Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/03/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] What I don't like about the new M (was Leica M240)
From: henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:13:54 -0700
References: <F4A78B27-7673-48AA-82D9-F7B809AC7574@me.com>, <6C0C8D0D-427B-45E4-8748-8D585DD4B6A1@archiphoto.com><80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E9B6FB2EC0@WhizzMAIL01.whizz.org> <834F2D15-FA08-418C-9B35-FF9A0126C84C@archiphoto.com> <C010CEAE93D44BDDA0FCCC0356ECB3F4@jimnichols> <3C77A1E2-AEF5-4DC4-AB6D-D05CCEA4AF95@archiphoto.com> <AAA20E59-572C-4A8E-8A1D-99347FCAE99E@archiphoto.com>

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
> 



Replies: Reply from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] What I don't like about the new M (was Leica M240))
Reply from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] What I don't like about the new M (was Leica M240))
In reply to: Message from gerry.walden at me.com (Gerry Walden) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica M240)