Struggling to love the M-P 240

[paachi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Guys

 

My first post here on the forum. I have been a long time rangefinder user; I recently upgraded to the Leica M-P Typ 240 and needed some advise. 

 

I am not a professional photographer but I do take it seriously and enjoy it quite a bit. My main styles of shooting are street and portraiture. My current kit is an Epson R-D1 with a 40 Summicton, 15 Heliar and 90 Elmar-C. I have been using the Epson for nearly 8 years. It has serviced me more than well. I love shooting with it, limitations and all. However recently it has been showing its age

 

1. The sensor is only 6MP so sometimes when I need to crop the image it doesn't lend to a lot of flexibility

2. The APS-C sensor size meant DOF and wide angle challenges

3. Battery life and 2GB memory limit precludes any serious usage for mission critical stuff

 

Summarily I felt it was he right time to realize a 10 year dream and move up to a Leica. I just purchased a Typ 240 M-P with a 35 Summicron ASPH a few days back. Here is the challenge..with the caveat that I have used the camera for only a few days, I am really struggling to bond with the camera or its images. Some of my gripes are

 

1. The M-P images don't look as pleasing to my eye as my RD1 images. They lack the film like feel I think I got from the Epson

2. The camera itself feels a lot less analog and detached from the minimalism gestalt of Leicas (I also have an M2 for film duties). My RD1 I bonded with right from the first moment and every time I pick it up its like meeting an old friend again

3. The menus are IMO overtly complicated. Just too many options and not structured well. The person who came up with the button layout needs a swift kick in the arse

4 Handling the camera is also a bit more of a focussed effort than my fits-like-a-glove RD1/ M2. Granted the price of the Leica plays a very big role in it. I have added a ThumbsUp grip and have a Luigi case with the wooden grip en route that's probably going to make things better and potentially bulkier as well

 

So heres where I need advice from you guys..

 

1. Should I give it more time to learn how to use the M and adapt to it?

2. I can make my peace with points 3, 4 (though for the price I feel really shouldn’t have to) but points 1 and 2 are my main sticking points. Can they be improved upon with better technique and time

3. Should I sell it and go for an M9/ M9P? Before buying the M-P 240, I did a ton of research and tried an M9’s hands on as well. I did like its images (somewhat similar to my R-D1 but a lot noisier) and the menus were a lot simpler. Once I held the M-P in my hand I didn’t like the M9s build and the shutter sound + action. Finally what pushed me over the edge on the M-P was the sensor issues. I plan to own and use the camera for a long time (~10 years) and I didn’t want something which could/ will conk out and Leica won’t support it

4. Should I stake it out with my R-D1 for a few more years until the right range finder comes along? DSLRs and faux RFs (Fuji/ Oly) are not an option for me. I like the gestalt and process of image making in an analog range finder. 

 

Please find below a few images. Direct Jpegs from the Leica with no adjustments, tweaked DNGs converted to Jpegs and some shots taken a while back with the Epson. One point to note is that all the Leica shots are with the 35 Summicton ASPH and all Epson images are with the 40 Summicron. 

 

Would love to get thoughts form you guys on what to do next..

 

Series 1 Leica M-P + 35 Summicron in morning sunshine:

 

1. Direct Jpeg from M-P

 

2. DNG -> Tweaks in LR3 -> JPG

 

3. DNG -> Tweaks in LR3 -> JPG

 

Series 2 Leica M-P + 35 Summicron in morning sunshine:

 

1. Direct Jpeg from M-P

 

2. DNG -> Tweaks in LR3 -> JPG

 

3. DNG -> Tweaks in LR3 -> JPG

 

Series 3 Epson R-D1 + 40 Summicron:

 

1. ERF -> Tweaks in LR3 -> JPG

 

2. ERF -> Tweaks in LR3 -> JPG

 

3. ERF -> Tweaks in LR3 -> JPG

 

Many Thanks!

 

PK.

[Mornnb]

'Film look' I would argue is more to do with the optics of the film era, technically excellent modern ASPH glass has a different look.

I would suggest picking up some vintage glass and trying that. The Zeiss Sonnar 50mm for example is a modern lens that promises a vintage look.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[paachi]

Thanks for your input Mornnb. I agree and to that end I have a vintage 50 Summilux on the way which should be a good litmus test. I havent put the 40 summicron on the M-P yet because I am not sure if the frame selection mechanism on that lens will foul up the M-P

[adan]

40mm lens won't "foul up" the MP - it will just show you the 50mm lines (so you'll get more in the final picture than the lines suggest).

 

Forget shooting jpg with the Leica - you miss 80% of the quality over raw(DNG). With correct raw processing, of course.

 

Definitely, the newer Leica lenses have more contrast than pre-1990 designs, so you do have to compare apples to apples in that regard. Try your 35 ASPH on your R-D1 (or your M2) - you will likely find they also look quite different with that lens.

 

Yeah, the "analog" qualities of the Epson (thumb wind, "gauges," iso dial) are unique - but you can wait 50 years and never see their like again in a digital rangefinder. That ship has sailed. Possibly, Leica will figure out how to shave a few mm off the thickness of their digitals. But I doubt it - circuit boards are thicker than film. Epson "cheated" their lens mount out a few mm in front of the body (compare it to your flush M2/M-P lens mounts), to make the overall thickness seem smaller.

 

As to differences in the image character (absent the lens differences) - I think the Epson may look more "gritty", with only 6 Mpixels and 2003 CCD technology. The M-P is always going to be "Kodachrome 25/Pan F" to the Epson's "Tri-X" - at the same ISO. But take the M-P out of the sunshine and into some of the same situations where you've used your Epson, and I think you'll find you can get the same look.

 

I'd also recommend trying the M-P with 1-2 thirds of a stop underexposure compensation dialed in. Leica tends to be a bit - generous - with their exposure, which can lead to blown highlights like the dog's chest, esp. with the contrasty ASPH lenses and hard light.

 

I use M9s. I love my M9s. But I wouldn't recommend them especially, today. As you analysed, the M/M-P is quieter and has a more finished feel. And the sensor corrosion is always going to be a worry. The only thing keeping me from jumping to the M/M-P is the loss of the full-time natural-light frameline option.

[paachi]

@adan:

 

Thank you for the feedback.

 

I will definitely try out the 40 Summicron on the M-P and vice versa the 35 ASPH on the R-D1. If the Summicron can draw as well on the M-P then I am sold . I pretty much work exclusively with raw files, however as I read up on the M-P lots of folks were quite pleased with the Jpegs..guess I am not in that camp.

 

I took the advice from you guys and the feedback from a similar post on RFF and edited another raw file to make it look more tri-x in B&W and more Velvia in color. Would love to get your critique.

 

The Epson is a really unique camera and imho it truly embraces the film and the digital worlds. The dials (like a mechanical watch) are quirky but immensely useful to see information at a glance. As I use the M-P I realize how many things I 'used' to do on the R-D1 at a glance sub-consiously without even touching a button eg: checking ISO, remaining shots, batt life, WB, etc. I will need to develop my usage style if I intend to gel with the M-P.

 

Thanks once again for the feedback. Please keep them coming..

 

Some more pictures..both taken around 1-2:00 PM in daylight and shadows by the M-P + 35 Summicron

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best,

PK.

[Mornnb]

There's that very high contrast and fast focus fall off modern ASPH look from Leica's current lens designer, Peter Karbe. I think this is what you're complaining about rather than the camera.

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The difference in ergonomics are what they are... I agree that some design choices made for the M-P (and for the whole range of M digital cameras, for that matter) are not ideal but in time, I'm pretty sure you'll learn how to use the M-P dials and menus and adjust to the camera.

 

In any event, your beloved RD-1 will fail sooner or later and I wouldn't hold my breath for the next iteration of digital Ms to be substantially different from the current one in terms of size and ergonomics.

 

As already suggested, try using older, pre-ASPH low-contrast lenses - along wit higher default ISO settings, to prevent files from being too clean-looking.

Alternatively, you could add some "digital grain"  in LR. Can't remember whether that was available in LR3, but you could try LR5 and see if you like it.

[jaapv]

It always takes me a few months to adjust to a new camera. Lock your Epson away for six months - comparing on a daily basis will impair your appreciation of the new camera. When you take it out again after half a year you will be surprised to discover the way you look at the differences by then.

[CheshireCat]

1. The M-P images don't look as pleasing to my eye as my RD1 images. They lack the film like feel I think I got from the Epson

 

The M is not the RD1. Your brain needs time to adapt to the new camera, as the output straight out of camera will definitely be different than what you expected from a RD1.

 

About the "film like feel", it is not clear what you mean. Nonetheless, whatever you mean, if you got it with a 2003 digital sensor, then you can have it with the M sensor in post (provided you shoot RAW).

 

2. The camera itself feels a lot less analog and detached from the minimalism gestalt of Leicas (I also have an M2 for film duties).

 

The only thing I miss in digital Ms is a physical ISO dial.

Any manual camera that deserves to be called so MUST have physical controls for all three exposure parameters: Aperture, Time, ISO.

 

3. The menus are IMO overtly complicated. Just too many options and not structured well. The person who came up with the button layout needs a swift kick in the arse

 

Last time I accessed the menu (apart from formatting the card and set ISO) was 3 months ago.

I agree the menu structure is awkward. And the fact there are actually two menus (MENU and SET) is nonsense.

However, i want the camera to expose all parameters, so I can configure a new camera exactly as I like, and then forget about the menu.

 

4 Handling the camera is also a bit more of a focussed effort than my fits-like-a-glove RD1/ M2. Granted the price of the Leica plays a very big role in it.

 

As discussed in the "What do you want in the next digital M" thread, I am convinced the only reason for the lack of ergonomic design is due to the "must keep classic Leica M shape" dogma of some old marketing "robots". The "integrated circuits vs film" argument is just a funny excuse.

There is not much to be done with the flange-distance and RF mechanism, but the body can be much slimmer and compact with a shape similar to the Sony NEX and Leica T.

 

Direct Jpegs from the Leica with no adjustments

No wonder you are not happy

You should really shoot RAW.

Take your time (a lot of time) developing raw files in Lightroom to study and understand the properties of the M240 sensor.

Understainding your sensor means knowing how to expose and how to process your files.

Then you will start loving your new camera, and never look back.

[luigi bertolotti]

You need time...  ... 8 years with a camera are a long time, adn the RD1 has been probably the best "bridge" design for a Leica RF user who whished to approach the digital age (I haven't it, but thought a lot to buy one several years ago) ; M240 is a  digital FF camera, no doubt, and the menus are anyway simpler than in many contemporary cameras (they have done even the Edition 60 without LCD... but I wouldn't advice towards it...) ; handling is a matter of attitude, and abou the "film look" (provided that one is chasing for it) is just a matter of mastering the DNG processing and,, in case, using some oldstyled lenses : in this sense, the old Summilux 50, which me too have, is an excellent companion. About your question 3 and 4 :

(3) going to a M9 would be unuseful... same handling, worst high ISO, maybe a bit more resemblance of files with your beloved RD1... I think that. basically, there is nothing that could make you appreciate more a M9 than your M240 (in the Forum, there have been discussions about the pluses of the CCD sensors... imho, hair-splitting arguments...) 

(4) Go on using the RD1, if you like... but you simply lose the opportunity to learn seriously the M240... and the "right rangefinder" you quote, will never come along anyway... it will be another, more modern, digital camera : if Leica wants to go on and survive, they must come out with cameras that, as years go on, are more and more targeted to "native digital" users...

[cheewai_m6]

1. take time to adjust

2. leica m system isn't for everyone

[Herr Barnack]

I would make the following recommendations -

 

1:  Start shooting in RAW format and develop proficiency in post processing.

2:  Use "smooth color" film mode.

3:  Do not use auto white balance - manually select the right W/B for your light source.

4:  Do not use auto ISO.

5:  Learn to navigate the menus (I went from an M4-P to an M240 with no digital camera experience and did not find the menus to be problematic).

6:  Set aside your RD-1 and make a real commitment to learning the M-P.  Stop comparing the two - the M-P is a completely different and vastly superior camera.

7:  If the 35/2 ASPH lens you have does not render in a way that you find pleasing, get an older non-ASPH M lens from the used sector (try it before you spend money or trade off your 35/2 ASPH, though; if you can't try the lens, be sure that you will be able to return it to the merchant if you find that you do not care for its rendering).

 

Hope these suggestions will help...

Edited April 13, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[jaapv]

Err... When shooting raw, the film mode is not relevant...

[Herr Barnack]

Err... When shooting raw, the film mode is not relevant...

True (chalk that one up to brain-fart...) 

Edited April 13, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[jaapv]

We all have our Warthog moments...

[jdlaing]

Unfair to the Warthogs!

[pop]

Unfair to the Warthogs!

They will get over it. After all, they will have their human moments, too.

[paachi]

Thanks a lot for the responses everyone. It looks like the universal recommendation is to give time to unlearn the R-D1 and learn the M-P. Maybe I do need to temper my expectation of the speed at which I will adopt a new system.

 

Not going to give up on the M-P and will try to relearn my RAW workflows. The main difference in the RAW work flow was how the Epson ERF files were handled by Lightroom vs. how DNGs are handled.

 

I will keep you guys posted on my progress with more posts and images. Would love to get your critique on them.

 

Once again many thanks!

 

Best,

PK.

[paachi]

One other point..I am keen to see how vintage lenses draw on the M-P..that will tell me if its more a lens challenge or a RAW workflow challenge. My 50 Summilux comes in today (hopefully) and I take it out for a spin tonight

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bocaburger]

One of the things that pissed me off even more than the IR filter debacle when I went from R-D1 to an M8 was the inconsistent quality of the Leica's jpegs.  Carried through the M9, and along the way I learned a great deal about PP'ing DNG's and got to be very good and proficient at it.  Nonetheless, I am delighted with the M240's jpeg output and elated to be rid of PP once again.  Although shooting RAW seems to be one of those things people on forums have seized upon as a means of asserting their superiority as discerning photographers by derision, but I just laugh at that crap and it rolls off my back like water off a duck.  I have no compulsion at all to shoot DNG unless I see a shot I know I will want to fiddle with and which from experience I also know will be hard to do from a jpeg.  So far haven't found many.