Overgaard Posted June 27, 2013 Share #1 Posted June 27, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) A new page in the Worlds (Possibly) Longest Camera Review - The Leica M by Thorsten Overgaard. Enjoy! Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Page 32 - "Seeing with the Leica M 240" - Leica M Type 240 Digital Rangefinder Camera - Review - Sample Photos - Electronic Viewfinder - Messucher - Focusing with prescription glasses - CMOS vs CCD "Strong tradition meets new technology. What we had become accustomed to call the "Leica M9 look" with the same regard as if it was Simon and Garfunkel singing their praise to Kodachrome ... it is all gone. Or is it?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 Hi Overgaard, Take a look here "Seeing With the Leica M 240" article at overgaard.dk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted June 28, 2013 Share #2 Posted June 28, 2013 Thanks for various practical suggestions. In the section that addresses checking back/front focus, it seems one only needs to compare live view against the VF focus. For me, that's one of the great things about having live view, i.e., to easily verify focus calibration. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted June 28, 2013 Author Share #3 Posted June 28, 2013 Thanks for various practical suggestions. In the section that addresses checking back/front focus, it seems one only needs to compare live view against the VF focus. For me, that's one of the great things about having live view, i.e., to easily verify focus calibration. Jeff Yes, except that you have to move focus to get the EVF 100% in focus. And that means changing focusing in the acoustic viewfinder as well. So I can't really compare them. I find it easier to simply focus the acoustic viewfinder and look at the results. The EVF-2 is always right, so that is the backup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 28, 2013 Share #4 Posted June 28, 2013 Yes, except that you have to move focus to get the EVF 100% in focus. And that means changing focusing in the acoustic viewfinder as well. So I can't really compare them. I find it easier to simply focus the acoustic viewfinder and look at the results. The EVF-2 is always right, so that is the backup. Sorry, Thorsten, you lost me. Not sure what you mean by 'acoustic' viewfinder. I was merely suggesting that one can determine if the RF is out of calibration by focusing using the VF focus patch and then comparing that to the the always accurate live view. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MirekE Posted June 28, 2013 Share #5 Posted June 28, 2013 The pictures in the article make my waiting for delivery even more painful Your article shows the new microlenses. Do you think thy make any difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted June 28, 2013 Share #6 Posted June 28, 2013 Sorry, Thorsten, you lost me. Not sure what you mean by 'acoustic' viewfinder. I was merely suggesting that one can determine if the RF is out of calibration by focusing using the VF focus patch and then comparing that to the the always accurate live view. Jeff I think Thorsten means optical viewfinder... OVF. The EVF is really such a terrible meal when you know what the lens is really transmitting onto the sensor! Now I will read his new pages, which undoubtedly will be great. I expect to find another slew of gorgeous Nocti shots about which I am so envious. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted June 28, 2013 Share #7 Posted June 28, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just bought the Olympus VF-2 to use on my M240. Although it works splendid, however I find the focus is (gasp!) less accurate somewhat?? I'm more accurate focusing with the RF patch than with the red clippings! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted June 28, 2013 Share #8 Posted June 28, 2013 I just bought the Olympus VF-2 to use on my M240. Although it works splendid, however I find the focus is (gasp!) less accurate somewhat?? I'm more accurate focusing with the RF patch than with the red clippings! I find -- and others have as welll -- the same thing. The rangefinder focus -- I love Thorsten calling it the acoustic -- is exemplary, and even better than a good EVF. It doesn't mean the EVF is bad, just that the traditional Leica approach, as used in the M-240, is better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest odeon Posted June 28, 2013 Share #9 Posted June 28, 2013 Great article. Thank you for sharing. You visited to Istanbul. And you didn't write the price of Leica M in Istanbul. I can tell you: 7750 Euros (include taxes) Conclusion: I bought the Leica M from Hamburg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted June 28, 2013 Share #10 Posted June 28, 2013 I find -- and others have as welll -- the same thing. The rangefinder focus -- I love Thorsten calling it the acoustic -- is exemplary' date=' and even better than a good EVF./QUOTE'] Am I missing something? How is the RF focus acoustic? Is there some sort of sound involved? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl G Posted June 28, 2013 Share #11 Posted June 28, 2013 I find -- and others have as welll -- the same thing. The rangefinder focus -- I love Thorsten calling it the acoustic -- is exemplary' date=' and even better than a good EVF./QUOTE'] Am I missing something? How is the RF focus acoustic? Is there some sort of sound involved? He meant analog which he calls the RF in the article. Like Thorsten my EVF went on about 5 min after the camera and EVF arrived. With LV set to auto, the focus with focus peaking is very easy on the EVF. Easier really for very shallow wide open shots than the RF. A simple turn of the wheel scrolls to 5x or 10x zoom and the subject lights up with redlines around the edges. Flat subjects, moving subjects, portraits, are best left to the RF. The nice thing is to have both. Composition is also exact in the EVF vs the RF and is specially helpful for non M lenses or WA or Macro. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted June 28, 2013 Share #12 Posted June 28, 2013 Is there any workaround for the EVF? Its a great solution IMHO for dim situations! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 28, 2013 Share #13 Posted June 28, 2013 I find it easier to simply focus the acoustic viewfinder ... Umm—maybe it's time to grab a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'acoustic' ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted June 28, 2013 Share #14 Posted June 28, 2013 I find -- and others have as welll -- the same thing. The rangefinder focus -- I love Thorsten calling it the acoustic -- is exemplary' date=' and even better than a good EVF./QUOTE'] Am I missing something? How is the RF focus acoustic? Is there some sort of sound involved? It's a metaphor! It's not electric! Get it, it's therefore acoustic! The poetry quotient of LUF members, their brilliant photography notwithstanding, is sometimes perhaps missing a little? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted June 28, 2013 Share #15 Posted June 28, 2013 It's a metaphor! It's not electric! Get it, it's therefore acoustic! The poetry quotient of LUF members, their brilliant photography notwithstanding, is sometimes perhaps missing a little? Well I could be wrong because I hated poetry (sorry if you like it but my literal brain doesn't!). Electric/acoustic certainly are not opposites, mechanical would fit that bill. There is nothing about the RF mechanism that has any metaphorical relationship to something acoustic. That all being said, many things fly over my head! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl G Posted June 28, 2013 Share #16 Posted June 28, 2013 Is there any workaround for the EVF? Its a great solution IMHO for dim situations! I'm not sure what you are asking. Workaround for the EVF? Live view can be seen through the EVF screen or on the back panel, your choice. The RF view finder is mechanical and a;ways there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted June 28, 2013 Share #17 Posted June 28, 2013 Umm—maybe it's time to grab a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'acoustic' ... Geez - this is a hard school. Last time I looked British English is not the first language in Denmark. Another great, and very helpful, article, Thorsten.Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted June 28, 2013 Share #18 Posted June 28, 2013 I'm not sure what you are asking. Workaround for the EVF? Live view can be seen through the EVF screen or on the back panel, your choice. The RF view finder is mechanical and a;ways there. What I meant was the EVF was giving indication of the sharp area, but turns out its not as accurate as the RF patch. Is there any way to adjust the sharpness/focus indicator on the EVF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl G Posted June 28, 2013 Share #19 Posted June 28, 2013 O.K. , I got it, Slade. The Focus Aid works best if it is zoomed in on an area with edges with some contrast and frequently I'll have the aperture wide open and after the focus start stopping down to the desired aperture which goes to live view mode for composition, framing and DOF preview. Hard to explain but in use it is actually pretty quick. The times I have had the focus aid fail the most is when it wasn't zoomed and/or the back ground was cluttered with lots of lines or featureless. Which can be when AF on DSLR can fail as well. As I said, it is really nice to have in addition to but not as a complete replacement for the RF. I thought it was a feature that I might not use at all but I can sometimes shoot using just the EVF for prolonged periods. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 28, 2013 Share #20 Posted June 28, 2013 Geez —this is a hard school. Last time I looked British English is not the first language in Denmark. Confusing 'analogue' with 'acoustic' has nothing to do with English or Danish. But in the meantime, Thorsten thankfully has removed the wrong term from his article. So we can put this point to rest now. What I meant was the EVF was giving indication of the sharp area, but turns out its not as accurate as the RF patch. Whether it's less accurate, equally accurate, or more accurate than the RF patch depends on the lens. For most M lenses, the traditional rangefinder focusing is more accurate than the EVF's focus peaking. For 135 mm, it more or less is a draw (provided the camera and lens are perfectly adjusted). For longer focal lengths, and for close-ups, the EVF is just perfect. So, EVF focusing doesn't replace rangefinder focusing but extends it to previously unaccessible scopes. Is there any way to adjust the sharpness/focus indicator on the EVF? No, there isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.