On The Meaning And Implications Of No New M At Photokina

[biglou]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Don't drop video. I (and quite some others) use and appreciate it, it costs virtually nothing extra, takes no space and can be switched off.

 

 

OK for video but then allow its button to be reassigned to another function if wanted by the customer

Also allow the camera to record sound without images...

I appreciate you seem to agree to the remaining of my list.

[reddawn]

EVF and digital rangefinder are not the same thing. Focussing accurately with an EVF is easy thanks to image magnification but this is true only with standard and telephoto lenses. With wides, especially 28mm and below, it can work but in the best cases, it takes more or less longer. What is interesting in the digital rangefinder, as clear as i understand it, is it works like an optical RF. Its accuracy does not depend on the focal length or the aperture of the lens. Great with wides but less so with fast telephotos i suspect. 

 

 

I must admit I'm lost in the discussion regarding a "digital rangefinder" and how it works, but yes, the Fuji Xpro2 employs a little EVF window at the corner of the frame, which obstructs little of the view of the optical viewfinder, and shows only a small part of the overall frame.

 

One can 

- magnify that patch further

- move the position of the focus point to anywhere in the optical viewfinder and the EVF window will show exactly where the focus point lands

- activate focus peaking in the little EVF window 

- activate a "rangefinder" window where you need to align the digital patch.

 

Here's a screenshot of what I mean:

 

 

Yes, it might be less accurate for the wider angles, but with enough resolution in the EVF patch (say, the resolution of the SL), one can magnify the patch and still enough resolution to focus even a wider angle lens. Plus, pinpoint focusing accuracy with say, a 21mm lens is much less of a concern...

 

But I do think Leica should introduce something like that only in a different body, and leave the current M gestalt as it is. (see, we are difficult customers and want everything )

[Paulus]

The M240 viewfinder has slightly more contrast that makes focusing easier, and the rangefinder mechanism is more shock resistant. There are no real improvements in the accuracy of the rangefinder.

according to my repairman, there certainly are. Last month I visited him and he explained to me in a conversation from over more than an hour what fantasticly better accuracy this rangefinder gives in comparisson with the M9. I forgot al the details,but I  saw the results on his  testbench.

[Peter Kilmister]

The basic design of a rangefinder goes back to naval gunnery over a hundred years ago. Modern naval vessels no longer use such a method unless for back-up. New technology is far more accurate and enables every shot to be on target.

Although I love my M's rangefinder I don't see that it should remain if it can be superseded in a sensible and suitable way.

[Paulus]

The basic design of a rangefinder goes back to naval gunnery over a hundred years ago. Modern naval vessels no longer use such a method unless for back-up. New technology is far more accurate and enables every shot to be on target.

Although I love my M's rangefinder I don't see that it should remain if it can be superseded in a sensible and suitable way.

Maybe because this way of focussing is " as good as it gets " without utterly changing the M? One of the resons I use an M is, because I can look through plain glass and see what is really there. Uptil now I do not know any other system which does this so estetically beautiful. When I looked through a Q  the first time, I really hoped that this would not be the future, because it does not look as good IMHO as a " real " M rangefinder. Same for the SL. Very nice, but not what I am looking for. I'll rather look through a glass window without the electronics and hope there will still people remain which thing the same.

[edwardkaraa]

according to my repairman, there certainly are. Last month I visited him and he explained to me in a conversation from over more than an hour what fantasticly better accuracy this rangefinder gives in comparisson with the M9. I forgot al the details,but I saw the results on his testbench.

I think Leica mentioned tighter tolerances, more sturdy mechanism. I have no reason to doubt the technician as he is the expert but I wonder why Leica would not advertise such improvement in accuracy?

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think Leica mentioned tighter tolerances, more sturdy mechanism. I have no reason to doubt the technician as he is the expert but I wonder why Leica would not advertise such improvement in accuracy?

That's my point. We all do not really know as long as there is no official comment by Leica. It would be nice if we could get fundamental information by some forum members like mjh from LFI.

 

Nevertheless, from the perception of many users the rangefinder accuracy of the M240 seems improved compared to former M cameras. Personally I would not doubt on that if there is no good physical reason. In a measuring chain lower tolerances of the individual elements will ultimately lead to lower tolerances for the measurement, i.e. higher accuracy of the measurement.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[lct]

... pinpoint focusing accuracy with say, a 21mm lens is much less of a concern...

 

Depends on how one use it. This pic has been shot at about 30cm focus distance with a CV 21/4 at f/8. The Sony EVF was handy enough then thanks to the short DoF but with a wider DoF it is another story. Also what is good enough with film is not necessarily so with digital. I used to use zone focus a lot with film but i don't find it accurate enough with digital. I need focus accuracy with wides and it is too slow and/or inaccurate a process with my EVFs so far, including Fuji's (xe2). Optical and supposedly digital rangefinders are or should be vastly superior from this viewpoint. Not sure if the pic below could have been focused with a digital RF though.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-Gs8x2xw/0/X3/DSC02780_c1si-X3.jpg

[Paulus]

I think Leica mentioned tighter tolerances, more sturdy mechanism. I have no reason to doubt the technician as he is the expert but I wonder why Leica would not advertise such improvement in accuracy?

 

A tighter tollerance is IMHO the same analogy as using a compass. If I have to swim to a wreck which is 135 meter ( at a 90 degree angle)  in lenght the tollecance is 135 meter. Would I go more stray than 135 meter I would mis the wreck completely. If the wreck was only 30 meters long, I would mis it completely at the same 135m tollerance. I need a " tighter " tollerance. According to this, it seems logical that Leica " tightened " its tollerances. This is very important, not just a sentence on a technical paper.

 

It might be extra advertised, because it would more show how " intollerant " the M9 and the M6, MP were. For film it wasn't such a problem, the thinkness of the film could" lift up"  the intollerances. But with the M 240 a sharp picture was sharp on an enlarged capture. Acually this is not something to brag about, but more a natural quality. If I put a key in a lock, I will not brag about it" He, look how I put this key in the lock, I did not mis it 20 times as I did before...."

[Jeff S]

Michael's comment on M240 RF tolerances here (and expanded in LFI)...  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/264366-on-the-meaning-and-implications-of-no-new-m-at-photokina/?p=3110098

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

That's my point. We all do not really know as long as there is no official comment by Leica. It would be nice if we could get fundamental information by some forum members like mjh from LFI.

 

Nevertheless, from the perception of many users the rangefinder accuracy of the M240 seems improved compared to former M cameras. Personally I would not doubt on that if there is no good physical reason. In a measuring chain lower tolerances of the individual elements will ultimately lead to lower tolerances for the measurement, i.e. higher accuracy of the measurement.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

I must admit that I don't know the exact source off the top of my head, but Leica has stated that the 240 RF design was completely overhauled and partly redesigned. They did not advertise it, that is true.

[edwardkaraa]

RF base length and magnification are the main factors for accuracy. They remain unchanged from the M9. No doubt that tighter tolerances are a good thing and would probably improve accuracy but I have the feeling that a sturdy mechanism that doesn't drift every few months is the most important improvement

[edwardkaraa]

I must admit that I don't know the exact source off the top of my head, but Leica has stated that the 240 RF design was completely overhauled and partly redesigned. They did not advertise it, that is true.

MJH article in LFI 1.15. I just re-read it

[adli]

Take a look at the roller inside the house, which reads the position of the cam on the lens.

 

RF base length and magnification are the main factors for accuracy. They remain unchanged from the M9. No doubt that tighter tolerances are a good thing and would probably improve accuracy but I have the feeling that a sturdy mechanism that doesn't drift every few months is the most important improvement

[edwardkaraa]

Take a look at the roller inside the house, which reads the position of the cam on the lens.

Can you please elaborate your point? Is it one of the modified parts?

[jaapv]

Possibly it is, but most was done on the internals.

[Jeff S]

I must admit that I don't know the exact source off the top of my head, but Leica has stated that the 240 RF design was completely overhauled and partly redesigned. They did not advertise it, that is true.

 

Try reading the link in the post just above yours.

 

Jeff

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Part of the reason for the tightening of manufacturing tolerances may be linked to the fact that rangefinder magnification has been declining over the years while the rangefinder baseline has stayed the same.

 

Lower image magnification combined with the same rangefinder baseline would mathematically require higher manufacturing tolerances to achieve the same or less accuracy of focus that is available with an image that is more highly magnified.

 

From .91X with the M3 to .72X with the M2 & its brethern* & now .68X with Digital M's.

 

If the body of future Digital M's gets any thicker then the range/viewfinder magnification may have to get even smaller since Leica said it was the thickening of the body with Digital M's that necessitated the reduction of image magnification to .68X.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

* I have not forgotten that there have been .58X & .85X range/viewfinders available as special orders. These do not represent the majority of production.

[jaapv]

Try reading the link in the post just above yours.

 

Jeff

I must admit I did not click the link...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paulus]

Hello Everybody,

 

Part of the reason for the tightening of manufacturing tolerances may be linked to the fact that rangefinder magnification has been declining over the years while the rangefinder baseline has stayed the same.

 

Lower image magnification combined with the same rangefinder baseline would mathematically require higher manufacturing tolerances to achieve the same or less accuracy of focus that is available with an image that is more highly magnified.

 

From .91X with the M3 to .72X with the M2 & its brethern* & now .68X with Digital M's.

 

If the body of future Digital M's gets any thicker then the range/viewfinder magnification may have to get even smaller since Leica said it was the thickening of the body with Digital M's that necessitated the reduction of image magnification to .68X.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

* I have not forgotten that there have been .58X & .85X range/viewfinders available as special orders. These do not represent the majority of production.

IMHO that not the case. The 0,58 M6 TTL should have a more tight tollerance. I did not have that, simply because the tolerance was enough for film. ( Or was not at all, because it is difficult make a sharp foto with it.) The tolerance of the M9 should be tighter, than the M6 series, but it wasn't. Until the M240 body things more or less stayed the same.

 

Sometimes I have a lens, that is not sharp at infinity, through the viewfinder with the M 240 but is accactly accurate on the MP , I thought. My repairman just showed me, that the MP being less tollerant, did not see the tiny difference, just because it could not be sharpened so tight.

 

One of the convincing reasons Leica adjusted the tight tolerance on the M 240 was, because you could instantly see the result in Live view when something was "wrong" with your rangefinder. With a less tight tolerance, one could see this in almost every occasion, which was not prefeable for such a well build camer.