3 months of M240 - am I keeping it?

[tashley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

post 44, I don't think you mean "image space".

 

No I certainly didn't mean to use the phrase 'Image Space' - which is why I in fact did not use it. I am not sure where you think I did - but post #44 does not contain it.

 

I wrote about image space briefly in an article on focus techniques for maximising DOF. It refers to rather complex methods used with cameras with standards and bellows and has no relevance to this discussion - though of course it is sometimes possible to accidentally use a little-used phrase that has a specific technical meaning when it sounds like a good way of expressing a totally different idea.

 

Again, the cams are an artifact of having interchangeable lenses of different focal lengths. Someone pointed out that some of them are ground piecewise and not a careful curve; so they would be lucky to do their intended purpose, much less anything else.

 

I would like to see that reference if you can find it. It seems to me unlikely that Leica have a machine in the corner grinding these out indiscriminately with little thought to what they can do.

 

It is quite clear that at any point, the interaction of the shape of the lens cam with the RF mechanism must define a very specific focus distance. A carefully designed and calibrated interaction will therefore be able to do this so as to give highly intentional results. I find the idea that Leica would not at least try do this unlikely. But of course anything is possible.

 

The results, however, indicate otherwise.

[Advertisement]

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

[tashley]

 

So far I have not heard anything about a new rangefinder in the 240 camera. No details, no pictures, no statement from Leica, no part numbers, etc., so I am assuming so far it is the old rangefinder.

 

I have to say that to me, that is a quite extraordinary comment even leaving aside for a moment the link earlier in this thread to exactly that statement from Leica - I suggest you look at post #29 and you might also be interested in post #28 from Jono Slack, who worked extremely carefully on the camera's development with Leica.

 

The reason I find it extraordinary as a comment is that it implies that in the absence of a specific statement, you would ignore a possibility by assuming the opposite. That seems an odd intellectual approach. It ignores the multiple other sources of potential evidence and it seems to make you easy prey to companies, governments, indeed any organisation, that want to direct the way you form opinions.

[jaapv]

 

 

 

It is quite clear that at any point, the interaction of the shape of the lens cam with the RF mechanism must define a very specific focus distance. A carefully designed and calibrated interaction will therefore be able to do this so as to give highly intentional results. I find the idea that Leica would not at least try do this unlikely. But of course anything is possible.

 

The results, however, indicate otherwise.

I think that was the way it was done with the first cams,about eighty years ago. His source must be caught in a time warp . Nowadays they are machined to a narrow tolerance and I believe not by Leica themselves but by Uwe Weller.

[marknorton]

Yes, but what is surprising is that Leica did not include this as one of the listed enhancements of the new camera. As a keen rangefinder user, the improvement has come as THE big surprise to me and what seems to have been relegated to a footnote is actually rather important.

 

It's almost as if they were reluctant to admit the existing rangefinder was not beyond improvement. A design with origins 50 years ago, how could it not be?

 

We know about the LED lighting, we know there's a sensor in there which detects focussing movement, some might say the rangefinder patch is brighter now but there's something else - and I do not know what it is - which is making the rangefinder easier to use and more accurate. It's all very welcome.

[tashley]

Tim, I'm aware of field curvature and everything else you mention (and I've read your articles.) I still sounds like it just comes down to poor implementation of live view in the M240. Even stopped down to f8, one should be able to tell the exact point of sharpness of a lens with magnification and peaking enabled. I've done it quite a bit with other cameras. Of course, being able to move around the magnified focus point would also let you check your work.

 

I would definitely pick a rangefinder in any kind of dynamic situation, but, if we're talking static situations, a good live view situation should guarantee perfect focusing.

 

I'm still not sure how a rangefinder would be aware of the different field curvatures and focus shifts that occur across different lenses (assuming they're calibration is also perfect.) Focus and recompose is another issue, unless the field curvature of a lens just so happens to compensate for it.

 

I have learned from this entire exercise what the problem with Live View focussing when stopped down is. It is obvious in retrospect of course but it is clear that the process is, even when absolutely perfectly executed and deployed, not necesarrily very useful because it places the DOF without reference to any desire other than getting the point of focus in absolutely optimal focus.

 

Here's an example: if we assume a 50mm lens and a 20 micron desired circle of confusion, an aperture of F5.6 and a focus distance of 10 metres, then we will have around 3.5 metres DOF in front of the subject and 11 metres behind. In other words, the entire field of focus is biased backwards, even assuming no focus shift. This might very well not suite the shape of that field of focus in relation to a planar subject. Or indeed in relation to any shaped subject.

 

In other words even an extraordinarily high resolution LCD or EVF with a very high degree of zoom and access to phenomenally accurate peaking, capable of finding the exact optimal focus, will not consider the rest of the field - unless it is scrollable so you can look at any part of the subject field before you shoot.

 

Of course the M240's EVF is not very high resolution so focussing when stopped down to apertures with a thick DOF can be quite ambiguous, which makes the problem worse. Not being scrollable either seals the deal.

 

So if you mean by the comment "if we're talking static situations, a good live view situation should guarantee perfect focusing" that you would specify both extreme resolution and scrollability, then I guess we are in perfect agreement. But without the scroll, the RF is still generally a better bet IMHO.

[tashley]

As a keen rangefinder user, the improvement has come as THE big surprise to me and what seems to have been relegated to a footnote is actually rather important.

 

I could not agree more. Which is one of the reasons I keep banging on about it

The other reason I keep banging on is that half the world seems still to be in denial about a good thing. Maybe it's a sign of our times?

[120]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Except that Stefan Daniel has quite clearly stated that it is not the same as previous rangefinders. He should know. Quite what the differences are is not known and one could speculate for a long time. What I know is that the rangefinder in the M240 is much better than any previous rangefinder. It is easier to use and all my tests show conclusively that it is more accurate in normal use.

...

 

Apparently he says everything is new except the rangefinder, then he says the rangefinder structure is taken from the M9. It is a little hard to hear.

 

When in the beginning I asked head of Leica service if the rf had been changed, he said the frameline illumination had changed, but nothing else. At that time, they were not repairing the cameras, but swapping them out if necessary.

 

So again I don't personally know if the rangefinder has been changed, but I am assuming it hasn't.

[jaapv]

The layout hasn't changed, the manufacturing tolerances have.

[120]

The layout hasn't changed, the manufacturing tolerances have.

 

So you just said it's not a new rangefinder? How do I know the tolerances have changed?

[Jeff S]

Apparently he says everything is new except the rangefinder, then he says the rangefinder structure is taken from the M9. It is a little hard to hear.

 

But he definitely said it has "been improved for the new camera." As discussed in post #43, the question remains as to whether he said "curiously" improved or "accuracy" improved, more likely the latter.

 

No question though that after he says structure was taken from the M9 that "it" was improved, and since he was talking about the RF, the reference is clear.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

So you just said it's not a new rangefinder? How do I know the tolerances have changed?

Of course it is not a new design.

[macjonny1]

The reason I find it extraordinary as a comment is that it implies that in the absence of a specific statement, you would ignore a possibility by assuming the opposite. That seems an odd intellectual approach. It ignores the multiple other sources of potential evidence and it seems to make you easy prey to companies, governments, indeed any organisation, that want to direct the way you form opinions.

 

That's a silly extrapolation to talk of governments and such. Anyway, I think the point of the matter is that we have some anecdotal experience one hand stating that the RF works better on their brand new Leica than (presumably) the one they had before. In addition, we have a statement by Stefan that is by no means 100% clear.

 

On the other hand we have no actual official objective evidence, and also the notion that if some aspect of a new model was improved that the company would likely make this known as it would improve the desirability of such product.

 

Finally, we have some perceptions that perhaps that some aspect of the camera that has changed (such as removal of illumination window) has improved the overall experience of the RF experience without actually needing a change in the actual mechanism.

 

What it all comes down to is we don't really know. Perhaps if you don't own an M240 it is easier to believe that it hasn't improved, but basing an opinion on any of the above is perfectly valid and I don't think it is particularly helpful to say someone is prone to be a sheep/manipulation because they rely on a specific set of information.

[douglasf13]

I have learned from this entire exercise what the problem with Live View focussing when stopped down is. It is obvious in retrospect of course but it is clear that the process is, even when absolutely perfectly executed and deployed, not necesarrily very useful because it places the DOF without reference to any desire other than getting the point of focus in absolutely optimal focus.

 

Here's an example: if we assume a 50mm lens and a 20 micron desired circle of confusion, an aperture of F5.6 and a focus distance of 10 metres, then we will have around 3.5 metres DOF in front of the subject and 11 metres behind. In other words, the entire field of focus is biased backwards, even assuming no focus shift. This might very well not suite the shape of that field of focus in relation to a planar subject. Or indeed in relation to any shaped subject.

 

In other words even an extraordinarily high resolution LCD or EVF with a very high degree of zoom and access to phenomenally accurate peaking, capable of finding the exact optimal focus, will not consider the rest of the field - unless it is scrollable so you can look at any part of the subject field before you shoot.

 

Of course the M240's EVF is not very high resolution so focussing when stopped down to apertures with a thick DOF can be quite ambiguous, which makes the problem worse. Not being scrollable either seals the deal.

 

So if you mean by the comment "if we're talking static situations, a good live view situation should guarantee perfect focusing" that you would specify both extreme resolution and scrollability, then I guess we are in perfect agreement. But without the scroll, the RF is still generally a better bet IMHO.

 

Yeah, with my old NEX cameras, with peaking and magnification, I was able to decipher where the absolute center of sharpness was, even when stopped down. You can see the peaking areas "well up" and find the center of the field of sharpness. Of course, when in doubt, you could also move the magnification box around to double check.

 

Either way, while I find that a good EVF and manual focus aids can be pretty quick in a dynamic situation (I spent quite a bit of time practicing this,) I'd certainly prefer the rangefinder, and I'm glad the M240's is even better than my M9's.

[k-hawinkler]

Well, I have used extensively manual focus with Leica lenses on my NEX-5N with EVF and NEX-7.

My experience is, probably due to my non-perfect eye sight, that for scenes with high micro contrast focus peaking gets me close to a good focus. However, unless I just got extremely lucky, if I then zoom in all the way I find that focus still can be improved. I also find that focus peaking typically seems to work best with 1x magnification. Zooming in can significantly reduce the strength of the focus peaking signal. But the magnification more than makes up for that. All, of course, on a tripod.

 

I also find, being able to position the focus box where I want it within a frame, is an important feature that's reportedly missing in Leica's current implementstion. A very disappointing oversight for my photographic interests.

[120]

...

I wrote about image space briefly in an article on focus techniques for maximising DOF. It refers to rather complex methods used with cameras with standards and bellows and has no relevance to this discussion - though of course it is sometimes possible to accidentally use a little-used phrase that has a specific technical meaning when it sounds like a good way of expressing a totally different idea.

...

I don't think image space has anything to do with standards and bellows.

 

I was asking about the labeling of your diagram.

 

 

I would like to see that reference if you can find it. It seems to me unlikely that Leica have a machine in the corner grinding these out indiscriminately with little thought to what they can do.

 

...

 

I'm not sure what statement you want a reference for...that some of the cams are ground piecewise, we saw by looking at them. That the cams vary with focal length is clear, but I can give a reference.

 

The idea that Leica is grinding the cams according to the shape of the depth of field, and focus shift, would seem to need a source. You may find out this is unrealistic given the tolerances for other parts of the camera. Again, I would start by asking Leica or DAG about it.

[tashley]

I don't think image space has anything to do with standards and bellows.

 

I was asking about the labeling of your diagram.

 

My diagram is not labelled anywhere with the phrase Image Space. That phrase refers to the method of calculating optimal DOF and focus when making measurements between the front and rear standards of a technical camera during movements. I refer you to this article, which explains it clearly.

 

 

I'm not sure what statement you want a reference for...that some of the cams are ground piecewise, we saw by looking at them. That the cams vary with focal length is clear, but I can give a reference.

 

The idea that Leica is grinding the cams according to the shape of the depth of field, and focus shift, would seem to need a source. You may find out this is unrealistic given the tolerances for other parts of the camera. Again, I would start by asking Leica or DAG about it.

 

I merely have noted, as a result of a large number of experiments, that the RF in the M240 has a better ability to ascertain focus so as to place the DOF favourably to a planar subject than does the EVF. The rest is my conjecture. It is unlikely to be happening purely by chance so your own conjectures are welcome but I would note that at least one other participant in this thread has suggested that your information is outdated. Any observations you have from using your own M240 would be most interesting! But the idea that something is not true until Leica tells you that it is true is patently unsound: most serious users of this camera have noted that the RF is a great deal better and whether that relates to design, or to improved tolerances, is of theoretical interest only. Something is different, and I am surprised that you have not noticed this in your own camera - maybe yours is not so well adjusted?

[algrove]

Well, I have used extensively manual focus with Leica lenses on my NEX-5N with EVF and NEX-7.

My experience is, probably due to my non-perfect eye sight, that for scenes with high micro contrast focus peaking gets me close to a good focus. However, unless I just got extremely lucky, if I then zoom in all the way I find that focus still can be improved. I also find that focus peaking typically seems to work best with 1x magnification. Zooming in can significantly reduce the strength of the focus peaking signal. But the magnification more than makes up for that. All, of course, on a tripod.

 

I also find, being able to position the focus box where I want it within a frame, is an important feature that's reportedly missing in Leica's current implementstion. A very disappointing oversight for my photographic interests.

 

K-H-

 

Certainly agree that not being able to move the focus box around the image puts one at a distinct disadvantage at times. Somewhere someone commented that it could NOT be added via FW. I have no idea, but that would certainly improve the M experience by leaps and bounds.

[tashley]

That's a silly extrapolation to talk of governments and such. Anyway, I think the point of the matter is that we have some anecdotal experience one hand stating that the RF works better on their brand new Leica than (presumably) the one they had before. In addition, we have a statement by Stefan that is by no means 100% clear.

I don't think it is silly at all. Stefan appears to be saying that it is improved, several very good sources have agreed, and many very experienced users have noticed a very significant difference. So I feel quite happy in questioning the idea that something isn't true until Leica says it's true and in noting that the intellectual process of deciding that to be a valid assumption is questionable and has wider implications. Sorry.

 

On the other hand we have no actual official objective evidence, and also the notion that if some aspect of a new model was improved that the company would likely make this known as it would improve the desirability of such product.

 

There is a very good reason why the marketing department of any company might not want it broadcast that a key component of an older but still shipping camera is less effective than it should be.

 

Finally, we have some perceptions that perhaps that some aspect of the camera that has changed (such as removal of illumination window) has improved the overall experience of the RF experience without actually needing a change in the actual mechanism.

 

I think you might credit all of us M240 owners who are getting notably better results with more intelligence and ability to discern ease of use from effectiveness of function.

 

What it all comes down to is we don't really know. Perhaps if you don't own an M240 it is easier to believe that it hasn't improved, but basing an opinion on any of the above is perfectly valid and I don't think it is particularly helpful to say someone is prone to be a sheep/manipulation because they rely on a specific set of information.

 

I think that those who currently don't own the M240 are in general very happy to hear the opinions of those who do. There are clearly some exceptions. But more information is always good, no? And I would say that the weight of evidence has moved really very close to fact.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tashley]

K-H-

 

Certainly agree that not being able to move the focus box around the image puts one at a distinct disadvantage at times. Somewhere someone commented that it could NOT be added via FW. I have no idea, but that would certainly improve the M experience by leaps and bounds.

 

Unfortunately you are correct: it seems that this was an unavoidable compromise and can't be changed

[macjonny1]

I don't think it is silly at all. Stefan appears to be saying that it is improved, several very good sources have agreed, and many very experienced users have noticed a very significant difference. So I feel quite happy in questioning the idea that something isn't true until Leica says it's true and in noting that the intellectual process of deciding that to be a valid assumption is questionable and has wider implications. Sorry.

 

 

 

There is a very good reason why the marketing department of any company might not want it broadcast that a key component of an older but still shipping camera is less effective than it should be.

 

 

 

I think you might credit all of us M240 owners who are getting notably better results with more intelligence and ability to discern ease of use from effectiveness of function.

 

 

 

I think that those who currently don't own the M240 are in general very happy to hear the opinions of those who do. There are clearly some exceptions. But more information is always good, no? And I would say that the weight of evidence has moved really very close to fact.

 

My point of post was to outline the various aspects of the issue, and how it can lead to different conclusions. I see the points on all the sides, and can see differing conclusions that all have some plausibility. I certainly wouldn't choose to suggest someone (forum member 120) is an ignoramus and easy prey for propaganda and manipulation because they might have a differing viewpoint but that's just me. If you are "happy" to do so, so be it. Good for you.