Why an M 240 as rangefinder?

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not so sure that 'there will always be a market' for the M.

 

Most of us started out with manual focus cameras, AF was something new. When you start off using AF cameras and progress photographically with various AF systems, to drop that in favour of a manual focus camera is - I think - quite rare.

 

Some do and will, but it must be a slowly shrinking market. How many other MF systems are there?

 

There are enough enthusiasts to keep the M line going for some time yet, but Leica will have their minds on the future, and the new M signals a stepping stone in that direction IMHO.

[tadeyev]

 

It is a shame that the new good sensor and technical improvement have been bonded to the live view and cheap electronic view finder. Because less is more. See the MM.

 

G

 

Indeed, the MM for me is perfect, as it does what I love most (B/W) as an electronic version of my M4's so to speak.It is like an electronic MP, M4, M3, whatever…..A specialised product for a a niche market, with fantastic results, directly translatable from film experience.I would venture to say that because it is a unique product made for M users, it fulfils its purpose exactly. It is not a rangefinder trying to be something else. However the 240 pushes the envelope into the colour class, where all kinds of other cameras exist, and exactly as you say, it begins to open the 'can of worms' like video, electronic frames and all the rest, with all the inevitable comparisons which that can entail.

 

Now, don't bite my head off, but I would say from a purely philosophical, non-commercial feeling, for me the the MM for me is still a rangefinder, while the M 240 is a rangefinder en route to becoming something else, the start of the last stanza of the electronic 'M', even though there will likely be an M250, M260 and more before something gives.

 

Does not mean the M240 it is a bad camera in my view, or that you should not buy it, or anything like that.

I am just trying to get my head around the conceptual fundamentals of rangefinders in the 21st century and what that means/infers for those photographers who love Leica.

 

Imagine the MP, M7 and MM as a classic line in the year 2025 and a new Leica MX, no rangefinder, barely bigger than the lens itself, with the viewfinder in separate lightweight goggles, transferring all info and focusing directly to the the goggles as you work, a tiny battery that works for days on end, high ISO with no issues, super fast network transfer to your computer with no hassles, a gazillion pixels and, and….The next generation, the ones not yet born as I write this, will probably expect this as a minimum.

 

For me, now, in the present however, the MM is as far as I am willing to go ;-0) !

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest borge]

Without proper mechanical focus I would never even have considered the M system at all.

It is the single and ONLY reason that I was willing to cash out the amount needed.

 

Without the rangefinder and mechanical manual focus Leica would lose out to EVERYONE of their competitors due to costs - and costs alone.

 

Leica should worry if either Sony or Fuji will ever launch a mirrorless full frame camera with some sort of electronic split-prism / rangefinder patch functionality that would make manual focusing (of Leica lenses) on those cameras close to what the M bodies perform. Fuji or Sony would take the entire enthusiast mirrorless camera market by storm if they offered such a camera. Sure, they wouldn't sell many lenses but they would probably sell a whole lot of cameras. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase one myself as it would have been a pretty cheap backup compared to a M body as well.

 

Personally I think the costs of the digital M bodies are not justified at all. Many cameras that are far cheaper incorporate much of the same technology. The costs of the lenses however are justified. Why? Simply because they perform much better than the competition - any competition. So they CAN cost twice as much... The M bodies however do not technically perform better than the competition unless you count the MM which is unique and therefore has no competition.

 

Any full frame Nikon, Sony or Canon can perform approximately equal to the M9/M240 and that is a fact. Any Nikon, Sony or Canon lens however cannot perform the same as Leica lenses in the same focal lengths.

[djs]

Anyone checked out the "Digital Split Image" manual focusing aid on the Fujifilm X100S?

 

FUJIFILM X100S | features - A Perfected Fusion of Optical and Electronic Viewfinder | Fujifilm Global

[macjonny1]

Maybe if Leica is more like Sony and Fuji then well...we can just buy a Sony or a Fuji!

[Guest borge]

Maybe if Leica is more like Sony and Fuji then well...we can just buy a Sony or a Fuji!

 

Exactly. Leica sells because of their legacy rangefinder and manual focusing design. That is Leicas niche. If they drift more and more away from that and become more and more like the competition... Well... As you say.. You might as well buy a Fuji or a Sony for 1/5th the cost.

[rscheffler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Without proper mechanical focus I would never even have considered the M system at all.

It is the single and ONLY reason that I was willing to cash out the amount needed.

 

Without the rangefinder and mechanical manual focus Leica would lose out to EVERYONE of their competitors due to costs - and costs alone.

 

Hence the fate of the R system.

 

That is also precisely the main reason I got into the M system a couple years ago.

 

After about 20 years of AF SLRs (which of course I still use), I was getting frustrated with poor wide angle performance and very inconsistent wide angle AF reliability (randomly focusing well in front/behind the subject, etc.). I was also tired of the ever increasing size of higher end SLR lenses.

 

There is something to be said about the amazing clarity of accurately focused wide angle images made with amazing, remarkably small lenses, which I'm appreciating more and more with the M system.

 

I've tried Sony NEX's focus peaking, and it's approximate at best. I find myself spending more time staring at the squiggly lines on the screen than composing the image. At least with the M rangefinder patch, it kind of floats there on the subject and I look at it momentarily when needing to confirm focus. Otherwise, it's unobtrusive and I just concentrate on composition, very unlike the 'watching TV' experience I get with EVFs.

 

Of course EVFs offer opportunities. I'm excited the M240 will allow me to precisely level and frame my CV12 via live view, or see my feet in the composition. But I doubt I'll be using the live view for critical wide angle focusing.

 

For the sheer speed and accuracy, I find it difficult to think of anything better than a rangefinder. And this coming from an M system newbie. Therefore, I believe there is still a place in the market for these cameras. And not just for the manual focus 'old timers' either.

 

Leica should worry if either Sony or Fuji will ever launch a mirrorless full frame camera with some sort of electronic split-prism / rangefinder patch functionality that would make manual focusing (of Leica lenses) on those cameras close to what the M bodies perform. Fuji or Sony would take the entire enthusiast mirrorless camera market by storm if they offered such a camera. Sure, they wouldn't sell many lenses but they would probably sell a whole lot of cameras. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase one myself as it would have been a pretty cheap backup compared to a M body as well.

 

In theory this is correct, but so far no one other than Leica has demonstrated an ability to combine full frame with rangefinder lenses while retaining proper image quality (especially with wide angle lenses).

 

So far the best example is the Sony VG900 camera. While primarily a video camera, it uses a full frame sensor with a NEX mount, making it possible to use M-mount lenses. And from the test results I've seen, it isn't pretty. Very poor edge resolution because the sensor is not optimized for rangefinder lenses. The sensor toppings, such as AA filter and cover glass, are simply too thick and cause a huge amount of astigmatism.

 

This has been debated already - what incentive would Sony, Fuji, etc., have optimizing their sensor for rangefinder lenses? Fuji could have done this for their X system because those lenses also have extremely short register distances, but they opted instead for optical design solutions to make their lenses sufficiently compatible. Interviews with Sony reps indicate Sony would probably take a similar approach (I don't have those interview links handy, unfortunately) with a FF NEX. Difficult to say though because some of their NEX lenses would certainly benefit from sensor optimization, assuming any of them could cover FF. And each of these companies would also want to sell their own line of lenses. Why make it easier to use other lenses?

 

Where Sony, Fuji, etc., and a FF solution are most likely to threaten Leica are existing SLR users looking for a MILC solution for their various SLR lens collections because those lenses don't suffer from the same degree of full frame sensor incompatibilities. Right now Leica is the only game in town, but while that likely will change, is Leica even a consideration for many, at $7000 for the camera, when many are looking to adapt $100, $200 or even $500 legacy lenses? There are some who will go for the M, but I suspect most will pass because of the price (and the restricted live view functionality), unless they already have a significant investment in rangefinder lenses.

 

If there is an outlier, it would be Ricoh.... if they can ever get their act together now that they've acquired Pentax. The GXR hints that a FF M-compatible solution could be possible. But now that Pentax is part of the picture, will there be any interest in developing a non K-mount solution?

[drdannn]

I'm sure the new M is going to be a great camera. I have no use for live view. I have a Pentax DSLR and I have never used the live view function. I have a d Lux 5 with an EVF and I like that because it simulates a TTL experience. I'll take a look a the new M when it gets to the store near me, but I don't think I'll opt for it over my M9 just because I don't use video ( my wife does the video), or live view either. If the IQ is tons better, well then maybe.

[-Lss-]

Most of us started out with manual focus cameras, AF was something new. When you start off using AF cameras and progress photographically with various AF systems, to drop that in favour of a manual focus camera is - I think - quite rare.

It is quite rate, but it is what I have done. I have not dropped AF completely, but use mainly rangefinder cameras. For me personally, the switch back to AF cameras is in principle so very close, but the actual implementation is severely lacking. I see it mostly a problem of user interface implementation.

 

Very few people go this route. It is not necessarily about what people prefer but more about what is available and marketed. I will try to stick to whatever gives me the best performance, but Leica prices do not make that easy for me.

[douglasf13]

As others have mentioned, if Leica drops the mechanical aspect of the M range, they'll be eaten alive by the Japanese, who make electronics better and cheaper.

 

The rangefinder is the reason I shoot M.

[rramesh]

I moved to a Leica M9 last year after using SLRs and M43s for many. I am enjoying photography a lot more with a rangefinder. There's something magical about a rangefinder and the 'less is more' adage of a Leica that makes me want to take more pictures.

[norm_snyder]

Have we considered that live view allows the option of using wide angle lenses without an accessory finder? I always lost them, feet broke off, struggled with parallax close up...

[jdlaing]

I moved to a Leica M9 last year after using SLRs and M43s for many. I am enjoying photography a lot more with a rangefinder. There's something magical about a rangefinder and the 'less is more' adage of a Leica that makes me want to take more pictures.

 

Me too.

[jonoslack]

Have we considered that live view allows the option of using wide angle lenses without an accessory finder? I always lost them, feet broke off, struggled with parallax close up...

 

Hi there Norm

Absolutely. It's brilliant. You don't really need the EVF either, Live view is fine for framing with wide angles (if you don't mind looking like a prat)

[jdlaing]

Hi there Norm

Absolutely. It's brilliant. You don't really need the EVF either, Live view is fine for framing with wide angles (if you don't mind looking like a prat)

 

What's a prat?

[sdk]

What's a prat?

 

From Effingpot, the online dictionary of British slang: "Prat - Yet another mildly insulting name for someone. In fact, this one is a bit ruder than pillock so you probably wouldn't say it in front of Grandma.”

 

I think prat essentially means foolish person or idiot.

[Guest tanks]

Without proper mechanical focus I would never even have considered the M system at all.

It is the single and ONLY reason that I was willing to cash out the amount needed.

 

Without the rangefinder and mechanical manual focus Leica would lose out to EVERYONE of their competitors due to costs - and costs alone.

...

Any full frame Nikon, Sony or Canon can perform approximately equal to the M9/M240 and that is a fact. Any Nikon, Sony or Canon lens however cannot perform the same as Leica lenses in the same focal lengths.

 

Hence, why I think the Leica S system is doomed to fail. The high end 35mm systems are pushing the envelope in terms of resolution etc..

 

The medium format digital systems are already a decade or so ahead of Leica in market penetration. Leica S is a "me too" product in that market.

 

Not to mention they already have a complete system with a full range lenses etc..

 

Don't understand why Leica got into that market really.

[billo101]

Yes Tanks

This is a mystery to me

[BerndReini]

I don't think think that the S system is going to fail, at least not sooner than medium format digital. I really find the S to be the most ergonomic and logical DSLR ever designed and if I could get my hands on a used one for under $10,000, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

 

If they manage to build a CMOS sensor for the next generation S, it will be even more versatile. I read that Rankin shoots with an S2 and you have to understand that if you are a professional, after the initial expense of your gear is recovered, all that matters is that you are shooting with the tool you are most comfortable with, and in studio situations with strobes, I would be very comfortable with an S2.

 

As a matter of fact, the more expensive the gear is, the more you can charge a high-end client for rental, and once it is paid off, this is extra income.

 

Just keep in mind that a Rolex won't tell time better than a Casio, yet lots of people wear them.

 

As for the rangefinder, there is no better experience in photography than focusing with a rangefinder. I always enjoy letting friends of mine, who have never used one try it. They usually get hooked instantly. It gives you ultimate control over your image.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Nick De Marco]

I find some of the lamenting for traditional approaches bewildering, despite the fact I love traditional cameras.

 

For me the beauty of a rangefinder camera is primarily that the lack of a mirror means it can be smaller than an SLR system and the lenses, especially wide angle, can be smaller and sharper and more accurate often not always). these qualities, especially, make the rangefinder an ideal camera for street photography - whether you are talking about a IIIf, and Nikon S, a Canon P or a Leica M film or M8/M9 digital.

 

Many of these qualities can now be seen in a new breed of mirrorless digital cameras, some of which I have used and found to be extremely good, ssmall, devices for quality photography without large SLR cameras - I'm thinking of the 4/3rds cameras firts, and then more recently the Fuji X system cameras.

 

The Leica M appears as if it preserves the unique selling point, for me, of the rangefinder system whilst incorporating some of the technological impovements made by other mirrorless non rangefinder cameras (live view, ability to use 3rd party lenses, video etc). But basically it promises to remain a relatively small, mirrorless camera that does what rangefinders do best, and some of these other improvements make it potentially more versatile as a digital camera (eg high iso).

 

Whether or not the rangefinder system of focussing survives, I don't know. i like using it, but I have been surprised at how easy and accurate, and ultimatly satisfying, it has been to use EVF focussing on other cameras - for example the EVF with the Olympus Pen 2 - which I found very good to use and am delighted I shall be able to use it on the M. To have a camera in which i can use either, depending on what I am shooting, or with what lens etc., seems to me to be a very good thing.

 

Nick

Edited February 27, 2013 by Nick De Marco