What do you want in the next digital M?

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Indeed. As nothing so categorises a Leica M-series rangefinder as the complete absence of "a viewfinder combined with a lens-coupled split-image/dual-image rangefinder". They should have given those away years ago in favour of a reflex mirror with instant return mechanism and automatic diaphragm. That would have made it far more distincitive that those SLR cameras.

 

If you don't want a rangefinder camera then why on earth would you pay so much money for one :confused:

 

Because it is the only full-frame camera that works fine with Leica glass. And it is the only system so far that has offered such good and small glass with a relatively small, but not light, camera body.

That is changing though. The A7S actually performs excellently with M glass. And the new manual Zeiss glass that has been announced for the Sony A7 platform looks very interesting.

 

Until the A7S there hasn't been a good FF camera out there that plays well with Leica glass, and, that has had a EVF with MF assists that actually performs well. With the A7S such an option actually exists, and it by far surpasses the M240 in every possible aspect except in resolution in low-midrange ISO's.

 

Now that a viable option with excellent MF assists and a good EVF actually exists, at a third of the price, I don't see the point of messing about with the rangefinder and it's calibration issues that will never ever stop being an issue. The turnaround time for Leica to calibrate a rangefinder is 2-3 months currently, which is just silly, really.

 

The M cameras are horribly unreliable in that regard, as it takes months to get your camera back, and bumping the camera into a door while walking through a doorway makes the rangefinder out of whack and the camera needs to spend 2-3 months in a shop to get that fixed. So much for that great high quality build! Who needs a camera body that can witsthand a war when the camera gets rendered borderline useless from a simple knock?! Makes no sense.

 

I love the M system, but Leica is more and more simply becoming a novelty, a man's jewelry, and nothing else, as there are better options rapidly gaining ground.

 

2nd hand value of both Leica M bodies and also lenses (such as the 50 Lux and 35 FLE and Noctilux) are rapidly dropping in 2nd value here in Norway at least. It's actually difficult to sell anything with the Leica brand name on it 2nd hand nowadays, and I've never seen Summilux glass in such a low price range before, and it's still not being sold! I guess that says everything.

[Advertisement]

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

[menos I M6]

… Also, I want Leica to ditch the rangefinder/OVF completely. This mechanism is so horribly prone to being knocked out of alignment it's not even funny. What's the point of a camera that's built like a tank not being able to survive a slight knock without becoming completely unusable without LV/EVF?…

 

I use digital Leica M cameras mainly since the M8.2 came to market.

I calibrate my Leica M bodies myself if needed, which is maybe once a year, if at all necessary.

I carry at least one body with me at all times every day.

I use them with glass, people comment being difficult to focus like Noctilux, 75 Summilux or 135 APO Telyt with perfect focus precision.

 

Your argument above seems far fetched at best.

Leica M cameras, if adjusted and maintained properly have one of the most reliable focussing mechanisms of cameras available. Your claimed unreliability is an often cited internet myth.

In fact the focussing precision for super fast lenses in the 21 - 90mm range with my Leica M bodies is significantly higher than with comparable top of the range digital SLRs (which is one of the reasons why I highly prefer manually focussing a Leica M over using an equivalent lens on a DSLR).

[indergaard]

I use digital Leica M cameras mainly since the M8.2 came to market.

I calibrate my Leica M bodies myself if needed, which is maybe once a year, if at all necessary.

I carry at least one body with me at all times every day.

I use them with glass, people comment being difficult to focus like Noctilux, 75 Summilux or 135 APO Telyt with perfect focus precision.

 

Your argument above seems far fetched at best.

Leica M cameras, if adjusted and maintained properly have one of the most reliable focussing mechanisms of cameras available. Your claimed unreliability is an often cited internet myth.

In fact the focussing precision for super fast lenses in the 21 - 90mm range with my Leica M bodies is significantly higher than with comparable top of the range digital SLRs (which is one of the reasons why I highly prefer manually focussing a Leica M over using an equivalent lens on a DSLR).

 

That's your subjective experience. I've already stated my subjective experience. My Noctilux 0.95 had to be sent back with my M240 two times to Leica for proper adjustments. And a third time cause Leica CS managed to make a nice dent in the camera body during their last service, so they had to change the cover of the camera on warranty repair... My MM was back and forth to Leica CS 3 times. I've had two 50 Lux'es, one of them was proper, the other was not, also had to be sent back. I've had two 35 Lux FLE's, one of them was horribly out of alignment, while the 2nd one was not very smooth in focusing action.

 

All in all my experience with Leica is the worst experience in regards to quality of anything that I have ever owned, including cars, computers, clothes (!), gadgets, guitars, amplifiers, TV's, motorcycles and whatever. I've never paid so much for so poor quality - ever. And all of my Leica gear was new.

 

So I feel that I am entitled to my subjective experience. Maybe you've been more lucky. But I know many whom I share my subjective experience with. Rangefinders going out of whack for nothing seems very, very common. And so does waiting 6-8 weeks for a simple adjustment. Most users will never adjust this themselfs. Most users wants something that works.

 

My initial response was not ment to stirr up this discussion. Basically what I want from the next M is something that works, is reliable, costs according to how it performs compared to the competition and is small and compact. The M240 is NOT that camera. It's heavy (heavier than many light DSLR's), it requires to be held securely to avoid bumping it into anything to prevent rangefinder miscalibration, it performs poor at mid and high ISO (I consider mid ISO to be 3200 - where the absolute max usable limit of the M240 is in my opinion). Yes, the M240 feels like a gem to hold. But it's not a gem, not by a longshot, compared to how many other cameras perform and their prices, nowadays... I surely hope that the rumor of a LCD-less M240 clone at Photokina is false. Cause that would be the single most stupid announcement in the camera industry ever if it turns out to be true. Customers want better performing products, not some novelty crap like a LCD-less inferior M240 without a red dot and sapphire glass!

[jdlaing]

What competition? There is no competition.

[pop]

... The M240 is NOT that camera. ..

 

Now I wonder why you bought so many products of that line. Most of the things you complain about were so before you bought them and they were well known.

 

Also, you're a bit off topic as this thread's title is "What do you want in the next digital M?" .

[tookaphotoof]

The M240 is NOT that camera. It's heavy (heavier than many light DSLR's), it requires to be held securely to avoid bumping it into anything to prevent rangefinder miscalibration, it performs poor at mid and high ISO (I consider mid ISO to be 3200 - where the absolute max usable limit of the M240 is in my opinion).

 

Can you list a few full frame dslr's weigh less than the 680 grams "heavy" M240?

I haven't found one yet, but then again, concerning dslr's I usually stick with Canon. All their full frame dslr's weigh more, not less.

Furthermore, I always hold my cameras securely to avoid bumping it into anything, but if it happens it happens. Again no problems with the rangefinder up to date.

Usually shoot 200-800. Luckily I hardly ever go over 1600, which to me is the acceptable max for the M240. I agree on you that this could have been better.

 

Leica has some lovely lenses and I have a digital M to be able to use those lenses in the same way as on my film bodies. The end results satisfies me more than enough. The only thing I really don't like about it is its price tag. It would have been great if I could afford myself to M240 bodies.

 

My main wish for the next Leica M: 3500 euro price tag. Never going to happen I guess... :roll eyes:

Oh, histogram based on the raw file would be fantastic!

[nicolaz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I Your argument above seems far fetched at best.

 

Leica M cameras, if adjusted and maintained properly have one of the most reliable focussing mechanisms of cameras available. Your claimed unreliability is an often cited internet myth.

 

In fact the focussing precision for super fast lenses in the 21 - 90mm range with my Leica M bodies is significantly higher than with comparable top of the range digital SLRs (which is one of the reasons why I highly prefer manually focussing a Leica M over using an equivalent lens on a DSLR).

 

 

I love the Leica experience however, there is no way people can focus a moving subject with a noctilux wide open (not even a sum or cron)..

 

Again, Leica is a matter of experience... And if the price is going up and up again I'll give up..

[menos I M6]

I love the Leica experience however, there is no way people can focus a moving subject with a noctilux wide open (not even a sum or cron)..

 

Again, Leica is a matter of experience... And if the price is going up and up again I'll give up..

 

Leica M9 + Noctilux f1 @~f1.4:

becoming a rockstar by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Leica M9 + Noctilux f1 @~f1.4:

flowing hands by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Leica M8.2 + Noctilux f1 @ ~f2:

dancing dragon by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Leica M9 + 135 f3.4 APO-Telyt + ND4 filter wide open:

BMW Motorsport - BMW M3 GT - 2011 Le Mans 24h by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

With Leica M cameras focus performance is entirely a function of how much time you put into learning to focus. At the beginning it is decidedly impossible, then after a year or two it gets easier, after another few years it's a piece of cake and you can focus on things a modern DSLR with first AF would have difficulties.

 

The Leica M rangefinder as we know it has been around for so long for a reason … it works!

[nicolaz]

 

 

 

With Leica M cameras focus performance is entirely a function of how much time you put into learning to focus. At the beginning it is decidedly impossible, then after a year or two it gets easier, after another few years it's a piece of cake and you can focus on things a modern DSLR with first AF would have difficulties.

 

 

 

The Leica M rangefinder as we know it has been around for so long for a reason … it works!

 

 

Menos- bear with me and please don't get me wrong but i still not believe your percentage is higher than a 5D (D800 etc): by the time you touch the tab on your lens, "my" 5D (I sold it to buy an M9 at that time) is already there.

[Exodies]

In what way does a histogram based on the RAW file represent the exposure better than one based on the JPEG?

(ETA oh, just realized, you can see the pixels over 8 bits, that's good but...), how does one get one's head around the over abundance of green pixels in the RAW histogram when trying to relate it to the scene or the JPEG preview?

 

Incidentally, concerning the robustness of the rangefinder which someone has complained about - I dropped my M with an APO Summicron 90 one meter onto cobblestones and although the damage was substantial, I finished my holiday with all pics correctly focused using the rangefinder.

[menos I M6]

Menos- bear with me and please don't get me wrong but i still not believe your percentage is higher than a 5D (D800 etc): by the time you touch the tab on your lens, "my" 5D (I sold it to buy an M9 at that time) is already there.

 

Trust me, you'll get it if you stick to it.

[indergaard]

Trust me, you'll get it if you stick to it.

 

As long as your subject is in the very center of the picture, then yes, using a rangefinder to focus accurately - IF your rangefinder and lens is properly calibrated - is no problem what-so-ever. It's very simple as long as you've got decent eyesight (or corrections or diopters if you need that).

 

You want to shoot wide-open with fast glass and focus off-center, however? Then sorry, a CDAF camera with selectable focus points outside of the center is more accurate, simply because CDAF cameras in general are extremely accurate at focusing (with autofocus or manual focus with 5x/10x, zebra and focus peaking assists), and because you don't focus and recompose - which changes the plane of focus completely. You can overcome this by a lot of trial and error too, of course, but it will still not be as accurate as a selectable focus area with a CDAF sensor without the need for recomposing. Oh and you don't have to worry about rangefinder and lens calibration with a CDAF camera either, be it with manual or autofocus.

 

The EVF for the M240 solves rangefinder and lens calibration issues. It's just too bad that the implementation of the EVF functionality is horribly bad executed. No selectable focus area? Makes no sense what so ever, as this is simply a software feature and not tied to hardware at all. That would have solved the focus and recompose issues... But nah... Can't do that! So that's something that I expect from the next M as well. Actually, I expect it to be implemented in a future M240 firmware.. Cause it is purely a software feature that exists on 99% of LV-capable cameras in the market! So there's absolutely no reason for Leica not to implement this!

[BerndReini]

As long as your subject is in the very center of the picture, then yes, using a rangefinder to focus accurately

 

 

Yup, and the same holds true for any DSLR. The center focus point is usually the only one that delivers fast and reliable auto focus, and if unless you are shooting a series of studio portraits with the exact same focus point, choosing an off-center focus point that suits your composition with a moving object is much slower than center focusing and recomposing.

[jaapv]

Indeed, and I wonder what "issues" focus-recompose presents, as soon as one understands the relationship to the focal plane.

At any rate it is faster and more precise than selecting focus points, as Bernd points out.

[jaapv]

Menos- bear with me and please don't get me wrong but i still not believe your percentage is higher than a 5D (D800 etc): by the time you touch the tab on your lens, "my" 5D (I sold it to buy an M9 at that time) is already there.

 

Don't fall into the trap of :" because I cannot nobody can"

[colonel]

There is a further big limitation of CDAF and even more PDAF, that is you are limited by the size of the focus square and what is focused within this.

With the RF patch you can focus on any detail just by concentrating on it.

This is incredibly powerful.

[indergaard]

There is a further big limitation of CDAF and even more PDAF, that is you are limited by the size of the focus square and what is focused within this.

With the RF patch you can focus on any detail just by concentrating on it.

This is incredibly powerful.

 

You can usually adjust the size of the square on CDAF systems. And with MF and 10x zoom, peaking and zebra, this is not an issue anyway, as you can very precisely focus on the smallest detail you want. In regards to autofocus you are right.

[indergaard]

Indeed, and I wonder what "issues" focus-recompose presents, as soon as one understands the relationship to the focal plane.

At any rate it is faster and more precise than selecting focus points, as Bernd points out.

 

Focus and recompose is not accurate. Try focus and recomposing with the f/0.95 close up for example, and keeping your subject accurately in focus without taking multiple exposures when tilting slightly back, center and forward. Good luck!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Thank you, I don't need it

[indergaard]

Thank you, I don't need it

 

I don't believe you. Do a close-up and get the eye-lashes in focus, now re-compose by 2/3, shoot and get the eye-lashes in perfect focus on the first frame. Sorry, but everyone knows that this is not possible to compensate perfectly for with such a paper-thin depth-of-field. Unless you're a magician...