The M240 as a professional tool

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 5D Mark III.

 

and which lens ?

[CheshireCat]

There is some rubbish stated on this forum - have you actually used a 5D2? 

 

I own and used the 5D2 since it was released.

And yes, I agree with you that there is some rubbish stated on this forum.

[Joshua Lowe]

5D2 AF was very bad for anything moving.

 

I used a 70-200/2.8L IS II and a 135/2L - two of the fastest focusing EOS lenses.

 

5D3 on the other had much better AF.  I could reliably track cars/bikes coming toward me at 60 - 100 mph.  The 5D2 struggled just with panning.

[CheshireCat]

The 5D2 struggled just with panning.

 

I had problems with AF accuracy also on still subjects. Only the center cross point enabled, and using the best Canon lenses.

The 5D2 is now my Zeiss glass camera.

[pgk]

I have used and still use 5D2s professionally since it appeared. Stating that "There's a lot of crappy AF stuff on the market (for example, the 5D2 AF is a joke)." is simply ridiculous. It may not be perfect for all applications but its anything but a joke. Enough said, ignore list for you .

[Mornnb]

and which lens ?

 

Various,  Canon 24-70mm II, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85mm 1.4, Canon 70-200mm IS II 2.8.

The 85mm has a bit of focus shift, however at 1.4 it's very accurate. Sigma does a great job with primes but their zooms are inferior.

 

 

I had problems with AF accuracy also on still subjects. Only the center cross point enabled, and using the best Canon lenses.

The 5D2 is now my Zeiss glass camera.

 

 

The 5D3 has a much more accurate AF system, it has double cross type centre AF point and makes use of the position confirm sensors in newer lenses.

Still, it's not immune from focus misses, nothing is.

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have used and still use 5D2s professionally since it appeared. Stating that "There's a lot of crappy AF stuff on the market (for example, the 5D2 AF is a joke)." is simply ridiculous. It may not be perfect for all applications but its anything but a joke. Enough said, ignore list for you .

 

I guess putting me in the ignore list makes you officially an ignorant 

 

You may also ignore Roger Cicala, but this is what I mean:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new

 

Excellent lenses with excellent AF systems are almost as good as critical manual focusing in Live View.

Hence much more precise than a human and a perfectly calibrated RF. Enough with this nonsense RF myth.

[rpavich]

There is some rubbish stated on this forum - have you actually used a 5D2? Mine are perfectly viable TOOLS. Their AF is perfectly acceptable and I use it in situations where I cannot use MF. and require precision focus. Period.

No kidding. I had a 5DII and a 5DIII and both were perfectly capable in AF.

[jaapv]

I guess putting me in the ignore list makes you officially an ignorant 

 

You may also ignore Roger Cicala, but this is what I mean:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new

 

Excellent lenses with excellent AF systems are almost as good as critical manual focusing in Live View.

Hence much more precise than a human and a perfectly calibrated RF. Enough with this nonsense RF myth.

And where exactly did you read that into the article?

[colonel]

The best AF camera I have used for single point is the Olympus E-M5 ii - period

 

I remember using some DSLRs a month ago after a year or more of absense, and it stuck me how shabby their AF was compared to the Olympus, despite all the pro DSLR hype. And the Leica Q, Sony A7ii and Fuji X-T1 are pretty d@mn good too.

 

I acknowledge that the D4 and 1DX are very good and the 5Diii, D750 and D810 are pretty good but below these I think DSLRs have lost their last advantage and its only a matter of time before even their tracking advantage is gone.

 

Once that happens only their lens range is left as their last bastion of a reason to exist....

[mmradman]

 

 

Once that happens only their lens range is left as their last bastion of a reason to exist....

Pretty much what kept Leica in existence, superlative optics.  

[colonel]

Pretty much what kept Leica in existence, superlative optics.  

 

I thought, for the M series, it was the RF, build and simplicity, for those that love RF AF like me, in a world of over complication and detachment from the thought and act of picture taking. as well as the optics. But for sure the optics were a major part.

 

just realized that sounds like an advert

 

In terms of lenses it won't save DSLRs. They simply are not superlative. I can't think of any Canon or Nikon f1.4 lens any good wide open. The best is probably the Canon 85mm f1.2. The only DSLR lenses that occur to me to buy for f1.4 and corners are the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus series ....

Oh and probably fair to mention the Canon and Nikon T&S lenses which are excellent but not for the average perp

[CheshireCat]

And where exactly did you read that into the article?

 

- The article shows that that AF can be as good as 10x magnification Live View manual focusing.

- 10x magnification Live View manual focusing is more precise than the RF.

 

Hence AF is more precise than RF.

 

Why is it so hard to admit ? All that matters is how much you like the RF experience.

[jaapv]

It has nought to do with admitting. I was just interested how you drew that conclusion from an article that doesn't even mention manual focusing, let alone a rangefinder.

 

I know of no research that supports your assertions. Enlighten me.

[CheshireCat]

I know of no research that supports your assertions. Enlighten me.

 

Enlighten yourself, doing your own homework:

- Fast lens (e.g. 50/1.4) wide open; newspaper on a wall 5m away;

- Focus 10 times using the RF

- Focus 10 times using 10x LV

 

Let us know... [or not, as usual  ]

[douglas fry]

I've been a professional photographer for 20 years, shooting commercial work and weddings, based in UK I shoot commissioned work nearly everyday.

In my film days I was an 2 x M6 guy with 5 lenses, no Summilux's but Summicrons...Moving to digital I've been with Canon for years, but then when I felt the 2 1DX's and 5 lenses were too heavy, I jumped ship to Sony A7II's - great cameras and it meant I could use my Leica lenses again.

 

What a difference, the 1DX's with L glass were not as good as a Sony with Leica glass, not just size, weight and resolution but colour, contrast and yes the illusive 3D pop I'd not seen for years.

 

I bought a pristine second hand M240 and once the firmware was updated to 2025 (it would lock up before, runs smooth now) I use the camera for everything, from shooting Annual Reports all over Europe, weddings in UK to the kids in the garden. It suits me perfectly.

 

I need to get faster and more accurate with the 90mm (a magnifier viewfinder lens?) but otherwise I would never go back to DSLR's for the work I do, AF isn't important at all.

 

So to answer the OP, yes the M is perfectly capable of being used day in day out for professional work, in my view

[jdlaing]

I did a couple of hundred thousand dollars worth of paid photos over a period of almost three years with Leica M cameras.

 

I am not a "professional photographer" and it was done part time a day or so a week. So, yes, it can be a professional tool. So can just about every other digital camera. It all depends on what you like.

[jaapv]

Enlighten yourself, doing your own homework:

- Fast lens (e.g. 50/1.4) wide open; newspaper on a wall 5m away;

- Focus 10 times using the RF

- Focus 10 times using 10x LV

 

Let us know... [or not, as usual  ]

So- we are left with your assertions/opinion.   Having focused thousands of times with the EVF, and many  of tenthousands  with an RF, I don't think you little newspaper game will add anything useful.

[maubwana]

I know most people here use their cameras as their leisure tools, which is one of the best spare time activities one can do. But some use them to earn a living, like me.

 

For work I am relying nearly 100% on Canons, both in the studio and in the field. They are boring, but they just work. They provide all the resolution and color fidelity that is needed for commercial use. They are not really expensive and earn their price in a couple of days shooting. Usually if you know what you are doing, the raws need rather little post-work, which means more money for me and more time spent with my kids.

 

Off tripod I always shoot with two cameras, usually two 5dmk3 with both a 35L and a 50L. That covers 90%.

 

For a while I used two M9, one with a 35lux and one with a 50lux. But I stopped doing that, as the amount of post-production becme ridiculious. Color out-of-the box were always off, WB never hit the target. It is not a problem when younhave to edit a dozen Photos or so, but it gets huge when you shot all day, took 1500-2000 pictures and are expected to go out the next day with all the pictures rough-edited and uploaded to the agency.

With the Canons I cull 1000 pictures and start an upload cue within 1h, with the Leicas it took me 5 times as long, as every single picture needed some work. Pulling Jpg previews from the Leica DNGs need rendering for a long time, with the Canons using photomechanics it takes seconds for hundreds of images.

 

Another problem was the sluggishness when you work fast. every now and then the camera would freeze, so battery pop-in-and-out would have to be done at every shooting. I had black frames around every 100 to 200 pictures or so. It's not a problem, but very annoying.

 

The Buffer was too slow, which is why I used two cameras

 

High Iso above 640 was hardly usable for commercial use.

 

Picture review with the recent firmwares was so slow, that it was unsusable for me, so I kept my M9 on the 1.002 Firmware.

 

So I stopped using the Leicas for work, and kept them for my own personal joy.

 

Now steps in the M(240)

 

What a difference!

 

Out of Camera DNGs are much better, WB is mostly there, of course warm as we know, but usually pleasing. Image review is instant, it feels much faster and snappier then the M9, DR is greatly improved, ISO 1600 is usable, after the buffer is full one can keep on shooting, which wasn't really possible with the M9.

 

 

All this talk of the M not being a strong enough upgrade and the the bullshit about CCD/CMOS are no real arguments for me. It is not perfect, still the embedded previews in the DNGs are too small, the WB is not there yet and it is too heavy for its size, but it now is a proper tool for professional work.

 

I only wish Leica would finally provide me with spare batteries, I am paranoid about running out with the single one I have.

 

I really hope they get tethering to work....

Also working professionally but primarily photo-journalism with a twist - have been shooting with Hasselblad H5-d, but a new assignment in Madagascar (long one) obviously makes them a no go due to ruggedness and tough climate. Also i need to pack light, so was wondering the following:

 

1. i like the 240 but don't like the LCD screen at the rear, do you know of any housing that can obscure it ?

2. i like the 60 edition (i know the price is killer but will get most of it paid) but concerned that it is still a lot to shell out for a camera that could easily be stolen and more importantly upgraded soon? any thoughts on this?

3. Best lenses you like?

 

any help highly appreciated thanks dean 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Some halfcases have a flap that covers the LCD

This one is pretty good ; I use it all the time In Africa, no use gambling on an upgrade IMO. Lenses depend on intended use.