tashley Posted April 9, 2013 Share #61 Posted April 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nothing so crude; Leica could adapt this patent into the rangefinder optical system. I gotta get me one o' them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Hi tashley, Take a look here Tim Ashley M(240) Review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
UliWer Posted April 9, 2013 Share #62 Posted April 9, 2013 An observation in another thread might give a clue: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/279430-correction-lens-m-different-than-m9.html#post2370250 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted April 9, 2013 Share #63 Posted April 9, 2013 An observation in another thread might give a clue: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/279430-correction-lens-m-different-than-m9.html#post2370250 Again, I don't think that is the main reason though it might be a possible co-factor. The RF is now much more consistent across lenses and near far, and that is a clear sign to me that it is a new, improved mechanism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted April 9, 2013 Share #64 Posted April 9, 2013 that is a clear sign to me that it is a new, improved mechanism. Maybe somebody with close connections to Stefan Daniel could ask whether there is a new, improved RF mechanism? Absence any reference to this in the M marketing I still think it is wishful thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 9, 2013 Share #65 Posted April 9, 2013 An observation in another thread might give a clue: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/279430-correction-lens-m-different-than-m9.html#post2370250 I don't think so; the dioptre correction goes in steps of 0.5 dioptre. If the value of your eye is somewhere in-between, one correction or the other will be best subjectively. I find for instance that a +0.5 correction glass works best for me on the M6 and a +1.0 one on the M9. In the end it is usually trial and error. But I do think the mechanism has been improved by narrowing tolerances without altering the design. Even the frameline mechanism is clearly the same, just the light source has been altered. Narrowed tolerances will have an impact on accuracy and consistency, as Tim clearly notices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted April 9, 2013 Share #66 Posted April 9, 2013 My hypothesis is that by removing the frame line illumination window a source of false light was removed and the contrast of the RF patch has been improved. As we know the contrast in the RF patch determines to a large extend the final accuracy of the eye to judge correct focus. This could explain the phenomenon Tim is describing. Perhaps someone owing both a M8/M9 and M can check if such a difference in contrast is visible? Well, if the contrast of the RF patch is improved, it isn't because of removing the frame illumination window. With my M9, I focused both with the frame illumination window open and with it covered by my finger. No difference in the contrast of the RF patch or in ease of focusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted April 9, 2013 Share #67 Posted April 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) If there is a focus shift compensation mechanism then it should be easy enough to detect: Take a lens notorious for its focus shift, focus on your subject, starting fully open, then stop down: does the focus patch move, indicating that you need to re-focus? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted April 9, 2013 Share #68 Posted April 9, 2013 Very interesting discussion amongst knowledgable people about how Leica has pulled off this RF improvement. Let me add some data, but no engineering insight to our mix. I finally printed some 13x19, which is my acid test for the quality of a file (image) that I may want to keep. Most images look so good on an a monitor, but the effective reduction in resolution and texture going into a print is more demanding on the file. This shows me, for instance, why I prefer Leica M glass to D800E + Zeiss ZF (latter now sold). My prints from shots with 50 AA on M240 seem a bit more detailed and "in depth" than with M9.... but prints from 35 FLE on M240 are sensational at f/1.4 in comparison to M9. Focus is spot on, repeatable!, and field curvature is far less noticeable because the middle doughnut around image-center does not dissolve as it did on M9. So I am observing substantially improved accuracy of focus (with a nightmarish lens), more evident illusion of depth (must be micro contrast?) and noticeably improved detail in outer 50% of image. As Tim has detailed in this thread, my experience so far shouts that the M240 RF yields substantially better results than M9. Something changed in there! When time permits, I will compare my 135 APO, handheld and using only RF, between both bodies. Thanks again for your comments, Tim. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 9, 2013 Share #69 Posted April 9, 2013 Or, and that seems more likely to me, the new microlens array can handle aberrations towards the corners better. It may even be, because the microlenses are "taller", that they emulate the thickness of film emulsion to a certain extent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted April 9, 2013 Share #70 Posted April 9, 2013 Or, and that seems more likely to me, the new microlens array can handle aberrations towards the corners better. It may even be, because the microlenses are "taller", that they emulate the thickness of film emulsion to a certain extent. Well, the one thing we know for a fact that has changed is the sensor. So that could be part of what gives more consistent focusing. But I thought the pixel wells were shallower? Are the microlenses indeed taller? Anyone with an engineering background care to speculate on how this could improve focusing consistency? If it could, then this combined with perhaps a clearer, more contrasty rangefinder patch could account for the differences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted April 9, 2013 Share #71 Posted April 9, 2013 I'm finding I can nail the 135 Apo Telyt fully open without really trying. Nothing that interesting to post at the moment, but the experience is definitely a great deal more positive than it was with the M9 or M8... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted April 9, 2013 Share #72 Posted April 9, 2013 I'm finding I can nail the 135 Apo Telyt fully open without really trying. Nothing that interesting to post at the moment, but the experience is definitely a great deal more positive than it was with the M9 or M8... Now this causing me a slight headache: Better use of the 135mm Apo-Telyt was my main reason to be interested in live view and focus peaking. If there really was a "new" rangefinder which worked better with this lens, the real new technology of the M (240) would loose much of its attractivity to me and I would wait until I just could get hold of the new M in old clothes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted April 9, 2013 Share #73 Posted April 9, 2013 Absent any official marketing I think this is all subjective wishful thinking. Don't you think Leica would have talked about this in marketing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 9, 2013 Share #74 Posted April 9, 2013 Well, the one thing we know for a fact that has changed is the sensor. So that could be part of what gives more consistent focusing. But I thought the pixel wells were shallower? Are the microlenses indeed taller? Anyone with an engineering background care to speculate on how this could improve focusing consistency? If it could, then this combined with perhaps a clearer, more contrasty rangefinder patch could account for the differences.The wells are shallower and microlenses are more cucumbershaped rather than spherical. I do think it will enhance edge and corner sharpness at higher incidence angles over the M9. And that helps with wideangle lenses. And speculatively the elongated microlenses may give more leeway in focussing because they do give a certain physical thickness to the layer. Michael? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 9, 2013 Share #75 Posted April 9, 2013 Absent any official marketing I think this is all subjective wishful thinking. Don't you think Leica would have talked about this in marketing? No. they only indicated the easier focussing of the M9 over the M8 in informal talks, for instance, never in marketing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted April 9, 2013 Share #76 Posted April 9, 2013 No. they only indicated the easier focussing of the M9 over the M8 in informal talks, for instance, never in marketing. You ever wonder how crappy the "New Dishwasher Tab 8!!!!" must have been if "New Dish Washer Tab9!!!!!" is sooooo much better? Some more discerning companies might prefer to not advertise either deficits in previous product, even for incremental improvements in the new ones? Just a thought. Still waiting on my M so no first hand experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted April 9, 2013 Share #77 Posted April 9, 2013 Well in this case, the deficient product is in production since 1954. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 9, 2013 Share #78 Posted April 9, 2013 You ever wonder how crappy the "New Dishwasher Tab 8!!!!" must have been if "New Dish Washer Tab9!!!!!" is sooooo much better? Some more discerning companies might prefer to not advertise either deficits in previous product, even for incremental improvements in the new ones? Just a thought. Still waiting on my M so no first hand experience. Ummm- the focussing difference between M8 and M9 was purely because of the relative sensor sizes. I am not saying Leica marketing has been brilliant over the years, rather the opposite from time to time imo, but they have always always avoided the Barnum and Bailey style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted April 9, 2013 Share #79 Posted April 9, 2013 Some more discerning companies might prefer to not advertise either deficits in previous product, even for incremental improvements in the new ones? Leica have never been shy about doing so in the past. M7 with "improved MP style viewfinder" (they even put a sticker on the box to that effect), M9 with improved CFA, M9-P offers "even greater discretion", etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted April 9, 2013 Share #80 Posted April 9, 2013 Well in this case, the deficient product is in production since 1954. Dishwasher History....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.