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

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like to use several filters, such as 6 or 10 stop ND filters. When shooting shooting sunrises/sunsets, typical apertures are from f/8 to f/11. One minute exposure limit is almost never enough. And for astrophography I am not talking any hardcore stuff. I am not planning send my M to the space to shoot the Orion nebula. I don't need the 60Da. I like to shoot simple things like the milky way and star trails, where typical exposures are 30 seconds and ISO 3200-6400. Sadly this kind of photography is not possible with the M. But I would love to do this the most with the M, as the SEM 21 is such special optics: sharp corner to wide open and I never seen any Coma problems.

 

 

 

The real answer for the first point can only come from Leica as suppose. For me it would be interested to know the real reason why they decided to omit long exposures. As it stands today, the CMOS sensor in the M is the only sensor I am aware of today which has such limitations. Overheating? Too high readout noise? Too noisy CMOS AD conversion? Some other hardware issue? Or most likely to me, Leica's general principle to not tolerate any hot pixels. Even if you use LENR. To me this is somewhat flawed principle. Yet I never ever heard someone breaking their CMOS sensors in any cameras by taking too long exposures. For second point, yes, having the ability to turn of LENR would be huge benefit. There are some situations where it is critical you are going to get all the shots you want.

 

 

 

Wow, that is just... mean

 

 

 

For the CCD based M8/M9 I understand these issues. To think of it I can't really remember any CCD consumer cameras which would be particularly good in long exposures. Maybe some special Phase One MFDBs, which have ability to keep the sensor cool for long exposures due to the great cooling system. But those things are not exactly cheap. Nor small. For normal consumers CMOS definately has an advantage here. I guess there is a reason why CMOS has overtaken CCD in noise performance and is now beginning to displace CCDs in research instrumentation.

 

 

 

Thank you for the answering. To be fair not beeing able to move the zoomed view is the least of my concerns. I suspect you are right about the product cycle. By now all eyes and money are shifting on the successor of the M. I will certainly hope for it to have a real bulb mode. Is it too silly to hope to use only one body, which I happen to like the most, would be able to do all the photography you like? And all I want is a simple bulb mode and ability to turn of LENR.

 

And when it comes to Live View, I am aware that folks who used M8/M9 are getting some great shots even without Live View. But I think Live View is hugely beneficial for compositions and for those who like to use external filter holders. And as we know those things will block the viewfinder. Also it's easier to see the filter effect directly on the Live View. This will improve the landscape shots considerably. For this reason alone I think M is a worthy update over M8/M9!

 

i took the liberty looking at your website. It made me understand why you need more than a minute. I hope you can keep this camera, because you make great pictures. I hope you find a solution, mastering the M 240 to be creative in finding a way to make more great pictures!

[AlanJW]

The M240 is perfectly suitable for landscape photography but for he particualr landscape photography raised by the OP, whose post by the way did not seek "answers' but rather "comments". So why is it surprising that the responses concede the design limitations but also suggest that the M is just the wrong camera for such photographs?

 

Buit whether Leica can change some things is another matter. I would like to see the long exposure limitation lifted and the dark frame NR made optional. These should be simple firmware fixes but one thing we have learned is that not all simple fixes are so simple to implement, even if Leica wanted to to, and perhaps they just don't want to at this point. Other cameras with CMOS sensors do not have exposure limits and make dark frame optional, so we know it can be done.

 

Even if Leica changed the firmware, I am not sure I would choose an M for astrophotography as DSLR is better suited, especially with reasonably priced ac adapters.

Edited January 21, 2015 by WeinschelA

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

As we all know anyone who is serious about landscape shooting these issues render the M almost useless.

 

......................................

 

P.S. I am aware some folks seem to be bit over defensive when it comes to criticizing Leica M bodies here, but I truly believe these issues are serious drawbacks for each and everyone of us.

 

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.

Edited January 20, 2015 by LocalHero1953

[Likaleica]

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.

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!

[lct]

[...] I was aware of the drawbacks of M 240 when I purchased it [...] I realize the game is probably lost by now for the M 240 [...] I certainly am hoping that a future firmware update is possible [...]

A rangefinder is hardly the best tool for long bulb exposures and the M240 is closer to the end than the beginning of its life so there is little chance that a firmware update adds new features that were not chosen by Leica three years ago IMHO.

[mjh]

Well ... the manual may not be "wrong."

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.

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A rangefinder is hardly the best tool for long bulb exposures and the M240 is closer to the end than the beginning of its life so there is little chance that a firmware update adds new features that were not chosen by Leica three years ago IMHO.

Given that the relatively new Leica T is even more limited in this department (no bulb mode, for one thing), even though other cameras with the same Sony sensor are capable of much longer exposures, one could deduce that Leica generally frowned upon very long exposure times. ;-) In any case this isn’t a matter of “Oops, we forgot to allow for arbitrarily long exposures, so let’s fix this fast!” Limiting the maximum exposure time was a deliberate decision.

[lct]

[...] Limiting the maximum exposure time was a deliberate decision [...]

Contrasting with the 999 seconds of my 9 years old 5D1 i must say. Do you think this "deliberate decision" will be reiterated for the next M?

[Phil U]

There is no way to simulate dark frame subtraction in post processing.

 

Actually, that's a bit misleading. There are other options that not only avoid freezing the camera up between exposures but also give better results (see below). It would be nice to let users choose the method that works best for them.

 

After all, when people mention in camera noise reduction for high ISO you do like to wheel out the following comment...

 

"Leica prefers to leave as much of the processing to the user as they can"

.

 

 

The sad truth is that single shot black frame subtraction is a crude way to deal with dark current. It reduces frame-to-frame-invariant noise, but actually increases frame-to-frame-variant noise by a factor of 1.414. A better way is to make a series of 16 or so dark exposures and average them to produce a correcting image that can be subtracted from the real ones to reduce dark-current noise. An immense benefit in most circumstances is that the real exposures can be made with no delay in between. A disadvantage is the requirement to precede or follow the real exposures with the calibration exposures. There are several programs that automate the process. One is called Images Plus.

 

Jim

[Paul J]

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.

[250swb]

While I agree that if Leica are going to increase the complexity of the M it should be at least match expectations and the ambitions of similar spec cameras, it destroys any sense of credibility in the argument that the drawbacks are serious for the majority of landscape photographers. In reality it affects those that need ultra long exposures, so astro photographers and those that are surfing the current fashion for long dreamy seascapes.

 

Fashions come and go, but putting the case for improvements should always go beyond the 'I need' style of whinging argument and put something coherent together that addresses the principle of pushing forward In a realistic and collective way, not 'it doesn't suit me'.

 

Steve

[mjh]

Do you think this "deliberate decision" will be reiterated for the next M?

No idea, I’m afraid, but I certainly hope they reconsider it. There is a clash of attitudes, between “Damn the torpedoes, I want to push my camera to its technological limits” and “This is bound to end in tears so we have decided you should not even try”, and there is no telling which one will prevail.

[tom0511]

I am afraid the M might not be the perfect tool for long exposure stuff....The noise reduction thing..do you really think its that much of a problem if you get just 5 firework shots instead of 10?

By the way don't forget Leica as some excellent fast lenses so you might be able to shoot at 1 or 2 f-stops faster compared to another camera (if DOF is ok) and therefore at half or 1/4 exp time.

Regarding a fix...I would not hope for any "fix".

Moving focus point - would be nice but is focus and recompose a problem for landscapes?

 

I think the M is what it is.

[bocaburger]

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.

[CheshireCat]

Contrasting with the 999 seconds of my 9 years old 5D1 i must say. Do you think this "deliberate decision" will be reiterated for the next M?

 

I am convinced that the "deliberate decision" is actually a forced decision due to technical ineptitude that Leica will obviously never admit. The dark frame subtraction is a trivial yet effective way to solve the noise issue, but unfortunately it has the discussed downsides.

 

On the other hand you have the usual marketing suspects who will not allow disabling dark frame subtraction, as the results would be extremely embarrassing when compared to properly engineered cameras using advanced technologies to minimize noise without a second exposure.

 

The "deliberate decision" will be reiterated until this engineering gap is fixed (make or buy proper technology).

[CheshireCat]

the technical reasons why they could or couldn't be implemented have been discussed to death.

 

About the movable magnification area, I have only seen several posts saying that someone at Leica said there is a technical reason.

 

But I don't recall this technical reason ever being detailed.

 

And I fail to understand why would CMOSIS not make the sensor readout ROI programmable.

[chris_tribble]

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.

Edited January 22, 2015 by chris_tribble

[erl]

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

[jaapv]

 

But I don't recall this technical reason ever being detailed.

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bocaburger]

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

 

+100. But it's always easier to blame the tools The large number of beautiful (to me and apparently others too) landscape images made with an M240 calls into question the true issue behind claims that it suffers from serious drawbacks.