M10 and 24mm lens

[wstam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I have not checked out the new M10 at local shops yet. Only read about it on nets. As the OVF is larger, I wonder if we can use the 24mm without EVF/LV? How much does the whole OVF covers the 24mm view? Is it close enough?

 

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[brill64]

i'm guessing the outer perimeter of the rangefinder, ie., the border, would be around 24mm but it's just a guess & impossible to see if you wear glasses to focus.

[otto.f]

Yes the 24mm is exactly covered by the OVF. However, the lens sticks relatively more than into the OVF than with older ones, so at the right side it is not very clear where the boundary of the picture will come.

I wonder however if you realize that the LV on the M10 is easily used via the LCD-screen with focus peaking. The moment you move the focus thread on the lens, LV jumps on 100% zoom and you see the colored spots that are in focus. If you touch the shutter button lightly, the LV jumps back to the whole covered field an you can compose your image, the same way as you take pictures with your (i)Phone

[digitalfx]

Yes the 24mm is exactly covered by the OVF. However, the lens sticks relatively more than into the OVF than with older ones, so at the right side it is not very clear where the boundary of the picture will come.

I wonder however if you realize that the LV on the M10 is easily used via the LCD-screen with focus peaking. The moment you move the focus thread on the lens, LV jumps on 100% zoom and you see the colored spots that are in focus. If you touch the shutter button lightly, the LV jumps back to the whole covered field an you can compose your image, the same way as you take pictures with your (i)Phone

 

 

hmmm...I cant see my 24mm in the OVF any more than I could with previous M's. It doesn't stop me from using it and just guessing how much more is covered. I use the LCD or the EVF if I need see the exact frame. But I generally don't shoot with it for extended periods...if I do I put on an optical finder or the EVF.

Edited February 4, 2017 by digitalfx

[Paulus]

Hi,

 

I have not checked out the new M10 at local shops yet. Only read about it on nets. As the OVF is larger, I wonder if we can use the 24mm without EVF/LV? How much does the whole OVF covers the 24mm view? Is it close enough?

 

Thanks.

 

The 24mm works on the M 10 0.73 works the same as the MP 0.72  with an 24mm. You can go to the corners, but with glasses on it's still an issue. Can't notice the 0,001 differences.

[digitalfx]

The 24mm works on the M 10 0.73 works the same as the MP 0.72  with an 24mm. You can go to the corners, but with glasses on it's still an issue. Can't notice the 0,001 differences.

 

 

In order to see 24mm coverage without glasses, you have to peer into the right edge and then peer into the left edge one side at a time. There is no way at all to see the full 24mm FOV looking thru the rangefinder normally. With glasses, not possible.

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In order to see 24mm coverage without glasses, you have to peer into the right edge and then peer into the left edge one side at a time. There is no way at all to see the full 24mm FOV looking thru the rangefinder normally. With glasses, not possible.

 

I have very flexible glasses from titanium with plastic, so I can look " around the corner " but still this leaves 30 cm to guesstimate with a 24mm. Still it's nice that the M 10 has the same capabilities than the MP now in that order.

[otto.f]

Yes you're digitalfx, the boundaries of the rangefinder itself 

 

In order to see 24mm coverage without glasses, you have to peer into the right edge and then peer into the left edge one side at a time. There is no way at all to see the full 24mm FOV looking thru the rangefinder normally. With glasses, not possible.

Yes you're right. The outer boundaries of the OVF, so outside the 28mm frame are about 24mm, hardly any difference with M9

[Guest]

So what do you people recommend in my case I have the 21mm Super-Elmar-M 3.4 ASPH ? I have an M10 on order, this will then become my only camera. All other M lenses I have comply with the framelines of the M10 (50/90/135). My two R Macros 60/100 apparently will be fine when using the external viewfinder. (In the studio that is fine by me).

 

The 21mm should I keep it or exchange it for a 28/35 which does comply with framelines of the M10? What sort of issues will I face using the 21mm with the 1) rangefinder 2) viewfinder?

[otto.f]

As said, I have no problems using the 24 with either M9 or M10. Apart from the fact that any 21mm was never meant for me, somehow, I do need another viewfinder whatsoever for it and I find that cumbersome. So if you don't dare to jump in the 24 because of missing framelines, the new 28/2.0 is really a gem

[marcg]

 

So what do you people recommend in my case I have the 21mm Super-Elmar-M 3.4 ASPH ? I have an M10 on order, this will then become my only camera. All other M lenses I have comply with the framelines of the M10 (50/90/135). My two R Macros 60/100 apparently will be fine when using the external viewfinder. (In the studio that is fine by me).

 

The 21mm should I keep it or exchange it for a 28/35 which does comply with framelines of the M10? What sort of issues will I face using the 21mm with the 1) rangefinder 2) viewfinder?

 

 Are you really proposing to change your lens and your previous approach to taking pictures in order to accommodate the framelines of a new camera?

Edited February 5, 2017 by marcg

[Guest]

No just wanting to assure myself that I will be able to continue with the 21mm even though I would then have to take that into account wit the rangefinder. Or put up with the Visoflex always when using the 21mm. I just don't know if it would be a nuisance which I would quickly get fed up with. Also whether all of that possible hassle could be done away with by changing the lens for a 28mm which would present no such question marks.

 

I think that is a reasonable question and sometimes  I don't phrase the question well enough at first.

[ramarren]

So what do you people recommend in my case I have the 21mm Super-Elmar-M 3.4 ASPH ? I have an M10 on order, this will then become my only camera. All other M lenses I have comply with the framelines of the M10 (50/90/135). My two R Macros 60/100 apparently will be fine when using the external viewfinder. (In the studio that is fine by me).

 

The 21mm should I keep it or exchange it for a 28/35 which does comply with framelines of the M10? What sort of issues will I face using the 21mm with the 1) rangefinder 2) viewfinder?

 

I would use the Super-Elmar-M 21mm the same way I use my present Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm, when used on the M-D. I fit a Voigtländer 21/25 optical viewfinder for more precise framing and get used to focusing with the main VF, either estimate what I'll get at 16-18-21 mm settings, or switch my eye to the Voigtländer for a more precise estimate. If I'm using the M4-2, I work with it exactly the same way. If I'm using the M-P, and precise framing is important to my shooting, I fit the EVF... Otherwise, I use it the same way as with the M-D. 

 

(Most of the time, however, I use the WATE with the SL as an alternative to the Super-Elmar-R 15mm or Elmarit-R 19mm. It's a lot smaller and lighter then either of those, and stick to 35mm to 90mm on the M. )

 

The M10's viewfinder is definitely worth it, however. It only took one look and flipping the viewfinder frame lines around to know how much more comfortable it will be than *any* earlier Leica M viewfinder. 

Edited February 5, 2017 by ramarren

[grillo]

No just wanting to assure myself that I will be able to continue with the 21mm even though I would then have to take that into account wit the rangefinder. Or put up with the Visoflex always when using the 21mm. I just don't know if it would be a nuisance which I would quickly get fed up with. Also whether all of that possible hassle could be done away with by changing the lens for a 28mm which would present no such question marks.

 

I think that is a reasonable question and sometimes  I don't phrase the question well enough at first.

 

Long ago I bought a Zeiss Distagon 18mm which is a 24mm equivalent for the M8. I bought the 24mm external viewfinder to go with it. After a couple of days I exchanged the 24mm viewfinder for a 21mm viewfinder which I felt more closely reflected the lens. After a couple of weeks I mostly stopped bothering with the external viewfinder and used the lens by estimating the frame. I never blamed the lens or the camera and it worked for me because I don't mind cropping in post and working intuitively. But I know people who have the opposite approach and need to know the precise framing at the moment of taking the picture, I wouldn't expect this situation to work for them.

 

For me the 24mm and the 28mm fields of view are radically different, so the 21mm and the 28mm even more so. I wouldn't change a 21mm for a 28mm without trying to see if you can work with it.

 

It is a very reasonable question, but the problem is that the only way to know if you will be fed up with the nuisance is by you making the experiment.

[Guest]

Thanks very much it seems as long as I can estimate the frame the Super Elmar-M 3.4 that I have then it should be AOK. I asked the question because when I go to the Classic car events I use the 21mm more than any other lens.

So I will do the experiment - but thanks to you for the clarifying your experience. Just what I needed.

[digitalfx]

Thanks very much it seems as long as I can estimate the frame the Super Elmar-M 3.4 that I have then it should be AOK. I asked the question because when I go to the Classic car events I use the 21mm more than any other lens.

So I will do the experiment - but thanks to you for the clarifying your experience. Just what I needed.

 

 

and remember, no need to estimate...the M10 has Live View, so even if you don't have the EVF you can see the full frame of any lens with a single button press.

Edited February 6, 2017 by digitalfx

[Guest]

Of course LV which I use as little as possible, preferring the viewfinder........

[dempski]

I use the 21mm Super-Elmar, as well as the WATE, all the time for landscapes on the M240 with EVF2.  I live in Texas, where a polarizer is essential on wetland projects; the EVF2 is sufficient to frame the photo, and adjust the skies and reflections appropriately.  With the electronic level as the visible tool, I can capture tripod-worthy images handheld. 

 

But as a fair warning, the M10 has omitted the electronic level tool.  Leica has not said if the hardware was sacrificed to slim the camera down, or if it can be made available with a firmware update.  If a built-in level is part of your wide-angle method, the M10 may not be the solution.  I'm not going to "upgrade" to the M10 until they can turn the feature on again.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pop]

You need the level most when using the camera on a tripod. Doesn't your tripod head have all the levels you need?

[dempski]

Personally, I shoot hand-held, and avoid tripods when in a swamp setting.  After rangefinder focus, framing and leveling are done in the EVF2; the decisive moment comes when the image is level, or at least horizontal and distortion is under control.