3 months of M240 - am I keeping it?

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tim - many thanks for the thoughtful and intelligent comment (nice pics too!).

 

I couldn't agree more - and the great thing is that RFs are consistent across both my M-240 bodies. This is something I've never experienced with a pair of digital Ms.

 

Happy days

[Advertisement]

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

[k-hawinkler]

I use R lenses on my M more than M lenses. What exactly do you want to know about their performance on the M?

 

 

My question was with regards to focusing experience, not performance?

Thanks.

[farnz]

You write: "Terrible ergonomics of exposure compensation." Just wondering what the problem is. I don't have the new M. I recall that with the M9 using exposure comp. was pretty easy, at least if set up a certain way, so I'm wondering what has changed, if anything.

I don't find this to be a problem: pressing the focus button on the front of the camera with the index finger and rolling the focussing wheel with the right thumb changes exposure compensation in 1/3 stops. As usual I suspect the problem lies with the capriciousness of the M240's User Manual

 

 

Tim,

 

Thanks for your interesting for your interesting and insightful review that I found very readable. No turgid fact soup with irresistible and regular head-nodding here. I can't pretend that I agree with everything you wrote but I have deep respect for your opinion, skill and experience.

 

As you note, the ability to use the M240 with such a wide array of lenses is a revelation and will keep me entertained for some time to come. My 80 Summilux-R is particularly fond of its new mate.

 

Pete.

[01af]

But here are some quotes from some very well known reviewers that might back up what I am saying ...

For the most part, there is no need to "back up what you're saying," as no-one is taking into question what you're saying.

 

In particular, no-one disagrees when you're saying that rangefinder focusing is better than live-view focusing with M lenses. Personally, I just disagree with your notion that this factoid was surprising.

 

Furthermore, no-one disagrees that field curvature is (a) real and ( complex. Personally, I just disagree with your notion that field curvature was severe with Leica M lenses in particular and a terribly bad problem in general.

 

 

Your statement "It still is a Leica M rangefinder camera, after all" obviously means, to you, that it will focus M lenses very well. To me it meant, "bring me an EVF because historically the digital M rangefinders have not worked well for me."

For several decades now, it has been a well-known fact that rangefinder focusing (via triangulation) is superior to SLR focusing on a matte screen (via contrast evaluation) or split-screen indicators (via phase detection) for short focal lengths but inferior for long focal lengths. That's why the longest focal length lens, in the M system, is a mere 135 mm. Now, EVF focusing, in principle, is akin to matte-screen focusing, so it will suit telephoto lenses well and wide-angle lenses not so much. So when the M (Typ 240) was announced, the question was, from which focal length on will EVF focusing be superior to traditional rangefinder focusing? In hindsight, we know the answer: the borderline is somewhere between 90 and 135 mm—just where it always used to be. To prove this, all it takes is fiddling with a pre-production prototype M for ten minutes (as opposed to owning an M for three months ).

 

 

"Anecdotal reports suggest that wide-angle rangefinder lenses exhibit more noticeable field curvature than SLR lenses."

That's right. And how come? Rangefinder lenses generally are smaller than SLR lenses with the same image circle diameter, same focal length, and same lens speed. Smaller lenses mean more restrictions for the designer. So something has to give ... either sharpness ... or vignetting ... or price ... or field curvature. Or some combination thereof. But then, wide-angle SLR lenses come with their own set of problems, as they need to maintain a certain minimum back-focus distance. This, in turn, will make them bigger and reduce their degrees of freedom for avoiding field curvature. The worst field curvature I ever saw was in a Zeiss Distagon 28 mm lens for 35-mm-format SLR cameras.

 

 

... well... for my style of photography, 'getting over it' would mean reducing the demands I make for the technical quality of some styles of work. For example, I often want distant landscape and cityscape images, and some architectural shots too, to have sharp edges at f/5.6 if possible and f/8 for sure.

Well ... if that's your requirement then maybe rangefinder lenses optimised for easy carrying and quick hand-held manual-focus shooting are not the most-clever choice of tool. That doesn't mean rangefinder lenses were totally unfit for this kind of work ... but they do require knowledge of their quirks and how to deal with them. As with any kind of lens, by the way.

 

 

If a small change in focus technique can help me achieve that, then I quite certainly will learn that technique.

Sure. And that's what "getting over it" is about. Understand your tool, learn how to use it, and be done with it (or get rid of it and get another tool which suits your particular needs better). But then, all this has absolutely nothing to do with the M (Typ 240) specifically.

[Peter Branch]

Can you tell, which interview this was - if there is no link, perhaps who was ther interviewer or was it published anywhere?

 

Yes. It was the one conducted by Thorsten Overgaard. I don't know if the video of the interview is still available.

 

As in many of these interviews, (Mark Norton is correct), the key points are presented as throw away lines. He also said, for example, that the absence of micro-lens offset was a factor in the improved IQ.

[UliWer]

Yes, you right! Its at about 10:50 on this video, where Daniel says, that the rangefinder is the only thing in the camera, which is not new, but it's accuracy has been improved.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's indeed excellent news about the rangefinder - as mentioned before by others. Congratulations to Leica.

 

Question: What is the experience with the EVF and focusing R lenses? Any consensus there?

 

I adapted my only R lens to Nikon mount so I can't say but I know that Jono has been using some and he might have an opinion. If it were me trying an R lens for the first time I'd do some tests but if I had to use the lens in anger, I think it would be safest to focus wide open with the EVF then shoot at whatever aperture you need - unless you have particular reason to think the lens has focus shift in which case focus at the shooting aperture.

 

Hi There

Well - I agree with Tim on all focusing opinions:

1. it's better with a rangefinder

2. if you use the EVF it's more accurate to focus wide open and stop down.

 

. . . but I disagree about whether it's worth the effort - I've had good success with R lenses focusing at the aperture I'm using - but it may be I'm just one for the easy life!

[jonoslack]

Hi Tim

Great article as usual - of course the rangefinder is different - we all know that now.

Still, your report makes me feel very happy, because I also love the M for the rangefinder and the sensor.

. . . . I'm a bit jealous of all those shots of StIves harbour though - I haven't been there for nine months and I'm getting withdrawal symptoms.

 

All the best

[Jeff S]

Yes, you right! Its at about 10:50 on this video, where Daniel says, that the rangefinder is the only thing in the camera, which is not new, but it's accuracy has been improved.

 

Yes, on this video at 10:46. It's funny that he says although the structure was taken from the M9, it was "curiously" improved. Interesting choice of words.

 

Also at about 24:38, while discussing focusing alternatives, Daniel reinforces the comment by 01af that the RF is still the best way to focus wide angle lenses.

 

Jeff

[jonoslack]

In hindsight, we know the answer: the borderline is somewhere between 90 and 135 mm—just where it always used to be. To prove this, all it takes is fiddling with a pre-production prototype M for ten minutes (as opposed to owning an M for three months ).

 

Hi 01af

I've ignored the rest of your post as I largely agree.

However, I've found that focusing the 135 with the M is giving me the same kind of hit rate I expected with a well calibrated M9 and a 90.

Today I went out for a couple of hours and ONLY shot with the 135 Apo Telyt - I don't think any of the pictures were out of focus - and they were almost all shot at f3.4.

FWIW I think that with the tighter tolerances of the new rangefinder the ability to focus with longer lenses has also improved (and lets' face it, that's hardly surprising).

 

All the best

[digitalfx]

I totally disagree with this statement:

"you should nearly always focus using the rangefinder, rather than Live View, with nearly every lens.

 

That's right. Bold, italic and highlights. This startling fact is completely unexpected, utterly unintuitive, impossible to explain simply and absolutely vital."

 

 

Although focusing with the rangefinder is preferred and no doubt the best option, using Live View is a totally viable option that adds tremendous value to the camera. I use it frequently.

 

Frankly there are times when the rangefinder is nearly impossible to focus. In low light it can be extremely hard, and times like this make the addition of LV priceless.

 

LV is one of several features that make this camera special, to dismiss it is to lose out on one of the features that makes the camera special.

 

Regarding the rangefinder, there is no question it is improved. My focus rate is significantly higher higher with the M vs either the M8 or M9

[tashley]

We probably agree entirely other than on questions of exact wording: I also use LV frequently - in low light, with ambiguously patterned subjects, with certain lenses at certain distances (as per my Noctilux review) and when I only care about an exactly centred subject being in exact focus. But frequent though those uses might be, I take a lot of shots and so I really do nearly always use the RF with nearly every lens, to focus....

 

 

I totally disagree with this statement:

"you should nearly always focus using the rangefinder, rather than Live View, with nearly every lens.

 

That's right. Bold, italic and highlights. This startling fact is completely unexpected, utterly unintuitive, impossible to explain simply and absolutely vital."

 

 

Although focusing with the rangefinder is preferred and no doubt the best option, using Live View is a totally viable option that adds tremendous value to the camera. I use it frequently.

 

Frankly there are times when the rangefinder is nearly impossible to focus. In low light it can be extremely hard, and times like this make the addition of LV priceless.

 

LV is one of several features that make this camera special, to dismiss it is to lose out on one of the features that makes the camera special.

 

Regarding the rangefinder, there is no question it is improved. My focus rate is significantly higher higher with the M vs either the M8 or M9

[tashley]

Hi There

Well - I agree with Tim on all focusing opinions:

1. it's better with a rangefinder

2. if you use the EVF it's more accurate to focus wide open and stop down.

 

. . . but I disagree about whether it's worth the effort - I've had good success with R lenses focusing at the aperture I'm using - but it may be I'm just one for the easy life!

 

Interesting... I haven't much R lens experience but I suspect that, being designed for SLR bodies they might be less prone to the design factors that make M lenses happier with the RF than the EVF?

[tashley]

For the most part, there is no need to "back up what you're saying," as no-one is taking into question what you're saying.

 

I just disagree with your notion that this factoid was surprising.

 

Sorry old chap, but you can't have my cake and eat it!

 

You are either not 'taking into question' what I'm saying (though you would be very welcome to do so) or you are disagreeing. Please let me know which, when you have decided, and I will greatly enjoy discussing the issues and no doubt learning something in the process!

 

One thing that I think you may have misread me on, though, is the question of RF accuracy. I am fully aware that in principal the RF is a superior way of focussing wide angle lenses. Please pardon me for saying that this grandmother has sucked that egg quite extensively. My beef is with the historically poor implementation rather than the theory. In this I am surely not alone and in this I was certainly not the only person who anticipated the EVF as a saviour from inadequate RF tolerances.

 

It is therefore an irony that Leica has finally introduced LV/EVF just as they decided to tightened the RF to the point of being reliable: the refinement of the old has in part made obsolete the new. Delicious.

[algrove]

Hi There

Well - I agree with Tim on all focusing opinions:

1. it's better with a rangefinder

2. if you use the EVF it's more accurate to focus wide open and stop down.

 

. . . but I disagree about whether it's worth the effort - I've had good success with R lenses focusing at the aperture I'm using - but it may be I'm just one for the easy life!

Jono- I mostly do as you and do not see the need for wide open work. In fact I do like to see the red lines cover more and more of the image area while rotating the f stop which greatly aids in seeing DOF coverage.

 

And I do consider this performance, superb performance.

[douglasf13]

Hi, Tim. I appreciate the write up, as usual. I've read your thoughts on the RF vs. live view thing, and I'm still struggling to come to grips with what you're saying.

 

I certainly prefer a rangefinder over live view in use, but I can't grasp what you're talking about in terms of accuracy. If you can't focus using live view more, or at least as, accurately than the rangefinder when using the M, it seems that it's the live view implementation that is poor. Of course, I'm talking about in a static situation. Rangefinders are faster and maybe more generally accurate in "regular" use, IMO.

 

Rangefinders still have to find a happy medium when dealing with focus shift and focus distance (not to mention calibration of the body and lenses,) and that varies so much from lens to lens. There is no way to calibrate a rangefinder so that it focuses dead on at every aperture and every focus distance on every lens. I've spent a lot of time tooling around inside my M9, and I was amazed at the variance between my lenses. In fact, I even sent a 35mm lens to DAG, and he asked me what aperture I wanted the lens calibrated to, which surprised me. Steve Choi told me that some models of 35 Cron focus past infinity digital, which was less of an issue with film. There is a ton of variance in these lenses.

 

Take focus shift, throw in lens variance, and you've got a lot of possibility for error with a rangefinder. Now, I'm not talking about major errors, but I am talking about slight errors, which should be avoidable with a good live view setup.

 

I'm sure Leica improved the tolerances of the M's rangefinder, and my bet is that they're also coming from the factory more accurately set up than the M9 in the first place, but, even with a newly setup rangefinder and lens, a little bit of error is the name of the game, and I'm ok with that.

 

Interestingly, it seems Leica is moving a bit away from field curvature with the 50AA. That lens is pretty flat field.

[gpwhite]

[schmal]"Moreover, I really think you're way too much obsessed with the field curvature issue. With the exception of a few macro and repro lenses, all lenses meant for photography have (and always had) some field curvature. I'd say—get over it.

 

Now I understand why you are not such a fan of the 50 AA, 01af, which is of course your perfect right. But I agree with Tim and many others that field curvature is a total pain, and particularly so when fine large aperture lenses upset otherwise fascinating images by bringing on fine detail in the oddest, out of context areas of the composition.

[CaptZoom]

Tim,

 

Nothing I've read about the new M has tempted me as I am quite happy with my M9. That is until I read your thoughts on increased RF accuracy. Now I'm literally salivating to get my hands on one! I guess it's a good thing the new M isn't expected to be readily available for another year, which gives me time to save for one (I'm loathe to even consider parting with my M- it'd be like giving up a limb).

 

Not sure if I should thank or curse you:)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[viramati]

Good read and I found it especially interesting the sub section on the 28 cron. this is one of my most used lenses (the other is the 50 lux) and though I'm sure you are technically right I find it to be one of leica's best lenses in general use with fantastic overall sharpness, colour, contrast etc.

[marknorton]

However much you fiddle with the roller adjustments, it boils down to a shaft going up into the top of the camera from the lens throat. There, a cam is used to set the position of the telescope which projects the rangefinder patch image into the frames. Turn the shaft and the patch moves with a precise definition of the shaft position - coincident distance relationship.

 

In the earliest days, the roller used to simply press against the back of the lens barrel so that relationship is based around the classic 1/U + 1/V = 1/F equation, to a first approximation anyway. The roller and its adjustments translate the image distance into the required shaft rotation.

 

When the M8 came out, the lens mount was moved forwards by a few mm to create space for what must sit behind the shutter and a conversation I had with someone from Leica at Photokina in 2006 told me the roller pivot point had to move forwards as well and it had been a real problem re-establishing the correct mapping of shaft position to coincident distance.

 

One possible reason for the improved rangefinder (and I still maintain the shallower sensor helps here) is that they have revisited the problem, come up with a better way and restored the correct mapping with greater latitude across the range. Makes me wonder how things will be for those who have had their lenses calibrated to a particular camera.