Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I have now posted to my wordpress a couple of brief articles detailing some practical points on the M typ 240 that might be of help to people wondering if they want to get on a waiting list (or spend $7K on a camera). If you have any particular questions you would like answered in the future, let me know.
Part 1: Design, controls, basic operation.
Part 1a: Viewfinder.
To cut to the most important points in these pieces, I think the thing to consider most carefully is the viewfinder system. The internal viewfinder simultaneously has a high enough magnification that 28mm framelines might as well not exist (surprising if you are coming from a 0.58x or 0.6x) - but still low enough that effectively focusing 90mm lenes can be tough in some circumstances (at least to take advantage of a 24mp resolution). The external EVF is far more usable than people give it credit for, but it is oddly devoid of leveling or horizon references.
Although I am fairly happy with the camera (especially its general responsiveness and low-noise, high-ISO performance), some of what I found in the first few days was a surprise. Most surprises were pleasant; some - like the ability to accidentally trigger LV - were not.
In addition, my general impression - having used an X-Pro1 since it came out - is that an M240 plus external EVF is not significantly less usable than the X-Pro's famous hybrid viewfinder - on both, you find yourself using the optical for wider lenses and the EVF for longer focal lengths (not in the least due to sidestep parallax in focusing and framing with the Fuji). The nicer thing about the Fuji is that you don't have to shift eye position.
And since I don't sell Leicas and don't have any interest in getting rid of mine, I'll be happy to post straight answers here to questions people might have (so long as I have a basis for answering).
Dante
Part 1: Design, controls, basic operation.
Part 1a: Viewfinder.
To cut to the most important points in these pieces, I think the thing to consider most carefully is the viewfinder system. The internal viewfinder simultaneously has a high enough magnification that 28mm framelines might as well not exist (surprising if you are coming from a 0.58x or 0.6x) - but still low enough that effectively focusing 90mm lenes can be tough in some circumstances (at least to take advantage of a 24mp resolution). The external EVF is far more usable than people give it credit for, but it is oddly devoid of leveling or horizon references.
Although I am fairly happy with the camera (especially its general responsiveness and low-noise, high-ISO performance), some of what I found in the first few days was a surprise. Most surprises were pleasant; some - like the ability to accidentally trigger LV - were not.
In addition, my general impression - having used an X-Pro1 since it came out - is that an M240 plus external EVF is not significantly less usable than the X-Pro's famous hybrid viewfinder - on both, you find yourself using the optical for wider lenses and the EVF for longer focal lengths (not in the least due to sidestep parallax in focusing and framing with the Fuji). The nicer thing about the Fuji is that you don't have to shift eye position.
And since I don't sell Leicas and don't have any interest in getting rid of mine, I'll be happy to post straight answers here to questions people might have (so long as I have a basis for answering).
Dante
Pioneer
Veteran
very interesting Dante. Thx.
Still struggling with the idea of updating the M9...and if I do will it be the MM or the M240. My M9 has proven to be a very good rangefinder, digital or not.
Now, if only re-cocking the shutter didn't make so much noise.
Hmmm.
Still struggling with the idea of updating the M9...and if I do will it be the MM or the M240. My M9 has proven to be a very good rangefinder, digital or not.
Now, if only re-cocking the shutter didn't make so much noise.
Hmmm.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
interesting...thanks -
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
very interesting Dante. Thx.
Still struggling with the idea of updating the M9...and if I do will it be the MM or the M240. My M9 has proven to be a very good rangefinder, digital or not.
Now, if only re-cocking the shutter didn't make so much noise.
Hmmm.
I don't think there is any downside, and it didn't take me more than a few hours to figure out that contrary to some accounts, this (a) "renders" (whatever that means) just like an M8/M9; (b) outresolves both by a fair margin; (c) does phenomenally better in low light; and (d) responds like a modern electronic camera. I upgraded from an M8 and was not disappointed by the quantum increase in performance at all levels (of course, at a stiff price...).
The MM, I think now, may be overblown. Although I was tempted to buy one instead of the M240 at the last minute, the only dispassionate comparison of the two cameras was in Erwin Puts' testing. This showed a marginal increase over the M240 in resolution (with a $7,500 lens) and a fairly marginal improvement in tone separation - with both a higher cost and a set of annoyances essentially unchanged since the M8/M9 (excluding, I guess, IR contamination and color shifts with uncoded lenses) plus some new ones (focus shift with contrast filters).
At the end of the day, the technical output required to make good b/w prints is well within the capabilities of most digital cameras - it's more a question of how many pixels you need for your application.
Of course, it's not a stretch that the M240 will be the basis of the next MM, which will be pretty fantastic.
Dante
rscheffler
Well-known
Any thoughts on rangefinder precision/accuracy? Sounds like you're coming from the M8, but there have been a number of M9>M240 upgraders who have stated that the M240 is easier to focus with the RF patch. Do you find it any different/better?
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Leica states that the improvement is shock resistance, and based on the condition of the box containing my camera, I believe it. There may be better tolerances in the mechanism, but that is hard to gauge. There is some kind of Hall-effect sensor that detects when the lens focus is being changed.
The improved clarity/accuracy/ease of focus is not something I have been able to observe in use. My impression is that the entire finder correction has changed, which may make it easier for some people to focus the camera due to variations in eyesight. I don't see the RF spot as any brighter or contrastier than before. It's also possible that my eyesight has deteriorated in the year since ordering the camera...
Dante
rscheffler
Well-known
Dante, thanks for the informative reply!
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Update: about half of the 90mm focusing issues went away with the use of a flash, which suggests to me that you need a very fast shutter speed (<=1/180) to avoid all traces of motion blur. Still a challenge at close distances.
Update 2: it is not obvious, but the camera has slow sync on all the time. No way to turn this totally off in firmware, so your choices are (1) reciprocal of the focal length or (2) a manual choice (up to 1/125 sec). So gone is the M8 mode of putting the camera in A and having the shutter go to 1/250 (sync speed - now 1/180 sec) when the flash (via an SCA340 or newer) showed ready.
Dante
Update 2: it is not obvious, but the camera has slow sync on all the time. No way to turn this totally off in firmware, so your choices are (1) reciprocal of the focal length or (2) a manual choice (up to 1/125 sec). So gone is the M8 mode of putting the camera in A and having the shutter go to 1/250 (sync speed - now 1/180 sec) when the flash (via an SCA340 or newer) showed ready.
Dante
Pioneer
Veteran
Thanks Dante. I have rented the MM twice now and still have not bought one. It does produce magnificent black and white pictures but I am not ready to completely abandon color. I find that the M9, warts and all, is a very flexible camera and I know that there is still a lot to learn about it.
I have not yet handled the M but I have had a chance to work with an M-E for a short time and I am quite impressed with the build quality, but in the end it is not enough of an upgrade from the M9 to push me over the edge.
I want a chance to work with the M before I make my decision so I will have to wait for a chance to rent one. But it is practical reviews such as yours that keep me interested. Keep them coming!
Ben Z
Veteran
Thanks Dante, interesting commentary. I'm a patient person I guess, or maybe just resistent to change what works well for me. For example I have no quarrel at all with iOS6 and nothing iOS7 offers holds any interest for me so I have no rush to upgrade. I upgraded from the M8-M9 mainly to free myself of the obligation to use IR filters (and especially having to carry spares in several sizes on vacation when bag space is at a premiumr). But none of the improvements or additional features of the M240 are of consequence to me, and lament the loss of the preview lever even if I only use it occasionally. So I think until and unless my M9 becomes unrepairable or too costly to repair, I probably won't upgrade. But it is nice to know Leica is moving forward and selling cameras and staying in business.
lam
Well-known
What a fantastic read/continuing. Thank you.
MCTuomey
Veteran
I've had this problem on M8/M9/MM (no experience with the M240). While I can handhold an 85mm on my 5DII as low as 1/60 with decent results, I need 1/125 (and usually less) with the dRFs (and I use a thumbie). And I find the same re distance, it's worse close up. This is a problem for my club shooting where the light is marginal (no flash) and smooth technique can be challenging. Doesn't surprise me that the M240 is likely no better than its predecessors, since the body shape is quite similar and the greater resolution magnifies the impact.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
There are a few things going on that make the M view/rangefinder an improvement over the M9.
The replacement of the illumination window by a LED has had two consequences: Leica was able to use larger prisms, giving more clarity and a source of internal flare was eliminated.
Newer manufacturing methods have decreased the mechanical tolerances, leading to more precision and better shock-tolerance.
These factors have improved the viewfinder significantly. I find, for instance, that I can focus closer to infinity. Focussing in low light is far better.
And I really like the red framelines. Far less obtrusive
Pioneer
Veteran
There are a few things going on that make the M view/rangefinder an improvement over the M9.
The replacement of the illumination window by a LED has had two consequences: Leica was able to use larger prisms, giving more clarity and a source of internal flare was eliminated.
Newer manufacturing methods have decreased the mechanical tolerances, leading to more precision and better shock-tolerance.
These factors have improved the viewfinder significantly. I find, for instance, that I can focus closer to infinity. Focussing in low light is far better.
And I really like the red framelines. Far less obtrusive
Before I start I have to say that I like the M9. In my opinion it is still the best full frame camera ever built and my personal gripes are not that big.
I will have to work with the M to get a better feel for the viewfinder improvements but the rangefinder on my M9 is actually much harder to focus with than the one on my IIIc. The IIIc is easier to focus and it even includes a built-in diopter that enables me to fine tune my view in the rangefinder even further.
The viewfinder was much improved in the M3 but I do not find it any easier to focus than the IIIc. It is easier to see things but it is not easier to focus. Ever since the M3 the viewfinder has stayed largely the same but the rangefinder has gotten worse. Ignoring the flare issues the magnification has decreased and now, with the M9, it has gotten so low that I frequently have to reach for my 1.25% magnifier to return the view to the point where I can confidently focus with it. The viewfinder itself on the M9 is brighter but the rangefinder portion is even harder to use.
I do hope that Leica has started to improve their viewfinders again and I am looking forward to testing the new M. However, I am afraid that to really improve it will require making it larger like Zeiss Ikon did, though doing this may require some design changes. Instead they seem to be more locked into the digital mindset that says more is better and keep trying to cram more and more into their viewfinders.
But, everything being said, this is still a very exciting time. Leica still produces great rangefinders, digital and film, and I suspect this new one will have great improvements as well as a few annoyances, just like all the rest.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The viewfinder information is basically the same as the M9 (although the LEDs can show ISO) and in manual mode the same as the M6. The framelines are better defined and the whole thing, as I said, is less intrusive in red.
flyalf
Well-known
Second your viewfinder observation. I have been using M9 / M side-by-side for a time now, and I cannot find any improvement in RF focus. This might be due to my reduced eyesight (wearing glasses). On the other hand I have no problems with focus, and find the Leica M RF by far superior to all other AF and MF. Its hard to improve the best
.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
You can now see EV compensation as you dial it in. I agree that the red frame lines are better - but primarily at night.
Dante
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Thoughtful and useful as always Dante. Happy to have you on the bleeding edge of this. . . and to have you thinking about these cameras from a shooter's point of view. Personally, I struggle with the financial aspects of Leica's direction. It may be that I have to wait a good 5-10 years to catch these models on the downside of their depreciation curve, if you know what I mean. My gripe here is not so much a complaint as an observation that my M6 cost me about a month's pay when I bought it used in about 1991 and it is still going strong (even after being dropped, scrambled on the marble floor of Union Station in DC and then repaired about 10 years ago). The M9 new cost about two months' pay (and I make a lot more now than I did then) and is currently at Leica NJ for some dead pixel/super-schmutz sensor issues. If the sensor needs to be replaced . . . well let's just say that Kodak's recent bankruptcy and spin-off of digital assets does not inspire a lot of confidence.
On the one hand I just can't afford these cameras new (M, MM etc.). They have passed across some invisible threshold for me where they are forever on the other side of the display glass (oddly reminiscent of how I felt when I was 19 . . .). On the other hand, the fashion-industry march of progress in the digital world means a bruuuuutal depreciation curve for these machines compared to their film counterparts back in the day. So: some day, just not today.
Ben
P.S. I too find the M9 and the XPro-1 to be a killer combo.
On the one hand I just can't afford these cameras new (M, MM etc.). They have passed across some invisible threshold for me where they are forever on the other side of the display glass (oddly reminiscent of how I felt when I was 19 . . .). On the other hand, the fashion-industry march of progress in the digital world means a bruuuuutal depreciation curve for these machines compared to their film counterparts back in the day. So: some day, just not today.
Ben
P.S. I too find the M9 and the XPro-1 to be a killer combo.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
2WK
Rangefinder User
How is the shutterspeed dial on the new M? Coming from an M6 ttl, my first digital M was the Monochrom, and I was kind of shocked at how much different it sounds when you are clicking through speeds, camera pressed up against your skull. The M6 sounds/feels good and smooth. The MM sounds...I dunno...cheaper?
Just curious.
Just curious.