novoflex R-M adapter and the 70-210 zoom and all is well. For what you paid for the lens and adapter I would want it sorted. Idk what the problem is with the 400. I have that lens, also in Viso mount, and it's perfect on my M240. SURPRISE again !! (for 135 Tele-Elmar head use) =============================================== However, I can use the 135 TE lens head with adaptors like, M-R + R-M + focusing helicoid + 135 TE head then it works wonderfully from here to infinity and weighs only 0.2oz more than the complete M lens. In addition I can put an extender in between to make it macro lens or add 2XAPO converter to make it 270mm. I used it that way on my Canon 5D with M-R + R-EOS adapters. But I milled down the optical cell flange on my T-E until focus was tack sharp with my M9's rangefinder, and it remains so on the M240. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share #9 Posted October 22, 2014 I have the Novoflex R-M adapter and the 70-210 zoom and all is well. For what you paid for the lens and adapter I would want it sorted. Idk what the problem is with the 400. I have that lens, also in Viso mount, and it's perfect on my M240. I have 400mm telyt 6.8 lens in R mount. Notice the corners in the attached pic. I have masked the license plate for obvious reasons. (BTW, I love this lens since I can hand hold it to 1/125 ) I used it that way on my Canon 5D with M-R + R-EOS adapters. But I milled down the optical cell flange on my T-E until focus was tack sharp with my M9's rangefinder, and it remains so on the M240. Are you referring to the lens protruding (not sure what it is called) that pushes RF mechanism? The lens itself doesn't focus to infinity when turned all the way. It seems the entire glass assemble need to move back a little. But I am no expert. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/235892-took-the-plunge-bye-bye-m9/?do=findComment&comment=2693335'>More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted October 22, 2014 Share #10 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I have 400mm telyt 6.8 lens in R mount. Notice the corners in the attached pic. I have masked the license plate for obvious reasons. (BTW, I love this lens since I can hand hold it to 1/125 ) Looks like when you put a filter on a w/a lens or use too narrow a lens shade. Doesn't look like something coming from the back end of the lens. But I even have a 72-67mm step-down adapter and a 67mm UV filter on the front of mine (the threads holding the glass retaining ring are 72mm but begin too far in-set for a filter to catch hold) and it doesn't vignette. Totally bizarre. Are you referring to the lens protruding (not sure what it is called) that pushes RF mechanism? The lens itself doesn't focus to infinity when turned all the way. It seems the entire glass assemble need to move back a little. But I am no expert. No. If you unscrew the front part with the glass in it (as you would for mounting on the short focus helicoid) and look at the back of it, there is a flat "landing" circumferential to the periphery of the barrel, where it comes to rest inside the focusing helicoid when the glass assembly is fully screwed down. If the glass assembly needs to be closer to the camera when the helicoid is at infinity (as mine, and evidently yours) it is necessary to shave that landing area the exact amount you pre-determine the lens head needs to come inward. (Alternately, and easier, is if it needs to be positioned further out...in which case all you need is shims.). In both cases the outer part of the lens needs to then be repositioned so the focus and aperture indices line up at the top of the lens. Not a difficult DIY but it does take patience and experience with something like a Dreml to do it accurately without taking the glass elements out. Edited October 22, 2014 by bocaburger Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share #11 Posted October 23, 2014 No. If you unscrew the front part with the glass in it (as you would for mounting on the short focus helicoid) and look at the back of it, there is a flat "landing" circumferential to the periphery of the barrel, where it comes to rest inside the focusing helicoid when the glass assembly is fully screwed down. If the glass assembly needs to be closer to the camera when the helicoid is at infinity (as mine, and evidently yours) it is necessary to shave that landing area the exact amount you pre-determine the lens head needs to come inward. (Alternately, and easier, is if it needs to be positioned further out...in which case all you need is shims.). In both cases the outer part of the lens needs to then be repositioned so the focus and aperture indices line up at the top of the lens. Not a difficult DIY but it does take patience and experience with something like a Dreml to do it accurately without taking the glass elements out. I think I can do simple DIY... but it is not very clear which surface need to be shave off. Is it A, B or C? <see pic> Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/235892-took-the-plunge-bye-bye-m9/?do=findComment&comment=2693590'>More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted October 23, 2014 Share #12 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) C. (I suppose you could do it to A but that would be really difficult since it's internal). Remember, when you're done, the unit will screw in a bit farther on the threads than before, so the aperture/focus index won't line up unless you realign the outer tube. You also need to make sure you shave the landing area equally all the way around. That's probably the most difficult part to accomplish doing it free-hand as I did. Taking the thing apart and milling it down on a flat sander would be the best but that would entail removing the glass elements, something I'm not confident to do and then get it back together in perfect collimation. Edited October 23, 2014 by bocaburger 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 23, 2014 Share #13 Posted October 23, 2014 - When I change to coded lens after a manually entered uncoded lens, the camera automatically identifies the lens. In M9 it will only pickup the new lens code if I switch to automatic lens detection in the menu (or using profile - which I had). Lots of time I used to forget and it would stamp the incorrect focal length in the exif. I can't confirm this. Just tested it on my M240 as the Summilux 50 ASPH is the only lens which is not coded I put this lens on the camera, set Lens detection to manual and switched to my coded Summicron 35 ASPH. The M240 still showed the 50ASPH as the connected lens. Can anybody else evaluate on this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Thompson Posted October 23, 2014 Share #14 Posted October 23, 2014 I can't confirm this. Just tested it on my M240 as the Summilux 50 ASPH is the only lens which is not coded I put this lens on the camera, set Lens detection to manual and switched to my coded Summicron 35 ASPH.The M240 still showed the 50ASPH as the connected lens. Can anybody else evaluate on this? Removed the manually coded 35 mm Color Skopar and put a coded 50 Lux on. The camera stayed in the manual mode, still coded for the Voigtländer. This is with current firmware. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share #15 Posted October 23, 2014 Sorry for that incorrect "surprise" !! I checked again and it doesn't automatically detect coded lens. I think I saw something I wanted to see !! Well, the behavior is same as in M9... but I am still keeping the camera. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 24, 2014 Share #16 Posted October 24, 2014 No harm done jmahto! I was just thinking about how much I'd love this feature a few days ago so this would have been a welcome surprise. I guess I'll just have to keep on using my 50Lux uncoded. Sorry for that incorrect "surprise" !! I checked again and it doesn't automatically detect coded lens. I think I saw something I wanted to see !! Well, the behavior is same as in M9... but I am still keeping the camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share #17 Posted October 25, 2014 No harm done jmahto! I was just thinking about how much I'd love this feature a few days ago so this would have been a welcome surprise. I guess I'll just have to keep on using my 50Lux uncoded. Well, I checked again... this is where my enthusiasm (and incorrect generalization sprung)... The steps: - Mount R lens with Leica M-R adaptor and it will switch to manual. Manually select corresponding lens. Keep shooting. - Remove R lens and mount M coded lens. M recognizes that you have mounted a new coded M lens. Therefore this works with switching between R and M coded lens . But (unfortunately) not between M uncoded and M coded lens. So it is a small surprise. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted October 26, 2014 Share #18 Posted October 26, 2014 Finally took the plunge. Impressions after two days with M BAD (well, not All are for the camera): (Not sure whether others also had this experience.) ======================================= - The R-M adaptor is VERY tight on my 80-200 R. It didn't turn all the way to lock. I have the same experience with an adapter I bought on FleaBay: hard to fit and impossible to turn [on the M-P]. I did manage to turn it all the way, and got quite a scare when it was almost impossible to turn back. While the same adapter connected to my Visoflex M-Bayonet works very good: easy to attach and turn. My conclusion: the tolerances became tighter. I am selling the adapter again. I don't know what surface to grind&polish a little bit off. I tried but no result. Is it the distance of flange to bayonet lips or is it the width of the bayonet lips? Some of the register measures are definitely changed compared to olden times. My wife told me not to fool around with such an expensive camera. She is the wiser part of me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted October 26, 2014 Share #19 Posted October 26, 2014 Finally took the plunge. Impressions after two days with M. NON ISSUE: ========== - I saw banding in ISO 1600 file pushed two stops. This is non issue so far but too early to comment more. M9 grains are pleasing but I don't get usable file at ISO 1600 (M9) therefore comparison is useless. - Saw banding in the sky at ISO 3200. Would avoid it. I compared the results of Capture One V8 and V 7 with Lightroom5. In C1 the shadows show considerable noise and banding/pattern noise. They look 'light'. In LR the shadows are a stable factor, very little stripes and they are much much darker. uncompressed (thus 45Mb files) is necessary to avoid banding when changing an even patch of color. So C1 had to go. Now I can put the M at 2000 and still get very good pictures, in depth towards the shadows and also regarding white balance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share #20 Posted October 27, 2014 uncompressed (thus 45Mb files) is necessary to avoid banding when changing an even patch of color. I didn't know compression makes a difference to banding. I will do some experiments. (BTW, I have been shooting in compressed DNG). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.