M240 rangefinder accuracy?

[mdg1371]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm considering picking up an M240, but the decision may largely hinge on the improved rangefinder accuracy.

 

I shot with a pair of M6 TTL's for several years and was always happy with them, before switching to medium format, then eventually to digital.

 

I had a brief stint with the M9, but was constantly frustrated with the need to have lenses and rangefinder tuned together--

 

I'm already assuming I will have to use the EVF if I want true accuracy with my Noctilux and 75mm Summilux, but I would greatly appreciate some more specific details from users as to what degree the reported improvements have made a difference in accuracy.

 

Thanks in advance!

[Jeff S]

Rent it or try to borrow one and see for yourself.

 

Like most topics on the forum, different members have differing experiences and different opinions. Yours is the only one that matters.

 

The improved RF was a pleasant surprise, but not the only meaningful improvement …for me. Other film and digital Ms still did the job.

 

Welcome to the forum. The search box (top right on main page) will bring up lots of discussion…if you insist on that sort of thing.

 

Jeff

[sillbeers15]

You can use Focus Peak on Liveview/EVF to verify RF accuracy.

 

Taking portrait shots using RF on shallow DOF or > 50mm lens is unreliable as the RF patch is too wide or inaccurate to focus accurately the subject's eye.

 

When taking portrait shots using Noctilux or 90mm, I usually nail the focus on the 'eye' of the subject utilizing Focus Peak.

[250swb]

I had a brief stint with the M9, but was constantly frustrated with the need to have lenses and rangefinder tuned together--

 

 

An accurate M240 rangefinder is as accurate as an accurate M9 rangefinder. What won't be accurate are any lenses that may have been 'tuned' purely to be compatible with a specific body, like your old M9. I expect what you mean is you sent them both in at the same time and the body and lenses were each tuned to their own separate technical datum points, not 'together'. So with that out of the way the M240 rangefinder does seem to be more reliable than the M9, fewer reports of the rangefinder being out of adjustment from new, but this could of course also be due to more people already having their lenses adjusted to the closer digital specification, if you see what I mean. As you presumably have already had them adjusted to the closer specification there shouldn't be a problem. It is not however a certainty that older lenses need recalibrating, indeed most don't.

 

Steve

[farnz]

… I'm already assuming I will have to use the EVF if I want true accuracy with my Noctilux and 75mm Summilux, but I would greatly appreciate some more specific details from users as to what degree the reported improvements have made a difference in accuracy.

It's not so much the difference in accuracy because you're already at the cutting edge of accuracy with the M-series long rangefinder base. To me the M240 is more about the clarity in the viewfinder that helps nail focus. When I first got my M240 I was frustrated because I was missing pinpoint focus with my f/1 Noctilux, which wasn't a problem with my M9. However once Solms had corrected the M240's slight focus offset the problem immediately disappeared and I now have the sense that I hit focus spot-on more regularly and easily than I did with my M9.

 

Pete.

[paulsydaus]

Have you tried using a viewfinder magnifier such as the 1.25X or 1.4X? Many people report improved focussing accuracy when using these...

I also assume your eyesight is ok and have no need for diopters?

But ultimately I think you might find the EVF2 to be useful.

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because of liveview a much higher % of M's seem to be calibrated spot on out of the box ...... as presumably Leica now has a much easier process to do it accurately ...... and the near adjustment is locked with sealant to further prevent movement. Vertical adjustment has also changed and seems more accurate as well.

 

Getting rid of the optical illumination of the frames seems to have improved contrast and focussing now is easier ...... I am not sure if anything else has been done to the mechanism ..... no-one to date has actually specified precisely what else was altered if it was.......

 

The residual issue is the lenses ....... which appear to still be calibrated to film standards .... which allows enough leeway for things to be significantly out on a 24mp digital sensor ......

Unless using the usual suspects ...... noctilux, 75/1.4, 90/2, 135/3.4 wide open .... or the 50+ lenses with floating elements like the 50/1.4 you are very unlikely to have trouble. The floaters in particular seem to be a challenge to get right at all distances.

With this group you may find some that are a bit off if you are critical ...... and also bear in mind that some still have focus shift wide open that makes things even more iffy.

 

This is all a fact of life with Leica and manually focussing lenses ..... and is here to stay.

 

At least the EVF and liveview you can circumvent the issues. My 75/2 is back from it's 3rd trip to Leica and is finally ok ...... although it marginally front-focusses at 0.75m wide open (perfect at 2.8) ...... which I suspect is focus shift rather than miscalibration. I'll just have to remember this fact and use the EVF for wide-open close-ups ......

[bocaburger]

I got an M240 over a month ago and still haven't put my M9 up for sale. I have a full range of lenses including 50/1.4 and 90/2 and 135/4 and to this day I can't detect one whit of difference in accuracy or clarity between the two rangefinders.

 

The big difference with my experience was the M240 was spot-on right from the box (admittedly, it was a demo so Idrk if it has been readjusted since it left the factory) whereas my M9 (bought brand new) was ridiculously maladjusted from the factory. Once I adjusted it (infinity and gain) myself it has remained so. Again, admittedly, I put a dab of lacquer on the gain adjustment lock, which is now Leica's practice beginning with the M240.

 

Hearsay is that there are internal changes to the mechanism which allege to make it more durable. That said, in 45+ years of using Leicas I have never had a rangefinder go out of adjustment. I've flown with them repeatedly, in a bag either overhead or on the floor, and some of those flights the plane vibrated enough I thought my teeth would come loose. Never needed to readjust the rangefinder. I have never dropped one, or whacked one against something with enough force to dent it though.

[thighslapper]

Have you tried using a viewfinder magnifier such as the 1.25X or 1.4X? Many people report improved focussing accuracy when using these...

I also assume your eyesight is ok and have no need for diopters?

But ultimately I think you might find the EVF2 to be useful.

 

I have a 1.35x variable dioptre magnifier permanently attached. For sub 28mm I use the EVF as framing is easier anyway. ...... although I still often focus with the RF first.

[hoppyman]

I'm considering picking up an M240, but the decision may largely hinge on the improved rangefinder accuracy.

 

I shot with a pair of M6 TTL's for several years and was always happy with them, before .......!

The actual rangefinder mechanism did not become less accurate with the move to digital. What changed was the loss of the tolerance afforded by the non-flatness and thickness of the film and the added ability to have immediate feedback and ease of viewing the results at high magnification (100% view).

 

What you gain with the M (Typ 240) is the ability to see with accuracy for yourself what the sensor is actually capturing to compare with what the rangefinder image is telling you.

 

The rangefinder accuracy is potentially affected by the same factors as always. That is your vision, technique , the conditions and most importantly the state of calibration of both the RF mechanism and that of the individual lens (and their characteristics which means no lens maintains perfectly identical focus plane position at different settings).

 

What can be said without using anecdotal evidence is that Leica Camera has developed new methods to adjust both camera and lenses since the advent of digitals.

 

For anecdotal evidence I can say that I have been told personally by a senior Leica Camera person that the system and equipment now in use is the most accurate ever.

 

From most recent personal experience I can report that my M (Typ 240) was recalibrated due to a vertical RF shift caused by dropping the camera onto a stone surface hard, as was my Summilux M 50 ASPH (the impact crushed the lens hood).

On testing at their return at f/1.4 and 1 metre my controlled testing showed the RF to be within a couple of mmm. That is a most critical scenario of course and more accurate than I can handhold the camera.

[k-hawinkler]

So, rangefinder measurements are 1 m with error bars of +- 0.001m?

[Jeff S]

As I said, this topic…like most…has been discussed.

 

Here is a link to what Stefan Daniel had to say. [scroll down linked page to see video.]

 

He didn't clarify his comment about improved accuracy, but some surmised that tighter tolerances could be involved.

 

Others feel that different frame line illumination…internal versus external…might additionally contribute to improved RF patch viewing.

 

Some see a difference compared to earlier Ms, some don't….like just about every other forum subject.

 

Jeff

[hoppyman]

So, rangefinder measurements are 1 m with error bars of +- 0.001m?

I don't know what the tolerances are. I only quoted my test finding after the repair and adjustment of my camera and lens. Testing is subject to variables and interpretation as well.

 

The main point of my post was to mention all of the other variables that can affect your results and to point out that The RF mechanisms have not become less accurate since the M6 that the Original Poster mentioned..

[semi-ambivalent]

At times I find the RF to be too accurate, showing non-coincidence when the actual "error" would be more than covered by DOF. For this reason I've found the little notches in the RF patch on my M3 to be as useful as Leica thought I'd find them.

 

s-a