Godfrey
somewhat colored
Put on the EVF. It tilts up so you can work at a variety of angles pretty darn easily.
G
Ben Z
Veteran
I found LV poorly executed on the M240. Using it with the LCD there is no image stabilization to compensate for the compromised hand holding position. And the EVF dates back to the Olympus EP2. Resolution is barely adequate, refresh rate is slow and jittery, and the lag between shots before LV comes live again is also slow.
The only reason I spend this kind of money on a Leica is because I want a rangefinder and they are the only game in town. For TTL viewing, there are any number of amazing full-frame DSLR's out there for way less than an M240. At this point no EVF can match even an entry-level DSLR
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The M typ 240 does not replace a DSLR or TTL Electronic body, but for the more occasional use of long lenses and for studied effort at critical focusing, the EVF and LCD work fine by my evaluation. I suspect it's more a matter of expectations.
I use a Sony A7 as my "standard digital body" for Leica R and Nikkor lenses, to get a full frame sensor behind these beautiful lenses with a "Nikon FM2 like" form factor. I'm sure I'll use one of the lenses on the M-P every so often, but I bought the M9 and now M-P to use with M-mount rangefinder lenses—mostly 28, 35, and 50 mm at that.
The Olympus E-M1 is there when I want a state of the art, automated, TTL camera with all the trimmings. Its EVF is FAR better than most DSLR viewfinders until you get to the top tier of full-frame DSLRs, and its responsiveness and features are outstanding. Olympus makes excellent lenses too, even their inexpensive consumer lenses are darn good.
G
I use a Sony A7 as my "standard digital body" for Leica R and Nikkor lenses, to get a full frame sensor behind these beautiful lenses with a "Nikon FM2 like" form factor. I'm sure I'll use one of the lenses on the M-P every so often, but I bought the M9 and now M-P to use with M-mount rangefinder lenses—mostly 28, 35, and 50 mm at that.
The Olympus E-M1 is there when I want a state of the art, automated, TTL camera with all the trimmings. Its EVF is FAR better than most DSLR viewfinders until you get to the top tier of full-frame DSLRs, and its responsiveness and features are outstanding. Olympus makes excellent lenses too, even their inexpensive consumer lenses are darn good.
G
Pioneer
Veteran
Well said Ben. Leica for the digital rangefnder experience. DSLR for the TTL experience. LV is still a poor cousin, especially as displayed on the M.
The M240's EVF is outdated technology, years behind the times and outdated from day 1 of the M240 - yet it does work and gives added needed flexibility on today's best FF digital rangefinder body.
Supposedly its not possible to use a software update on the M240 to use the better Olympus EVF units - strange indeed since that is exactly what Olympus did to upgrade their older cameras.
Perhaps Olympus has not licensed Leica for their later improved EVF. Or just as likely, this is planned Leica obsolescence to give M240 owners a big carrot to upgrade to the eventual M240 replacement. I think the M241 (or whatever) will have a greatly improved EVF and that it will not be usable on the M240.
Stephen
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I just love these sweeping statements. The VF-2 was introduced with the Olympus E-P2 in Nov 2009, the VF-4 used the new hardware announced by Epson as of June 2013. The M typ 240 was announce in 2012, and became more readily available in early 2013. So the VF-2 is at most three years longer in production than the M typ 240. It remained the state of the art EVF on the market until the VF-4, which was released AFTER the M type 240 was already at the point of final hardware development.
I have both the Olympus VF-2 and VF-4. Used on the E-PL1 with a firmware update for compatibility, they render exactly the same since the E-PL1's hardware cannot support the VF-4s higher resolution mode of operation. Used on the E-PL7, the VF-4 is superior but by how much is a matter of opinion. To my eye, they are much the same; the VF-2 is/was an excellent EVF unit.
The M typ 240 video hardware that drives the LCD and EVF has to deal with more pixels from a larger sensor. I suspect there are simply hardware limitations in the M that make it difficult to drive it as well as the E-PL1 or E-PL7, and prevent providing compatibility to the VF-4. I suspect also that there would be little significant improvement if they could update to VF-4 compatibility for the same reason.
The later Visoflex type 2 EVF from the T (also X) is an improvement over the VF-2 generation like the VF-4. (I believe it uses the same Epson hardware.) How much improvement is again a matter of opinion; since I can compare them side by side, I have to say it's not by any quantum leap. The Leica X drives it well, it is useful.
I suspect Leica will use the Visoflex type 2 in the next iteration of the M but it can't be backwards compatible with the VF-2 since it uses a new (and more secure/cleaner design) hardware interface to the camera body, and it will imply a rather large improvement in the M video supporting hardware to get the most out of it as well.
Of course, the M typ 240 will continue to be just as useful as it is now even when the M typ 240+n goes on the market...
G
Godfrey,
The problem with your scenario is that you are comparing what is best for a top of the line expensive luxury camera with an average price consumer camera.
Paying a huge premium price, M240 owners deserved a premium EVF. They did not get it. Average and OK quality, sure. Great quality, no.
Stephen
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Stephen,
The "scenario" I mentioned is simply the facts of these products delivery dates.
The Epson hardware upon which the VF-4 and Visoflex type 2 is based (same for the Sony A7 series, the Olympus E-M1, the Panasonic GH4, and the Fuji XT1 as well) is the state of the art. There is nothing better available in this product domain. All of the above camera models represent the manufacturers' top of the line cameras. The fact that they're less expensive than the M means nothing.
So regardless of what M owners "deserve" to get (why? because they spend more money? that's a bit silly..), there isn't anything better to be had as yet. You can't get better than the best regardless of what you wish for.
When the M typ 240 was designed, the VF-2 was as good as you could get as it was based on the previous best available micro-LCD display product available that had been released.
Perhaps Leica could have done a little better on the video hardware. I'm sure they will with the next iteration, but the M typ 240 design was state of the art as of when it was designed, likely starting in late 2008 or early 2009 (as soon as the M9 was in final prototype stage). Leica had a lot on their plate already with the typ 240 development using a new sensor, new IO chain, more power, etc etc. And they delivered it very rapidly after the M9. The type 240 is only superficially an "upgraded M9" ... It is actually a completely new camera. (The M9 is much more an upgraded M8, with many similar parts and a very similar sensor.)
Time and the availability of appropriate components are the factors here, not wishes for what people "deserve."
G
The "scenario" I mentioned is simply the facts of these products delivery dates.
The Epson hardware upon which the VF-4 and Visoflex type 2 is based (same for the Sony A7 series, the Olympus E-M1, the Panasonic GH4, and the Fuji XT1 as well) is the state of the art. There is nothing better available in this product domain. All of the above camera models represent the manufacturers' top of the line cameras. The fact that they're less expensive than the M means nothing.
So regardless of what M owners "deserve" to get (why? because they spend more money? that's a bit silly..), there isn't anything better to be had as yet. You can't get better than the best regardless of what you wish for.
When the M typ 240 was designed, the VF-2 was as good as you could get as it was based on the previous best available micro-LCD display product available that had been released.
Perhaps Leica could have done a little better on the video hardware. I'm sure they will with the next iteration, but the M typ 240 design was state of the art as of when it was designed, likely starting in late 2008 or early 2009 (as soon as the M9 was in final prototype stage). Leica had a lot on their plate already with the typ 240 development using a new sensor, new IO chain, more power, etc etc. And they delivered it very rapidly after the M9. The type 240 is only superficially an "upgraded M9" ... It is actually a completely new camera. (The M9 is much more an upgraded M8, with many similar parts and a very similar sensor.)
Time and the availability of appropriate components are the factors here, not wishes for what people "deserve."
G
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I too enjoy Live View specifically when using ultra wides (21mm or wider) but it's a love/hate relationship. Leaving the shutter open longer means more opportunity for dust to settle on the sensor. Of course, I can clean the sensor so it's not a big deal but the one thing that I've noticed is just how much more "stubborn" the M240 is when it comes to removing dust particles from the sensor.
This of course, doesn't impact you as much if you only shoot wider apertures (i.e. f2, f4) but it's a bugger when you shoot at f8 or f11 and beyond.
Outside of that, I'm pretty happy with the camera.
Cheers,
Dave
This of course, doesn't impact you as much if you only shoot wider apertures (i.e. f2, f4) but it's a bugger when you shoot at f8 or f11 and beyond.
Outside of that, I'm pretty happy with the camera.
Cheers,
Dave
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Put a fully articulating screen on it..improve video qualities..make sure it can record at least 1hr video at a time for concerts..
Basically..put the A7s sensor in it..the gh4 screen..keep the rangefinder..maybe the most perfect cam ever for me..
Basically..put the A7s sensor in it..the gh4 screen..keep the rangefinder..maybe the most perfect cam ever for me..
That's funny.
Leica's entire marketing plan is based upon delivering the best quality products to its clients.
Had Leica wanted to use the best EVF possible, Leica could have created a new EVF from scratch instead of rebadging the Olympus VF-2 at twice the price.
Likewise if future EVF upgrades could be engineered into inexpensive Olympus cameras, those same upgrades could have been engineered into the M240.
If I am paying for a premium product, I expect a premium product. That is not what I will get with Leica's M240 digital visoflex. Even the T's EVF is better. Oddly, the T's EVF was made incompatible with the much more expensive M240.
Stephen
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Leica is not a chip designer, nor do they have a fab. The Olympus VF-2 was the best EVF available to anyone at the time of the M typ 240 design (notice it's based on the Epson device: even Olympus doesn't have the resources to design and manufacture these devices, a company many times larger than Leica). So Leica was/is delivering the best available for the design time of the camera.
The T design was started a few years later, and Leica based its EVF on the new best available hardware ...
I'm not sure why this is so contentious and difficult to accept. Every camera, every device, is locked into its design time. With electronics devices, generational changes in components cycle more quickly than optics and mechanics.
G
The T design was started a few years later, and Leica based its EVF on the new best available hardware ...
I'm not sure why this is so contentious and difficult to accept. Every camera, every device, is locked into its design time. With electronics devices, generational changes in components cycle more quickly than optics and mechanics.
G
Ben Z
Veteran
Any EVF no matter how good, is a monitor display of what the sensor picks up. It gives me the feeling of watching TV through a keyhole. To me that is even more antithetical to the Leica rangefinder "zen" than reflex viewing. As a matter of fact, as executed in the M240, the LV blackout between shots is longer than in any reflex I have owned in the last 4 decades save for Hasselblad and perhaps Pentax 67 (although I really don't recall what the lag was on that).
The EVF isn't horrible or unusable. It has it's uses in the M240. For macro, for occasional use with a tele, to cut down on the number of accessory finders needed when carrying several ultra wides of varying focal length. It (EVF) is a nice ancillary attachment. But the way some people make such an issue out of how much better the M240 is because it has LV and and EVF leads me to wonder why these people didn't simply buy a DSLR or an EVIL for a lot less money. Much of the cost and uniqueness of this camera is in that complicated opto-mechanical rangefinder.
The EVF isn't horrible or unusable. It has it's uses in the M240. For macro, for occasional use with a tele, to cut down on the number of accessory finders needed when carrying several ultra wides of varying focal length. It (EVF) is a nice ancillary attachment. But the way some people make such an issue out of how much better the M240 is because it has LV and and EVF leads me to wonder why these people didn't simply buy a DSLR or an EVIL for a lot less money. Much of the cost and uniqueness of this camera is in that complicated opto-mechanical rangefinder.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I agree completely. I didn't order the M-P for its Live View capability. Like Live View on my Panasonic L1 and Olympus E-5, it's an occasionally useful adjunct to the camera's normal functioning, not a main feature.
G
I agree Ben.
But to answer your question, its a big deal because the M240 family is the first rangefinder to offer this feature. Its a quantitative leap in rangefinder camera capabilities. Just like the standard adding totally interchangeable lenses. The II adding a rangefinder. The III adding slow speeds. The M3 adding a bright large VF with framelines. The M5 adding a meter. The M6 adding a LED meter. The M8 adding digital. The M9 adding FF digital. The M240 adding live view. Each incremental step added greatly to what a Leica rangefinder could be.
As far as the slow lag time, try the mechanical Visoflex. That beast makes the digital visoflex look a lot more appealing.
Stephen
Godfrey
somewhat colored
To me, the huge quantum jump with the M type 240 is the responsiveness of the shutter release. The M8 and M9 genera always feel sluggish to me. Now we have a digital M that responds with the crispness of the R9... 
G
G
Ben Z
Veteran
You make very valid point Stephen. I guess it's just that I find those other additions more generally useful in practice than live view.
And I have used Visoflexes for decades, up through the M9. The V-III with (sort of) instant return mirror is laggier than the EVF, but marginally so considering we're comparing a 50 yr old concept with current technology. The biggest advantage for me of the EVF vs the mechanical Visoflex, aside from the size and weight differential, is that it's now possible to fully utilize the entire spectrum of M lenses as well as SLR lenses of many brands.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
So which video camera do I buy that shoots high quality clips with a 400 mm lens? I shoot wildlife and find the ability to record behaviour between my stills a blessing.
And no, I do not fancy a pro video camera with all the gear when schlepping it in the tropical sun....I do not have a dozen BBC flappers running around.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
A Panasonic GH4 fitted with 200mm lens will net that FoV and is a superb video capture device. An Olympus E-M1 or E-PL7 will do the same, with a bit less of video options but with excellent in-camera image stabilization.
G
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually I do have a Canon Legria HF41M which is the smallest pro model, but it is extra gear to carry and I would need to switch during the shooting flow. Rather not. Nor does the lens match my vario-elmar 105-280 plus 1.4x apoextender...
I could also use my NEX7 with the Leica 80-200 R, but do not not want to carry that either as the M240 does a better job.
I could also use my NEX7 with the Leica 80-200 R, but do not not want to carry that either as the M240 does a better job.