M 240: surrogate for all mirrorless cameras?

[Wayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was looking in my drawer full of Takumar, and other various M42 lenses the other day. I own a couple of mirrorless cameras that use, almost exclusively, with manual focus lenses I adapt to the cameras. I had not paid much attention to the fact  the 240 includes live view in the past, but now it has my attention.

 

I am curious: Does the 240 serve as well as any mirrorless camera for the purpose of using old manual glass designed for use on other systems? I am not so concerned about the various in-camera functions related to enhancing JPEGs or processing, but rather, just concerned with the basics, I.e. focus and exposure.

 

In reading about 240, it seems the answer to my question is, yes. I am wondering if those with practical experience note any deficiencies in using the 240 in this way.

[Advertisement]

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

[Exodies]

"It depends what you are shooting" - and I say this because with live view there is a delay after pressing the shutter and before the view is back again. The operation is

Live view is on

Shutter closes

Shutter opens

Picture is captured here

Shutter closes

Shutter opens

Live view is on

[Wayne]

Thanks for the response. That sounds similar to use of live view on a DSLR. I would not have imagined that to the be case. Now that I think of it, it makes sense. With the DSLR, the whole process took long enough that I abandoned use of the feature. Is the 240 delay significantly shorter than that associated with use of DSLR live view? I think I could live with it if it is.

[Exodies]

It's commonly reported as annoying. Your dealer will let you experience it for yourself.

[jaapv]

The delay is there (although it is a lot better if you "freeze" the EVF instead of blacking it out) but I have never found it to be a essential drawback.

I use the 240 regularly as a mirrorless with non-coupled lenses and am quite happy doing so. Yes, the EVF is a generation back, but it does the job.

[Luke_Miller]

Regarding delay - I compared my M-240 with EVF with my Nikon V1 and the Leica delay was noticeably longer.  This is only an issue if you are shooting dynamic subjects.  For landscapes and static subjects I find the EVF very useful. I get a higher percentage of focused shots with my 90 Elmarit-M than with the rangefinder.   I'm considering getting an F-Mount to M-Mount adapter so I can use some of my Nikkors with my M-240.  But I don't use the EVF for events where I am trying to capture specific expressions and gestures.  I haven't looked at LV delay as I rarely use LV.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes LV and EVF are way too slow and noisy compared to modern mirrorless cameras. I can't even move the focus patch with my M240. A superb rangefinder in a Jurassic Park's body

[LocalHero1953]

As a M and SL owner, I would say that the SL is far better than the M for 3rd party lenses. The LV delay is minimal and quiet. You lose the lighter weight of the M, but everything else is on the positive side of the equation.

 

Edit: I'm not trying to start a M vs SL battle

[jaapv]

Yes, but the real question is: is the occasional use of third party lenses worth the expenditure of another 5000 Euro for a new camera when the present gear is performing well enough for one's needs, especially with a new M in the future with most likely an EVF that is as good as the SL or possibly better?

We should keep in mind that the SL is not an M replacement, but a different camera concept in its own right.

[LucisPictor]

True. I don't think an M(240) is the best companion for third-party maual lenses. 

If you already own one, you can use other lenses on it - perfect. But if you think about buying a new camera mainly for shooting with manual lenses and you already have a Leica M for your Leica M glass, then I would recommend a Sony Alpha 7 II. 

[Rick]

As a M and SL owner, I would say that the SL is far better than the M for 3rd party lenses. The LV delay is minimal and quiet. You lose the lighter weight of the M, but everything else is on the positive side of the equation.

 

Edit: I'm not trying to start a M vs SL battle

 

I would agree.  I would even go a step further and say that the SL, for most applications, is better with 3rd party lenses than anything out there.  

 

The SL has the best EVF compared to everything out there.  And, it will shoot 11 fps.  11fps was a goal of Leica when they designed the SL in order to keep the EVF lag short.  This puts the viewfinder experience right up there with a DSLR shooting in non-live view mode.

 

According to Stephen Daniel, the SL is around 80ms for the viewfinder blackout, comparable to a DSLR.  That helps makes the EVF experience of the SL comparable to the experience of a standard DSLR!  This was the goal. 

 

By the way, the new medium format mirrorless cameras coming out now like the Hasselblad X1D shoot 3fps and that predicts it will make the blackout very annoying for some folks.  Not a fast viewfinder experience like the Leica S DSLR medium format.  

 

Sony mirrorless like the A7II suffer from the same slow viewfinder lag experience. 

 

Leica is much the same at this point with a worse EVF.  I suspect the new M will at least catch up to the SL.

 

Rick

[bocaburger]

I view the ability to use non-RF-coupled lenses on the M240 as a fortuitous side-bonus compared to digital M's which lack LV.   I certainly would not have bought an M240 specifically to use as a platform for non-RF lenses. 

[jaapv]

Agree, however it has turned the M into a fairly universal travel camera.

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, but the real question is: is the occasional use of third party lenses worth the expenditure of another 5000 Euro for a new camera when the present gear is performing well enough for one's needs, especially with a new M in the future with most likely an EVF that is as good as the SL or possibly better?

We should keep in mind that the SL is not an M replacement, but a different camera concept in its own right.

Sure, but I read it that the OP has no M or SL - it's an open choice (give or take a few hundred). And I doubt that a new M will be as good as the SL as a platform for non-rangefinder lenses. I wait to be convinced that an EVF as good and as big as the SL's can be shoehorned into a conveniently sized attachment for a new M, let alone built into it ( though I'd be pleased if they could).

[Jean-Michel]

The EVF, (and LiveView) is a nice bonus with the M. I use live view quite extensively with my Canon 5D2 when documenting exhibitions and such, it is almost like using a view camera: slow but precise. I never missed having LV on my M9, but now the I also have a MP, I find novel uses for the EVF, the two-step operation is nothing new to me as I used a Speed Graphic (OK, that was eons ago) which meant framing with a finder and focusing using a separate rangefinder and still not missing the shot. With the MP, I have it set to save DNG + fine JPEG in B&W. The &W LV and EVF view is quite helpful; with focus assist red lines are much easier to notice with the B&W view. 

 

My main uses for the EVF are: framing my 21mm lens (VC); focusing and framing my 135 Elmarit; and what might be the occasional use of a Canon FD 70-210 lens. With both the 21 and the 135, I find that first focusing with the rangefinder and then gong to the EVF works best for me. That process is much, much slower than using a dSLR, or I imagine the SL, but I am fine with that. I never understood the need for drive when all that one had was 36 exposures before stopping, rewinding and changing rolls, I guess that it was the result of the Speed Graphic training.

 

Getting back on topic, I don't think that it makes much sense to be getting an M to use non-rangefinder lenses. The ability using those is a bonus but not a reason to be getting one.

 

Jean-Michel

[bocaburger]

Agree, however it has turned the M into a fairly universal travel camera.

Absolutely agree!  In the past I missed many detail shots due to the lack of macro, coupled with zero desire to pack a Visoflex just to be able to stick a OUFRO or two behind a 50 or 90.   Sometimes I even pack my old Komura 2X, whose clumsy rangefinder coupling, bulky finder, and less-than-stellar optics (unless the lens was stopped way down) makes it iffy as a teleconverter but surprisingly decent as a macro attachment.  At the same time, the EVF means no longer having to carry separate finders for 12,15 and 21mm lenses. 

 

Thus far I have not brought any long glass with me on travels (cropping a 135mm shot to the FOV of a 270 is a compromise I'm willing to make in return for weight and bulk savings), but if I were headed somewhere I anticipated taking a lot of telephoto shots, I would surely rather bring my lightweight 2-piece 400/6.8 than switch to a DSLR kit for the entire trip.

[Wayne]

Wow, thanks for all the great responses. Since my OP, I opened one of my lens bags, not remembering what lens I had stored in each bag, and came across my Ricoh GXR/M-module. I had completely forgotten I had it. What a great idea the GXR was. It is  a shame it was discontinued. I guess I wil put it back in use and hold off on 240. It is small enough that carrying it with the M9 or MM1 is no inconvenience.

 

Ravages of age?

[lct]

[...] What a great idea the GXR was. It is  a shame it was discontinued [...]

 

Great little camera indeed. I have still a copy in its box. Small size, very good IQ but poor EVF. If i had not other digital backs for M lenses, i would keep it and wait and see the next M most probably.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Wayne]

Honestly, the whole EVF quality thing is lost on me: I pretty much evaluate an EVF on its usefulness in obtaining focus confirmation. One aspect of that GXR EVF/focus-aid arrangement that, in my opinion, has never been topped is the feature where the EVF screen takes on the aspect of a film negative. I forget the technical name for it, but it remains unique to the Ricoh GXR.

[250swb]

 

 

In reading about 240, it seems the answer to my question is, yes. I am wondering if those with practical experience note any deficiencies in using the 240 in this way.

 

A couple of cheap eBay adapters aren't going to break the bank, even if you get an Olympus EVF to go with them, so try it.

 

I've used my M240/M246 with Nikon lenses and for my way of working it is perfectly doable. The EVF isn't great, but you use it for focusing and general composition, you don't need to see the detail of the shot and if you do take the camera away from your eye and look, yes, its right there. You do get used to holding your breath for an extra half second while the shutter does its stuff, but the best way to take advantage of LV is via the rear LCD and a tripod. Two reasons for this, first is that even Nikon (Pentax etc.) short primes are much heavier than typical M lenses, so they don't always balance well with the body, and one of the great advantages of adapters and LV is being able to use much longer then normal telephoto lenses, so you'd need a tripod anyway.

 

It isn't going to work the same as your M240 with M lenses, so just treat it as another camera, it's your surrogate Pentax or whatever, so blame Pentax for the foibles of the setup..........