Disappointed with studio use of EVF and M240 (things I didn't consider)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't find the flash operation on the DMR very well implemented as opposed to the R8/9 "naked".

[leicamr]

I don't find the flash operation on the DMR very well implemented as opposed to the R8/9 "naked".

 

The 'F' mode setting on the R8 / 9 functions identically for film and DMR, using studio flash or a flashgun set to manual output. The pre flash is measured from the reflector behind the mirror and the aperture adjusted accordingly. The difference between film and DMR is the lack of TTL operation during exposure with the DMR as the sensor surface has a different reflectivity to that of film. In that respect I agree, it isn't so well impliment on the DMR.

 

Regards Mark

[Nick_S]

Clearly this is not really the solution for R users which Leica suggested they would provide when abandoning the digital R camera project. Could they not have build the R adapter to endure open aperture viewing and then closure of the diaphragm activated by the body during exposure?

 

Nick

[pgk]

I must admit that I think the M was not really designed for studio use. Without wanting to sound snide, I think the S2 is more suitable.

I'm not sure what is 'snide' about stating the obvious. I'm in the camp that looks at Leica Rangefinders as being primarily rangefinder cameras. Anything which deviates from this primary rangefinder design and attempts to utilise other ways of operation, WILL be compromised to some extent. Using legacy and current none-coupled (other than for RF focus and some with 6-bit code) fundamentally limits what can be done.

 

Of course whether compromises are acceptable will depend on exactly what you are trying to achieve and just what sort of limits on functionality that you are prepared to put up with. personally speaking I am happy to use a Leica Rangefinder simply as a rangefinder and here it works very well indeed - NO compromise within its design limitation.

[tobey bilek]

I was, and still am, wondering if I can replace my Canon 5D mark III completely with my Leica M 240. My Canon has not left its bag for over a month, and I have been very happy with my new Leica.

This weekend I had a model photo shoot planned, something I would normally not do with a rangefinder camera. But I wanted to see if the Leica M with it's EVF would be up for the task.

 

The first problem I saw was that the studio flash trigger, that normally sits in the hot shoe, has nowhere to go when the EVF is there. So I was forced to buy the multifunctional handgrip that has a flash sync connector.

 

I also had an R to M adapter with an 180mm lens I wanted to test in this setup.

 

However when in the studio I noticed the shortcoming of this approach:

1. The EVF view is very dark in the low light of the studio modeling lamps, combined with the small aperture used F/8-F/11
   
2. Focussing through the EVF is very hard at a small aperture, does not work very well
   
3. The EVF becomes totally dark when the button is half pressed (it shows actual exposure probably, but because I work with flash, this of course doesn't work.
   
4. Zooming in to focus is fixed to the center of the image. The 5/10x zoomed patch cannot be moved. This requires constant moving of the camera.
   

 

Of course you can work around points one and two by constantly changing the aperture to full open, focus, and change back to the wanted aperture. For me this is too cumbersome.

 

Point 3 is very annoying. I couldn't find a menu setting to fix this.

 

I ended up taking the pictures without the EVF, with the normal rangefinder. This worked, I must say I find the accuracy of the frame lines better than in the M9. But of course I couldn't use R lenses anymore, and it made my purchase of the multifunctional handgrip obsolete, because now the trigger could go in the hotshoe again.

 

The end results of the shoot were nice. I think even with the rangefinder the M240 can be used for studio photography (up to 90mm). With the EVF I think there are still some issues.

 

 

Stick with RF, Canon, or Nikon. I don`t think the 240 is the lost R solution. The EVF is best used outside for perfect focus and / or composition.

 

I sold most of the R lenses, keeping 21, 28 &35 PC, 60, and 100 and they have Nikon mounts mostly because I bought into Nikon before the M8. Having a non auto diaphragm is like going back to 1950.

[platel]

Of course studio work is not what the range finder system was designed for. However, Leica introduced the EVF, the R lens adapter as a kind of replacement for the R system. I think this, at least for studio work, is misguiding. Since I didn't consider many of the (perhaps obvious) things that I mentioned in my starting post, I wanted to share my experiences. Hence the subtitle of my post, "things I didn't consider".

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.....Leica introduced the EVF, the R lens adapter as a kind of replacement for the R system.....

Ummm. Demand was there - apparently. Not sure about the 'kind of replacement' myself. It appears that people do want to buy these add on gadgets and so they are marketed. Whilst they are usable, in as much as they enable the camera to be used in ways its original design didn't allow for (as did the visoflex for example), I'm one of those people who see such equipment as being 'possible to use' but not necessarily 'easy to use effectively'. As I said before, they are a compromise - but they do apparently add a desirable feature;).

[hoppyman]

I'm not sure what is 'snide' about stating the obvious. I'm in the camp that looks at Leica Rangefinders as being primarily rangefinder cameras. Anything which deviates from this primary rangefinder design and attempts to utilise other ways of operation, WILL be compromised to some extent. Using legacy and current none-coupled (other than for RF focus and some with 6-bit code) fundamentally limits what can be done.

 

Of course whether compromises are acceptable will depend on exactly what you are trying to achieve and just what sort of limits on functionality that you are prepared to put up with. personally speaking I am happy to use a Leica Rangefinder simply as a rangefinder and here it works very well indeed - NO compromise within its design limitation.

 

Paul I follow what you are expressing there, especially regarding the superiority of medium format for the studio.

However I can comment on comparable sensor sizes and format. I have shot with my Nikon (D600) and their 1.4 50 and my M (typ 240) with the Summilux and Noctilux in very similar studio environments. Certainly the dSLR operating advantages are obvious. The superiority of the Leica lenses is as well

[jaapv]

I'm not sure what is 'snide' about stating the obvious. I'm in the camp that looks at Leica Rangefinders as being primarily rangefinder cameras. Anything which deviates from this primary rangefinder design and attempts to utilise other ways of operation, WILL be compromised to some extent. Using legacy and current none-coupled (other than for RF focus and some with 6-bit code) fundamentally limits what can be done.

 

Of course whether compromises are acceptable will depend on exactly what you are trying to achieve and just what sort of limits on functionality that you are prepared to put up with. personally speaking I am happy to use a Leica Rangefinder simply as a rangefinder and here it works very well indeed - NO compromise within its design limitation.

Sure- but a response like that can sound quite condescending- an impression I wished to avoid.

[pgk]

Sure- but a response like that can sound quite condescending- an impression I wished to avoid.

Perhaps I just come across as too blunt:(.

I have shot with my ***** and their 1.4 50 and my M (typ 240) with the Summilux and Noctilux in very similar studio environments. Certainly the dSLR operating advantages are obvious. The superiority of the Leica lenses is as well

Absolutely. I have similar experience regarding comparable lenses (and as a result got rid of a ***** 50/1.2 and bought the 1.4 instead). But, and its a big but, using better lenses is only one factor. The ability to get the shot in the first place outweighs nuances of technical precision in some circumstances. I will always pick up a Leica in preference to a dSLR. but only when the Leica is as suitable for what I'm shooting. Compromises are by definition not ideal decisions. I've learned to accept that appropriate equipment should be used for the job in hand, even when my personal (heart not head) preference is to use something different.

[jaapv]

Sorry, I was obviously unclear: My original response I meant - hence the built-in apology for snideness.

[mwilliamsphotography]

I was, and still am, wondering if I can replace my Canon 5D mark III completely with my Leica M 240. My Canon has not left its bag for over a month, and I have been very happy with my new Leica.

This weekend I had a model photo shoot planned, something I would normally not do with a rangefinder camera. But I wanted to see if the Leica M with it's EVF would be up for the task.

 

The first problem I saw was that the studio flash trigger, that normally sits in the hot shoe, has nowhere to go when the EVF is there. So I was forced to buy the multifunctional handgrip that has a flash sync connector.

 

I also had an R to M adapter with an 180mm lens I wanted to test in this setup.

 

However when in the studio I noticed the shortcoming of this approach:

1. The EVF view is very dark in the low light of the studio modeling lamps, combined with the small aperture used F/8-F/11
   
2. Focussing through the EVF is very hard at a small aperture, does not work very well
   
3. The EVF becomes totally dark when the button is half pressed (it shows actual exposure probably, but because I work with flash, this of course doesn't work.
   
4. Zooming in to focus is fixed to the center of the image. The 5/10x zoomed patch cannot be moved. This requires constant moving of the camera.
   

 

Of course you can work around points one and two by constantly changing the aperture to full open, focus, and change back to the wanted aperture. For me this is too cumbersome.

 

Point 3 is very annoying. I couldn't find a menu setting to fix this.

 

I ended up taking the pictures without the EVF, with the normal rangefinder. This worked, I must say I find the accuracy of the frame lines better than in the M9. But of course I couldn't use R lenses anymore, and it made my purchase of the multifunctional handgrip obsolete, because now the trigger could go in the hotshoe again.

 

The end results of the shoot were nice. I think even with the rangefinder the M240 can be used for studio photography (up to 90mm). With the EVF I think there are still some issues.

 

 

First off, nice shot!

 

I can sympathize Patel. It would be nice if such an expensive tool could be utilized over a wider range of applications. I do a fair amount of commercial studio work and have an extensive lighting system to solve various creative problems that arise with each separate job. The wish for one "better" tool rather than a bunch of cameras, and an extensive native lens system and accessories for each, is the Holy Grail of photography.

 

The first question I have is: are we SURE there is no menu selection that "turns off the setting effect" for live view? Without that, the EVF/Live View is useless in studio where stray room light is eliminated, and one is using anywhere from f/5.6 to 11 (or more depending on the lens).

 

If you use the rangefinder (which has much more accurate framing on the M240 compared to previous M digital cameras), you are STILL faced with center focus/recompose … not an issue at distance when using f/8 or 11 … but is an issue when shooting closer work on a locked down camera even when stopped down, due to DOF. If working with wider apertures for effect, the problem is even worse.

 

However, keep in mind that center focus issue plagues most MF cameras including the S2/S … the only one that has solved the problem is Hasselblad with their True Focus/ Absolute Position Lock (TF/APL) focusing system … and of course, most of the 35mm DSLRs with wide array scrollable AF point, like your Canon.

 

Now, assuming that the biggest draw to use the Leica in studio is size, and most of all the lenses, there is a solution that is both small and can use most M lenses and for sure most any R lens: The Sony A7R and Voigtlander M close-up adapter.

 

Before all the flapping of wings, and hoots and hollers from the Leica faithful begins, keep in mind that we're looking for a solution to a real world application issue, and a way to not maintain two full systems of cameras and lenses … not engaging in brand disputes. Also keep in mind it is a solution that allows use of the basic M lens set, any R lens, and any Canon lens the OP may wish to keep.

 

The Sony does have "setting effect off", it does have a moveable focus point that can go all the way to frame's edge (further than the Canon can), it does have a "magnify" feature that is moveable while magnified … and the EVF is better than the M240 EVF, and is built-in so the radio trigger can occupy the hot-shoe. In addition, with the Voigtlander adapter, you can focus M lenses closer than on a M rangefinder.

 

The M240 is without question the better camera … as a rangefinder. It is not the better camera in the studio.

 

The addition of the A7R to his M bag would allow the OP to send the M grip back, and jettison most or all of his Canon gear, allow use of most M lenses (except select wides), and act as a partial back-up to his M240 and lenses which the Canon can't do.

 

Personally, I added a A7R to my M bag, and have taken to use it in studio with M lenses for certain types of jobs even though I have an extensive S system and five CS lenses. The VM adapter added a whole new level of application for some favorite M lenses.

 

Can't hurt to give it a try with your M & R lenses to see if it is your cup of tea. One thing I can assure you is that you'll have money left over.

 

- Marc

 

Speaking of Rollei … here is the first handheld "grab shot" in crappy available light that I did to see how close I could focus the M 21/1.4 ASPH on the A7R using the VM adapter.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[hoppyman]

Perhaps I just come across as too blunt:(.

 

Absolutely. I have similar experience regarding comparable lenses (and as a result got rid of a ***** 50/1.2 and bought the 1.4 instead). But, and its a big but, using better lenses is only one factor. The ability to get the shot in the first place outweighs nuances of technical precision in some circumstances. I will always pick up a Leica in preference to a dSLR. but only when the Leica is as suitable for what I'm shooting. Compromises are by definition not ideal decisions. I've learned to accept that appropriate equipment should be used for the job in hand, even when my personal (heart not head) preference is to use something different.

 

Yep choose the best tool for the job. But they all involve compromises. In this specific scenario the image quality difference from my M and best lenses outweighs the advantages with the dSLR for me.

Both systems are compromises in comparison to medium format. That has its own compromises too. Not the least is the enormous extra investment needed

For other applications, for example street and travel photography the case for the M system is even more compelling for me.