Loren Posted October 15, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have "picked up a FM3a" but other used Nikons I presume it's split image prism ? I personally can't use the split image system. It has its advantages and disadvantages, just as a patch does. However, The Nikon's viewfinder is huge compared to the M and it is brighter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Hi Loren, Take a look here Thoughts on the rangefinder and the M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted October 15, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 15, 2015 Or as Will Rogers said (or should have): "There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who fit into categories And those who don't." Gets me every time. There are 10 kinds of people in the world....those who understand binary and those who don't. Or, more in line with the thread topic, Mark Twain said... “There are two kinds of fools. One says, ‘This is old, therefore it is good.' The other says, ‘This is new, therefore it is better.’ Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them, the rest of us could not succeed.” Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewDD Posted October 15, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 15, 2015 I loved film. It was a beautiful technology, but it has been thoroughly superceded by digital photography. We do things that could never have been thought of before, in a volume and at a price that previous generations would not have believed. I love the Rangefinder. It is a beautiful technology. However, it is heavy, very expensive, and prone to all sorts of calibration problems. If Leica develop an electronic (or hybrid) rangefinder, which is as good (or 95% as good) to use, but lighter, cheaper, and more reliable, I'd jump on it. I don't care what's in the box, I just care what the box does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share #24 Posted October 15, 2015 I loved film. It was a beautiful technology, but it has been thoroughly superceded by digital photography. We do things that could never have been thought of before, in a volume and at a price that previous generations would not have believed. I love the Rangefinder. It is a beautiful technology. However, it is heavy, very expensive, and prone to all sorts of calibration problems. If Leica develop an electronic (or hybrid) rangefinder, which is as good (or 95% as good) to use, but lighter, cheaper, and more reliable, I'd jump on it. I don't care what's in the box, I just care what the box does. I am not sure I agree with "calibration problems" The M240 is bullet proof in my experience. Besides, when a RF sings the whole world sings with you ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted October 15, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 15, 2015 I don't own an M240, but I agree on the RF. When I just want to enjoy using a camera I take one of my Ms (M-E, M Monochrom v1 or M5) or occasionally the IIIg. Rangefinder focusing is slower for me than AF, and more difficult as Leica just doesn't make a -2.5 diopter (the -2 is too weak, -3 too strong, I use the -2). There are plenty of disadvantages to RF focusing, but there is real joy in the feel of the mechanism and the precision when everything is calibrated right (all of my cameras and lenses are spot on, and were since purchase. AF has its place, and for business travel where the emphasis isn't photography I usually take the X113. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted October 15, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 15, 2015 You guys do realise that Leica has filed for a couple of patents for an opto electronic RF? There is a possibility they announce it in 5 days... I only hope that it assists manual focusing and not replacing it.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 15, 2015 Share #27 Posted October 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't own an M240, but I agree on the RF. When I just want to enjoy using a camera I take one of my Ms (M-E, M Monochrom v1 or M5) or occasionally the IIIg. Rangefinder focusing is slower for me than AF, and more difficult as Leica just doesn't make a -2.5 diopter (the -2 is too weak, -3 too strong, I use the -2). There are plenty of disadvantages to RF focusing, but there is real joy in the feel of the mechanism and the precision when everything is calibrated right (all of my cameras and lenses are spot on, and were since purchase. AF has its place, and for business travel where the emphasis isn't photography I usually take the X113. Asiafish I do believe their are 3rd parties that can make you a diopter to your exact needs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted October 15, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 15, 2015 Suppose it soon becomes feasible for Leica to produce an optoelectronic TTL range/viewfinder with the speed, clarity, accuracy etc. necessary to be preferred to the current M. The rangefinder cam never touches the roller in this new system, so some issues fade into memory. There would remain the matter of viewfinder visibility outside the actual image area, which is arguably a very interesting benefit. Maybe not so much with 28mm, but quite convenient with 50's and greater. So how could that be achieved with an opt-electronic TTL range-viewfinder? I am assuming that such as range/viewfinder needs to be "TTL" in order to address issues with the current opto/mecahnical design. Perhaps use a slightly larger image sensor to provide a wider view which would presumably not be optically corrected to the necessary standards for imaging, but perhaps for viewing? Or is it just a matter of using a wider lens for field-of-view when composing and crop later in photoshop, not in the viewfinder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted October 15, 2015 Share #29 Posted October 15, 2015 Suppose it soon becomes feasible for Leica to produce an optoelectronic TTL range/viewfinder with the speed, clarity, accuracy etc. necessary to be preferred to the current M. The rangefinder cam never touches the roller in this new system, so some issues fade into memory. As the lenses are entirely mechanical the roller will still be required. However, the benefits will be micro-adjust will be possible. It won't be necessary to send the Rangefinder into Leica for adjustment, it could be done electronically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 15, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 15, 2015 I'm sorry, but I really don't see Leica changing from the optical viewfinder for the M. Sure, they may have a patent for some fancy electronic variation, but that doesn't mean it will end up in the M. The patent application published in 2015, was lodged in 2012 and the other in 2013, and if I recall correctly the one lodged in Korea was even older. I just don't buy this whole optic-electronic viewfinder thing for the M camera ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted October 15, 2015 Share #31 Posted October 15, 2015 2) The Leica RF is the path of least resistance to what one sees through the RF compared to the final print ...... Totally agree. The rangefinder window is what creates the immediacy of M photography for me. I've done the SLR thing, and done the Sigma DP Merrill thing (the latter for the price is great image quality). Both the DSLR and Sigma lacked that "window", and both lacked the tactile immediacy of an M - and in hindsight both were inadequate steps for me between an M7 and my eventual M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted October 15, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 15, 2015 You guys do realise that Leica has filed for a couple of patents for an opto electronic RF? There is a possibility they announce it in 5 days... I only hope that it assists manual focusing and not replacing it.. It will certainly be interesting, but many times companies file patents and never use them. Intellectual property can be used in a product, or it can be used to prevent a competitor from using that same IP or it can be used as a revenue stream if they chose to license it. Since there really isn't a range finder competitor it would seem that the invention may just find its way into a future product, but generally you would expect the filing to be done early in the development stage of a product. We will see eventually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted October 18, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 18, 2015 2) The Leica RF is the path of least resistance to what one sees through the RF compared to the final print in your hands. Disagree with this completely. An SLR shows you the actual picture being taken through the lens, background / foreground elements line up or not and you can employ depth of field preview to see that effect too. For me it is much easier to arrive at perfectly orchestrated landscape with my Hasselblad than my Mamiya 6. What you see through the RF viewfinder is not what ends up on the print, what the lens sees is. "Lets face it, DSLR MF sucks.." No, not even close to true when using my D810, D750 with my fast glass, especially true with off center subjects. I would have failed miserably as a professional photographer decades ago had I not been able to nail focus with my SLRs. Nothing to face here except that you are trying to throw the same blanket on everyone. Not all of us suck at manual focusing an SLR. "Not sure how well an autofocus camera would have handled this scene but I wanted to capture the drizzle in the headlights." It would have nailed it if pointed at the grill. "I loved film. It was a beautiful technology, but it has been thoroughly superceded by digital photography. We do things that could never have been thought of before, in a volume and at a price that previous generations would not have believed." Not even close to true in terms of sheer creative output. By anyone other than a pure gear centric, film and silver gelatin prints with amazing talent behind them often leave digital in the dust. "We" does not apply to everyone, some are photo gear enthusiasts and some are actual photographers that show who they are through their work and mastery of their medium by making the viewer not care what it was taken with. I love my M240 for sure, but in no way does it make me favor it over the right tool for the job in order to satisfy some cheerleading club... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share #34 Posted October 18, 2015 Anyone can focus eventually with a DSLR if on a tripod, but its a sucky system thats no good for instant reaction and not a patch on the RF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted October 18, 2015 Share #35 Posted October 18, 2015 Disagree with this completely. An SLR shows you the actual picture being taken through the lens, background / foreground elements line up or not and you can employ depth of field preview to see that effect too. For me it is much easier to arrive at perfectly orchestrated landscape with my Hasselblad than my Mamiya 6. What you see through the RF viewfinder is not what ends up on the print, what the lens sees is. I would argue an SLR is almost as limited as an optical rangefinder in terms of giving you a precise idea of what will be in the print.A SLR focus screen usually gives you the image as it would look at 2.8 and 5.6 in newer DSLRs, it does not reflect the true rendering of the lens. Additionally, it does not give you an idea of the photo after the limitations of the sensors dynamic range and light sensitivity. What you see through the lens is not what ends up on the print, what ends up on the print is what the sensor sees. And in this way, if you want a totally accurate viewfinder one should use an A7 with an EVF. When I shoot landscape on the M240, I'm always using the live view or the EVF. "Lets face it, DSLR MF sucks.." No, not even close to true when using my D810, D750 with my fast glass, especially true with off center subjects. I would have failed miserably as a professional photographer decades ago had I not been able to nail focus with my SLRs. Nothing to face here except that you are trying to throw the same blanket on everyone. Not all of us suck at manual focusing an SLR. There is no reason to manually focus an SLR, you simply select the AF point that is over the object you want in focus. It's certainly as controllable as a rangefinder in terms of selective focus. In practise though, toggling between these 61 AF points with a joystick can take longer than focusing a rangefinder. Neither solves the problem of sitting in front of a model and the 'please wait 2 seconds while I focus this wide open fast prime lens'. Not even close to true in terms of sheer creative output. By anyone other than a pure gear centric, film and silver gelatin prints with amazing talent behind them often leave digital in the dust. "We" does not apply to everyone, some are photo gear enthusiasts and some are actual photographers that show who they are through their work and mastery of their medium by making the viewer not care what it was taken with. Of course if one is talking about the end result the medium does not matter, but in terms of pure technical image quality digital photography has indeed exceeded the quality of 35mm film. One needs to shoot medium format to match digital. And even then it will still be behind in noise and dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 18, 2015 Share #36 Posted October 18, 2015 Suppose it soon becomes feasible for Leica to produce an optoelectronic TTL range/viewfinder with the speed, clarity, accuracy etc. necessary to be preferred to the current M. The rangefinder cam never touches the roller in this new system, so some issues fade into memory. Unless Leica uses the complex mirrorless shutter sequence then with traditional M lenses it will certainly use the roller & lever. So how could that be achieved with an opt-electronic TTL range-viewfinder? I am assuming that such as range/viewfinder needs to be "TTL" in order to address issues with the current opto/mecahnical design. Perhaps use a slightly larger image sensor to provide a wider view which would presumably not be optically corrected ? No such needed. Even a slightly larger sensor is highly unlikely. TTL is currently supported without opening the shutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted October 18, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 18, 2015 Anyone can focus eventually with a DSLR if on a tripod, but its a sucky system thats no good for instant reaction and not a patch on the RF LOL! That has seriously got to be the biggest load of crap I have ever read on here. I did a kids clothing lifestyle shoot recently in that a lot of the good images were with the subject way off center out of the AF sensor area for use in banner ads, spreads that had a lot of text. The two lenses I used were both the Nikon 20mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 wide open and it was easy as pie to nail focus with them in the majority of the shots. These kids were between 4-7 so they moved around a *lot*. I get what the M system is good for, I get paid well to use it. I just don't get the trying to make it the king of every task on forums like these. Where people consistently lose credibility on here is when things like this come up and all you guys can do is put your noses in the air and claim that not only is Leica good, everything else sucks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 18, 2015 Share #38 Posted October 18, 2015 There is aanother category of those who bought into Leica because it is jewelry and they never use it. It's like those guys who buy expensive sports cars for their living room! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted October 19, 2015 Share #39 Posted October 19, 2015 There is no reason to manually focus an SLR, you simply select the AF point that is over the object you want in focus. It's certainly as controllable as a rangefinder in terms of selective focus. Otus?? No an easy lens to use AF with. Although I do agree that modern DSLRs are not designed to make MF easy. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted October 19, 2015 Share #40 Posted October 19, 2015 Otus?? No an easy lens to use AF with. Although I do agree that modern DSLRs are not designed to make MF easy. Gordon And there is no compelling reason for them to do so. Nikon, Canon, and others want you to buy their lenses and almost all of them are AF lenses, so there is little impetus to do otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.