Jump to content

Struggling to love the M-P 240


paachi

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are happy with your results, *bless* However it seems a pity to waste the quality the camera is capable of. For the life of me  I cannot see the advantage of using JPGs from a workflow point of view, except in special cases, as DNGs are faster, easier and more versatile to process...

Link to post
Share on other sites

After owning an M Type 240, I've had an M-P 240 for about a month and can't fault it. Rangefinder is easy to use, LV is easy to use, Olympus EVF2 works OK if you need it, menu is straightforward, ISO adjusts with no problem, framing is a joy, handling is excellent (although I use a multifunction handgrip), looks better than the M 240, battery lasts a long time, no lockups, no problems with colours, etc., etc.

 

I always wanted a Leica film camera 40 years ago but couldn't afford one. I bought a Nikon instead. It had good points but never felt quite right. Its only great thing was ease of focussing. It was far quicker than a rangefinder because it wasn't just lateral. I used to think that was a problem but then it entered my tiny mind that all I had to do was turn the camera through 90 degrees and there you go. Of course for those with a bigger brain than me will already have worked out that the rangefinder can reach all 360 degrees of a circle very quickly.

 

It really is a case of getting used to the beast in hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bocaburger: 

 

Interesting point..I for one have always shot in the RAW mode..not for any snobbery but for the simple fact that I like the latitude RAW files offer for me to try out different looks for a given situation. Ex: In the above images, the Girl and the dog in the park looks best to me in the greenish hue image because it captures the mood of the scene as I saw it..however the street singer works in B&W for me. When I used to tweak jpegs like this I would end up blown highlights, weird artifacts, etc. RAW fils feel a lot more malleable to me.

 

Now the catch 22 is that with the bump from 6MP to 24MP my raw files have gone up in size from 6-8MB to 40MB ish..so managing them and working quickly in a workflow is going to be interesting :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is indeed the downside. You need a substantial computer to postprocess efficiently -and some hefty drives for storage- And a good (AKA expensive) monitor, well calibrated. (a Retina display for instance is great for, well, display. But not for editing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shot slide film for decades, mostly for projection.  So my "workflow" was shoot, get it developed, and a slide either went in the tray or the trash.  I switched to digital reluctantly, because slide film was getting more costly, the choices becoming more limited, and local processing was disappearing.  I prefer to keep my digital workflow as close to the old days with slide film as possible, because it suited me fine.  That's why I prefer to shoot jpegs, burn the keepers to disc and delete the rest, and then show them on a flat-screen TV.  It's as close to shooting slide film and projecting it as I can get. 

 

In the slide days, having prints made was expensive and often disappointing.  Contrast went up, tonal range was lost, grain was accentuated, and the technology to deal with it was clumsy and the results not all that satisfactory.  I do recognize and appreciate the advantages of raw, especially for making prints.  I do have a fair bit of acumen with PP and do shoot raw on occasion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cibachrome prints from Kodachrome 25?

I found them beautiful and not all that expensive as well. Not the cheapest chemicals and paper around, but it was a matter of getting it right in one print with as few trial slips as possible.

That took quite a bit longer than present day postprocessing.

 

I printed from negative film as well, but it did not come close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is indeed the downside. You need a substantial computer to postprocess efficiently -and some hefty drives for storage- And a good (AKA expensive) monitor, well calibrated. (a Retina display for instance is great for, well, display. But not for editing.

I use a 15" MacBook Pro and Lightroom for processing, coupled with two external hard drives for storage.  This works very well for my purposes.

Edited by Carlos Danger
Link to post
Share on other sites

@CheshireCat: Yup using uncompressed now. Tried uncompressed and compressed to see if there were any tonality differences. Cant discern any so far.

 

@A Miller, Doc Henry: I do. My M2 gets a decent amount of use. But for 80% of the time where convenience, packing light and quick workflow are needed digital works better for me

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things in life I have learned the hard way... use the camera you love. Anything else is a waste of time. Just sayin'...YMMV.

 

Need further confirmation? Our very own Thorsten Overgaard says the same thing.

 

Life is too short to agonize over an infatuation or forced exercise. If you aren't happy now, will you be happy in a year? Two years? More? Why? A new Leica M is expensive and that money can be used on what you truly love to use. If you don't know what you really love, then, I can only wish you the best of luck.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cibachrome prints from Kodachrome 25?

I found them beautiful and not all that expensive as well. Not the cheapest chemicals and paper around, but it was a matter of getting it right in one print with as few trial slips as possible.

That took quite a bit longer than present day postprocessing.

 

I printed from negative film as well, but it did not come close.

Sounds like you made your own prints.  I tried it for about 6 months, when I was 12.  Then I discovered girls and found out there were much funner things one could do in a dark room.  

 

I did have a lab that made cibas for exhibitions, they were expensive but they were the best in the area.  But Cibas still didn't have the tonal range of an illuminated slide, and as I was shooting for projection, and printing was an after-the-fact thing, I was rarely satisfied.

 

I think I shot half a dozen rolls of K25 before giving up in disgust.  KII was head and shoulders a better film.  More saturation, wider tonal range.  Kodak ruined it with K25.  I think it was around 1974.  I shot Ektachrome-X and Fujichrome for a while until thank heavens Velvia came along. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things in life I have learned the hard way... use the camera you love. Anything else is a waste of time. Just sayin'...YMMV.

 

Need further confirmation? Our very own Thorsten Overgaard says the same thing.

 

Life is too short to agonize over an infatuation or forced exercise. If you aren't happy now, will you be happy in a year? Two years? More? Why? A new Leica M is expensive and that money can be used on what you truly love to use. If you don't know what you really love, then, I can only wish you the best of luck.

 

This is good advice during a time when I've witnessed some very poor displays on social media, aimed toward people who shoot digital as well as people who use DSLRs  - some of that vitriol coming from photographers who are very talented, well-known, "respected"... they obviously lack in social skills - either that or they have agendas (they're sponsored or they're appealing to elitists.)  Don't feel pressured to follow trends.  If a rangefinder works for you, great.  If film works for you, great.  If a DSLR works for you, great.  If a 4x5 Polaroid works for you, great.  These are tools in a toolbox, they are not a measure of ability or experience.

Edited by Joshua Lowe
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 think that's a little unfair.

 

If the M240 JPegs work for you, that's fine. But if the OP wants a more analogue experience, I'd suggest he's better to cut out all the automatic settings, film modes, and concentrate on getting exposure to work, and then process the raw files to get the image that works. Isn't that want digital photography is about? I'm not saying it's about post processing, but if you can't get a properly exposed raw file to work for you then the problem is a different one ...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...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...

Why someone would feel superior because they shoot RAW or why someone would feel threatened because others shoot RAW while they themselves shoot JPEG is truly incomprehensible.  It's sad that the internet is a breeding ground for such nonsense. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you made your own prints. 

Indeed, I had a fully equipped darkroom. Thermostatically controlled baths, dichroitic enlarger head, colorimeter, the works. I am not sure my wife would have approved of discovering girls in the darkroom.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fairly newcomer to Leica I really enjoy the experience of shooting with a a high quality camera using adorable lenses in DNG and then using Lightroom to play about with the "negative" until I am happy to export it as complete. This reminds me of shooting in B&W in the late 1960s and then messing about in the dark room. Like bocaburger my joys moved to other things to do in a darkened room and then I used slide colour film, especially Kodachrome 25. Job done. Then chase girls, drink too much, move to ordinary colour film, have to wait days for output, mostly crap, chuck in the dustbin and keep the good ones. Then one day Kodak's idea of digital photography took off. What's more it took off like a fighter on afterburn. Fabulous, now I could delete the crap and work on the good stuff.

 

Each to their own. Hopefully my history will jerk a few people to remember what it was like to use Gratispool. :D 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used a lot of digital cameras over the last 15 years including Nikons, Canons, Epson, Fuji and more than a dozen different Leicas. To my eye, the one camera that gave the most film like image right out of the box was the M8. Unfortunately, the M8 comes with a lot of undesirable baggage like poor high ISO performance and the need for UV/IR cut filters on all lenses used with it.

 

I now use the M240 and love it. I think If you familiarize yourself with post processing softwares and techniques designed to simulate a film look you will find the M240 a very satisfying camera to work with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...