Is it easier to focus with the new rangefinder in M10 when using 135mm lenses?

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Significantly. Noticeably.

 

Gordon

 

 

Thanks. How many frames per second do you get with the EVF on?

Edited November 6, 2017 by Paul J

[mdemeyer]

You mean shooting or refresh rate on the EVF?

[mirekti]

Any other rangefinders with auxiliary EVFs around? If you want to compare to EVIL cameras you are in the wrong forum; try the SL one.

 

What is this, an excuse?

It's like saying Tesla with its battery is so unique among the cars (like Leica with its RF among the cameras), that why it would need to have a latest display in the dashboard, that's silly.

Anyhow, I am not interested in auxiliary EVF, and it's funny how much they charge for it given its performance, these two are facts.

My only question was whether RF is more accurate in M10 compared to M240, 

Edited November 6, 2017 by mirekti

[Paul J]

You mean shooting or refresh rate on the EVF?

 

 

Shooting. The M240 is about 1 frame every 2 seconds wth live view and evf.

[fotocrazee]

Shooting. The M240 is about 1 frame every 2 seconds wth live view and evf.

I use the live view only when rangefinder focusing is an issue. Once the focus is nailed, I switch off the live view.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Thanks. How many frames per second do you get with the EVF on?

 

Sorry Paul. I have never used the continuous function on an M digital. With or without the EVF.

 

All I can say is that the EVF is much improved in every way over the M240. It's fast enough that I don't notice it getting in the way of shooting. It's certainly no SL. I notice no difference between it on the M10 and TL2 which is maybe three times faster than the TL and M240.

 

Gordon

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use the 135 3.4 Telyt on M10.

I use it handheld out in the field. It works like it's supposed to. You need to pay close attention and use good technique, but the focusing doest not seem tricky to me. I don't have any prior points of reference - it's the first tele Leica I've ever used. With my previous M's I only owned 35 and 50mm lenses. 

[Tony Wright]

I have had some experience of focusing film and digital leicas with a number of 135mm lenses over the last 50yrs.

Long story : short answer : the m10 is more easy to focus correctly than the m9 or m240 but not as good for results as my m6 0.85.

This should not be a surprise.

The results with the m10 however are not good enough for me compared to what appears to be 100% accuracy with the evf.

With the evf the 135mm apo f3.4 lens is a stunning performer at f3.4 when held absolutely still.

[a.noctilux]

This thread is very interesting.

I've never use the 45° focus, Michael's post #2,

but I'll try when RF focus is difficult with 135mm lens.

 

And Adan's post #6 is a gem to read .

[tobey bilek]

RF have been improved for accuracy and staying adjusted.  

 

Magnifying eyepiece is not yet available for M10,  but there is an adapter for previous diopters and eyepiece magnifying lenses which are smaller.  This should help,  but check with a dealer.

 

Before fooling around,  I would tripod the camera and use live view at questionable distance.  LV is ALWAYS correct.   Use a magnifying glass (50mm lens reversed) or loupe from large format or set up the color indicators that show focus, forget what they are called. I dislike them,  but they do work.  I use the loupe.

 

Stand in the shade with subject in sun and throw the dark cloth from your view camera over camera or a dark coat so you can see clearly .

 

If they match,  RF and LV,  all is good.   If not RF is off or it is user error.

 

I use the loupe from my view camera.  

[pico]

I use the loupe from my view camera.  

 

Now that is interesting!

[bocaburger]

When I test-drove the M10 in contemplation of trading up from the M240, I purposely brought my 135 T-E (and 90/2) to see if I could see a difference in clarity/ease and/or accuracy of focusing compared to my M240's.  I even tried several different M10's over the course of a few days, to rule out single-sample error.   I could not see any significant advantage.  The 135 frame in the M10 is a hair larger due to the hair larger finder magnification, but in practical terms the difference seems negligible.  The M10's larger field of view and longer eye-relief is more of an advantage with 28mm and (to a lesser extent) 35mm lenses for those like me who shoot with glasses on.   But I have thin glasses with flexible frames and can already get my eye close enough to the M240's finder that I can see the 28mm frames well.  

The accuracy of using the rangefinder with a 135 lies mainly with the lens and rangefinder both being in exact calibration to a standard, as well as the user's eyesight ability to see the images in the patch sharply, whether that is by luck the case out-of-the-box, or requires glasses and/or a diopter.  Tbh I would have preferred if rather than expanding the field and eye-relief, Leica had instead chosen to make use of the thinner body to build-in an adjustible diopter as pretty much every other camera these days has.