Jump to content

M240 and the WATE


Ecar

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just took a few test shots. Here are my thoughts FWTW:

  • The in-camera vignetting corrections (with FW 1.0.0.2) are very good.
  • As much as I don't like the EVF (I really hope Leica will upgrade it soon), I must admit it's rather liberating to get rid of the Frankenfinder. You loose a bit of the RF view outside the framelines, but the overall experience is much more fluid.
  • However, if you want to achieve critical focus and not just rely on the uge DOF available, the focus peaking feature is next to useless as it will show achieved focus (glowing red lines) across most of the focus range. In other words, your eye will have to make a trip back to the rangefinder to set accurate focus.
  • The higher ISO available with the M240 substantially increases the lens' useability in low light.

Net-net, the M240 has just made the WATE (and the other wides) a lot more versatile.

I think I will re-discover it.:D

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if you want to achieve critical focus and not just rely on the uge DOF available, the focus peaking feature is next to useless as it will show achieved focus (glowing red lines) across most of the focus range

 

Correction: I had magnifyiing set at 5x. With magnifying at 10x, focus peaking is somewhat more accurate - although nowhere near what can be achieved with the RF.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the chance to test the M240 with my WATE. The live view is nice, but I would like to see the bubble level integrated in the live view. Currently you have to switch between level meeter and live view which is difficult when you shot handheld. Maybe this is something for the next software update. You may see the photographs with the M240/WATE combo on my flickr website:

 

Cadolzburg (Germany) March 2013 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

I also have a test shot between M9/50mm ASPH and M240/50mm ASPH under controlled conditions.

 

M9 50mm Lux ASPH vs. M240 50mm Lux ASPH | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

And here the D800E/1.8 50mm vs M240/50mm ASPH

 

D800E 1.8/50 AFS vs M240 1.4/50 Lux ASPH | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Enjoy

Andreas

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the chance to test the M240 with my WATE. The live view is nice, but I would like to see the bubble level integrated in the live view. Currently you have to switch between level meeter and live view which is difficult when you shot handheld. Maybe this is something for the next software update. You may see the photographs with the M240/WATE combo on my flickr website:

 

Cadolzburg (Germany) March 2013 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

I also have a test shot between M9/50mm ASPH and M240/50mm ASPH under controlled conditions.

 

M9 50mm Lux ASPH vs. M240 50mm Lux ASPH | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

And here the D800E/1.8 50mm vs M240/50mm ASPH

 

D800E 1.8/50 AFS vs M240 1.4/50 Lux ASPH | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Enjoy

Andreas

 

Totally agree about the level comment.

 

On the RX-1 once you activate it, it shows up in the EVF. I just love that.

 

So far, on the M you seem to have to go into the menu to get it activated, but I could be wrong as I am concentrating on other aspects of getting to know the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have a look at the M in a shop here, today (however, they don't have an M to sell it - typically Leica :rolleyes:).

 

I had the same thoughts about the Frankenfinder. The EVF will also be helpful with the 135.

 

The focusing peaking indeed may need some improvement but I do not regard this as a problem for wide angle at f4 or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there one profile for this lens on the M or one has to add the lens each time manually?

 

One profile. No need for manual setting.

 

Manual setting was necessary on M8 due to its IR-cut filter working differently with different fields of view.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One profile. No need for manual setting.

 

What focal lenght will show the metadata?

 

I'm actually thinking between 21 Super Elmar and WATE.

As I recently purchased 75mm Cron this won't happen soon, however I might start saving some money.

 

Do you guys believe the fact that even these lenses are slow there won't be an issue using them with new M as it can use high ISO? I'm not into thin DoF, but wonder about the shutter speed at dusk or dim rooms.

 

What would one say the main difference between the two @21mm is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple question: With the better higher ISO does it make the Summilux with f1.4 unnecessary?

:confused:

Well, to start with, the Summilux is not "necessary", but gives you very shallow depth of field wide open and retains its 3-stop light-gathering advantage vs. the WATE, irrespective of the ISO you set your camera at.

The better high-ISO performance of the M240 only gives the opportunity to use slower lenses such as the WATE more often when there's little light - but it won't give you the DOF of a fast lens, nor will it cancel the 3-stop advantage of the Summilux.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What focal lenght will show the metadata?

 

I'm actually thinking between 21 Super Elmar and WATE.

As I recently purchased 75mm Cron this won't happen soon, however I might start saving some money.

 

Do you guys believe the fact that even these lenses are slow there won't be an issue using them with new M as it can use high ISO? I'm not into thin DoF, but wonder about the shutter speed at dusk or dim rooms.

 

What would one say the main difference between the two @21mm is?

 

Well, as on the M9, the camera will automatically recognize the code of the lens (and the metadata will indicate the 16mm focal length irrespective of the focal length effectively used) unless you set it manually in the menu as 18mm or 21mm (in which case this will be reflected in the metadata).

This is because, unlike the MATE, the camera has no physical way of recognizing the focal length used on the WATE.

I'd prefer the camera to ask what focal length is being used - at least when you turn on the camera - as on the M8, but this is unfortunately not how it works...

 

The 21SE has about half a stop advantage only vs. the WATE, is smaller/lighter, cheaper and is technically a somewhat "better" lens than the WATE at 21mm (a bit sharper, less distortion, better corner performance - although if you are not particularly picky, you may not notice these IQ differences or they may not bother you).

The WATE has the obvious advantage of being three focal lengths in one.

The variables of the trade-off are pretty straightforward: as always, only you can decide...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
What is the difference between the two so the M can tell for MATE at which focal lenght it is, but not for WATE?

For the Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 mm Asph's three focal lengths, the M cameras have three different frameline masks. For the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph's three focal lengths, the M cameras have no framelines at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. This means one should use an external viewfinder or live view in order to compose precisely.

I wonder, does camera apply some in camera correction for this lens i.e. is it the same for all focal lenghts 16-18-21? Someone answered the camera adds metadata for 16mm at whichever focal lenght so I hope it does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This means one should use an external viewfinder or live view in order to compose precisely.

Umm ... did you ever use a wide-angle lens (any wide-angle lens shorter than 28 mm) on a rangefinder before? Are you aware of the differences of the rangefinder versus SLR viewfinder principles? :confused:

 

 

... does camera apply some in camera correction for this lens ...?

Yes, it does.

 

 

... is it the same for all focal lenghts 16-18-21?

Yes, it is.

 

 

Someone answered the camera adds metadata for 16 mm at whichever focal length ...

That's true when the camera's lens recognition is set to "Auto". When the user manually selects a specific focal length then the camera will record that in the EXIF data.

 

In any case, the lens-specific corrections applied are always those for the 21 mm setting ... which will lead to some slight under-correction for the 18 mm and 16 mm settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This means one should use an external viewfinder or live view in order to compose precisely.

With a rangefinder camera, ANY wide-angle lens shorter than 28 mm requires an external viewfinder (or the new M's live view) in order to compose precisely ... not just the WATE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 mm Asph's three focal lengths, the M cameras have three different frameline masks. For the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph's three focal lengths, the M cameras have no framelines at all.

 

Must admit that is one thing that I don't like about the WATE since I also own a MATE.

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...