Peter Kilmister Posted October 6, 2015 Share #81 Posted October 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) On a boat, at speed, in choppy water, everyone hid away their cameras. Reason: loads of splashes. For some, one drop of water and that's that ... dead camera. I battled on and took some photos that I love including a child who thought the whole thing was so much fun. I feel sure that HCB would have loved that child's face. AF users missed the moment. DSLR users missed the moment. Smartphone users missed the moment. I photographed it. Had someone had an Olympus they might have been OK. Start up lag meant nothing. All I had to do was wipe the lens and camera well with a micro fibre cloth after the journey. I have said it before and I'll say it again, Art is not about speed. Art is not a sporting contest where the quickest wins. Art is art, as it has been for centuries ... art. Love art and the seconds don't count. Getting the picture counts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Hi Peter Kilmister, Take a look here Quality is good, but speed is more important.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted October 6, 2015 Share #82 Posted October 6, 2015 I wish I could show you, but the M was to slow. Sorry, couldn't resist May I ask for the decisive moments in street from those that find it fast enough, and haven't missed a shot Edit: Its also possible to klick onto member and look up content. If photos are decisive is up to viewer. I have posted a few photoes now and then, how about members such as pico? Hmmm, not so much. This could easily become a silly argument about what's "decisive" and what gear is needed to capture the moment. For some , a DSLR with a long AF lens tracking a fast moving creature is the perfect outfit. For others, an M up close and personal, where you are part of the action, will be the very best way of capturing the fleeting expression that you sense even before you see it and which is gone before you know it. Let's not make this a pissing competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted October 7, 2015 Share #83 Posted October 7, 2015 On a boat, at speed, in choppy water, everyone hid away their cameras. Reason: loads of splashes. For some, one drop of water and that's that ... dead camera. I battled on and took some photos that I love including a child who thought the whole thing was so much fun. I feel sure that HCB would have loved that child's face. AF users missed the moment. DSLR users missed the moment. Smartphone users missed the moment. I photographed it. Had someone had an Olympus they might have been OK. Start up lag meant nothing. All I had to do was wipe the lens and camera well with a micro fibre cloth after the journey. I have said it before and I'll say it again, Art is not about speed. Art is not a sporting contest where the quickest wins. Art is art, as it has been for centuries ... art. Love art and the seconds don't count. Getting the picture counts. So, what are you saying? That the M saved the day compared to other cameras because of the salt spray? If true, I'd rather take my D800 that is fairly well weather sealed and which I can use both manually and with reasonably good autofocus on such a trip than my more expensive M. The D800 costs 1/2 as much to replace if something should go badly wrong and it produces pretty decent quality at the same time. Of course, nothing was said about the fun-factor, for which the M gets my nod, but that's just my personal preference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 7, 2015 Share #84 Posted October 7, 2015 Perhaps concerning the wrong camera: I use an M9 which awakes faster than I can bring it to my eye, and the shutter release is instant. Is my physiology just slow? And what does it mean if it just happens to coincide with Leica's design objective? Is it designed for olde-pharts? I think not! I leave the M9 on all the time. Batteries are not an inconvenience. Just how much personal space do they occupy? And if anyone wants to whine about the cost of one spare battery, I must ask why they ever bought a Leica! . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted October 7, 2015 Share #85 Posted October 7, 2015 Exactly my experience with my M240P... Except I don't have spare battery as I have never needed it... But then my M is never on live view, nor do I use the EVF attachment. I only use the screen for any small detail changes in the menu system and have the Lcd display the shot for about three seconds or off altogether. I have absolutely no problem with either speed of use nor battery life. And obviously, my shutter release, like all M cameras, is instant, too. I'm fifty eight and pretty fit and I can't bring the camera to my eye and fire quicker than the camera is ready, if I switch it on or tap the shutter as I pick it up. Neither can my fifteen year old son. So, for normal rangefinder use, it's fine. Just like Pico and his M9 If I used the EVF or live view all the time then I suspect it would be slower. I see EVF and live view as a really worthwhile ADDITIONAL advantage, for those times when you need to see exactly what you get... for instance with ultra wides or long telephoto where the rangefinder isn't the first choice. That's a big advantage, but it's not my normal way of using my M. I use it much more like a standard rangefinder from the fifties with the additional advantage that it's digital! (Now I'll wait for incoming fire!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted October 7, 2015 Share #86 Posted October 7, 2015 My recollection of the M9 is that there was no lag at start up or wake up. It only started to irritate me with the M240. I hardly touch the EVF/LV normally - only with the OUFRO or to check lens/RF accuracy. And, as posted above, I can certainly bring my camera to my eye and fire quicker than start up or wake up: <2secs, a typical time as reported on LUF, but I suspect there is quite a bit of sample variation between cameras and even the ideal SD cards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted October 7, 2015 Share #87 Posted October 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm from Cambridge too, well, Burwell as from the end of the week. Fancy meeting up at The Eagle or a coffee shop somewhere in town and comparing cameras and SD cards to see what actual variation there is? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 7, 2015 Share #88 Posted October 7, 2015 My recollection of the M9 is that there was no lag at start up or wake up. It only started to irritate me with the M240. I hardly touch the EVF/LV normally - only with the OUFRO or to check lens/RF accuracy. And, as posted above, I can certainly bring my camera to my eye and fire quicker than start up or wake up: <2secs, a typical time as reported on LUF, but I suspect there is quite a bit of sample variation between cameras and even the ideal SD cards. In addition, I found auto-review delays startup on the M240, not sure if the M9 had this feature, might want to check and turn it off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 7, 2015 Share #89 Posted October 7, 2015 I've read all this with increasing irritation ....... The Leica 240 is an industry leading Rangefinder Camera which is unsurpassed in it's mechanical and optical capabilities, quality of construction, ergonomics and ease of use. The Leica 240 has a crap implementation of most of the digital facilities such as liveview, EVF, focussing, image buffering and review when compared to its price range (or much cheaper) rivals. Used as a pure optical RF camera there are no issues. Used as a digital EVF camera it leaves a lot to be desired. If you give a car the capabilities to do 150 mph you don't fit crap brakes and attach wheels that fall off at high speed..... and that's exactly what Leica have done ...... and they realise it, otherwise the Q would not be the super little camera that it is. I really can't understand this blinkered view of the cameras limitations and refusal to acknowledge they are an issue, just because you decide to limit your use so it avoids the problems ....... I have 2 M240's, an M and an M246 and love them all, but I am not deluded into ignoring their limitations. I'd swap them in a minute for a replacement with the processing power and speed of the Q...... even if everything else stayed the same. The one thing that would really p*ss me off would be losing the optical rangefinder. The proposed digital equivalent looks interesting on paper but I cannot see it being implemented in a way that will keep traditional RF users happy ....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted October 7, 2015 Share #90 Posted October 7, 2015 I'm from Cambridge too, well, Burwell as from the end of the week. Fancy meeting up at The Eagle or a coffee shop somewhere in town and comparing cameras and SD cards to see what actual variation there is? Happy to meet up, Bill. when I am back in a week or so. IMO SD cards are a red herring: aside from the immense paper trail out there about which cards to use and how to format them, picking precisely the right card within a narrow range of quality brands is another workaround that shouldn't have to be adopted - and I hope Leica will design out or reduce the sensitivity in future models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 7, 2015 Share #91 Posted October 7, 2015 I've read all this with increasing irritation ....... The Leica 240 is an industry leading Rangefinder Camera which is unsurpassed in it's mechanical and optical capabilities, quality of construction, ergonomics and ease of use. The Leica 240 has a crap implementation of most of the digital facilities such as liveview, EVF, focussing, image buffering and review when compared to its price range (or much cheaper) rivals. Used as a pure optical RF camera there are no issues. Used as a digital EVF camera it leaves a lot to be desired. If you give a car the capabilities to do 150 mph you don't fit crap brakes and attach wheels that fall off at high speed..... and that's exactly what Leica have done ...... and they realise it, otherwise the Q would not be the super little camera that it is. I really can't understand this blinkered view of the cameras limitations and refusal to acknowledge they are an issue, just because you decide to limit your use so it avoids the problems ....... I have 2 M240's, an M and an M246 and love them all, but I am not deluded into ignoring their limitations. I'd swap them in a minute for a replacement with the processing power and speed of the Q...... even if everything else stayed the same. The one thing that would really p*ss me off would be losing the optical rangefinder. The proposed digital equivalent looks interesting on paper but I cannot see it being implemented in a way that will keep traditional RF users happy ....... It's an industry leading rangefinder in an industry with one rangefinder camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 7, 2015 Share #92 Posted October 7, 2015 It's an industry leading rangefinder in an industry with one rangefinder camera. One rangefinder camera company making 4 iterations of the same camera with small changes here and there except for the MM2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 7, 2015 Share #93 Posted October 7, 2015 It's an industry leading rangefinder in an industry with one rangefinder camera. I think you get the drift of my argument ...... the content is for emphasis ..... not an exercise in pedantry ..... No doubt Mr Cat will chip in to correct my other inaccuracies ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted October 7, 2015 Share #94 Posted October 7, 2015 Think we have gotten lost in this subject. Quality trumps speed. Period. Can you imagine complaining about speed using a large format camera? You can't have it all. I don't mind in the least the imperfections if the end result is the photo I am after. You learn your gear and make it work, no matter what brand it is. My observation is there seems to be many that think buying the most expensive camera means it will be the fastest and the best on all levels and that it will do everything for them instantly and perfectly. That is terribly naive. Like someone who buys a Fiarri (sp?) and complains it only seats 2 and has no trunk, etc. You can't please these people. Sure, it would be nice if the M240 was super fast. But never does speed over quality take the front seat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted October 7, 2015 Share #95 Posted October 7, 2015 I've read all this with increasing irritation ....... The Leica 240 is an industry leading Rangefinder Camera which is unsurpassed in it's mechanical and optical capabilities, quality of construction, ergonomics and ease of use. The Leica 240 has a crap implementation of most of the digital facilities such as liveview, EVF, focussing, image buffering and review when compared to its price range (or much cheaper) rivals. Used as a pure optical RF camera there are no issues. Used as a digital EVF camera it leaves a lot to be desired. If you give a car the capabilities to do 150 mph you don't fit crap brakes and attach wheels that fall off at high speed..... and that's exactly what Leica have done ...... and they realise it, otherwise the Q would not be the super little camera that it is. I really can't understand this blinkered view of the cameras limitations and refusal to acknowledge they are an issue, just because you decide to limit your use so it avoids the problems ....... I have 2 M240's, an M and an M246 and love them all, but I am not deluded into ignoring their limitations. I'd swap them in a minute for a replacement with the processing power and speed of the Q...... even if everything else stayed the same. The one thing that would really p*ss me off would be losing the optical rangefinder. The proposed digital equivalent looks interesting on paper but I cannot see it being implemented in a way that will keep traditional RF users happy ....... Agree with all your points (assuming you meant to write 'or refusal' rather than 'and refusal' in your post above. I understand the 'limitations' of the 240, but the limitations are easy enough to work around if you are using it as a normal rangefinder. Maybe it would be clearer, and fairer, to simply say... As a rangefinder, the camera works perfectly well and is no slower than anything else. As a EVF/Live view camera, it leaves a lot to be desired. I would love a M camera that was as fast as the Q... I think all of us would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 7, 2015 Share #96 Posted October 7, 2015 [...] As a rangefinder, the camera works perfectly well and is no slower than anything else. My M240 works perfectly well also but as far as startup times are concerned, it is also the slowest rangefinder i've ever used behind my M3, M4, M4-2, M6J, R-D1, R-D1s and M8.2 cameras. Never again please Messrs Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 7, 2015 Share #97 Posted October 7, 2015 Think we have gotten lost in this subject. Quality trumps speed. Period. .... err maybe ...... but there is no reason why you cannot have BOTH ....... its just down to implementing the appropriate technology ...... then everyone will be happy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 7, 2015 Share #98 Posted October 7, 2015 Think we have gotten lost in this subject. Quality trumps speed. Period. Can you imagine complaining about speed using a large format camera?. Pardon the aside. The best photos of the Hindenberg disaster were made by 77 year-old Murray Becket with a 4x5 press camera. He managed something like five rapid photos of the dirigible as it burned and crashed. Humbling, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted October 8, 2015 Author Share #99 Posted October 8, 2015 Think we have gotten lost in this subject. Quality trumps speed. Period. Can you imagine complaining about speed using a large format camera? You can't have it all. I don't mind in the least the imperfections if the end result is the photo I am after. You learn your gear and make it work, no matter what brand it is. My observation is there seems to be many that think buying the most expensive camera means it will be the fastest and the best on all levels and that it will do everything for them instantly and perfectly. That is terribly naive. Like someone who buys a Fiarri (sp?) and complains it only seats 2 and has no trunk, etc. You can't please these people. Sure, it would be nice if the M240 was super fast. But never does speed over quality take the front seat. Think we have got lost in this subject about M240 that is Quality is good, but speed is more important. Period. Perhaps some are using large format, please discuss these in aproriate forum. Please dont call me or others that wants to voice spesific requirements based on our experiences for naive. I am not asking for all, simply supporting the concerns rased by Thorstein by my own user experience on spesific performance issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas fry Posted October 8, 2015 Share #100 Posted October 8, 2015 Think we have got lost in this subject about M240 that is Quality is good, but speed is more important. Period. I think you left off 'in my opinion' at the end of the sentence......:-) Or unless you mean can we just focus comments on the M240, then I see what you mean, but in my opinion its as quick as I can shoot when I want it to Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.