Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on June 14, 2013, 07:33:55 pm
-
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/6/leica-m240---executive-summary-final-thoughts-conclusion-is-it-a-keeper
-
A Leica enthusiast likes the new Leica and justifies it's absurd cost because he's already so heavily invested in Leica glass. Wow, there's a revelation. :o
-
Hmm, have you read the article series, looked at all the images or are you just jumping conclusion?
Best regards
Erik
A Leica enthusiast likes the new Leica and justifies it's absurd cost because he's already so heavily invested in Leica glass. Wow, there's a revelation. :o
-
The Leica M240 is overpriced and flawed.
I’m not a Leica enthusiast, have never owned a Leica, have no investment in Leica lenses and yet I await my copy of the camera with the enthusiasm I usually reserve for making images.
:o
So true.
-
What i do not understand in the Tim Ashley article:
first he writes "
Question: if I thought the camera likely wouldn't please me, why did I buy it? Answer: because I own a lot of Leica glass and because, having put my Phase One IQ180 up for sale and making the switch to the Nikon D800E, I was frustrated by the extreme difficulty involved in finding wide lenses for that camera that could resolve, across the frame, the resolution the sensor promised. So I hoped that somehow the new Leica would pull a rabbit out of the hat."
a little later he describes the problems of some leica wide angles like the 18mm elmar- :
"
The 18mm F3.8 Super-Elmar has strong and complex distortion and requires F11 to tighten up the corners, by which time diffraction has taken its toll on the rest of the frame. Fairly strong astigmatism means that the Leica Look is not at its strongest in this lens. Everything else is good: bokeh, correction of colour shading and fringing, predictability of focus. Overall, useful but not wonderful."
This lens costs about the same as the 21mm Zeiss + the 14-24mm Nikkor both doing a every good job at 36MP
( and then the Leia lenses still cannot prove themselves at 36MP)
-
What i do not understand in the Tim Ashley article ...
Read on! He effectively acknowledges that the lenses are not a good enough reason, and replaces that reason with:
a) The by now notorious practice of comparing _per pixel_ sharpness to that of a camera with a higher pixel count (Nikon D800), so that the images from the M are being viewed at smaller size, biasing the comparison in its favor.
b) The inferiority of his results with live view focusing on this camera to his results with its traditional range-finder focusing, which he seems to misinterpret as the superiority of its RF manual focusing over all alternatives, whereas it is probably a specific difficulty of live view focusing on a RF camera being done stopped down, as I noted in http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79548.0 (If indeed the Nikon D800 also _forces_ live view focusing to be done stopped down, then that might add to the poor experience that these M vs D800 reviewers have of live view manual focusing!)
c) Dismissing its somewhat worse noise at higher ISO as less important for him.
-
Nice images, BUT.....
Is it just me, or are the Sigma DP images really just MORE, in every way.
Just seems to me the sigma images have more details, better resolution, even better colour in some respects.
-
Nice images, BUT.....
Is it just me, or are the Sigma DP images really just MORE, in every way.
Just seems to me the sigma images have more details, better resolution, even better colour in some respects.
The Sigma images are great, but they scream "DIGITAL", which is fine, not knocking it. The new M files are closer to D800e files, which I like. The M9 has that crip CCD look without being TOO digital. While I've never fooled with a DPM, its not a camera that could replace an M, for me. For others it works great.
-
What i do not understand in the Tim Ashley article:
first he writes "
Question: if I thought the camera likely wouldn't please me, why did I buy it? Answer: because I own a lot of Leica glass and because, having put my Phase One IQ180 up for sale and making the switch to the Nikon D800E, I was frustrated by the extreme difficulty involved in finding wide lenses for that camera that could resolve, across the frame, the resolution the sensor promised. So I hoped that somehow the new Leica would pull a rabbit out of the hat."
a little later he describes the problems of some leica wide angles like the 18mm elmar- :
"
The 18mm F3.8 Super-Elmar has strong and complex distortion and requires F11 to tighten up the corners, by which time diffraction has taken its toll on the rest of the frame. Fairly strong astigmatism means that the Leica Look is not at its strongest in this lens. Everything else is good: bokeh, correction of colour shading and fringing, predictability of focus. Overall, useful but not wonderful."
This lens costs about the same as the 21mm Zeiss + the 14-24mm Nikkor both doing a every good job at 36MP
( and then the Leia lenses still cannot prove themselves at 36MP)
With all due respect I believe that some have missed the conclusion. Perhaps the discussion that you are referring to are a bit misleading in the sense that they are considered as conclusions (and might be for some if this is really important)?
I believe one should look at the main conclusion:
"The Final Word
The M240 was going to be all about the glass and Live View. The the sensor would be 'good enough' and the rangefinder would be halfway to obsolete. But with the exception of my prediction that the ergonomics would be the usual Leica mix of amazing and daft (they are) I was wrong, wrong, wrong.
I have never been this wrong about a camera.
The M240 is all about the extreme accuracy of the rangefinder and the gorgeous performance of the sensor. Together, they make an unbeatable combination. And given that this combination is very small and light too, I now use it more than anything. I can live with all its quirks and rough edges: most of them are 'dealable with' in firmware and none of them is a deal-breaker.
The D800 is relegated to jobs for which it has very specific skills (speed of focus, higher ISO work, long or zoom lens work) and the IQ180 is back from my dealer unsold, now married to an Alpa STC and Rodenstock 40HR and used for whenever I need huge output size and have the time to work for it. The RX1 also has its niche purposes and I continue to carry it from time to time.
I am very lucky to have all of these cameras; but I know which one will be getting the most use in the foreseeable future.... except, it has to go back now, to have its strap lugs replaced.
Well, this is Leica"
-
This reminds me of the famous quote from last year's presidential election: “Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?” Tim Ashley appears to be unduly forcing himself to like this camera. He lists 16 things he doesn't like about the camera, and yet somehow ends up buying one. Is this justification you do as an owner of many Leica lenses to make yourself feel better, or is this real? I would never consider a Leica if for no other reason than the battery and memory card being hid under the base plate. Even if the body cost only $1000, I don't think I could tolerate that design.
-
This reminds me of the famous quote from last year's presidential election: “Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?” Tim Ashley appears to be unduly forcing himself to like this camera. He lists 16 things he doesn't like about the camera, and yet somehow ends up buying one. Is this justification you do as an owner of many Leica lenses to make yourself feel better, or is this real? I would never consider a Leica if for no other reason than the battery and memory card being hid under the base plate. Even if the body cost only $1000, I don't think I could tolerate that design.
You can get a replacement baseplate that gives access to the battery and memory card.
-
+1
This reminds me of the famous quote from last year's presidential election: “Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?” Tim Ashley appears to be unduly forcing himself to like this camera. He lists 16 things he doesn't like about the camera, and yet somehow ends up buying one. Is this justification you do as an owner of many Leica lenses to make yourself feel better, or is this real? I would never consider a Leica if for no other reason than the battery and memory card being hid under the base plate. Even if the body cost only $1000, I don't think I could tolerate that design.
-
This reminds me of the famous quote from last year's presidential election: “Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?” Tim Ashley appears to be unduly forcing himself to like this camera. He lists 16 things he doesn't like about the camera, and yet somehow ends up buying one. Is this justification you do as an owner of many Leica lenses to make yourself feel better, or is this real? I would never consider a Leica if for no other reason than the battery and memory card being hid under the base plate. Even if the body cost only $1000, I don't think I could tolerate that design.
I think the only valid "justification" is that the person who can afford the camera likes it. Essentially Tim's conclusion is that, despiote its numerous flaws, he likes the camera.
-
This sort of thing is hardly uncommon amongst Leica afficianados. (I say this as someone who's been using Leica M cameras for 40 years now but who is no fanboy.) Fondness for the rangefinder aesthetic and regard for the M system lineage can override short-term objectivity. As long as the enthralled enthusiast can afford it, no harm done.
I tried out an M240 early last month...soon found myself wishing it were an M2 (but with a sensor instead of a film gate) instead of what it was. Passed on it despite the fine & dandy IQ. Still looking for a suitable digi platform for all my M & LTM lenses...
-Dave-
-
This sort of thing is hardly uncommon amongst Leica afficianados. (I say this as someone who's been using Leica M cameras for 40 years now but who is no fanboy.) Fondness for the rangefinder aesthetic and regard for the M system lineage can override short-term objectivity. As long as the enthralled enthusiast can afford it, no harm done.
I tried out an M240 early last month...soon found myself wishing it were an M2 (but with a sensor instead of a film gate) instead of what it was. Passed on it despite the fine & dandy IQ. Still looking for a suitable digi platform for all my M & LTM lenses...
-Dave-
What was it that you didn't like, as compared to the M2? No hostility intended! And what are you looking for in a digital platform for M lenses? I hope that the next generation of the Fuji Xpro will be IT. That being said, I can't really fault the M9, MM, or M240 for anything, at least for my shooting. Despite all the odd issues, the M9 is my favorite current camera.
-
What was it that you didn't like, as compared to the M2? No hostility intended! And what are you looking for in a digital platform for M lenses? I hope that the next generation of the Fuji Xpro will be IT. That being said, I can't really fault the M9, MM, or M240 for anything, at least for my shooting. Despite all the odd issues, the M9 is my favorite current camera.
Great, LuLa blew away my post 'cuz I hit the timeout limit. ??? I'll be damned if I'm gonna rewrite it.
But, forgetting all the lost stuff I wrote about the M240...I also have my eye on Fuji's X system. I've used the Epson/Cosina RD-1 extensively, so no concerns about fronting an APS-C sensor with M & LTM lenses. We'll see what the MF options are like in the next-gen X-Pro & X-E bodies.
Grrrrr...
-Dave-
-
Tim Ashley makes some reasonable points, not that I am tempted by the M. But I wish he wouldn't use the moronic term 'glass' when he could be more accurate and call a lens a lens (of which one of the components and design is....glass).
Steve
-
Great, LuLa blew away my post 'cuz I hit the timeout limit. ??? I'll be damned if I'm gonna rewrite it.
But, forgetting all the lost stuff I wrote about the M240...I also have my eye on Fuji's X system. I've used the Epson/Cosina RD-1 extensively, so no concerns about fronting an APS-C sensor with M & LTM lenses. We'll see what the MF options are like in the next-gen X-Pro & X-E bodies.
Grrrrr...
-Dave-
Yes, the main problem with the Fuji for me is th manual focus operation and the location of the AF point selection, although h latest FW seems to have addressed AF point selection. I had an x100. Loved it. Except th manual focus ability and AF point selection. Looks lik the x100s addressed these issues. If these features find themselves in an XPro2 I will certainly get one.
-
Hehe...glass is of course an afficionado's term, meant to convey one's appreciation of the finer subtleties in optical design. My 50mm Summicron isn't just a lens...it has an element containing Lanthanum, for Barnack's sake!
:D
-Dave-
-
Re. the M240: what ultimately put me off it was the lack of dedicated ISO and exposure comp. dials. When considering a $7000 outlay on the component of a photo system most likely to be replaced sooner rather than later--that is, the camera--small details can turn into deal breakers. Also...Leica really needs to upgrade the firmware, allowing the magnified point-of-focus in the optional EVF to be moved around the image frame.
-Dave-
-
Hehe...glass is of course an afficionado's term, meant to convey one's appreciation of the finer subtleties in optical design.
But it comes across instead as ill-informed snobbery, like using the both less accurate and more obscure "strobe" when referring to a photographic flash unit.
When I want to be a real snob, I use the word objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_(optics)), since technically a "lens" is only an individual piece of "glass" that forms part of a photographic objective. This seems appropriate here, given that the corresponding German word is objektiv.
-
But it comes across instead as ill-informed snobbery...
Indeed, thus the smiley in my post!
-Dave-
-
Hi,
Just a general comment. The Leica is a small full format camera with interchangeable lenses that also are small. So it is a small but powerful system. It can also be adapted to almost any lens and has a modern CMOS sensor having live view. So I would say it is pretty much unique.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Just a general comment. The Leica is a small full format camera with interchangeable lenses that also are small. So it is a small but powerful system. It can also be adapted to almost any lens and has a modern CMOS sensor having live view. So I would say it is pretty much unique.
Erik, that's a great description of the Olympus OM-D EM5 (and other M43 cameras) too! Its "full format" isn't as large as the 35mm format, but then again both M43 and 35mm are tiny compared to 4x5" sheet film. "Full" is relative. There are only a handful of lenses I own that I can't mount on the OM-D5.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
There are some aspects of full format:
1) A wide angle is still a wide angle
2) A larger format collects more photons and will therefore have less noise
3) A larger format needs less magnification for a given print size and therefor will have better MTF if an equivalent lens is used
Let's put it this way, I have a P45+, a Sony Alpha 99, a Sony Alpha 77 and a Sony RX100 and I can see that results are better with larger formats. On the other hand the difference may be smaller than what I would expect.
I am not sure that the Leica lenses are as good as presumed. I have seen some suggestion that for instance the Sigma macro lenses can hold their own against any Leica lens, but I don't know. But a lens for a cropped sensor needs to be d____d good match an excellent lens on a much larger sensor.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, that's a great description of the Olympus OM-D EM5 (and other M43 cameras) too! Its "full format" isn't as large as the 35mm format, but then again both M43 and 35mm are tiny compared to 4x5" sheet film. "Full" is relative. There are only a handful of lenses I own that I can't mount on the OM-D5.
-Dave-
-
There are some aspects of full format:
1) A wide angle is still a wide angle
2) A larger format collects more photons and will therefore have less noise
3) A larger format needs less magnification for a given print size and therefor will have better MTF if an equivalent lens is used
Sure, I get all that. And that logic doesn't stop once you get to the 135 wunderformat either. You can mount Pentax 67 lenses on 35mm-format Pentax SLRs, for example, and experience an even greater loss of field-of-view than 35mm-format users have to deal with when using their lenses on APS-C cameras. "Full frame" doesn't have any magic properties, as I'm sure you know.
Let's put it this way, I have a P45+, a Sony Alpha 99, a Sony Alpha 77 and a Sony RX100 and I can see that results are better with larger formats. On the other hand the difference may be smaller than what I would expect.
I can tell you that my OM-D5 beats the pants off my c. 2007 Nikon D300. Resolution, dynamic range, noise control...all better with the Oly. I wouldn't expect the same outcome with a D7100, though. No matter...the Oly is--for me, right now--more fun to use than a D-SLR. Once achieving better image quality starts to become work...that's where I stop. ;)
I am not sure that the Leica lenses are as good as presumed. I have seen some suggestion that for instance the Sigma macro lenses can hold their own against any Leica lens, but I don't know. But a lens for a cropped sensor needs to be d____d good to match an excellent lens on a much larger sensor.
There's plenty of mystique involved when it comes to anything Leica. Objectivity is hard to come by. IMO Michael is more clear-headed than most in this regard, and the LuLa archive of his comments over the years (even going back to the film era, if that stuff is still available) is well worth perusing. Some of my favorite lenses have the Leitz or Leica name on them, but again there's no magic involved.
-Dave-
-
Lloyd Chambers is not impressed:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130628_1-LeicaM240-lockup.html
-
Hi,
Yes, he is obviously not impressed. It's alway nice to have different views.
Best regards
Erik
Lloyd Chambers is not impressed:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130628_1-LeicaM240-lockup.html
-
Lloyd Chambers is not impressed:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130628_1-LeicaM240-lockup.html
Two things: he obviously received a bad copy (like my second M8), and firmware could fix many of the implementation issues. My thoughts are if you are going to use it like a Nex7, just use a Nex7. Japanese electronics usually beat the Europeans. Leica excels with mechanics, although his copy puts this statement in doubt.
-
Amateur Photographer gave the Leica a very poor review last week. Basically suggesting that Leica had "missed the point".
But I don't imagine that Leica enthusiasts will worry too much about what AP says.
-
Digilloyd is complaining about lockups similar to those which bedevilled my M8.
I don't understand why they can't just buy the electronics from Panasonic, after all the shutter and the electronic viewfinder are both Japanese, I guess.
Edmund
-
Pride? NIH?
Japanese firms cannot develop camera firmware? Neither can German firms?
Erik
Digilloyd is complaining about lockups similar to those which bedevilled my M8.
I don't understand why they can't just buy the electronics from Panasonic, after all the shutter and the electronic viewfinder are both Japanese, I guess.
Edmund
-
Pride? NIH?
Japanese firms cannot develop camera firmware? Neither can German firms?
Erik
The issues with the M series lockups seemed to be basic battery/power problems - the worst issues possible because they are deadly in usage, need hardware fixes, and need years of development to get right.
Edmund
-
Two things: he obviously received a bad copy (like my second M8), and firmware could fix many of the implementation issues. My thoughts are if you are going to use it like a Nex7, just use a Nex7. Japanese electronics usually beat the Europeans. Leica excels with mechanics, although his copy puts this statement in doubt.
Leica needs to decide what they want to be.
A fashion statement, a throwback to the past, or a photographer's tool.
What I've seen from the cmos M doesn't impress me and has all the issues of the M series with parallex and high lens prices.
In fact when I bought into the 4/3's system with Gh3(s) and Olympus OMD's I bought adapters for my Leica lenses thinking they would be amazing and they underperformed the pana and olympus lenses by a wide margin.
Maybe (probably) there is a lot going on behind the curtain to correct CA and sharpness of the pana zooms and Oly primes, but the end result is surprising.
Saying all of this, I like traditional cameras, real f stops and a shutter dial. I firmly planed to buy a 240 to replace my M8, but now I don't think I'll go there. In fact if I was going to buy any Leica it would be the S system and even then I'm not sure if it tethers well or at all and I haven't given it much research.
I just finished the first leg of a long lifestyle gig, shooting stills and motion and shot about 75% with the 4/3 system cameras. They don't have the actual detail of my Canons, or contax, (almost equal to the M-8) but the small and fast form factor, just changed the way I worked. Looking at a session I did with the Olympus and my 1dx, the 1dx had more detail, not more dr, but was harder to color and didn't have the same spontaneous look as the Olympus.
I'm really sold on the 4/3's system cameras and even though olympus needs one more generation to get it right, it's still an interesting camera with great lenses.
The Panasonic gh3 (though not near as pretty as the Oly) has about everything right.
Well actually they both need in camera nd's as the fast lenses and a 4000th shutter speed requires nd's to get to some desired looks.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
The 4/3 system has only half the size of a traditional 135 format. That really means that lenses need to be twice as sharp. Olympus and Panasonic make lenses that are much sharper than traditional 135 lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Leica needs to decide what they want to be.
A fashion statement, a throwback to the past, or a photographer's tool.
What I've seen from the cmos M doesn't impress me and has all the issues of the M series with parallex and high lens prices.
In fact when I bought into the 4/3's system with Gh3(s) and Olympus OMD's I bought adapters for my Leica lenses thinking they would be amazing and they underperformed the pana and olympus lenses by a wide margin.
Maybe (probably) there is a lot going on behind the curtain to correct CA and sharpness of the pana zooms and Oly primes, but the end result is surprising.
Saying all of this, I like traditional cameras, real f stops and a shutter dial. I firmly planed to buy a 240 to replace my M8, but now I don't think I'll go there. In fact if I was going to buy any Leica it would be the S system and even then I'm not sure if it tethers well or at all and I haven't given it much research.
I just finished the first leg of a long lifestyle gig, shooting stills and motion and shot about 75% with the 4/3 system cameras. They don't have the actual detail of my Canons, or contax, (almost equal to the M-8) but the small and fast form factor, just changed the way I worked. Looking at a session I did with the Olympus and my 1dx, the 1dx had more detail, not more dr, but was harder to color and didn't have the same spontaneous look as the Olympus.
I'm really sold on the 4/3's system cameras and even though olympus needs one more generation to get it right, it's still an interesting camera with great lenses.
The Panasonic gh3 (though not near as pretty as the Oly) has about everything right.
Well actually they both need in camera nd's as the fast lenses and a 4000th shutter speed requires nd's to get to some desired looks.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
Just a general comment. The Leica is a small full format camera with interchangeable lenses that also are small. So it is a small but powerful system. It can also be adapted to almost any lens and has a modern CMOS sensor having live view. So I would say it is pretty much unique.
Best regards
Erik
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but why don't some people admit that we also just want 'things' because of the look and feel? Why are some photographers so nuts and bolts when it comes to cameras? I learned long ago that when I buy or use a new camera or lens that I lusted after, it motivates me and I go out and get better shots. Sounds silly but we are very psychological creatures, especially us creatives. There are intangibles beyond specs that can make one camera be much more productive with a photographer than another.
There is also my love for a full size 35mm sensor - I don't care how good the others are - but when I try and travel with only a 4/3rds or APS camera, I just don't like the feel of the camera or of the images. It could be psychological but it feels real to me. I felt the same why back in the film days when I used Hasselblads, I tried moving to the then new 645 cameras but it just didn't feel the same.
I think the Leica M is a unique camera whose specs just don't tell the whole story. What's most important is the images we produce, not the camera that captures them. I think most of us would agree that any of the new digital cameras we speak of here will produce superb images. So for me, it comes down to what camera or lens makes me the most inspired to work that keep me shooting.
Price is irrelevant, if you can afford the M system, then it doesn't have any bearing on choosing it. Look at the way we buy cars. Not only on specs but for look and feel. All cars can take us to the grocery store or across the county but some of us buy Ford Escapes and others buy Range Rovers.
IMO (lusting for an M, can you tell?) ;D
Steve
-
Hehe...glass is of course an afficionado's term, meant to convey one's appreciation of the finer subtleties in optical design. My 50mm Summicron isn't just a lens...it has an element containing Lanthanum, for Barnack's sake!
:D
-Dave-
I've noticed that the real aficionados tend to refer to it as a "lense"...
Roy
-
Hi,
The 4/3 system has only half the size of a traditional 135 format. That really means that lenses need to be twice as sharp. Olympus and Panasonic make lenses that are much sharper than traditional 135 lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Both Olympus and Panasonic makes great consumer grade lenses, but I kind of doubt the "twice as sharp". Can you please point us to a test showing a Oly or Pana lens that has twice the resolution figures for same aperture of a given Leica lens with same focal length.
-
Both Olympus and Panasonic makes great consumer grade lenses, but I kind of doubt the "twice as sharp". Can you please point us to a test showing a Oly or Pana lens that has twice the resolution figures for same aperture of a given Leica lens with same focal length.
Personally I can't quantify this with a precise figure, but I can back up BC's experience of using Leica lenses on M43 cameras. I ended up getting a Fuji X-E1 for the M lenses...the same photosite count (16mp) spread over a larger sensor area just works out better, for whatever reason.
Oly and Panasonic are making some very impressive lenses for M43. I also hope that another camera generation from Oly will refine the remaining rough edges of the system. A built-in switchable ND filter would be great for starters. Off-topic...sorry.
-Dave-
-
Both Olympus and Panasonic makes great consumer grade lenses, but I kind of doubt the "twice as sharp". Can you please point us to a test showing a Oly or Pana lens that has twice the resolution figures for same aperture of a given Leica lens with same focal length.
See the interesting MTF from two lenses from Nikon- the 1,4 85mm afs nikkor - one of the sharpest FF lenses you can buy and the new 1,2 32mm 1 Nikkor - this is the 85mm lens for the 1 nikkor system.
it shows that the 1 nikkor lens is much sharper-; it is much easier to make good lenses for a smaller sensor.
-
Hi,
Personally I am not lusting for a Leica, but it may make sense depending one's wants/likes/needs.
Best regards
Erik
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but why don't some people admit that we also just want 'things' because of the look and feel? Why are some photographers so nuts and bolts when it comes to cameras? I learned long ago that when I buy or use a new camera or lens that I lusted after, it motivates me and I go out and get better shots. Sounds silly but we are very psychological creatures, especially us creatives. There are intangibles beyond specs that can make one camera be much more productive with a photographer than another.
There is also my love for a full size 35mm sensor - I don't care how good the others are - but when I try and travel with only a 4/3rds or APS camera, I just don't like the feel of the camera or of the images. It could be psychological but it feels real to me. I felt the same why back in the film days when I used Hasselblads, I tried moving to the then new 645 cameras but it just didn't feel the same.
I think the Leica M is a unique camera whose specs just don't tell the whole story. What's most important is the images we produce, not the camera that captures them. I think most of us would agree that any of the new digital cameras we speak of here will produce superb images. So for me, it comes down to what camera or lens makes me the most inspired to work that keep me shooting.
Price is irrelevant, if you can afford the M system, then it doesn't have any bearing on choosing it. Look at the way we buy cars. Not only on specs but for look and feel. All cars can take us to the grocery store or across the county but some of us buy Ford Escapes and others buy Range Rovers.
IMO (lusting for an M, can you tell?) ;D
Steve
-
Hi,
The plots below are based on test images with the Leica M9 and Olympus EM5 by Imaging Resource. The data shown is MTF at a pretty central point. If you check MTF at 60 lp/mm it is around 30% at for the Leica M9 and about 54% for the Olympus.
The Leica is slightly sharper as it has twice the linear image size (and four times the area), add to that the Leica has no OLP filter. But if you put the Leica lens on the EM5 it won't be as sharp as the Olympus lens.
Best regards
Erik
Both Olympus and Panasonic makes great consumer grade lenses, but I kind of doubt the "twice as sharp". Can you please point us to a test showing a Oly or Pana lens that has twice the resolution figures for same aperture of a given Leica lens with same focal length.
-
Maybe lusting is the wrong word. I've passed it up many times over the recent years, finding it hard to justify. But the new 240 seems to be a big step forward for the series. I do wish I had an M system as my travel camera. Right now I'm playing with other alternatives, but if price was no object, I see no real competition for the Leica M for my travel needs.
-
The Leica M that would really get me on-board would ditch the RF mechanism for a built-in hi-res fast-refresh EVF (geez, I feel like Hyphen Boy here...) with the focus point moveable around the entire frame. Then add exposure comp. & ISO dials to the top plate--lotsa room on the left side--et voila! They could even emulate RF focusing using dual-purpose photosites, similar to what Fuji has done with the X100s. But proper focus would be optically determined...say bye bye to the majority of mechanics-induced accuracy issues.
-Dave-
-
The Leica M that would really get me on-board would ditch the RF mechanism for a built-in hi-res fast-refresh EVF
+1!!!!
-
+1!!!!
+2 and it would probably eventually cost a bit less to manufacture.
-
Telecaster's vision for improving the Leica M with 21st century viewfinder, controls, etc. makes some sense to me, but it leaves the lenses as the only place were Leica would really contribute. So it sounds a lot like hoping for someone like Sony to make a 35mm format body that can accept M mount lenses, or for Leica to follow Zeiss into making (or at least designing) lenses for other brands of camera body, maybe as high end manual focus alternatives to the manufacturers' own AF lenses.
-
The Leica M that would really get me on-board would ditch the RF mechanism for a built-in hi-res fast-refresh EVF (geez, I feel like Hyphen Boy here...) with the focus point moveable around the entire frame. Then add exposure comp. & ISO dials to the top plate--lotsa room on the left side--et voila! They could even emulate RF focusing using dual-purpose photosites, similar to what Fuji has done with the X100s. But proper focus would be optically determined...say bye bye to the majority of mechanics-induced accuracy issues.
-Dave-
This may be the next gen Fuji or RX2. In my very humble opinion, if you want that feature set you are better served by other (much cheaper) cameras. This is not a knock, just an observation. To me the M9 using the RF gets me where I want to be. I don't have many mechanical focus errors, aside from the old focus recompose problems inherint in a single RF focus patch.
The M240 brings some flexibility to the M. The problem with teh M has always been lack of TTL, making it inflexible. My solution was to only use the M for wide portraits and street/travel. The M 240 lets you use it for macro, TTL portraits, etc. If that is how you plan on using the M240 AFuji or Sont might serve you better.
-
I actually did get a Fuji X-E1 for RF lens digi use. It's not an ideal solution but it works well. Cost itself wasn't an issue with the M240...it was the meh-ness of the camera in relation to the cost that did it in for me. Note that I speak only for myself...the M clearly fits the bill for other folks.
As for Leica M cameras in general, for now I'll stick with my old M2 and newer M6 TTL. Gotta use up all my film somehow! ;D But if Leica does make a camera like the one I describe a few posts above in this thread, or has someone else make it for them, I'll be all over it.
-Dave-
-
I actually did get a Fuji X-E1 for RF lens digi use. It's not an ideal solution but it works well. Cost itself wasn't an issue with the M240...it was the meh-ness of the camera in relation to the cost that did it in for me. Note that I speak only for myself...the M clearly fits the bill for other folks.
As for Leica M cameras in general, for now I'll stick with my old M2 and newer M6 TTL. Gotta use up all my film somehow! ;D But if Leica does make a camera like the one I describe a few posts above in this thread, or has someone else make it for them, I'll be all over it.
-Dave-
I use my M9s just as I do my M6ttl. My lust for an M240 is mainly about ISO, as I like the look of the M9 files. But in reality, I can hand hold down to 1/8th and shoot wide open, so ISO 1600 on the M9 (using C1 7.2) is usable, at least for editorial and personal use.
I'm waiting patiently for the XPro2!
-
I use my M9s just as I do my M6ttl. My lust for an M240 is mainly about ISO, as I like the look of the M9 files. But in reality, I can hand hold down to 1/8th and shoot wide open, so ISO 1600 on the M9 (using C1 7.2) is usable, at least for editorial and personal use.
I'm waiting patiently for the XPro2!
I understand all that.
I never bought an M9 because I use my M8 so infrequently. Actually I would use the M8 a lot if the thing would tether, (I know it's not meant for that but the M8 with a profoto standard head makes one beautiful image, same with harsh daylight and I'm sure the M9 would be equal or more.
The Fuji, I like, but . . . I really need more options than the lenses that are offered, though I'll look at the next version.
What I'd really love, is a OMD with a better rear lcd, a good 18 to 20 mpx that are clean to 1600 and well . . . that's about it. I'd even take a Panasonic 4/3's that did it because I own both and the Panasonic is a hell of a camera, actually better overall than the OMD, but the OMD is just really nice to use and feels so right.
I personally really have begun to like EVFs. I never thought I'd say that but the GH3 set on manual is just wysiwyg and the OMD is as fast as any optical finder. Maybe it has to recycle, but optical finders also have that fraction of a second black out period, so it's a wash.
Which comes back to the new Leica. As much as I'd like to like it, it's expensive, with the rangefinder somewhat limited on what lenses you can use and focus (unless your locked down and using the lcd) and well it's expensive.
I'm not against spending money on cameras I can earn with, or even like, but traditional or not, there are a lot of very interesting options out there in the hand held carrying class and I was really surprised with how far the smaller cameras have gone.
Maybe we're talking about different markets, but when you add in the mirrorless cameras that have full autofocus points on every bit of the frame, shoot excellent movie files and cost 1/2 of a leica lens, then the decisions become more difficult.
IMO
BC