wlaidlaw Posted November 24, 2012 Share #321 Posted November 24, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's interesting that the EVF-2 is running at $80 off in the Black Friday sales:I wonder if Olympus are going to end of line it. I would not be totally surprised, given that Epson announced some time ago that the 1.4 Mdot screen was being replaced by a 2.4 Mdot screen. Having also bought a S/H VF-2, I would not mind if it was at least a year until Leica replaced it. I have been re-reading some of the reviews of the M-240. A couple of them seem to imply that the viewfinder screens are set electronically direct from the lens code rather than by reading the cam on the mount. That would make sense in one way as it is just one less mechanical thing to go wrong. However, how would it work on a MATE, which uses the mount cam only to select the appropriate screen. If I have to go into a menu each time I change the focal length on my MATE, that is going to be a major pain. Even worse than having to change the correction on a WATE, as you only use a WATE occasionally, whereas on travel, I will often leave the MATE on my camera for days at a time. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Preparing for the M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted November 24, 2012 Share #322 Posted November 24, 2012 Hope you get a definitive answer since on another thread we have gone round and round on this question. He (Jesko) made a statement in an interview that on the M9 the R adapter would make focusing hit or miss since the is no rangefinder coupling nor LV on the M9. Now since the M frame lines are LCD maybe the M sees the R adapter and does not even light up the frame lines, i.e., no rangefinder coupling on it either?.[/quote] Well, it seems to me rather obvious that the R adapter doesn't have any coupling to the RF cam... it would be a unuseful feature... it only has its own 6 bit code which, probably, does allow the manual setting of the group of R lenses profiled in the firmware : even this coding isn't, strictly speaking, so indispensable : but could be (I think this hasn't yet been tested) that an uncoded-3rd party R adapter doesn't allow to set the R lenses... an easy-to-skip form of self-protection... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 24, 2012 Share #323 Posted November 24, 2012 Luigi, I agree with all you say. For those reasons, I did not buy the Leitax permanent R to M adapter for my 80-200 until I checked it had coding pits milled into the mount. Anyone considering an older Leica R to M or non-Leica R to M adapter, would be wise to bear this in mind. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share #324 Posted November 24, 2012 Wilson and others - thanks for useful comments. re actuation of framelines via 6 bit code, I'd be surprised if this was the approach taken. Introducing the complexity and inflexibility of this rather than maintaining the simplicity of the cam seems a unlikely direction. QUESTION - does anyone have a memory of using the M-240 prototype with UNCODED lenses? If yes, what happened re framelines? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted November 24, 2012 Share #325 Posted November 24, 2012 I tried it on Photokina with the 135mm Apo-Telyt which is never coded. The right frames were there - after I switched on the camera. The frames are not and were never dependant on coding, one pair is always in the optical system of the finder. The new thing is only that they need LED-illumination as the "window" for ambiant illumination is left out. May be with the R-adapter, you can't switch on the LED, though this would be astonishing, as it would need a special function to interrupt the circuit between the camera electronics and the LED, and I see no reason for this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 24, 2012 Share #326 Posted November 24, 2012 I hope you are both correct and the mechanical framelines link remains. However it would be simpler for Leica to dump the complicated framelines cam and lever system and just use electrical switching for the LED frame lines, driven from the lens codes. If you look at this review Leica M (Type 240) Camera - Preview , that is certainly what is implied in it. The review has I hope misunderstood what they were being told. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share #327 Posted November 24, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The review has I hope misunderstood what they were being told. Let's hope so indeed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 24, 2012 Share #328 Posted November 24, 2012 The Jesko comment I was referring to was posted on Reddot.com from a David F. interview (Dale Photo, Ft. Lauderdale,FL). I also used the 135 at Photokina, but myself I was concentrating on how the LV functioned with it. I was SOLD assuming the images favorably compare to the M9 files. Also spent some time with R lenses on the M. The adapter, even without a lens attached, allowed one to see the R lenses list of about 20-21 lenses once you selected the R list of lenses from the menu display. The camera knew from the 6 bit coding that the R adapter was on it when set to Auto lens detect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 24, 2012 Share #329 Posted November 24, 2012 So minimal after a little use it is not noticeable. My only experience with an EVF is on the DLux5, and the blackout is at least a full second no matter what shutter speed. Has anyone actually used the EVF on the new M? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted November 25, 2012 Share #330 Posted November 25, 2012 My only experience with an EVF is on the DLux5, and the blackout is at least a full second no matter what shutter speed. Has anyone actually used the EVF on the new M? I have used the same EVF on an Olympus and it is far less than a second. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 25, 2012 Share #331 Posted November 25, 2012 I have used the same EVF on an Olympus and it is far less than a second. Interesting! So, does that imply that the duration of the blackout time is primarily a function of the camera and not the EVF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share #332 Posted November 25, 2012 That would seem to be the case for those who have reported using the Leica branded EVF on the M-240. I don't believe that there will be a difference when using the Olympus branded version - but I could always be wrong - and then it will be back to ebay! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted November 25, 2012 Share #333 Posted November 25, 2012 Chris back in post # 4 no lesser authorities than Stefan Daniel, Jesko v. Oeynhausen and Maike Harberts are quoted as saying that the Olympus badged version will work the same. How much reassurance do you want In any event it is a tiny fraction of the Camera acquisition costs of course. Sell me your Oly EVF at your cost and I'll promise to report back when my camera is delivered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share #334 Posted November 25, 2012 Sell me your Oly EVF at your cost and I'll promise to report back when my camera is delivered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 25, 2012 Share #335 Posted November 25, 2012 Here's an interesting lens to use with the New M camera: 500mm F8 Mirotar by Contax - Ffordes Photographic dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 25, 2012 Share #336 Posted November 25, 2012 Looks interesting. The Leica 500 mirror R lens might be just as good for less money, at least he in the US it is less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 25, 2012 Share #337 Posted November 25, 2012 .....and for far less you can get the Yashica/Kyocera lens, which to all intents and purposes is the same as the Contax Mirotar. The downside is weird doughnut bokeh, and less than wonderful performance in comparison to a normal lens. TANSTAAFL Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 25, 2012 Share #338 Posted November 25, 2012 So what is TANSTAAFL? Too long for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 25, 2012 Share #339 Posted November 25, 2012 There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 26, 2012 Share #340 Posted November 26, 2012 Looks interesting. The Leica 500 mirror R lens might be just as good for less money, at least he in the US it is less. The Leica R 500mm Mirror lens is not anywhere near the quality of the Zeiss Mirotar 500mm. The Leica MR-YTelyt -R was designed and made by Minolta. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.