Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/03/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I shoot more at 2m than at 1m, but when the finder lines, as in the M8, is set at the shortest focussing distance for each lens (not 1m), I never cut off important parts. Now it's a bit of a crap shoot when using various bodies. Grrrr.... Rangefinder framelines are not accurate. Live with it. Now it's all over the place. THAT'S whats annoying. Henning On 2013-03-13, at 6:39 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote: > Leica Camera received so many customer complaints regarding the 1m setting > on the M8 that they changed it to 2m on the M8.2 and offered it as an > upgrade on M8's. > I welcome the decision to make the M 2m. I shoot much more often at 2 to 3m > than 1m especially with my 75. I dislike frequently finding too much space > around my subjects ;-) > Impossible to please everyone of course. > On Mar 14, 2013 11:14 AM, "Henning Wulff" <henningw at archiphoto.com> > wrote: > >> I just remembered another thing I don't like about the new M240. >> >> The frame lines are set for accuracy at 2m. That just plain sucks. I now >> have an M8, set for nearest focussing distance, an M9 set for 1m and the >> new M set for 2m. Heads are going to roll. Image wise, definitely. I will >> be chopping a lot. On the 75mm, the difference between nearest focussing >> distance and 2m is huge. Since 1960 I've gotten used to and been happy >> with >> Leica M framelines showing as much or more than I'll be getting on my >> pictures. And now I'll be getting less sometimes??? This is a mess. I >> never >> had problems with the 'nearest focussing distance' setup, and this will >> definitely cause problems. >> >> Henning >> >> >> On 2013-03-13, at 1:02 PM, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> >> wrote: >> >>> To the list of things I don't like should be added: >>> >>> The baseplate thing. Yes, they did now make the tripod socket part of >> the body, and it is centered, but now you can't change card or battery >> when >> the camera is on a tripod. I suppose they expect you to use the >> multi-function grip in that instance, as that is also where hdmi out and >> other sockets are. I hardly ever use an M on a tripod, but now that it has >> macro and tele capability, I'm sure it will be used on a tripod more than >> before. >>> >>> Why not have regular doors for battery and card, and have done with the >> baseplate? It's a stronger and better made baseplate now, but it still is >> a >> clunky thing you would like an extra hand for when changing battery and >> card. When the M3 and M2 came out there was at least a plausible reason >> for >> the baseplate, and at least with the M4 they fixed the need for a fourth >> hand, but today the affectation of the removable baseplate is just silly. >>> >>> Henning >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2013-03-13, at 10:44 AM, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I use fast cards in all the cameras; at the moment class 10 cards seem >> to be the optimum as far as price/cost goes. I tried faster cards, but the >> difference was miniscule. Class 6 cards are now no less expensive than >> Class 10, but are definitely slower in various cameras. >>>> >>>> I should also mention that I agree with much of what Steve Huff said. >> I'm hardly a fan of his and his style, but he has got most things right. >> To >> counter some of his over the top enthusiasm, I should mention a couple of >> gripes I have with the new camera. >>>> >>>> 1. It's too big. It has gotten heavier and a millimeter thicker. Not >> much, but bigger again than the film M's. The general excuse is that the >> sensor/LCD/control pack needs the additional thickness. Yes it does, but >> all that means is that the distance from the lens flange to the LCD has to >> be greater than the distance of the lens flange to the back of the film >> cameras. Why not have the lens flange more exposed? Have it stick forward >> a >> couple of millimeters and have the camera body the same size as an >> M2-6(pre-TTL)? Obviously the larger battery has to go somewhere, but it is >> packaged back to back with the SD card, so if it's just the battery, it >> could fit in the thickness of an M4. I know it's probably stuffed full, >> but >> let's work a little on miniaturization. Take a look at an RX-1; that has a >> body that's a lot smaller than an M2. After all that I have to say that >> using it for 30 minutes makes it disappear into your hands, and you notice >> neither the thickness nor the weight >> p >>> ar >>>> ticularly. >>>> >>>> 2. Exposure compensation doesn't work well. Now you have to hold in the >> button on the front where the rewind lever was on film Leicas, and turn >> the >> thumb wheel, all while holding the camera to your eye. Contortionists in >> the crowd? The M9 could do this with just the rear wheel; much easier. For >> those that say they never used exposure compensation and they often >> accidentally moved the M9 dial, I say why not make this an option. Also >> make the use of the movie button an option. I'm not going to use this for >> movies, so repurpose it. This should be fixable via firmware. >>>> >>>> 3. The new shutter release threads, about which I've written before. >>>> >>>> 4. The electronic viewfinder (I got hold of a used Olympus one) while >> quite sharp and with decent colour, is _really_ laggy. A lot different >> than >> essentially the same viewfinder in the Olympus OM-D. It's useable, but >> certainly not state of the art. That they should have gotten right, as >> that >> is technology that has been available for a while. I doubt this is fixable >> via firmware. However, there is a slight upside to this. It means that for >> longer lenses, using magnified view doesn't cause as bad jitters due to >> lack of stabilization as with a faster refresh. Of course, that also means >> that the refresh for focussing isn't any faster than 30fps. >>>> >>>> Regarding image quality, I'm with Steve Huff also. It has amazing >> quality, and while different than that of the M9, I would definitely say >> that the new M is better. I profile all my cameras with a Colorchecker >> Passport, so I get consistent output from all cameras, and I'm not >> dependent on Adobe's profiles. The new M handles a much bigger dynamic >> range, and doesn't produce nastiness in blown highlights. In fact, >> highlights seem to roll off as well as on the Olympus OM-D, and that is >> high praise. In other respects of course the M image quality is a lot >> higher than that of the OM-D. Wide angle lenses behave better than on the >> M9, and even the 12mm Cosina is useable again. >>>> >>>> Henning >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2013-03-13, at 10:05 AM, "Jim Nichols" <jhnichols at lighttube.net> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Henning, >>>>> >>>>> Owning neither the M8 nor M9, I'm just a casual observer. However, >> from what I have read, wait times can be card dependent. Are you using >> the >> fastest cards available for the M9? >>>>> >>>>> Jim Nichols >>>>> Tullahoma, TN USA >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henning Wulff" < >> henningw at archiphoto.com> >>>>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:59 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica M240 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I sometimes shoot 7 shots in 15 seconds, all single shot. Then I get >> to wait, and if the next good moment comes up 5 seconds after the last >> shot??? It's just a slow camera. >>>>>> >>>>>> Henning >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2013-03-12, at 1:59 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That does not sound right, as (what I call) single shots I have >> never hit the buffer. If you mean 'many' (about 7 or 8) shots in 4 >> secsonds >> on single shot mode that is different... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> john >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> on behalf of Henning Wulff [henningw at archiphoto.com] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would say that that major improvement in the new M is the speed. I >> never have to wait for the camera, as I do with the M9. If I do single >> shots, which is 99% of the time, I really can't outshoot it, whereas the >> M9 >> often required me to wait 30 seconds until the buffer cleared, which is a >> long time. Reviewing shots is also much faster. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henning Wulff >>>>>> henningw at archiphoto.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Henning Wulff >>>> henningw at archiphoto.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> Henning Wulff >>> henningw at archiphoto.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >