k-hawinkler Posted June 8, 2013 Share #41 Posted June 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) The EVF is no culprit for the slow refresh rate of the camera per se but we were indeed informed of this congenital defect since September 2012 thanks to Sean Reid and other serious reviewers. Yes, I know - but it finally sunk in. 2 seconds! Well, the NEX-7 works just fine! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here The Leica M (Typ 240) is fantastic. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Lindolfi Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share #42 Posted June 8, 2013 The EVF is no culprit for the slow refresh rate of the camera per se but we were indeed informed of this congenital defect since September 2012 thanks to Sean Reid and other serious reviewers. Terribly sorry for offering old information. I simply was not aware of the fact (?) that the serious reviewers had measured and published black-out times. If you can please lift out the links to the data of the reviewers, Jaap will be able to post the data in the FAQ section of the M (typ 240). Personally I was not disappointed at all. With the M (typ 240) I have more in my bag than with the M9 at the same volume, so I'm not complaining. What is important is to know the possibilities and limitations of what I have in the bag, which I wanted to share in this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 8, 2013 Share #43 Posted June 8, 2013 Terribly sorry for offering old information. I simply was not aware of the fact (?) that the serious reviewers had measured and published black-out times. If you can please lift out the links to the data of the reviewers, Jaap will be able to post the data in the FAQ section of the M (typ 240)... Why do you say this? I did not refer to measures and did not quote you nor anybody else BTW. Just recalling that we were perfectly informed of the slow refresh rate of the camera since September 2012. Simple truth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share #44 Posted June 8, 2013 Good, I was afraid I had missed the data. Still there is perhaps a need for a section in the FAQ on this. I think the reaction of K-H to my data clearly demonstrates this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share #45 Posted June 8, 2013 I'd like to share another fact that may already be known: Don't use polaroid sunglasses with the EVF, you'll get horrible blueish blodges in the frame, while the back LCD simply becomes dark when the camera is turned to about 60 degrees out of landscape orientation counterclockwise. What I already knew for a long time with the M6: the optical rangefinder shows a dim (low contrast) primary image in landscape orientation and a dim secondary (shifting) image in portrait orientation when using polaroid sunglasses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted June 8, 2013 Share #46 Posted June 8, 2013 I'd like to share another fact that may already be known: Don't use polaroid sunglasses with the EVF, you'll get horrible blueish blodges in the frame, while the back LCD simply becomes dark when the camera is turned to about 60 degrees out of landscape orientation counterclockwise. What I already knew for a long time with the M6: the optical rangefinder shows a dim (low contrast) primary image in landscape orientation and a dim secondary (shifting) image in portrait orientation when using polaroid sunglasses. M9 is the same. It is an inconvenience to be sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 15, 2013 Author Share #47 Posted June 15, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here's another fact: the effects of in camera correction of lens properties (by automatic detection or manual setting) is not visible in the EVF. Both vignetting and color correction are not performed in the EVF image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2013 Share #48 Posted June 15, 2013 Hi Bert! Could you put a number of these in the FAQ thread please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 15, 2013 Share #49 Posted June 15, 2013 Here's another fact: the effects of in camera correction of lens properties (by automatic detection or manual setting) is not visible in the EVF. Both vignetting and color correction are not performed in the EVF image. May i ask how you checked that? Just curious as i find in-camera corrections almost invisible on the files themselves with 21mm and longer M Leica lenses so far. As if most of the work was done by the new microlenses already. (?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 15, 2013 Author Share #50 Posted June 15, 2013 May i ask how you checked that? Just curious as i find in-camera corrections almost invisible on the files themselves with 21mm and longer M Leica lenses so far. As if most of the work was done by the new microlenses already. (?) Here's a direct comparison of the 21/2.8 APSH lens in LiveView coded as 21/2.8 ASPH and coded as 135/3.4: Vignetting and Color gradients are the same. The screen I photographed was evenly illuminated by clouded sky. And here a direct comparison of the files from the 21/2.8 ASPH with coded as 21/2.8 ASPH and as 135/3.4 (all settings identical in LightRoom). The more vignetted oneis the one corrected as 135/3.4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongrelnomad Posted June 15, 2013 Share #51 Posted June 15, 2013 Any one else noticed that the RAW files are much less defined coming from the M240 than the M9? I have NEVER sharpened any image from either my M9 or my MM, but I have had to do so when processing all images through Lightroom on the M240. Not a deal-breaker, but rather disappointing, as I feel that something has been lost. Physically, though, this camera's absolutely awesome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 15, 2013 Share #52 Posted June 15, 2013 Interesting indeed but the difference looks less visible on the files themselves for some reason. I did a comparo with IR-cut filters on to see if the latters make for a significant difference and was surprised to see that vignetting and color shifts remain more or less the same with correction off and on. Here with some 24 to 35mm lenses. I'll do the same with the 21/2.8 asph but i don't hold my breath. M240 vignetting - lctphot's Photos Here's a direct comparison of the 21/2.8 APSH lens in LiveView coded as 21/2.8 ASPH and coded as 135/3.4: http://www.photoplaza.nl/lindolfi/21asphcodedas21and134LCDonM240.gif Vignetting and Color gradients are the same. The screen I photographed was evenly illuminated by clouded sky. And here a direct comparison of the files from the 21/2.8 ASPH with coded as 21/2.8 ASPH and as 135/3.4 (all settings identical in LightRoom). The more vignetted oneis the one corrected as 135/3.4 http://www.photoplaza.nl/lindolfi/21mmASPHcorranduncorrM240.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 15, 2013 Author Share #53 Posted June 15, 2013 When you switch lens dectection off (after having had it on automatic detection),the camera still uses the old settings. Perhaps that is the reason you see little difference? That is why I purposely selected the 135/3.4 while the 21/2.8 ASPH was mounted, to force the correction to change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 15, 2013 Author Share #54 Posted June 15, 2013 Any one else noticed that the RAW files are much less defined coming from the M240 than the M9? I have NEVER sharpened any image from either my M9 or my MM, but I have had to do so when processing all images through Lightroom on the M240. Not a deal-breaker, but rather disappointing, as I feel that something has been lost. Physically, though, this camera's absolutely awesome. No, have not had the experience that the files need more sharpening in the M (typ 240) than in the M9. Here a direct comparison of the two in a tiff file. Same settings in LightRoom. http://www.photoplaza.nl/lindolfi/sharpnessm240andm9.tif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 15, 2013 Share #55 Posted June 15, 2013 When you switch lens dectection off (after having had it on automatic detection),the camera still uses the old settings. Perhaps that is the reason you see little difference? That is why I purposely selected the 135/3.4 while the 21/2.8 ASPH was mounted, to force the correction to change. So the exif data would change but not the correction? I'll try your trick as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2013 Share #56 Posted June 15, 2013 No, have not had the experience that the files need more sharpening in the M (typ 240) than in the M9. Here a direct comparison of the two in a tiff file. Same settings in LightRoom. http://www.photoplaza.nl/lindolfi/sharpnessm240andm9.tif The moire differences at the 70 Lp/mm are quite interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.