New Leica M 240 follow-up in 2017 : The speculations.

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Rick,

We can agree to differ - - I think I disagree with just about everything you say on most topics but to say the RF system in the M is always better, is simply not true in practice.  I am not the only one to say this - if you look back at Jono's review of the SL, he was very clear about accuracy of focusing using the SL EVF.

 

Anyway, I have things to do.  Nice chatting.

John

 

Nice to know you disagree on just about everything I say.  So, why read what I write then?  I must occupy some sort of real-estate in your head?  I'll just stop responding to your posts from now on knowing that you disagree with everything I say.  Win win.  I don't waste my time and you get to believe you are right on every topic.

 

​As to the rest of your post I'll respond one last time.  You have put words in my mouth and the wrong ones.  What I said was that the RF is the most accurate way to focus manual lenses.  Accurate.  Not better.  

 

The EVF, as I stated can be a better way to focus if you magnify or are in low light or off center etc...  But, straight on, place the patch on the subject, there exists no more accurate way to focus an optical system in an M camera with standard focal length lenses utilizing the human visual system.  Period.  Nothing.  

 

Its just physiological optics.  It has to do with how the retina is wired and its ability to discern adjacent stimulus on the photoreceptors that actually allows the retina to have an acuity that subtends less arc seconds than pure visual acuity alone would allow, such as is used in a simple EVF or optical view finder without a vernier alignment system.  

 

 

The Range Finder is still king.

 

Rick

[lct]

[...] The EVF, as I stated can be a better way to focus if you magnify or are in low light or off center etc...  But, straight on, place the patch on the subject, there exists no more accurate way to focus an optical system in an M camera with standard focal length lenses utilizing the human visual system.  Period.  Nothing.  [...]

 

Standard and wide focal length also.

[Rick]

By the way, the more subtle point by Tim Ashley is that the RF is designed to place the wavy field of M lenses in the center of the DOF at a given distance which the EVF has no way of knowing.  Even if you think you can "see" the best focus the EVF way of focusing still won't place the image plane at the best compromise.  Sure it can give one zone of best focus and that may be good, but it really isn't a "thinking" way to average for the best placement of the focus field.  Tim found the RF was a better way to focus than the EVF, if I remember correctly. 

[jmahto]

Written two and a half years before the SL release.

 

That review was written primarily about the wavy plane of best focus on the 35 Summilux FLE, which is particularly an issue with RF focusing (focus and recompose). Focusing off the sensor with an EVF negates that problem - I have that lens, and nailing focus off centre is reliable, accurate and a breeze. The issue Tim identifies is applicable only with an RF ...

No. Tim's issue is EVF focusing. If you nail the focus in the center with EVF then the edges go soft due to wavy field. RF focusing places the center in such a way that overall plane is in focus (it sacrifices center sharpness). I don't have time to quote from the article. It is an old blog post and have been discussed before.

 

Edit: well, finding the quote was easy therefore I am doing copy/paste below. For more details read his full blog.

"Note that this was focussed with the EVF as described, and was taken reasonably early in my career with the M240, before I realised that the RF is often a better way of focussing - I will come back to that point." - Tim Ashley

[jmahto]

By the way, the more subtle point by Tim Ashley is that the RF is designed to place the wavy field of M lenses in the center of the DOF at a given distance which the EVF has no way of knowing. Even if you think you can "see" the best focus the EVF way of focusing still won't place the image plane at the best compromise. Sure it can give one zone of best focus and that may be good, but it really isn't a "thinking" way to average for the best placement of the focus field. Tim found the RF was a better way to focus than the EVF, if I remember correctly.

Our posts are crossing each other. I will simply let you type while I sip my rye whisky.

 

Edit: btw, it is Templeton. El Capone's fav.

[Rick]

Our posts are crossing each other. I will simply let you type while I sip my rye whisky.

 

Edit: btw, it is Templeton. El Capone's fav.

 

 

Jameson here.    

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

The S, in my opinion is a much better camera for this category.  If, you want a small MF camera I guess you want portability.  But, the S isn't a whole lot bigger with lenses.  But, the s is a much better choice for studio and field with faster handling, more lenses, and probably better lenses (but I'm pretty sure the Hasselblad lenses are going to be quite nice).

 

 

 

I tried the S for a week, and played with the X1D for an afternoon demo back in June.  The S with lenses is a much bigger and heavier outfit than the X1D with its lenses.  But I love the optical finder in the S.....doesn't get much better for me.  I wasn't impressed with the X1D EVF, but it was a prototype unit. The Achilles heel for the S system, however, is the frequent failure of the AF mechanism in multiple lenses, especially the 120, but in others too.  And then it has taken many months for some to have repairs, without loaners due to so many breakdowns. Fortunately the SL system seems problem free so far.  

 

We'll see about the X1D.....it's taken much longer than Hasselblad anticipated to work through bugs and to meet initial demand (so much so that the CEO has apologized and is offering an additional 6 months warranty for customers who pre-ordered).

 

The M10?  I'll just wait and see.  Until then, love the M240, which I use almost exclusively in RF mode. For me, with 28-90 lenses, it's the only way to go....but I don't own 'tricky-to-focus' lenses like the Noctilux.  I wouldn't buy a new M because of a size difference; I like it fine as is.  But I would like a complementary system for wider/longer lenses.....perhaps the SL, X1D or GFX.....or maybe a new M will surprise.

 

Jeff

[Exodies]

<snip>

The EVF, as I stated can be a better way to focus if you magnify or are in low light or off center etc...  But, straight on, place the patch on the subject, there exists no more accurate way to focus an optical system in an M camera with standard focal length lenses utilizing the human visual system.  Period.  Nothing.

 <snip>

Rick

Except one isn't focusing the lens with a rangefinder, one is measuring the distance to a particular point and the lens will mechanically track the measurement and focus at somewhere near that distance depending on aperture, calibration, etc. Your remarks on the performance of the eye being optimal at the rf task (I'm prepared to believe that) have no bearing on the accuracy of the lens to implement the measured distance.

[jaapv]

That is correct and it was significantly improved on the M240

[Peter H]

I've often described the M as the most rapid digital camera I've ever used, and the rangefinder with an easy lens like a 35mm Summicron must be the ultimate in immediacy, both in terms of speed of use and of connection with the subject. It is s delight and the closest I can get outside of a TLR to the feeling of making photos without a camera intervening in the process at all. It these respects and given the very high quality of the output, it is close to ideal.

 

But no camera is perfect, as we've agreed.

 

When I tried the X1D for an afternoon it was the closest in feel and use to an M camera that I have experienced. The controls are simple and immediately intuitive and natural. The size and weight make it feel far more like an M in my hands than an SL, and in some ways it handles better than an M. It is not clumsy in any respect unless you struggle with EVFs. I believe it is the most elegant camera I have used in terms of perfectly judged and balanced handling.

 

I am maybe uncritical in this respect but I happily move between OVF and EVF. There are important differences of course and each has its strengths and weaknesses, which can be used to our advantage.

 

And then there's the question of picture quality, and I do reject the suggestion that there's not much difference between a 24mp 36x24 sensor and a 50mp 44x33 sensor. Paired with comparably good lenses, there is a visible difference in the output. Whether it matters to you is up to you, as are all the other differences, some of which will be critical to some and irrelevant to others.

 

So being as dispassionate about it as I can be, there is a straight choice to be made between the slightly smaller, lighter and in some circumstances quicker M, and the slightly larger but equally well-handling and comfortably portable X1D. The most significant differences are rangefinder manual focussing as against EVF auto or manual focussing, focal plane v leaf shutter, availability of lenses, and the sensors.

 

Ideally there is a place for both but if you value the RF experience above all else, there's no room for an EVF camera. But if there is room and the money for an EVF camera the X1D shouldn't be dismissed lightly because the combination of beautiful handling and beautiful photographs is very persuasive.

 

In summary cameras like the SL and the X1D can be considered serious competitors for the next M simply because not everyone has the cash or desire to own them all. So whilst they may have distinct qualities that make the choice very simple for some people, for others it is a difficult trade-off because none of them offer all best the qualities of each other.

[lct]

[...] In summary cameras like the SL and the X1D can be considered serious competitors for the next M [...]

 

David vs Goliath was a tough fight but two Goliaths ouch!   

[Peter H]

David vs Goliath was a tough fight but two Goliaths ouch!   

 

 

And don't forget David's little brother Fuji.

[LocalHero1953]

Proposition:

The subjectively perfect camera is the camera with those particular imperfections that we either don't notice, or that we are prepared to live with.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I used Hasselblad cameras for most of my working life and loved every minute.

 

The X1D is the camera I had hoped Hasselbad would release before I switched to Leica almost 4 years ago. Now it's here I'm keeping a close eye on the specs. At the moment I have concerns over the lack of a cabled release and DOF info. I would also have to be sure of the auto ISO setups and higher ISO performance. Time will tell, but what sweet irony if I return to the fold because of the Blad's superb hand holding qualities.

[lct]

And don't forget David's little brother Fuji.

 

I have a Fuji-David already (X-E2). Me and my back will let you the Goliath version

[Peter H]

I used Hasselblad cameras for most of my working life and loved every minute.

 

The X1D is the camera I had hoped Hasselbad would release before I switched to Leica almost 4 years ago. Now it's here I'm keeping a close eye on the specs. At the moment I have concerns over the lack of a cabled release and DOF info. I would also have to be sure of the auto ISO setups and higher ISO performance. Time will tell, but what sweet irony if I return to the fold because of the Blad's superb hand holding qualities.

Maybe they've taken the view that the wifi app release is more useful (and weather-resistant?) than a cable release. The camera has a dof preview button as well as a new wysiwyg option for screen/viewfinder, so it's quite versatile in that respect. Personally, I don't find the M lenses' dof markings terribly helpful, just a rough guide that experience can pretty much cover.

 

The more I read people's comments in this and other threadsand think about them, the more convinced I am that the two cameras are going to be competitors in more areas than the traditional small format/ medium format distinctions might have suggested, notwithstanding, or perhaps because of the fact that digital MF is different from film MF.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Maybe they've taken the view that the wifi app release is more useful (and weather-resistant?) than a cable release.

 

Of very little use to me when I'm in an abandoned interior in the middle of nowhere on a blob of rock in the middle of the Aegean Sea, as I often am, and without a smartphone.

 

The DOF scales on the M lenses are one of the main reasons I bought into Leica and are a joy for pre-focussing.

 

Each to their own.

[Peter H]

...........

 

Each to their own.

 

 

 

I think this sums up the entire thread really, if not the entire forum! :-)

[ianman]

 

And the M isn't ever going to be a state of the art digital camera with the M bayonet from the M3 either I'm afraid.

 

 

Precisely. IMHO, the digital M doesn't need to be "state-of-the-art".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

I think this sums up the entire thread really, if not the entire forum! :-)

 

Perhaps, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Big thanks to both Rick and John for providing interesting and thoughtful reading. And Rick, I don't think it should be a problem if you and John disagree on many things, you both make excellent points... that's called a discussion.

 

One thing I would like to say is that even if John - and others, myself included - believes that the current (OVF/RF) M has reached the end of the line, I don't see that as a problem at all. An end ok, certainly not a dead-end. The wheel hasn't had any major developments in recent years, yet it's still pretty useful and sells well