Lens recognition M262

[FlickM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, dpitt said:

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.

I too used manual everything back in the days before digital. I think my main concern is whether I can accurately focus now that my eyes are no longer young. But I'm looking into contact lenses, to save having to keep taking reading glasses on and off. The return to a simpler way of photography is something that's been calling to me for some time. I use a Fujifilm X-T5, (it's my workhorse for stock photography) and setting that up was as far from the Leica experience as it's possible to be. I've got the Q2, and that's a half way house, still some advanced technical choices, but not as much as the Fuji, and the digital cameras I've had before that. I think limiting my choices for photo taking will be a relief with the 262, and I think I will probably move between the different systems in the same way as I move happily between my Kindle and printed paper books. As an after word, it's so true that the Q system is the gateway drug into the M system!

[FlickM]

8 minutes ago, andybarton said:

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.

Indeed, and thank you 🙏 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Fully agree Andy. Somehow the thread had drifted to the accuracy of the framelines - we see that more often nowadays, probably because of the pervasive mirrorless mentality. People seem to expect a superfluous accuracy from a rangefinder and that demands a thorough knowledge 

[pippy]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

...Somehow the thread had drifted to the accuracy of the framelines...

That would have been yourself, Jaap, in post #38. Credit where credit's due.

Before that post the frameline discussion was solely concerned with whether the 50mm or 35mm lines would be more appropriate when using a 40mm lens on a M 262 generation body; a situation entirely relevant to the thread starter as that will be the camera and lens pairing they will using.

P.

[FlickM]

Well thank you everybody for the welcome, and all the very informative answers. I seem to have spawned a monster with my simple (or perhaps not so simple) question; but I've learned a lot, and have been quite entertained watching some of the men mansplaining to each other 😉. I'm now more impatient than ever to get the camera - early next week I think. Meanwhile, I've now spent several days combing through the topics on the forum, learning, learning, learning. The man I bought the Voigtlander lens from on eBay gave me the link to the site, which was very kind and helpful of him. I'm so glad he did -

[dpitt]

7 hours ago, FlickM said:

I too used manual everything back in the days before digital. I think my main concern is whether I can accurately focus now that my eyes are no longer young. But I'm looking into contact lenses, to save having to keep taking reading glasses on and off. The return to a simpler way of photography is something that's been calling to me for some time. I use a Fujifilm X-T5, (it's my workhorse for stock photography) and setting that up was as far from the Leica experience as it's possible to be. I've got the Q2, and that's a half way house, still some advanced technical choices, but not as much as the Fuji, and the digital cameras I've had before that. I think limiting my choices for photo taking will be a relief with the 262, and I think I will probably move between the different systems in the same way as I move happily between my Kindle and printed paper books. As an after word, it's so true that the Q system is the gateway drug into the M system!

Yes, glasses. I had perfect view and now I can not even read my exposure settings or menu without reading glasses. There is something peculiar about the M RF that did not come up in this thread. Let's make it a bit more complicated 😉

The focus patch is placed at a virtual distance of 2m. So, as long as I could see clearly at this distance, I could work with the M9 even though I had trouble reading my exposure times on the top without my reading glasses. Beginning of 2023, I did a shoot and found an unusual amount of misfocused shots... The moment had come where I could not focus properly without glasses...

Using standard reading glasses for the RF does not work! They typically work at close distance only. So, I found that if I use a pair of glasses that were to weak for working with computer screens years ago are now perfect to see the focusing patch razor sharp. So I would suggest to wait for your camera to arrive and then experiment with your own glasses or go to the optician with your camera and let him measure the correction that you need to use it perfectly. It will be different from your day to day use lenses.
 

1 hour ago, FlickM said:

Well thank you everybody for the welcome, and all the very informative answers. I seem to have spawned a monster with my simple (or perhaps not so simple) question; but I've learned a lot, and have been quite entertained watching some of the men mansplaining to each other 😉. I'm now more impatient than ever to get the camera - early next week I think. Meanwhile, I've now spent several days combing through the topics on the forum, learning, learning, learning. The man I bought the Voigtlander lens from on eBay gave me the link to the site, which was very kind and helpful of him. I'm so glad he did -

I hope you found our wiki pages with lots of tech data and links to relevant posts?

[FlickM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, dpitt said:

Yes, glasses. I had perfect view and now I can not even read my exposure settings or menu without reading glasses. There is something peculiar about the M RF that did not come up in this thread. Let's make it a bit more complicated 😉

The focus patch is placed at a virtual distance of 2m. So, as long as I could see clearly at this distance, I could work with the M9 even though I had trouble reading my exposure times on the top without my reading glasses. Beginning of 2023, I did a shoot and found an unusual amount of misfocused shots... The moment had come where I could not focus properly without glasses...

Using standard reading glasses for the RF does not work! They typically work at close distance only. So, I found that if I use a pair of glasses that were to weak for working with computer screens years ago are now perfect to see the focusing patch razor sharp. So I would suggest to wait for your camera to arrive and then experiment with your own glasses or go to the optician with your camera and let him measure the correction that you need to use it perfectly. It will be different from your day to day use lenses.
 

I hope you found our wiki pages with lots of tech data and links to relevant posts?

Hi, I have the exact pair! Though i think it's possible i will be able to see the patch and align it without, judging from the many answers on various threads. No, i hadn't seen the wiki pages, thank you. I'm about a third of the way through various posts on the forum going way back, but that will be my next stop 

[dpitt]

With glasses it is harder to see the edges of the RF, so 35 mm is the widest that is comfortable to use. For wider angles than 35mm there are OVF options, or the EVF on digital M's that support LV. The EVF has eye correction build in, but the OVF still gives the best RF experience IMO.

Without glasses 28mm sort of works, but I would not call it comfortable. One of the main things I like about the RF is that you can see outside the frame, So you can see the subject moving into your frame, or see other possible framing options without taking your eye of the camera.

[FlickM]

1 minute ago, dpitt said:

With glasses it is harder to see the edges of the RF, so 35 mm is the widest that is comfortable to use. For wider angles than 35mm there are OVF options, or the EVF on digital M's that support LV. The EVF has eye correction build in, but the OVF still gives the best RF experience IMO.

Without glasses 28mm sort of works, but I would not call it comfortable. One of the main things I like about the RF is that you can see outside the frame, So you can see the subject moving into your frame, or see other possible framing options without taking your eye of the camera.

The 262 doesn't have live view, but actually i want to experience the full rangefinder experience - otherwise I could just stick with the Q2 🙂

[dpitt]

3 minutes ago, FlickM said:

The 262 doesn't have live view, but actually i want to experience the full rangefinder experience - otherwise I could just stick with the Q2 🙂

In the film days OVF were used from 15mm to 200mm. Of course, 28  to 135 is possible without OVF. Some even use 21 mm without external VF.

 

Edited January 18 by dpitt

[FlickM]

1 minute ago, dpitt said:

In the film days OVF were used from 15mm to 200mm. Of course, 28  to 135 is possible without OVF. Some even use 21 mm without external VF.

 

I’m actually thinking of a 75 and a wider than 28 down the line - when I’ve paid off my crippling credit card debt for the 262 and lens 🤣