Preparing for the M

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What happened to your statement only a couple of months ago that, with the MM, you finally have all the cameras you need for the next decade, except perhaps an EVIL?

 

My dessert bet gets easier every day...you said I would starve...although even I thought you might at least hold out a year.

 

Jeff

SLR instead of EVIL, seeing that there is no acceptable (to me) one on the market currently.

[stroman22]

Coming back to the initial question.

 

Yeeees, I am prepared.

 

I'm so excited to use

R 21-35

R 28-90

R 60 Makro

R APO 4.0/280

and

Nikon 2.8/180 AF-D

Nikon 2.8/80-200 AF-D two ring

and

Zeiss 2.0/100 Makro

together with my Oly EVF, that's already in use with the X2,

 

on my M 240. And I'm definitely the first name on my dealers pre-order list.

 

What else does a man need to be happy??

[wlaidlaw]

I played with the EVF on a Leica X2 in Leica Mayfair - it's completely usable, and with focus peaking should be better than good. I particularly appreciated the way it compensates for low light and provides a very well illuminated scene. Manual focus on the X2 gives you a magnified window in the screen to work with - this is good. It will be infinitely better on the M-240. My only complaint now is having to wait

 

I was amazed when using the EVF on a Telyt 560 about 2 weeks ago. I was focusing with no problems and then I went to stop down from f5.6 to f11, only to find I was already stopped down. This was on a gloomy November day. There was no way I could have focused with an optical Visoflex at this setting and ambient light levels and I had not even noticed on the EVF. That is the point when I realised there is actually something quite remarkably clever about it. Focus peaking is only going to make it better.

 

Wilson

[k-hawinkler]

I was amazed when using the EVF on a Telyt 560 about 2 weeks ago. I was focusing with no problems and then I went to stop down from f5.6 to f11, only to find I was already stopped down. This was on a gloomy November day. There was no way I could have focused with an optical Visoflex at this setting and ambient light levels and I had not even noticed on the EVF. That is the point when I realised there is actually something quite remarkably clever about it. Focus peaking is only going to make it better.

 

Wilson

 

 

... Yup, as long as there is something to peak on.

However, that won't always be the case.

 

 

Long tele-lenses:

 

I certainly use my NEX-5N and NEX-7, both with EVFs a lot, mostly on a solid tripod and long tele-lenses.

Once focused with focus peaking and/or magnification I use a remote control to get an exposure.

That also works for stationary birds etc. No mirror slap.

Sometimes it takes awhile for focus peaking to fully develop and show in the EVF or on the LCD.

Reason could be not focused accurately enough or an internal delay for marginal situations.

I have not noticed a blackout time of any length on my NEXs yet.

 

So, other than infinity focusing, I have a hard time though getting accurate focus with tele-lenses, hand held of fast moving objects, such as flying birds.

 

Douglas Herr of http://wildlightphoto.com/ has certainly set the standard for those kinds of shots with his DMRs.

I still wonder though whether current generation of EVFs can keep up when fast tracking is required.

It will be interesting to see Doug's verdict once he has enough experience with the M-240 to render one.

I hope he will have the opportunity to extensively try out the M-240 before he would have to commit buying one.

 

 

Up to 135 mm

 

Using the regular set of M-lenses is a lot of fun and hasn't posed a real challenge with regards to focus peaking on my NEXs.

In that focal length range and with rangefinder coupled M-lenses the familiar style of focusing is there anyway on the M-240.

 

 

Well, that's my 2 cents.

[stevelap]

I'm not quite sure what to make of all this. Whilst I genuinely stand in awe to the enthusiasm and dedication to the cause demonstrated here, I must admit to reading with an increasing sense of bemusement.

 

I'm reminded of a Red Dwarf scene, where the crew are imprisoned in a dungeon and Lister is enthusiastically outlining an increasingly elaborate plan to effect their escape. Having listened patiently for some time Crichton, with exquisite comedy timing, holds up a gadget in his hand and says in a deadpan tone "or we could just use the teleporter........".

 

For 'teleporter' read 'Leica R to M adaptor' .

[algrove]

Coming back to the initial question.

 

Yeeees, I am prepared.

 

I'm so excited to use

R 21-35

R 28-90

R 60 Makro

R APO 4.0/280

and

Nikon 2.8/180 AF-D

Nikon 2.8/80-200 AF-D two ring

and

Zeiss 2.0/100 Makro

together with my Oly EVF, that's already in use with the X2,

 

on my M 240. And I'm definitely the first name on my dealers pre-order list.

 

What else does a man need to be happy??

 

Now you have to hope that your dealer is near the top of the Dealers list with Leica!

[gravastar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

............................What else does a man need to be happy??

 

For early adopters not to find any bugs .

 

 

Bob.

[viramati]

Coming back to the initial question.

 

Yeeees, I am prepared.

 

I'm so excited to use

R 21-35

R 28-90

R 60 Makro

R APO 4.0/280

and

Nikon 2.8/180 AF-D

Nikon 2.8/80-200 AF-D two ring

and

Zeiss 2.0/100 Makro

together with my Oly EVF, that's already in use with the X2,

 

on my M 240. And I'm definitely the first name on my dealers pre-order list.

 

What else does a man need to be happy??

the money to afford it!!!

[hoppyman]

Geoff,

 

I will be using a Vario Elmar R 80-200/f4 onto which I have screwed a semi permanent Leitax R to M adapter, directly on the new M-240, with no other adapters involved. I will be painting into the ready milled coding pits, the code 110111, however since I did not specify from Leitax any frame line, a standard 35/135mm adaptor was sent, this will not pick up, as we now know from Jesko. David Llado at Leitax has very kindly agreed to exchange the adapter for a 28/90 one for just the cost of the postage.

 

As I explained previously, my thinking on using this adapter is the ease of changing lenses in a bouncing Land Rover from say an RF coupled 135 to the 80-200 zoom, without the possibility of having to mess around with adapters. The reason I want the lens coded and working as coded is so that I can leave the body in Auto Lens Recognition. I have now all my lenses either coded or working hand coded, other than a few weirdos like the 16mm fish-eye.

 

It is too easy in the heat of the moment to forget to change the lens recognition setting and when you come round a corner with an uncoded long lens on the camera, set as such in manual, you find a wonderful panorama facing you. You then put on a wide angle lens, forget to reset the lens recognition and get results which need lots of PP, because the camera did not do any. In effect I am trying to do some pre-prevention of Murphy's Law (if anything can go wrong, at some time it will).

 

Wilson

OK Wilson well that makes some more sense than my adapter for adapted lens to adapter theory on what you were trying to do

If you are putting a simulated or real R to M adapter on your new M in the bouncing Land Rover you are still going to have to then manually pick a R lens from the called up menus though!

I am completely with you in trying to eliminate errors from wrong settings. I don't know how many frames I shot with a wrong manual lens detect setting on my M9. Actually I do, Lightroom tells me so!

If it aint coded and auto detected it ain't going on my cameras anymore

[IkarusJohn]

If you are putting a simulated or real R to M adapter on your new M in the bouncing Land Rover you are still going to have to then manually pick a R lens from the called up menus though!

 

Geoff, I think you missed the bit where Wilson pointed out that he has only one R lens he intends to use with his new M, and he is assuming that having selected that lens from the R menu when he first mounted that lens, the camera will simply retain that setting for future use.

 

The camera is not detecting the lens, it is simply holding that setting for next time. For example, if I select my uncoded Elmar 135 in the manual lens menu (actually, there isn't that option, but stick with me), then change lenses to a coded lens, the camera will remain on my Elmar 135. I suspect we've all discovered this to our frustration.

 

With the new M, apparently you simply leave the lens detection on Auto. If you attach the R lens, and go to lens selection (Manual or Auto? Anyone know?), you then choose your R lens from the list.

 

What Wilson assumes is that he leaves lens selection on Auto full time; if he mounts his R lens on the M, and selects the correct lens in the menu, he won't need to go there again. There will be no reason for the camera to have changed the R lens selected, as he has only one R lens.

 

The big question is, if he leaves the lens selection on Auto, the camera will detect the R adapter, but will it switch over to manual and use his last selection? Seems a sensible assumption to me. Presumably, when you attach the adapter, the camera defaults to the manual R lens selection, and if you do nothing your last lens remains selected. When you take the adapter off, the camera is still in Auto, and recognises your next coded M lens.

 

It will not be good if the camera does not automatically switch between Auto M lens selection and the last Manual R lens selection without user input. If that happens, when you mount the adapter (or Leitaxed R lens), you will need to go to the menu in every case, switch to Manual, and then select the R lens. That also assumes that if you leave it in auto, mount the adapter, and don't switch to manual, you will get whatever you get now with an uncoded lens with the camera set on Auto - no adjustment, and no lens identification in the exif data at all ...

 

Interesting question. The M does not automatically switch from Auto to Manual when you mount an uncoded lens, but the R adapter will be coded, so it is a fair assumption that the camera will retain your last setting.

 

Cheers

John

[hoppyman]

Yes..But John

OK this talking about a specific circumstance of having exactly one non M lens coded as the adapter.

I doubt that will be the case for other users?

If we make assumptions based on how the M9 works

then the R to M adapter with 28-90 frame line set will call up the R sub menu the way the WATE calls up a sub menu.

The last submenu selection may well be sticky. That seems likely.

Whatever is called up must then be applied by using SET

Unless you then remember to change your settings next time you get the wrong EXIF /corrections for the next series. Having had to edit out exactly that error in hundreds of frames myself I am just never going there again ;-)

 

.

Several things suggest to me that the gains by this R to M coding route will be no more than a focal length recorded in EXIF ) (if you set it right in the first place)

 

In the M9 at least there are not individual corrections applied for 16 18 21.

We still won't have precise aperture information input,

Corrections are always based on the best case, not worst for that reason.

The long lenses that are maybe of most interest to be used may well not even have any corrections applied at all

That is the case with the M9 which has a much more problematic sensor architecture to work with (micro lens shifts, red edges etc)

Adobe already is implementing profiles (in LR4.3RC now) for I think 20 plus R lenses .

 

 

 

I've been really interested in what members like Wilson and Chris (not only) have contributed to this discussion. I applaud people who are willing to experiment and discover and share anyway. Personally I see several gotchas and limitations that are unacceptable for me but that is only one perspective.

 

To refocus, I'm surprised just how much forum discussion has centred on the adapting R lenses or other lenses and little reference or discussion in the International Forum on what the new M will do with the M lenses it is designed for.

It must be related to just how enthusiastic that minority R mafia are

 

If the new sensor performs as anticipated we may be seeing the elimination or reduction of all of the corrections necessary with wides especially that have proved necessary on the M9. To me that is one of the most important advances for image quality.

[k-hawinkler]

I've been really interested in what members like Wilson and Chris (not only) have contributed to this discussion. I applaud people who are willing to experiment and discover and share anyway. Personally I see several gotchas and limitations that are unacceptable for me but that is only one perspective.

 

To refocus, I'm surprised just how much forum discussion has centred on the adapting R lenses or other lenses and little reference or discussion in the International Forum on what the new M will do with the M lenses it is designed for.

It must be related to just how enthusiastic that minority R mafia are

 

If the new sensor performs as anticipated we may be seeing the elimination or reduction of all of the corrections necessary with wides especially that have proved necessary on the M9. To me that is one of the most important advances for image quality.

 

 

Agreed!

 

Considering the design of the CMOSIS sensor that seems to be the general expectation and either will be confirmed or not when production M-240s finally show up.

 

My inference would be that also the other new features of the M are of great interest to many forum members. That's why the engaging discussions.

[wlaidlaw]

Geoff,

 

If the new M is at least as good as the M9 for normal use at lower ISO's that will be good enough for me for M lenses. It is the extended ISO's and not having to cart around Visoflex clobber, with its less than stellar long Viso lenses, that excites me about the new M.

 

My 35/135 Leitax R to M is winging its way back to Spain and I hope a 28/90 Leitax is on its way to me. David at Leitax was very helpful. I cannot imagine there is going to be a big market for 35/135 frameline adapters now.

 

My only worry about the new M is rolling shutter effects from the CMOS sensor. I think I have got it correct that this will be particularly apparent when you are using low shutter speeds and panning a rapidly moving object. Will we be back to the early days of photography, where all racing cars had oval forward leaning wheels?

 

Wilson

[Jeff S]

SLR instead of EVIL, seeing that there is no acceptable (to me) one on the market currently.

 

Regarding the DSLRs you mentioned, the 5DII is very good, but the 5DIII is a more refined machine IMO (viewfinder, focusing, noise, processing, build quality). Note, too, that the Canon has a much weaker AA filter than its Nikon counterparts (that is of course prior to the filterless D800e). Worth trying if you haven't already (rent?)...before removing AA.

 

Jeff

[algrove]

With the new M, apparently you simply leave the lens detection on Auto. If you attach the R lens, and go to lens selection (Manual or Auto? Anyone know?), you then choose your R lens from the list.

 

What Wilson assumes is that he leaves lens selection on Auto full time; if he mounts his R lens on the M, and selects the correct lens in the menu, he won't need to go there again. There will be no reason for the camera to have changed the R lens selected, as he has only one R lens.

 

The big question is, if he leaves the lens selection on Auto, the camera will detect the R adapter, but will it switch over to manual and use his last selection? Seems a sensible assumption to me. Presumably, when you attach the adapter, the camera defaults to the manual R lens selection, and if you do nothing your last lens remains selected. When you take the adapter off, the camera is still in Auto, and recognises your next coded M lens.

 

It will not be good if the camera does not automatically switch between Auto M lens selection and the last Manual R lens selection without user input. If that happens, when you mount the adapter (or Leitaxed R lens), you will need to go to the menu in every case, switch to Manual, and then select the R lens. That also assumes that if you leave it in auto, mount the adapter, and don't switch to manual, you will get whatever you get now with an uncoded lens with the camera set on Auto - no adjustment, and no lens identification in the exif data at all ...

 

Interesting question. The M does not automatically switch from Auto to Manual when you mount an uncoded lens, but the R adapter will be coded, so it is a fair assumption that the camera will retain your last setting.

 

Cheers

John

 

You go to Manual to select the R lens from the R lens list you want or are using (this can even be done without an R lens on the adapter) and if you do not change that lens then the M-240 remembers that last R lens when you go to use it again with the R-M adapter. Trust this helps.

[lct]

(…) Will we be back to the early days of photography, where all racing cars had oval forward leaning wheels?

If ever motion blur allows it on rear screen or EVF due to the slow 30 fps frame rate of the M 240. The latter appears outdated compared to current 60 fps cams already and this is a serious concern to me not only for car races but also for shooting children, animals and other moving subjects. No problem with M lenses thanks to the optical VF but DSLRs could remain indispensable for R lenses i'm afraid. Not playing doomsayer, i will be proved wrong on that hopefully.

[lct]

(…) the 5DII is very good, but the 5DIII is a more refined machine IMO (viewfinder, focusing, noise, processing, build quality). Note, too, that the Canon has a much weaker AA filter than its Nikon counterparts (that is of course prior to the filterless D800e). Worth trying if you haven't already (rent?)...before removing AA.

The 5D3 cannot support third party focus screens though which is a problem for photogs used to use split image and/or microprism screens with their 5D1 or 5D2. Not sure if the 6D has the same problem though.

[chris_tribble]

To refocus, I'm surprised just how much forum discussion has centred on the adapting R lenses or other lenses and little reference or discussion in the International Forum on what the new M will do with the M lenses it is designed for.

It must be related to just how enthusiastic that minority R mafia are

 

If the new sensor performs as anticipated we may be seeing the elimination or reduction of all of the corrections necessary with wides especially that have proved necessary on the M9. To me that is one of the most important advances for image quality.

 

Geoff - thanks for this.

 

I suppose my reason for participating in this discussion (and learning a lot in the process) has been an underlying assumption that qua M camera, the 240 is going to be an improvement on the M9. Whatever the CMOS vs CCD arguments, I don't hold a theological position on this, and when I put my M9 images alongside those from the Canon 5D2, I don't really have any major preference for either (apart from colour straight out of the Leica compared with the Canon).

 

What I'm assuming is that:

1/ the IQ from the 240 will match or exceed that of the M9

2/ the Maestro processor and improved electronics based on learning from the M9 and S2 will be faster and more effective, so the whole experience of working with the 240 will be an improvement over the M9

3/ the alternative focusing options with Live View or the EVF will dramatically enhance macro and work with current long M lenses

4/ the small improvements like enhanced battery life, stronger tripod mount / illuminated framelines / enhanced menus and functionality will bring overall benefits....

5/ I'll be able to use video for the occasional assignment when this is needed (usually talking head interviews as part of a documentary process...)

... and all this in a body that is less expensive than an MM.

 

To enjoy these, the only thing I've needed to pick up has been an EVF (which may well eventually replace my Frankenfinder - this remains to be seen...)

 

Otherwise I've not needed to do anything in preparation for the 240 - I have all the M lenses I needed (from 18 through to 135), and I've got enough camera bags .

 

In this present discussion I've been interested in the new things that I'll be able to do with completely different lenses (R or otherwise), and the extent to which I'll be able to simplify and lighten the bag when I'm travelling. The one huge difference here is going to be able to take my normal set + the R 80-200 f4. The flexibility this offers in an assignment is going to be very significant.

 

So - not an R fanboy (I've never owned anything R before), but a working photographer who's genuinely excited by the chance to extend my range with a new tool.

 

Getting the M8 (despite its limitations) felt like coming home after a decade in the SLR wilderness. The M-240 looks like a significant paradigm shift...

[rramesh]

The problem with that image for me is not the lens on the front but the carbuncle on the top. Leica may have saved money by buying in someone else's product and sticking their name on it but a design triumph it is not. Disaster more like.

That carbuncle on the top is your best bet to using the M to take a ground level shot without emulating a 'Camilo Villegas' crouch. http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/camilo-villegas-here-comes-spider-man

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[01af]

If we make assumptions based on how the M9 works then the R-to-M Adapter with 28-90 frame line set will call up the R sub menu the way the WATE calls up a sub menu.

Well—you're right, albeit in an unexpected way. The Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph (a.k.a. WATE) on the M9 does not call up a sub-menu. And the R Adapter on the new M camera also doesn't.