Lens recognition M262

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24 minutes ago, FlickM said:

This is entirely fascinating and an absorbing learning curve. Thanks so much everyone for pitching in and helping. 

There are many (historical) aspects to this camera that are not found in other systems but the main thing is that is about the simplest camera to take photographs with, provided you understand photography, which, as an experienced film user, is most likely the case. 

finding out about the simple menus will take you about ten minutes without even opening the manual, taking photographs about five minutes of familiarization. Your main learning curve will be focusing. Practice practice practice. 
 

[Advertisement]

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

[FlickM]

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

There are many (historical) aspects to this camera that are not found in other systems but the main thing is that is about the simplest camera to take photographs with, provided you understand photography, which, as an experienced film user, is most likely the case. 

finding out about the simple menus will take you about ten minutes without even opening the manual, taking photographs about five minutes of familiarization. Your main learning curve will be focusing. Practice practice practice. 
 

Yes indeed. Navigating menus has never been a problem for me, even the horrendous Sony ones. I'm very much looking forward to getting to grips with the focusing. I like that the camera is so simple, which is why I went for this, not the 240 - I've never ever used video on a camera, and I can live without live view, which none of us had back in the day. It will be lovely to be presented with fewer choices too. The focusing will be the challenge. I'm still reading through the fascinating thread on this and diopter corrections etc from 2016. I shall indeed practice practice practice - you're talking to an obsessive. I've dealt with all sorts of focusing systems, including medium, and large format plate while I was at college long ago, so I'm determined to master the 262. Thank you again for help and advice -

[pippy]

5 hours ago, NigelG said:

The framelines are still a physical mask with linear cutouts - just electrically illuminated....The only change IIRC was from 1m back to 2m distance for accurate framing 

 

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

...Regarding the “electronic “ framelines  I can confirm that they are the traditional mechanical ones, only the illumination window has been replaced by a LED...

Yes and No, gentlemen......😺......

Yes, the framelines in the M-D Typ-262 are still a physical mask worked by mechanical means, but No; They do not show the same field-of-view as seen in the viewfinder of the M9 type of camera. Here's a pair of images (apologies in advance for the crap quality but they serve the purpose) I've just rattled off which show how the M9 lines show a tighter crop than those in the M-D 262 (the cameras were tripod-mounted.....and I promise I didn't move the tripod in between shots!);

First those of the M Monochrom;

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!

Secondly those from the M-D 2862;

What this means in practice (and as stated in my earlier post) is that if the photograph has been framed tight in camera the image files from the Monochrom will have a bit 'spare' to each side whereas those of the MD are FAR more accurate. Having been accustomed to getting 'a bit for free' during all those years of using my M9-P all of a sudden I discovered that I was missing that 'little bit extra' once I started shooting with my MD 262.

As the latter camera doesn't have a screen I was blissfully unaware of that missing stuff until I processed-out my first batch of images and noticed that some parts of the photographs were not quite as I expected.

Hope all that info might be of help to others!

Philip.

Edited January 17, 2024 by pippy

[NigelG]

As per my post #37

The framelines of the M9 are accurate at 1m and with the M240 series onwards they reverted to being accurate at 2m

 

M9 instruction book : 

The size of the bright-line frame is optimized for the full format of the LEICA M9 and thus corresponds approximately to the sensor size of 24x36mm with a distance setting of 1m. 
 

MD-262 instructions:

At a range of below 2m the sensor detects slightly less than shown by the inner edges of the bright- line frame, and slightly more at longer ranges

Edited January 17, 2024 by NigelG

[a.noctilux]

Calibrated at 1m or 2m that is not "correct" per se.

In my use the best practice is just that "practice more" and more to be comfortable with the final rendering.

 

My last "sad framing" is with Apo-Summicron-M 75mm that I thought "know lens" for a while but framing tight

was not good framing at all at 70cm, loosing about 15-20% of the "guided"  frame lines.

I need to retake the pictures to include the rest.

Edited January 17, 2024 by a.noctilux

[pippy]

OK; it's too dark to undertake more tests now (and I have things to do) so I'll carry out some more tests tomorrow in the studio at, shall we say, 3m?

😺

Philip.

Edited January 17, 2024 by pippy

[NigelG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The relevant pages

M9

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!

 

MD-262

So yes - the frameline masks have to be physically different sizes between the M9 and M240 onwards for this to be the case

Edited January 17, 2024 by NigelG

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, pippy said:

OK; it's too dark to undertake more tests now (and I have things to do) so I'll carry out some more tests tomorrow in the studio at, shall we say, 3m?

😺

Philip.

Tests are not really necessary. It is established fact. Nor has the accuracy of the framelines ( read for instance Günther Osterloh “Leica M, Hohe Schule der Photographie”) ever been a point of discussion.
With 1m  frames: at 1 m the inside at 2 m the outside and at infinity three times the thickness outside. With 2 m frames: at 1 m twice the thickness inside, at 2 m exactly the inside, at 3 m the outside, at infinity twice the thickness outside. That does not take into account the perspective parallax which can hide or reveal objects The diagonal parallax is compensated by the frameline shift. 

[dpitt]

Anyway, if you really want accurate framing, use a SLR or mirrorless.
So with 2m (modern) digital Ms, the shorter the distance, the more you have to compensate inside the frame... Still the 35mm frame lines will be much easier to work with.
I would suggest to @pippy to use the tripod and set it at 2 m and maybe infinity. Then if you show the VF as well as the shot with a 40mm lens, we will all know exactly how far off the lines are...

This is of course something you learn from experience, and generally, my first concern is getting the subject in focus, then get the right moment and a few other things like exposure, DOF... Framing is last on the list, and the right moment is probably gone before I can take the time to even care. Of course it is important not to chop off important bits, but in general I expect to do some cropping to tweak the shot in PP.

[pippy]

30 minutes ago, dpitt said:

...I would suggest to @pippy to use the tripod and set it at 2 m and maybe infinity. Then if you show the VF as well as the shot with a 40mm lens, we will all know exactly how far off the lines are...

I will start a new thread to discuss the matter as it is unfair on FlickM to have had their thread derailed - for which I must take the lion's share of the blame and I do apologise accordingly.

FWIW in the post with the two snaps the tripod WAS set at 2m from subject matter. There is some overthinking happening here on the point I was making which has nothing to do with inner / outer edges at 1m / 2m / 6m Infinity / parallax-correction or any such thing.

The point being made is REALLY simple; shooting exactly the same subject matter from exactly the same viewpoint using exactly the same lens set to exactly the same distance and the cameras bringing up exactly 'the same' 35mm view-finder framelines those on the M9M showed a DIFFERENT image capture-area comparison to that seen in the MD 262. Therefore for someone used to what the camera captures with an MD 262 is NOT ALWAYS THE SAME as that captured by an M9M.

Is all that too complex to grasp?

New thread will appear at some point tomorrow......work-schedule permitting.

Philip.

Edited January 17, 2024 by pippy

[FlickM]

1 minute ago, pippy said:

I will start a new thread to discuss the matter as it is unfair on FlickM to have had their thread derailed - for which I must take the lion's share of the blame and I do apologise accordingly.

FWIW in the post with the two snaps the tripod WAS set at 2m from subject matter. There is some overthinking happening here on the point I was making which has nothing to do with inner / outer edges at 1m / 2m / 6m Infinity / parallax-correction or any such thing.

The point being made is REALLY simple; shooting exactly the same subject matter from exactly the same viewpoint using exactly the same lens set to exactly the same distance and the cameras bringin up exactly the 'same' 35mm view-finder framelines those on the M9M showed a DIFFERENT image capture-area comparison to that seen in the MD 262.

New thread will appear at some point tomorrow......work-schedule permitting.

Philip.

Please don't worry, this is all useful for me, and I'm delighted my thread has spawned informative offshoots. 

[jaapv]

22 minutes ago, pippy said:

I will start a new thread to discuss the matter as it is unfair on FlickM to have had their thread derailed - for which I must take the lion's share of the blame and I do apologise accordingly.

FWIW in the post with the two snaps the tripod WAS set at 2m from subject matter. There is some overthinking happening here on the point I was making which has nothing to do with inner / outer edges at 1m / 2m / 6m Infinity / parallax-correction or any such thing.

The point being made is REALLY simple; shooting exactly the same subject matter from exactly the same viewpoint using exactly the same lens set to exactly the same distance and the cameras bringing up exactly 'the same' 35mm view-finder framelines those on the M9M showed a DIFFERENT image capture-area comparison to that seen in the MD 262. Therefore for someone used to what the camera captures with an MD 262 is NOT ALWAYS THE SAME as that captured by an M9M.

Is all that too complex to grasp?

New thread will appear at some point tomorrow......work-schedule permitting.

Philip.

The point is that the framelines are NOT the same. On the 2m variant they are necessarily more narrow than the 1m variant, which your test will show. It is explained in M literature all over the place and mentioned in the respective cameras' manuals. You tests will show a well-known fact. 
The photographic phenomenon  you are demonstrating is called "loss of field of view" and is related to the extension of a conventional lens when extending it to focus. It is precisely why Leica is playing with the framelines being correct at varying distances. You are proving -successfully- precisely the thing you are contradicting.

[jaapv]

Here you have the situation for the 0,7 m framelines. Nearly the same as the 1m ones only the lines are a fraction of a mm thicker to make them precise at 0,7 m

 

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!

[pippy]

53 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The point is that the framelines are NOT the same...

😸

I know that, Jaap! That WAS my point. Not the reasons behind why they were different; just that they ARE different. Nothing more complicated than that!

In a practical / shooting sense the reasons why they are different are completely immaterial but these differences have to be taken into account and remembered when shooting. Going from an M9 generation camera to the M 262 requires a re-set in terms of expectations regarding what will be captured when judging by what can be seen in the v/f.

OK; I hope that's clear to everyone and we're all finished now?

Philip.

Edited January 17, 2024 by pippy

[NigelG]

+1 re the “derailing” - apologies to the OP

[FlickM]

Just now, NigelG said:

+1 re the “derailing” - apologies to the OP

It's fine, I broke out the popcorn hours ago 😉 and the evolving topic is fascinating

[a.noctilux]

Choosing the M262 is very good step to simplification.

With only two short pages of "Menu" we rarely need, only the M-D (typ 262) is simpler in use, no rear screen replaced by ISO settings "ring".

OP you will see the simplicity while using M262 from first hour.

Don't worry.

[FlickM]

1 hour ago, a.noctilux said:

Choosing the M262 is very good step to simplification.

With only two short pages of "Menu" we rarely need, only the M-D (typ 262) is simpler in use, no rear screen replaced by ISO settings "ring".

OP you will see the simplicity while using M262 from first hour.

Don't worry.

Thank you. I’m very much looking forward to it 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dpitt]

Do not worry about learning to work with the viewfinder. As a teenager, I learned photography with my Nikon FE and manual lenses. I kept using it until I adapted to digital. My first 2 digital Nikons were DSLRs with auto everything. But I hated all the buttons and menu's and in particular I hated not to be in full control anymore.

If I want to focus on my subject and the AF refuses to get what my subject is, or does not find it in time, or I am not fast enough in moving the AF point... and even worse, thinking that the AF lens focused on what I wanted and not realizing that it focused on a branch just in front of it.

All lost shots...I would rather lose a shot because it was my own lack of skill and experience than because of a lost fight with a computer...

My world changed when I held the M8 to my eye in a store somewhere. It looked great and was very promising. But it was far out of budget at that time. Then I bought a used M2 to really test if I would like to use a RF... It felt like coming home. And it did not take more than one film to realize that.
Finally the same control as with the Nikon FE, but this time with a more accurate and faster system to focus MF lenses!

When I finally found a used M8 for my budget, this was even more true. It was the first digital camera that did not get in my way. It challenges you, but somehow that improves the results and satisfaction even more.

I think you will have a similar experience with the M262. It is a far more mature design than the M8 was.

[andybarton]

17 hours ago, jaapv said:

With 1m  frames: at 1 m the inside at 2 m the outside and at infinity three times the thickness outside. With 2 m frames: at 1 m twice the thickness inside, at 2 m exactly the inside, at 3 m the outside, at infinity twice the thickness outside. That does not take into account the perspective parallax which can hide or reveal objects The diagonal parallax is compensated by the frameline shift. 

I have been using M cameras for 20 years and while I have known this for 19 1/2 years, I left it alone back there and never even think about it now.

For a new entrant into the M-world, this is likely to be highly confusing - it is to me, even though I know about this.

I just know that the frame lines are an "accurate approximation" of what is going to be recorded on the film or the sensor and I know that the viewfinder will never show me exactly that, as the best SLRs or mirror-less cameras can. I have never found this to be an issue, but remembering to focus is. The best advice, as has already been said, is to practice.

At least learning on a digital M doesn't cost you a quid a shot, so you really can practice as much as you like.