jaapv Posted July 21, 2013 Share #1 Posted July 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've owned dozens of cameras over the years - cheap and nasty (like my finances at the time) like a Revue 1000, legendary like a Asahi Pentax Spotmatic, small like a Pentax 110, big like a Mamiya 645E, revolutionary like the OM1, primitive like the EXA 1, etc. and I can safely say that the M is by far the best camera I ever had. Still there are some niggles left. *The sluggish startup time was solved by a SD caed change, but it does not seem to work for every camera. I have had no lockups either, so i guess I am lucky. . *The EVF is adequate, but no more than that. Please upgrade to a better one as soon as possible Leica. *I dislike the EVF blackout after exposure, although it is an improvement over the Visoflex blackout before exposure. I suppose there is no solution for this. *The new framelines are fine, but they start out at full power before dimming down in response to ambient light. Result: if you switch on with the camera to your eye in low light it will flash a bright of light onto your retina. It would be better if they came on from low to the correct level. *As promised by Leica the implementation of an optional Auto-ISO in manual mode will be practical for use with long lenses as it will give a kind of "T" setting. Still, I am happy that it is switched off for normal lenses. *I miss the frame line lever, even if I used it only sporadically. And then there are a couple of things to bear in mind that are a result of the higher resolution: *Subject separation seems to be more pronounced. I tend to stop down one step more for the same effect. *By the same token I need to take more care focussing. Fortunately this is more than compensated for by the improvement of the rangefinder mechanism. *Motion blur is more apparent. Having said that, the M is a real treat. Next to the Monochrom which is of course the purest DRF one can imagine, it makes the perfect couple. Leica must have a hard time figuring out how to make the next iteration of the M even better... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M Typ 240 - niggles and grumbles. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest malland Posted July 21, 2013 Share #2 Posted July 21, 2013 Jaap, you once wrote that you and I often have diametrically opposed points of view but somehow always come to the same eventual conclusions. My reaction to your post is, "color, color, color." Yes, I know people expect that, after a firmware update and better raw developer profiles the M240 will follow the introductory phase path of the M9 and that the color rendition will be fine. But my feeling is that that latter word "fine" can cover a lot of sins: I am still skeptical whether the M240 will ever have the color rendition that I like in the M9. For some people that may not matter, but for me it's a major point — particularly after I've discovered that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the M9 can be a great camera for high-ISO night photography if the technique discussed in this thread is used: the noise (=grain) and the color rendition is very film-like, think Kodachrome. Ultimately, it may come back to the M9 sensor assembly having been designed using the Kodachrome 64 color model by Leica together with Kodak — and in Kodak there was obviously a huge repository of color knowledge and experience. If my skepticism proves to be right, then the M9 will become a classic; if it proves wrong I'll eventually get an M240 or its successor camera — and we'll have once more come to the same conclusion. —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Obvious [WIP] Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 21, 2013 Share #3 Posted July 21, 2013 Others have mentioned white balance, inability to vary position of zoom magnification, desire for FW change that allows flexibility to customize use of certain buttons, etc. As usual, no lack of desired tweaks, often varying by user preference. It will be interesting to see what Leica chooses to tweak, other than cosmetics. I'll be interested, too, to see if Leica will introduce a new Monochrom based on the M platform, including some of the same usability improvements. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share #4 Posted July 21, 2013 Jaap, you once wrote that you and I often have diametrically opposed points of view but somehow always come to the same eventual conclusions. My reaction to your post is, "color, color, color." Yes, I know people expect that, after a firmware update and better raw developer profiles the M240 will follow the introductory phase path of the M9 and that the color rendition will be fine. But my feeling is that that latter word "fine" can cover a lot of sins: I am still skeptical whether the M240 will ever have the color rendition that I like in the M9. For some people that may not matter, but for me it's a major point — particularly after I've discovered that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the M9 can be a great camera for high-ISO night photography if the technique discussed in this thread is used: the noise (=grain) and the color rendition is very film-like, think Kodachrome. Ultimately, it may come back to the M9 sensor assembly having been designed using the Kodachrome 64 color model by Leica together with Kodak — and in Kodak there was obviously a huge repository of color knowledge and experience. If my skepticism proves to be right, then the M9 will become a classic; if it proves wrong I'll eventually get an M240 or its successor camera — and we'll have once more come to the same conclusion. —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Obvious [WIP] Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"... Mitch, I deliberately wrote nothing about colour because I will need more computer time to come to a sensible assessment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted July 21, 2013 Share #5 Posted July 21, 2013 I'll be interested, too, to see if Leica will introduce a new Monochrom based on the M platform, including some of the same usability improvements. Jeff If they do, it will be announced a week or so after I finally succumb to temptation and take delivery of an MM! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 21, 2013 Share #6 Posted July 21, 2013 I don't agree with Mitch about colours as i don't see any Kodachrome like rendition in M9 raw files and i don't shoot jpegs. All i can say is the M240 has probably the most transparent sensor i've used, putting aside WB problems i'm not really interested in as a raw user. I just did a personal profile in Capture One and it works fine so far. Otherwise i share most of Jaap's findings with granum (granorum?) salis here and there. 1. The sluggish startup time is a problem on all cameras. The fact that Jaap, Lindolfi and i found a way to avoid it with some specific cards does not alter the fact that the M240 is off specs with the other cards. 2. The EVF is not adequate to me. The sluggish refresh rate of the camera causes the EVF to blur each time the camera and/or the subject matter move more or less. And i fear that no new EVF can do anything to fix that 3. The new framelines are fine with no reservation. More accurate, more contrasty. I would not like they start out at low power, as suggested by Jaap, which would render them more or less invisible in good light. 4. Implementation of an optional Auto-ISO in manual mode: why not if it is optional but i prefer manual with manual and auto with auto... To each its own. 5. I miss the frame line lever as well. 6. Subject separation seems to be more pronounced for Jaap, but not for me. I don't see a significant difference with my other FF and APS digicams but i may be wrong. 7. I don't need to take more care focussing either. But i agree with Jaap about the improvement of the rangefinder. Not sure if it comes from the mechanism of the latter or the better contrast of the focus patch but the improvement seems obvious anyway. 8. Motion blur is not more apparent for me but again i may be wrong. 9. I still don't know what a lockup may be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krooj Posted July 21, 2013 Share #7 Posted July 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) *The new framelines are fine, but they start out at full power before dimming down in response to ambient light. Result: if you switch on with the camera to your eye in low light it will flash a bright of light onto your retina. It would be better if they came on from low to the correct level. That's concerning. One of the things I dislike about my X-Pro1 is how it's frameline overlay will be so bright as to obstruct my view of the actual subject in low light. Leica should add a way to change the behaviour (light->dark / dark->light) in a firmware update. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share #8 Posted July 21, 2013 That would be perfect. Anyway the adjustment time is so short that it is really a flash, so just changing the behavior should not really be noticeable in bright light. I just found another niggle : the position of the tripod screw has been shifted. I had to drill and cut on the eveready case as I wanted to take it to the beach. ( the only place I use it.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 21, 2013 Share #9 Posted July 21, 2013 I just found another niggle : the position of the tripod screw has been shifted. But it is an improvement: It is now located directly under the optical axis: better balance and easier for panorama stitching. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hey You Posted July 21, 2013 Share #10 Posted July 21, 2013 If only I had a camera, so I could provide comment. . . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisoje Posted July 21, 2013 Share #11 Posted July 21, 2013 If only I had a camera, so I could provide comment. . . . . +1:mad: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 21, 2013 Share #12 Posted July 21, 2013 By the way, it is quite revealing to pick up an M9 after getting used to (spoiled by) the M (typ 240): it is loud and slow. (Yet the images are still superb) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted July 21, 2013 Share #13 Posted July 21, 2013 I don't agree with Mitch about colours as i don't see any Kodachrome like rendition in M9 raw files and i don't shoot jpegs. All i can say is the M240 has probably the most transparent sensor i've used, putting aside WB problems i'm not really interested in as a raw user. I just did a personal profile in Capture One and it works fine so far. Otherwise i share most of Jaap's findings with granum (granorum?) salis here and there. 1. The sluggish startup time is a problem on all cameras. The fact that Jaap, Lindolfi and i found a way to avoid it with some specific cards does not alter the fact that the M240 is off specs with the other cards. 2. The EVF is not adequate to me. The sluggish refresh rate of the camera causes the EVF to blur each time the camera and/or the subject matter move more or less. And i fear that no new EVF can do anything to fix that 3. The new framelines are fine with no reservation. More accurate, more contrasty. I would not like they start out at low power, as suggested by Jaap, which would render them more or less invisible in good light. 4. Implementation of an optional Auto-ISO in manual mode: why not if it is optional but i prefer manual with manual and auto with auto... To each its own. 5. I miss the frame line lever as well. 6. Subject separation seems to be more pronounced for Jaap, but not for me. I don't see a significant difference with my other FF and APS digicams but i may be wrong. 7. I don't need to take more care focussing either. But i agree with Jaap about the improvement of the rangefinder. Not sure if it comes from the mechanism of the latter or the better contrast of the focus patch but the improvement seems obvious anyway. 8. Motion blur is not more apparent for me but again i may be wrong. 9. I still don't know what a lockup may be. I agree about the color. After two months, I find it consistent and easy to produce excellent files. All you need is a custom camera profile (I use ACR); I don't bother with jpgs. If I need a jpg I will convert in Photoshop. I do not see issue with my startup time. Maybe I am using SD cards that work better. I think the EVF is okay, but just okay, not great. However, it is far better than using an optical viewfinder for framing. Focusing with the RF is excellent, better (subjectively) than the M9. I hope Leica eventually releases a Oly VF4 equivalent and firmware for it. I think the framelines are fine as is. I agree that auto ISO in manual would be nice thing to have. I do not miss the frameline lever. I am one of the few that found it to be of limited utility and preferred simply eyeballing -- and now prefer the EVF for framing. I am not sure what "motion blur" means but in terms of the stability of the camera ("camera shake") there is no difference from the M9. Good technique works. I also do not see any difference in "subject separation" from the M9 and logically, with the same size sensor, there should be no difference in DOF with the same lenses. Perhaps Jaap can explain more about what he means. I have had one lockup. I do not consider that an issue any more than very occasionally having to reboot a computer. The camera is essentially a computer with a hole for a lens. If the lockups are repeatable with specific behavior than a firmware fix is in order. I would like to be able to repurpose the Movie button. I would like to be able to say no to long exposure noise reduction and I would also like the ability to expose for longer than 60 seconds. These are small items in the big picture, not deal breakers, and after using the M(240) for a while, I sold my M9 as I was so much more comfortable with the M(240). But I do hope Leica will consider the M240 still a work in progress and consider firware updates that address some of these issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted July 21, 2013 Share #14 Posted July 21, 2013 Mitch, I deliberately wrote nothing about colour because I will need more computer time to come to a sensible assessment. I have also recently received my M(240), and after a few hundred images taken with it, and having used a M9 as my sole camera previously, I really do not understand any negativity about colours. As far as I can see they are excellent straight from the RAW converter (generic Apple Aperture) across the gambit. I would add that the Auto WB also seems fine and handles night shots well. My biggest plea is to change the ISO screen to white as I personally find the red very difficult in certain light and when you want to change the sensitivity quickly it is unnecessarily irritating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 21, 2013 Share #15 Posted July 21, 2013 I just found another niggle : the position of the tripod screw has been shifted. I had to drill and cut on the eveready case as I wanted to take it to the beach. ( the only place I use it.) I agree. Neither of my Luigi cases work because, they both use the Luigi tripod screw. Stephen reported that the cases fit so, I put my new M in one and tried to screw the Luigi tripos screw in and successfully managed to screw a perfect off-set counter sunk indent into the bottom plate through the black paint - first ding to my M only a few hours after I got it. I do agree that the tripod hole is in a better place, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share #16 Posted July 21, 2013 I have also recently received my M(240), and after a few hundred images taken with it, and having used a M9 as my sole camera previously, I really do not understand any negativity about colours. As far as I can see they are excellent straight from the RAW converter (generic Apple Aperture) across the gambit. I would add that the Auto WB also seems fine and handles night shots well. My biggest plea is to change the ISO screen to white as I personally find the red very difficult in certain light and when you want to change the sensitivity quickly it is unnecessarily irritating. Yes, the red font is an unfortunate choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 22, 2013 Share #17 Posted July 22, 2013 I don't agree with Mitch about colours as i don't see any Kodachrome like rendition in M9 raw files and i don't shoot jpegs..Perhaps "Kodachrome" is not a good choice of words: all I really mean is that the color rendition reminds of color transparency film, and that so far I have not seen color rendition coming out of the M240 that I like as much although, while a skeptic, am an agnostic on this subject. —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Obvious [WIP] Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 22, 2013 Share #18 Posted July 22, 2013 You mean contrasty pics with saturated colors i guess. Easy to do with a color profile if you shoot raw. This one could could have been shot with a grainless M6 or my M8.2. M240 & Elmar 50/2.8 v2. http://tinyurl.com/mvk3fps Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 22, 2013 Share #19 Posted July 22, 2013 lct, that is not at all what I mean — and looks very digital to me. It's difficult to describe a look, which, as stated, I see as somewhat like transparency film; and all I can say is that so far I haven't seen what I like about the M9 color rendition coming out of the M240, but we'll see... —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Obvious [WIP] Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted July 22, 2013 Share #20 Posted July 22, 2013 Interesting about the DOF issue as I am finding this as well. I find that the DOF scale now seems less accurate with a reduced latitude. eg on my Cv 12 f5,6 V.1 which has a indent mark on it for everything to be in in focus from about 2' to infinity, this is no longer the case at 5.6 and I have to move the focussing slightly further towards the infinity mark. I have noticed the same with other lenses which makes using the DOF scale for zone focussing more difficult Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.