jaapv Posted August 28, 2013 Share #41 Â Posted August 28, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do you find your M240 shots are in sharper focus than those with the Monochrom? Not really that, as I had very little problems in that respect on the M9, but focussing certainly is easier on the M. And, considering your question, I do have the impression that I hit the middle of the DOF more precisely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 28, 2013 Posted August 28, 2013 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Higher resolution EVF for M and X-Vario. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dwbell Posted August 28, 2013 Share #42 Â Posted August 28, 2013 Not really that, as I had very little problems in that respect on the M9, but focussing certainly is easier on the M. And, considering your question, I do have the impression that I hit the middle of the DOF more precisely. Â Agreed. It's probably a subjective call at the moment, as I don't have data to prove either way. However, I feel I can certainly focus the M240 more easily. Wether I have a higher number of in focus shots is unclear to me at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted February 4, 2014 Share #43 Â Posted February 4, 2014 Lloyd Chambers announced today that the M240 won't be able to support the VF4 via a firmware delta because the M240 CPU can't keep up with the increased data rate. Â I have no knowledge of the situation other than what I'm posting here, but Lloyd has been reliable in the past. Â Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 5, 2014 Share #44  Posted February 5, 2014 He should be reliable, even if it is not the first association I would make, as this news is so old as to sprout mould…. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 5, 2014 Share #45  Posted February 5, 2014 Lloyd Chambers announced today that the M240 won't be able to support the VF4 via a firmware delta because the M240 CPU can't keep up with the increased data rate.  Jim  Yeah, we knew this already. These sites are about the web traffic. Remember, his "Leica M Typ 240 Usability" post that showed he didn't really have a basic understanding of the camera? Or, his post about the early color problems (that he unfortunately screwed up and took from early beta pictures)? Or, his report of the shutter vibration that didn't prove to be true?  Ignore this guy, please. It is all about getting you fired up so it creates web traffic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 5, 2014 Share #46  Posted February 5, 2014 Remember, his "Leica M Typ 240 Usability" post that showed he didn't really have a basic understanding of the camera?  If you are referring to this:  diglloyd blog - Leica M Typ 240 Usability  Then I am curious to understand what sentence is showing he doesn't have a basic understanding of the camera... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mosier Posted February 5, 2014 Share #47 Â Posted February 5, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah, we knew this already. These sites are about the web traffic. Remember, his "Leica M Typ 240 Usability" post that showed he didn't really have a basic understanding of the camera? Or, his post about the early color problems (that he unfortunately screwed up and took from early beta pictures)? Or, his report of the shutter vibration that didn't prove to be true? Â Ignore this guy, please. It is all about getting you fired up so it creates web traffic. Â Um, I know several people with the shutter vibration issue. you're making him out to be like KR. He's not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 5, 2014 Share #48 Â Posted February 5, 2014 Lloyd Chambers announced today that the M240 won't be able to support the VF4 via a firmware delta because the M240 CPU can't keep up with the increased data rate. Â I would expect a higher resolution display could be driven at the same data rate at the cost of a lower frame rate. In the case of VF-4 it would be about 60% of the original framerate. Â Does anyone in this forum have more detailed information about the issue ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 5, 2014 Share #49 Â Posted February 5, 2014 Even if the VF-4 could be made to work with the M I don't think I would upgrade, considering I use the optical viewfinder 90% of the time. The VF-2 does everything I need it to do, for those times when an electronic viewfinder is preferential to the optical rangefinder (ultra wide lens composition, low light work). More dots or a faster frame rate would do nothing for IQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 5, 2014 Share #50 Â Posted February 5, 2014 Even if the VF-4 could be made to work with the M I don't think I would upgrade, considering I use the optical viewfinder 90% of the time. The VF-2 does everything I need it to do, for those times when an electronic viewfinder is preferential to the optical rangefinder (ultra wide lens composition, low light work). More dots or a faster frame rate would do nothing for IQ. Â + 1 Â With experience I find: 1. I hardly evern use my R 80-200 f4 on the M. If I need this FL I'd rather use a DSLR with IS for most purposes. 2. I DO use the VF-2 (Oly version) with 18mm and 21mm lenses + the lovely R 28 PC lenses. I have no problems with frame rate etc. 3. On the odd occasions that I do video, I don't use the EVF. 4. In general, I use the RF on the M. IMHO it's the best RF that Leica have ever made - certainly the best I've ever used. I'm likely to stay happy with the M for a long time. Even if Leica are able to produce an integrated EVF/RF system, it wouldn't make that much difference for me. Â I'm really not worried about getting a higher res Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 5, 2014 Share #51 Â Posted February 5, 2014 Stephen & Chris, Â I fully agree with you. Â It's an exquisite rangefinder camera with a more than adequate EVF (my work is slower and more considered so it's fast enough) for when I occasionally use it for the 1.0/50 Noctilux o 3.4/135 APO-Telyt wide open in suboptimal light, 28PC, 28-90 Vario-Elmar, video, or live view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted February 5, 2014 Share #52 Â Posted February 5, 2014 I agree, it is an exquisite rangefinder, but for God's sake, as an EVF enabled camera Leica should also give us an exquisite EVF! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 5, 2014 Share #53 Â Posted February 5, 2014 I agree, it is an exquisite rangefinder, but for God's sake, as an EVF enabled camera Leica should also give us an exquisite EVF! Â You're right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 5, 2014 Share #54 Â Posted February 5, 2014 One of the mysteries is why Leica haven't said more (anything?) about the improved rangefinder. They are all too ready to shout about something which turns out to be marketing drivel but when there is a real improvement, we hear nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 5, 2014 Share #55 Â Posted February 5, 2014 One of the mysteries is why Leica haven't said more (anything?) about the improved rangefinder. They are all too ready to shout about something which turns out to be marketing drivel but when there is a real improvement, we hear nothing. Â I agree. Early on there was much discussion that the rangefinder in the M was exactly the same as the M9, although with the LED framelines first introduced with the M9-Ti. Now that we have learned that the vertical alignment adjustment has been changed from the earlier custom round/dimple tool to a standard 2mm hex I have to wonder if the entire mechanism wasn't a completely new design, perhaps with tighter tolerances. For whatever reason I think most would agree that the rangefinder in the M is simply stunning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 5, 2014 Share #56 Â Posted February 5, 2014 Um, I know several people with the shutter vibration issue. you're making him out to be like KR. He's not. Â Well, a Guru who is astounded that a red filter on a non-apo lens should produce focus shift is not somebody that ranks very high on my list of experts..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonmember Posted February 5, 2014 Share #57 Â Posted February 5, 2014 There is a reason to want the VF4, but its probably for a minority.... Â I've used an Olympus OMD E-M5 (VF2) and an OMD E-M1 (VF4). The VF4 EVF is much much crisper. MF without magnification is not possible with the VF2 as it doesn't 'pop' clearly enough. With the VF4 its really quick and easy, but not as quick as the RF. Â So if you use any non RF coupled lenses with the M the VF4 would be a big advantage. I use an Olympus OM 18mm f3.5, which is a fantastic lens and one of the 'collectable' OM lenses. It performs brilliantly on the M, and is enough to make me not need a Leica or VM 18mm. I'd love to upgrade to a VF4 just for this lens. I also have an OM 180mm 2.8, 21mm f3.5 and 16mm FE that can do useful service on the M as well. None of these focal lengths would in my use justify the cost of another Leica lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 5, 2014 Share #58 Â Posted February 5, 2014 I think that a better EVF would be a welcome accessory for M... But just an ACCESSORY... If one finds that a very good EVF IS what he likes better to frame, no reason to have a M... "best of both worlds" is a nice dream 99% of times... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 5, 2014 Share #59 Â Posted February 5, 2014 don't except to see Leica ever have the latest electronics!I think the 240 will have at least a 3 year run. The Maestro processor can deal with 40mp and AF so I am sure it is perfectly adequate for what is being asked of it in the M240 Â But it is not the most adequate processor for video. The next unit, a new Maestro, will be better for that. It is necessary for the new S camera with CMOS sensor, and any top class Leica product with video capabilities, so the wait will not be long... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 5, 2014 Share #60 Â Posted February 5, 2014 I agree. Early on there was much discussion that the rangefinder in the M was exactly the same as the M9, although with the LED framelines first introduced with the M9-Ti. Now that we have learned that the vertical alignment adjustment has been changed from the earlier custom round/dimple tool to a standard 2mm hex I have to wonder if the entire mechanism wasn't a completely new design, perhaps with tighter tolerances. For whatever reason I think most would agree that the rangefinder in the M is simply stunning. Â I am not sure about this but the LED illuminated framelines have to bring some kind of real improvement... maybe one of the benefits is more contrast/less flare and less residual light in the rangefinder mechanism. Maybe the reason of the improvement is just tighter tolerances... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.