Jump to content

M10 rangefinder "considerably greater accuracy"


Tobers

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I found this snippet about the M10 from the Leica Blog very interesting:

 

Because the high-precision optomechanics of the rangefinder’s chain of transmission had to be entirely reconfigured. Having to adapt the construction to the limited available space prompted the improvement of the transmission between the roller-lever and the optically effective beam path of the rangefinder. The result is an overall enhanced system for considerably greater settings accuracy.

 

So I'm very interested in whether anyone has noticed any differences. In my short demo experience, the M10 seemed slightly "easier" to focus (not that you'd see if from the demo shots I posted). The fact that the entire rangefinder mechanism has been "reconfigured" seems to be significant but not widely covered by commentators.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe my comment is "all in my head" but I genuinely feel the rangefinder is more accurate. I have taken a ton of test photos and more are in critical focus wide open than I get doing the same exercise with the M246.

 

Maybe the 246 needs adjustment but I don't think that to be the case.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally find the rangefinder more accurate. I shoot with Summilux and Noctilux mostly wide open.

I find (based on limited use) that the percentage of critical focus shots has increased significantly (meaning shots that were acceptable before are now spot on).

 

Just looking thru the rangefinder, it doesn't appear to be much different...but my success rate has absolutely improved.

Edited by digitalfx
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience today is that it's significantly enhanced.  The attached were shot hand held with 50 lux, 75 sum and 90 cron apo.  I deliberately made life difficult for myself and shot against the light and focused on the aperture dot which was in deep shadow.

I couldn't have done this so consistently with the M240.  I did a second series with the Visoflex and there was no difference.  I'm VERY impressed.

 

I also continue to be VERY impressed with performance at 3200.  Miserable grey low light in Cumbria today, but the M10 shone :)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by chris_tribble
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I felt with the rangefinder of the M10 when I tested it a few days ago, which is the reason I ordered it. So no X1D, but this new M is going to be a keeper and a pleasure to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If Chris Tribble's findings are replicated by more people I may return to the rangefinder . My eyesight just couldn't assess the focus point reliably enough so I sold my M gear (always to be regretted) and now I am thinking what an idiot. I will try to get a hands on test to see how viable the return to the M clan will be. Any more thoughts on the improved accuracy and ease of use in the improved rangefinder will be very welcome from this quarter.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience over 40 years of using a rangefinder is that ensuring you can see things clearly in the OVF is essential.  I use a diopter for correction, Jono and others swear by mono contact lenses, others seem to manage with glasses.  The critical thing is that you've GOT to see what's in the patch clearly.  My impression of the M10 is that it's a bit clearer / brighter - and it looks as if the optical engineering has been improved. However, unless you can see what's going on you'll have problems with an RF despite improvements at Leica's end.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chris Tribble's findings are replicated by more people I may return to the rangefinder . My eyesight just couldn't assess the focus point reliably enough so I sold my M gear (always to be regretted) and now I am thinking what an idiot. I will try to get a hands on test to see how viable the return to the M clan will be. Any more thoughts on the improved accuracy and ease of use in the improved rangefinder will be very welcome from this quarter.

 

This is how I felt with the MM, M240, M262 that I tried. It was the main reason I sold my M6 a long, long time ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a card from my optimician which states the state of my eyes. BUT matching that to an exact Diopter is not so easy as the Diopters on offer got -1.5, -2, -3. I have ordered -3 and that should be OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always confused me. But I'm easily confused.

 

I need reading glasses (+2.0) for normal reading distances, mild correction for medium like computer work and no correction for longer distances.

 

How does that translate to looking at the focussing patch? 

 

I feel as though I'm looking through plain glass at the object I'm trying to focus on, which could be any distance away, but I'm really looking at something an inch from my face aren't I? I never wear glasses when I'm using my camera but I feel I might benefit from using the correct diopter.

Edited by Peter H
Link to post
Share on other sites

" I never wear glasses when I'm using my camera but I feel I might benefit from using the correct diopter." With the SL, I can actually adjust to suit either with glasses or not.

 

The card I have is gibberish to me, so I am currently waiting an English translation of this for the right eye:

 

S +0.00 -1.25 95˚ DEG 1.50 H 17.0 and exactly how that translates to the choice of Diopter on offer from Leica.

 

I tried with the -2-0 diopter on the M10. That was an improvement over the standard -0.5.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M10's magnification is slightly higher than the M9 and M240-family.  That would partially account for it.   I'm one of those who can't see a whit of improvement from M9 to M240, haven't yet had a look at an M10.  As I have zero problem focusing the M240, it's not a selling point.  I wear glasses and use a diopter as well.  The reason for this is the rangefinder and display are set at a virtual distance of (IIRC) 2m (not to be confused with 2m frame line calibration, which is an entirely different thing).  Thus to focus sharply, one's eyesight has to be corrected for 2m if their eyes don't automatically accomodate.   I need a +1 ahead of my -3.5 glasses to see the patch clearly.  For me it works better than trying to find the spot in my progressive glasses where it's corrected for 2m, or using a diopter where I would need to remove my glasses...as I can't see clearly more than 6" away without them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe my comment is "all in my head" but I genuinely feel the rangefinder is more accurate. I have taken a ton of test photos and more are in critical focus wide open than I get doing the same exercise with the M246.

 

Maybe the 246 needs adjustment but I don't think that to be the case.

 

You can measure the M 246 with LV if it's slightly out of focus. It would be logical that on critical focus the M 10 is more accurate due to it's 0,73 viewfinder versus the 0,68. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always confused me. But I'm easily confused.

 

I need reading glasses (+2.0) for normal reading distances, mild correction for medium like computer work and no correction for longer distances.

 

How does that translate to looking at the focussing patch? 

 

I feel as though I'm looking through plain glass at the object I'm trying to focus on, which could be any distance away, but I'm really looking at something an inch from my face aren't I? I never wear glasses when I'm using my camera but I feel I might benefit from using the correct diopter.

 

I just saw this thread and am trying to work it out. http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00awOm - within that thread is under:

 

The correction lenses of Leica for the M,  are marked with their true diopter strength. The camera itself is inherently -0.50 diopter.

When you stack "weak" lenses, you just sum their diopters to get the net result. That is why diopters are so much easier to work with. (Diopter is 1 meter divided by the focal length of the lens.)

Now, if you want to use your reading glasses, you need to know the diopter of your distance glasses, since you're doing a distant view through the camera. Lets say your distance glasses are +1.50. Then you sum up the diopters, +3.00 in the reading glasses, -0.50 in the camera, and pick a -1.00 correction lens, getting a sum of the desired +1.50.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw this thread and am trying to work it out. http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00awOm - within that thread is under:

 

The correction lenses of Leica for the M, are marked with their true diopter strength. The camera itself is inherently -0.50 diopter.

When you stack "weak" lenses, you just sum their diopters to get the net result. That is why diopters are so much easier to work with. (Diopter is 1 meter divided by the focal length of the lens.)

Now, if you want to use your reading glasses, you need to know the diopter of your distance glasses, since you're doing a distant view through the camera. Lets say your distance glasses are +1.50. Then you sum up the diopters, +3.00 in the reading glasses, -0.50 in the camera, and pick a -1.00 correction lens, getting a sum of the desired +1.50.

Thank you.

 

That seems to suggest that, if I use the camera without my glasses on, I probably don't really need a diopter since I am effectively looking at the relatively distant object through a clear window rather than a focussing patch an inch from my eye.

 

I'll maybe try it out though if I have the chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chris Tribble's findings are replicated by more people I may return to the rangefinder . My eyesight just couldn't assess the focus point reliably enough so I sold my M gear (always to be regretted) and now I am thinking what an idiot. I will try to get a hands on test to see how viable the return to the M clan will be. Any more thoughts on the improved accuracy and ease of use in the improved rangefinder will be very welcome from this quarter.

 

 

If you have trouble with a rangefinder, the improvements probably won't be much help. If you enjoy using a rangefinder, and find that your success rate was occasionally just short...you should see an improvement.

Its still a rangefinder, and nothing has really changed in that regard. Personally I find it improved, and my percentage of perfect focus has increased...but I've never struggled using a rangefinder.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...