Leica M 240: It's serious drawbacks for landscape shooters – but can we fix it?

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there a legal obligation for full disclosure? Leica simply said : "We tried, but we were not able to get it to work". I think that is sufficient.

 

No legal obligation, but ethical.

Explaining the real cause of a drawback is a matter of respect toward loyal customers.

 

"We tried, but we were not able to get it to work" is a simple yet much better explanation than blaming something on a mysterious technical limitation.

[colonel]

No legal obligation, but ethical.

 

Explaining the real cause of a drawback is a matter of respect toward loyal customers.

 

 

 

"We tried, but we were not able to get it to work" is a simple yet much better explanation than blaming something on a mysterious technical limitation.

 

 

I don't remember any camera company ever formally explaining its design choices.

 

You might get a 1-1 off someone at a trade show if you are lucky

[CheshireCat]

As always, it comes back to the artisan, not the tools.

 

Actually, first comes the artisan then the tools.

But tools make a difference nonetheless.

[CheshireCat]

I don't remember any camera company ever formally explaining its design choices.

 

I think we all understand that it is not a design choice but a techincal problem [of the hardware or of the people].

 

In any case, most other companies do provide technical explanations of problems, especially about professional products. And great whitepapers about design choices.

[jaapv]

 

"We tried, but we were not able to get it to work" is a simple yet much better explanation than blaming something on a mysterious technical limitation.

So it seems we agree.

[erl]

Actually, first comes the artisan then the tools.

But tools make a difference nonetheless.

I guess it depends on where one places the emphasis.

I remember when I bought my first Hasselblad.

I don't believe my pictures suddenly improved, but I still remember that my joy of handling the gear and the smoothness of my workflow took a great leap forward.

So yes, I agree tools do make a difference in some ways, whether essential or not.

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yet another thread turns shitty. Jeez.

 

Regarding the M240's supposed drawbacks - every camera has its limitations and its strengths. We have to live with both and try to innovate ways to maximize the limitations.

 

Otherwise, trade it off for a camera that is more to your liking. But you will be merely trading one set of limitations for another.

[CheshireCat]

Just wanted to say that although jaapv and I often disagree, I find many of his posts very useful (especially on threads where Leica is not criticized ).

[Archiver]

I think that the OP's requests seem quite reasonable, assuming there are no technical quirks that prevent their implementation. Bulb or long exposures, deactivate long exposure NR, those seem doable on the face of it.

 

The other issue, though, is wanting any given camera to be all things to all people. Every camera is a compromise of some sort. Smaller cameras often have lesser image quality, larger cameras are less portable, etc. How many times have we heard, or even said ourselves, 'camera x would be just perfect if only it had...'

 

This is not to say that we cannot ask for firmware fixes or added features or improvements. Of course we can. But the larger question of a single camera that does everything we want will be answered somewhere between our desires, our thresholds for compromise, and the realities of manufacture.

[jaapv]

Just wanted to say that although jaapv and I often disagree, I find many of his posts very useful (especially on threads where Leica is not criticized ).

Can't please everybody all the time

[pop]

I have removed a number of posts that were in violation of our forum rules and the corresponding replies.

Edited January 23, 2015 by pop

[Tmuussoni]

M not a good landscape camera? Really? Think of the classic landscape camera, the view camera. If the M has "drawbacks" then the view camera must be terrible!

 

Noise reduction in digital cameras is analogous somewhat to reciprocity failure with film. It's a physical inconvenience you just have to deal with.

 

There aren't many (any?) digital cameras that allow good long exposures, so the M shouldn't be singled out.

 

Astrophotography isn't impossible, just more challenging, as it is with ALL digital cameras.

 

Consider getting an M3 or M2 as a second body for your long exposure work. You don't need an exposure meter and it's a good, affordable alternative that will allow you to use your fantastic Leica lenses.

 

Regarding the inability to move the focus point as it pertains to landscape photography, the same argument could be applied to SLRs (not DSLRs). Or to that S system you referred to.

 

Do what Ansel Adams did. He was an ok landscape photographer. Get a loupe and look at the "ground glass" on the back of the camera. If you're doing serious landscape work:D surely the camera is on a tripod so your hands should be free.

 

I think the M is a great landscape camera. So much so that I'm thinking of selling my S system. Limitations usually have less to do with what's behind the lens than what's behind the camera. Not trying to be snarky, but it's true. Adapt.

I don't think anyone would argue with your basic requests to have a real bulb mode, optional LENR and moveable focus points. They have all been mentioned before and the technical reasons why they could or couldn't be implemented have been discussed to death.

 

But I think you are a bit disingenuous in expecting no defensive responses when your title is provocative and you state that the M is almost useless for landscapes!

 

My experience with most forums is that if you start with a reasonable post you get reasonable responses. If you make OTT statements you get, well, grumpy answers.

 

Edit: you state that these are serious drawbacks for each and every one of us. I don't do long exposures; I don't need a moveable focus point, but I would like to switch off LENR to reduce my blood pressure after taking a shot with the lens cap on! So they are not serious drawbacks for this photographer.

 

First of all I apogolize if it came out provocative in the first post. I probably did. That was never my intention. Let's say I wrote it in the heat of a moment, since I wrote it after an unsuccessful attemp at shooting the sunset, where yet again one minute turned out to be not enough for the exposure I was going for. Light can be scarse here in the nordic countries in winter. I should probably re-edit the first post. Anyway, both of you guys are right and of course the M is not useless for landscaping. One simply has to learn to live with the weaknesses. That's what I am trying to do. And I also heavily disagree about the point of other cameras not beeing good in long exposures. When it comes to cameras with CMOS sensors, bulb mode has been industry standard for almost 10 years now in my opinion. Every CMOS camera I have had so far, exposures over 30 minutes. No problems. Of course this happens most of the time at base ISO and there are some hot pixels depending how long exposure and which body we are talking about. With high ISO comes more hot pixels. But at least there is the opportunity to do that. And hot pixels have never beeing a problem which the blank screen couldn't eliminate for me. Disclaimer: I live in a rather cold country, e.g. not in desert. I do not know how much outside temperature affects the sensor performance and it's temperature. About astrophotography: My personal experience is basic exposure of stars/milky ways are something like 30 seconds and ISO 3200-6400. Sadly we can only use 8 seconds for M. So it's quite not enough.

 

I just think a 6000-7000 $ camera should have a bulb mode; It's a basic feature in modern cameras. Regardless if you feel you are gonna need it or not. I do not believe it's some magic technical barrier we can't overcome, when the last 5 years or more have clearly demonstrated that long exposures are not a problem for CMOS sensors no matter what the sensor manufacturer is (Canon, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Samsung and so on). Unless CMOSIS and Leica are indeed facing some unknown technical problems here. At least it would be nice to know what the real reason for this is.

 

I haven't shot fireworks in a while I but I recall a technique of using wider apertures and leaving the shutter open for several bursts. I never ran into reciprocity failure with slide film of much slower ISO than what the M240 is capable of rendering with little to no noise.

 

As for landscapes, I can't say anything against using 10 stop grads if that's what the photographer feels is needed to get the result he wants, but I can't recall ever being in a situation where the contrast was so great that it needed a 10 stop filter to compress it to within the dynamic range of any film, or digital sensor I have ever used. It seems like such a highly specialized technique that if it were me I would not spend $7000 on a camera I knew ahead of time couldn't handle it. And if I did, knowingly, I would not expect others to sympathize with my complaints.

 

This is not to say these might not be valid requests for a next-generation M, but that would be my thrust, not beseeching Leica to rectify them at the tail end of the M240's product cycle.

 

Maybe the OP should say "serious drawbacks for my style of landscape photography"

 

From my perspective, the M is a remarkably useful tool. It's small, light (especially with the little 50mm Elmar) and I can hand hold to get images which print to A2. If I do need a tripod then a Gitzo traveller + a backpack slung on the hook is more than sufficient. Personally, I've not found a need for extreme exposure lengths (I'm a bit allergic to long shots of streams and waterfalls), and, while I find live view useful for architectural work with a PC lens, and I would like to mnove the focus point, this hasn't been a major issue.

 

Evidence here in BW:

 

or here in colour:

 

I make no claims for these being competition for Ansel Adams - but they make prints that are good enough to sell and which have been admired by photographers I respect.

 

Using 10 stops was just an example I came up of benefits of having a real bulb mode. That's all. There are plenty of other examples where you need more than one minute for a correct exposure. Plenty! Chris, some fantastic images there! Thank you for the links. And obviously one of the reasons I love the M system are the same as yours: small, light and highly capable.

 

Call me crazy and everything but did you not think to read the spec sheet? You may in luck in future somewhere down the track but it's really not designed for that.

 

I am furious my local garage isn't a doctor's surgery too, a serious drawback thats needs to be fixed! The mechanic needs to go university soon. Why hasn't he publicly addressed the fact he will not check my blood pressure while he checks my tire pressure? This means I will need to visit two places to get both done.

 

My only options

1) Pray and hope the Mechanic goes to university to fix the issue (or perhaps he could just a buy blood pressure machine would fix this?)

2) Forget getting my blood pressure done.

3) Go to a doctor as well. Right now for me the only option would be the one across town. Which I already went to once. Sad news was he could not check my tire pressure.

 

Of course I read the spec sheet. Anyway, it doesn't matter and I don't really agree with your example when it comes to the subject in hand here. We are talking about a camera, which is lacking one basic feature which should have been included in the first place. I simply want to bring the matter to the light so that perhaps in the future we will have a solution for the issue. In my opinion Leica beeing a rangefinder has nothing to do with the fact that it's lacking a bulb mode. It should be there. At this point I don't really have anything else to say. I am hoping to have a Leica body with bulb mode some day. Time will tell if it will happen or not. If some Leica execute will read this thread some day I already consider this thread a success!

Edited January 23, 2015 by Tmuussoni
D@mn typ0s!

[jto555]

Hi Tmuussoni, I have to say how disappointed I am at the level of response to your very reasonable question. I think those "how dare you, you bought the wrong camera" & "the camera is great, you most be a bad photographer" just bring the level of this forum down. It is just mean, unnecessary and borders on trolling.

 

I too would like a movable focusing point for getting the focus point on eyes in portraits, a non limited bulb setting and an option to turn off the black frame. Lets look at the issue from a different direction. Suppose a firmware update was dropped which put those features into the camera. Those of us who want these features would all be delighted, those that do not need them would not even notice them. Would that update make the M a better camera?

 

I believe it would, so I believe that means that some of the camera's functions are a bit limited at this stage.

 

Does this make the M a bad camera? NO! I love the M, in fact, I just bought a second body for work. The M system has so many great features going for it, but yes, the camera could be improved. I think we all need to just except that!

[pico]

Tmuussoni- One minute maximum exposure = It's a disgrace to even call it bulb mode

 

- No way to turn off LENR (Long exposure noise reduction) = practical disadvantage

Perhaps one or both of those features is dangerous to the camera, but I have doubts. I can understand that Leica wishes to lower risks that threaten their reputation for success and reliability.

 

(I cannot help but mention that even the Volkswagen Phaeton has Sport Mode. At least Leica users are not throwing tons of metal around public roads at high speeds.)

 

Has Leica no one in-house with competence or authority to try, or have they tried and concluded that their chosen shortcomings are truly warranted? Are the shortcomings above related to hardware as well as firmware? We will not likely be permitted to know.

 

Departing question: How might Leica open a camera to individuals who wish to try to fulfill the two points above at their own risk? Giving them the firmware source code is unlikely to maintain confidentially in this 'net world.

Edited January 23, 2015 by pico
before-coffee typos

[jdlaing]

Perhaps one or both of those features is dangerous to the camera, but I have doubts. I can understand that Leica wishes to lower risks that threaten their reputation for success and reliability.

 

(I cannot help but mention that even the Volkswagen Phaeton has Sport Mode. At least Leica users are not throwing tons of metal around public roads at high speeds.)

 

Has Leica no one in-house with competence or authority to try, or have they tried and concluded that their chosen shortcomings are truly warranted? Are the shortcomings above related to hardware as well as firmware? We will not likely be permitted to know.

 

Departing question: How might Leica open a camera to individuals who wish to try to fulfill the two points above at their own risk? Giving them the firmware source code is unlikely to maintain confidentially in this 'net world.

 

Sport mode on a Volkswagon? That's like puting a spoiler on a bicycle.

Farfegnugen.

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!

[CheshireCat]

Departing question: How might Leica open a camera to individuals who wish to try to fulfill the two points above at their own risk? Giving them the firmware source code is unlikely to maintain confidentially in this 'net world.

 

I don't think that Leica's firmware has any IP that makes sense to protect in 2015, as it has always lagged behind other cameras in all technology aspects.

 

In this case, it would make sense for a company to disclose the firmware as open source.

 

The problem is Leica is using software and hardware components from different third-parties, and they have most probably signed multiple NDA's preventing the firmware to go open source.

The only solution would be having all interested developers sign the same NDA's, which is a PITA and definitely against the open source model.

 

Sorry for the acronyms. Most people should be able to decode at least the last one

[pico]

Sport mode on a Volkswagon? That's like puting a spoiler on a bicycle.

 

That is true of my Volkswagen, but today Volkswagen owns Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, and more that I do not remember.

[Jeff S]

Ducati, too, speaking of bicycles.

 

Jeff

[jdsheepdog]

It isn’t wrong, strictly speaking, it is just missing an important clause: “… or after 60 seconds expire, whatever happens earlier.” The M (Typ 240) is limited to exposures of 60 seconds max, whatever mode it is in. There is no way to sneak around that limitation and Leica never intended to provide one.

 

Considering that this is the company that produces an f 0.9 lens, their cavalier attitude to long exposures is understandable, possibly not justified fully, but at least understandable.

 

Not that I could afford it, but a 28 mm Noctilux would really be something for the twilight and fireworks landscapers.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Likaleica]

Originally Posted by Tmuussoni

About astrophotography: My personal experience is basic exposure of stars/milky ways are something like 30 seconds and ISO 3200-6400. Sadly we can only use 8 seconds for M. So it's quite not enough.

 

Agreed. And I was enough disappointed in the max exposure on the M that I commented on it in the Forum. However, I have found that sequential 8 sec exposures that are combined in Photoshop results in a sharper image of the stars (less movement) and less noise.