Jump to content

Rangefinder Improvements on M10 - Reason to Buy?


SonomaBear

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not own a rangefinder now but I want to return to simplicity.  Using a 240 last fall, I was not impressed with the rangefinder.

Being spoiled by using my Q with MF and focus peaking, my hit rate and accuracy are delightful.  I got good results with the 240 but found it slow to use (of course, I was a newbie!)

M10: is the new RF sufficiently easier (larger VF patch?) to use than the 240?

Or do I wait for an M body with Q/SL EVF instead of RF?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello SonomaBear,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

Did you ever try looking thru the range/viewfinder of an M3?

I know that it is a film camera but it does take the same lenses as digital M's. An M3 is designed to be: Really good with 50mm lenses. Especially good with 90mm lenses & Just Fine with 135mm lenses.

 

You might consider trying looking thru an M3 just to see what is possible.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not own a rangefinder now but I want to return to simplicity.  Using a 240 last fall, I was not impressed with the rangefinder.

Being spoiled by using my Q with MF and focus peaking, my hit rate and accuracy are delightful.  I got good results with the 240 but found it slow to use (of course, I was a newbie!)

M10: is the new RF sufficiently easier (larger VF patch?) to use than the 240?

Or do I wait for an M body with Q/SL EVF instead of RF?

You cannot compare the user experience of a Rangefinder to an EVF. It is a different way of seeing the image. A rangefinder will show you the whole scene, sharp from front to back, allowing you to pick your image, provided you have the insight and experience to visualize the result.

An EVF will show you the image as it will be recorded, especially if you use aperture preview or manual focusing.

Whether the range/viewfinder is a bit more precise or clear is relatively unimportant in this context.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot compare the user experience of a Rangefinder to an EVF. It is a different way of seeing the image. A rangefinder will show you the whole scene, sharp from front to back, allowing you to pick your image, provided you have the insight and experience to visualize the result.

An EVF will show you the image as it will be recorded, especially if you use aperture preview or manual focusing.

Whether the range/viewfinder is a bit more precise or clear is relatively unimportant in this context.

That seems to be a positive argument for an EVF.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That seems to be a positive argument for an EVF.

It is, in respect of the one set of settings in place at that moment. And sometimes that is the priority and why an EVF can be invaluable.

 

But it isn't an advantage if you're looking at a scene through your viewfinder and trying to assess the whole range of possibilities including which part of the scene to set focus on, all as quickly as you can.

 

I believe a rangefinder/OVF is still the supreme arrangement for this type of spontaneous and rapid photography.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

short answer no.

If you aren't happy with the M240 Rangefinder, you won't be happy with the M10 rangefinder.

 

While this is mostly correct I think the M10 rangefinder is clearly the best they've ever put in a digital M, probably an M in general (which makes it the best rangefinder, ever). Going back to the m240 made it feel quaint and peephole like in comparison after shooting with an m10 for a week.

 

To answer the OP's question, the viewfinder magnification has gone from 0.68x to 0.73x. So a slight but marked increase in size of the rangefinder patch and therefore accuracy.

Edited by cookedart
Link to post
Share on other sites

While this is mostly correct I think the M10 rangefinder is clearly the best they've ever put in a digital M, probably an M in general (which makes it the best rangefinder, ever). Going back to the m240 made it feel quaint and peephole like in comparison after shooting with an m10 for a week.

 

To answer the OP's question, the viewfinder magnification has gone from 0.68x to 0.73x. So a slight but marked increase in size of the rangefinder patch and therefore accuracy.

 

 

 

Do you own the M10?

The improvement is marginal...and if someone is not comfortable with the M240 rangefinder, they absolutely won't be comfortable with the M10 rangefinder.

I personally find it more accurate and improved. I am very pleased with the improvements...but I have been using rangefinders for 35 years.

 

If you read the OP's initial post he clearly wasn't comfortable with a rangefinder. I believe with practice he could overcome this...but to suggest that the M10 rangefinder is such a big improvement that it will make him comfortable is a big mistake.

 

I would suggest that someone not comfortable with a rangefinder wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between the M240 and the M10.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Using lenses from 28 to 75 mm the rangefinder is quite fast with a lot of experience. (What you see and what you get is often very different. With enough practice (several years) you can quite closely predict what he result will be.)

For other focal lengths even practice will not help a lot. For these a EVF is the better way to control the resulting image. And because it offers WYSIWYG a starter has an easier life and will probably get faster good results.

 

Often it is more interesting to "get surprises" and not control the image too much.

But often it is also mandatory to control what the result will be, as a mistake could be too expensive. (the "mood" or event cannot be repeated).

There is room for both. It depends what is more important for you - surprise or control.

 

I do not think the new RF (0.73) will totally change this - during decades the M3 offered this and not too many made use of this feature. The external EVF will probably change this much more and will give starters a better success rate and a faster learning curve.

Edited by steppenw0lf
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Using lenses from 28 to 75 mm the rangefinder is quite fast with a lot of experience. (What you see and what you get is often very different. With enough practice (several years) you can quite closely predict what he result will be.)

For other focal lengths even practice will not help a lot. For these a EVF is the better way to control the resulting image. And because it offers WYSIWYG a starter has an easier life and will probably get faster good results.

 

Often it is more interesting to "get surprises" and not control the image too much.

But often it is also mandatory to control what the result will be, as a mistake could be too expensive. (the "mood" or event cannot be repeated).

There is room for both. It depends what is more important for you - surprise or control.

 

I do not think the new RF (0.73) will totally change this - during decades the M3 offered this and not too many made use of this feature. The external EVF will probably change this much more and will give starters a better success rate and a faster learning curve.

 

Hello Steppenw0lf,

 

An M3 has a range/viewfinder magnification of 0.91 X.

 

It is the M2 & its successors that have a range/viewfinder magnification o 0.72 X.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be a positive argument for an EVF.

 

It's a toss-up. They're different. (I own an M-D and a Q.) You focus and frame your shot at f1.7 on the Q; you're not actually looking through the lens at the aperture at which the photo will be taken. That's good and bad. It makes focusing easier because your DoF is super shallow, but you're not looking at a preview of the final photo. So neither the RF nor the Q's EVF represents a more real view of the subject.

 

I don't use focus peaking on my Q, I have it set to zoom the center portion of the scene, for a more rangefinder-y workflow. A half-press on the shutter shows you the full scene until you move the focus ring again.

 

I love my Q, but I feel like it detaches me from my environment when I'm setting up a shot. With my M-D I feel more like I'm embedded in the action that I'm photographing. Most of the times I've picked up the Q recently, it's to use its macro mode, which is an application where the EVF (or live view on an M, I suppose) shines.

 

It's also superior, full stop, in my opinion to an M with a Summilux 28mm, because the Summilux starts to take up an annoying amount of the VF. And I wear glasses. AND I'm left-eye dominant. In other words, seeing the 28mm frame lines is not happening on an M for me. People who are right eye dominant and don't wear glasses may disagree—along with everyone else.

 

But I usually shoot with my Summilux 35mm, and so that's not an issue and I thus prefer the rangefinder.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you own the M10?

The improvement is marginal...and if someone is not comfortable with the M240 rangefinder, they absolutely won't be comfortable with the M10 rangefinder.

I personally find it more accurate and improved. I am very pleased with the improvements...but I have been using rangefinders for 35 years.

 

If you read the OP's initial post he clearly wasn't comfortable with a rangefinder. I believe with practice he could overcome this...but to suggest that the M10 rangefinder is such a big improvement that it will make him comfortable is a big mistake.

 

I would suggest that someone not comfortable with a rangefinder wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between the M240 and the M10.

definitely agree. I have been using a rangefinder since the m8. Took some classes back then and got educated and spent lots of practice time. Insofar as focusing, I often use zone or hyperfocal focusing.  In those cases I do not even have to touch the focus ring. Of course there are exceptions, like shooting wide open, etc.  I have not yet seen the m10. I understand that there is more to see outside the framelines and if the "patch" is larger that would be a plus for sure. Or I could stick with the m240 and buy a Match Technical x 1.25 which would work fine on a 35 or 50mm lens. Just my 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a toss-up. They're different. (I own an M-D and a Q.) You focus and frame your shot at f1.7 on the Q; you're not actually looking through the lens at the aperture at which the photo will be taken. That's good and bad. It makes focusing easier because your DoF is super shallow, but you're not looking at a preview of the final photo. So neither the RF nor the Q's EVF represents a more real view of the subject.

 

I don't use focus peaking on my Q, I have it set to zoom the center portion of the scene, for a more rangefinder-y workflow. A half-press on the shutter shows you the full scene until you move the focus ring again.

 

I love my Q, but I feel like it detaches me from my environment when I'm setting up a shot. With my M-D I feel more like I'm embedded in the action that I'm photographing. Most of the times I've picked up the Q recently, it's to use its macro mode, which is an application where the EVF (or live view on an M, I suppose) shines.

 

It's also superior, full stop, in my opinion to an M with a Summilux 28mm, because the Summilux starts to take up an annoying amount of the VF. And I wear glasses. AND I'm left-eye dominant. In other words, seeing the 28mm frame lines is not happening on an M for me. People who are right eye dominant and don't wear glasses may disagree—along with everyone else.

 

But I usually shoot with my Summilux 35mm, and so that's not an issue and I thus prefer the rangefinder.

Ah ha, another person that is left eye dominant!!! Wish it were different but that's the way it is. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ha, another person that is left eye dominant!!! Wish it were different but that's the way it is. :)

I'm working on training myself to raise the VF to my right eye. It never occurred to me to use it! There's an added benefit, which is that my right eye has far better vision than my left.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see how different it is from my M-D tomorrow when I visit the Leica Store in San Francisco. I expect I'll be pleased by the viewfinder change. :)

And?

I would expect that this alone would not make you change from M-D to M10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a toss-up. They're different. (I own an M-D and a Q.) You focus and frame your shot at f1.7 on the Q; you're not actually looking through the lens at the aperture at which the photo will be taken. That's good and bad. It makes focusing easier because your DoF is super shallow, but you're not looking at a preview of the final photo. So neither the RF nor the Q's EVF represents a more real view of the subject.

 

I don't use focus peaking on my Q, I have it set to zoom the center portion of the scene, for a more rangefinder-y workflow. A half-press on the shutter shows you the full scene until you move the focus ring again.

 

I love my Q, but I feel like it detaches me from my environment when I'm setting up a shot. With my M-D I feel more like I'm embedded in the action that I'm photographing. Most of the times I've picked up the Q recently, it's to use its macro mode, which is an application where the EVF (or live view on an M, I suppose) shines.

 

It's also superior, full stop, in my opinion to an M with a Summilux 28mm, because the Summilux starts to take up an annoying amount of the VF. And I wear glasses. AND I'm left-eye dominant. In other words, seeing the 28mm frame lines is not happening on an M for me. People who are right eye dominant and don't wear glasses may disagree—along with everyone else.

 

But I usually shoot with my Summilux 35mm, and so that's not an issue and I thus prefer the rangefinder.

 

The way you describe the Q is probably not typical for EVF usage. On the SL I can see exactly (WYSIWYG) what to expect. If I want I can play around and look at all possible combinations of aperture and speed.

I always assumed that with the Q preview is also possible, as with any other camera with EVF. (Any that I tried at least).

 

For me this is actually very important - for macro and tele photos seeing the actual depth of field is a big advantage.

Also shooting WO is just a tiny percentage of my photos. I wonder if this is not typical for most of us ?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something here goes wrong: This should not be about which is better (EVF or OVF/RF). Only the question how much the 0.73 factor has improved the rangefinder. The difference is small, earlier cameras (M3) had already bigger differences. (and were not extremely popular despite the special viewfinder).

 

For different occasions I simply use different cameras - this is much more natural than thinking about which is "better".

(M246 for black and white, 28 to 90 mm. SL for UWA (WATE), sports, family, macro, long tele, Nocti, etc.) 

To an event where I use the M246 I would never choose the SL. To a trip where I choose the SL, the M would never be an equivalent option.

 

Which is better ? For me: It depends.

Edited by steppenw0lf
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...