Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Any RF, also the one in the M240, gets very tricky when focusing lenses longer than 75. 90 is already close to the limit for exact focus (for me) and 135 is a game of luck.I'm not convinced. Even if the colour shading issues are well handled I am very satisfied in my belief that the rangefinder in the M240 focusses many M lenses better than does magnified EVF. In fact, EVF focus often places the field of focus such that the potential of the lenses is not well realised at all.
Pretty much in the same boat except, instead of the EM stuff (I still have a GH2 and such) I went to the NEX and now, soon the A7r.Instead of spending my money on the M240 and the new Em1, I'll just sell my M9p and buy a A7r. and keeping the Monochrom.
Wonderful times we live in. any one of these cameras (released in the past year) has been great and we are just spoiled for choices.
Hi Stefan, You never really understood the Leica users! :shocked:What really astonishes me now is the tenor of Leica Users who are believed to be the most conservative ones, but now seem ready to jump boats in larger numbers......
Whilst you are certainly right about the longer lenses, I mildly disagree about framing - people always talk about the benefits of seeing outside the frame with a rangefinder but 35mm and wider lenses offer little advantage if any, and proper wides don't even let you see the frame. So as for framing, I thinks it is swings and roundabouts.Any RF, also the one in the M240, gets very tricky when focusing lenses longer than 75. 90 is already close to the limit for exact focus (for me) and 135 is a game of luck.
While the RF in the M240 is the best we have seen over all times IMHO, it still is not - and cannot be - as accurate as any tool with magnification. I do agree with you that magnification is not so nice as framing through the RF of the M, but if accuracy is the goal EVF with magnification (or FP) wins at least for me.
And finally the price point - sorry to repeat ...
That is a load of XX. Come on!I'm not convinced. Even if the colour shading issues are well handled I am very satisfied in my belief that the rangefinder in the M240 focusses many M lenses better than does magnified EVF. In fact, EVF focus often places the field of focus such that the potential of the lenses is not well realised at all.
While I have to agree with you WRT focus and placing the focus point, I must say I am not the user who really studies and keeps in mind field curvature of different lenses, in order to get the optimized focus. Even if that sounds inconsiderately, this is the case. I am doing photography for joy I try to avoid too much technical stuff considering in the back of my head while shooting, at least things like field curvature of the lens I am using. Plus when using WA lenses focus (exact focus) becomes in most cases less important! I am not saying this is wrong to do, just for me not the way I go.Whilst you are certainly right about the longer lenses, I mildly disagree about framing - people always talk about the benefits of seeing outside the frame with a rangefinder but 35mm and wider lenses offer little advantage if any, and proper wides don't even let you see the frame. So as for framing, I thinks it is swings and roundabouts.
I'm afraid I strongly disagree with you about focus and I am really quite certain about this: many, many people have found that the RF on the M240 gives consistently better focus than magnified EVF. This is counter-intuitive but there is a good reason which has to do with where in the field of focus the point of focus gets placed. I have written about this extensively. Like many lenses, quite a few M lenses have fields of focus which are curved or waved and which have varying depth not only at different apertures but also at different points within the FOV. Magnified focus will always 'place' the point of focus in the middle of the central focussing area. That is just not right for quite a few lenses at quite a few apertures. The 35 Lux FLE for example can focus a planar subject at F4 quite well with the RF but with the EVF, if can easily place focus in a way which is technically 'right' but which does not favour the shape of the lens's field of focus, such that the planar subject will wander in and out of focus.
Really!
There are pros and cons for each method of focussing. RF focussing is fine providing the element you're focussing on is more or less centred in the frame. If not, as soon as you focus then recompose you shift the point of focus, which is particularly problematic when focussing a lens like the 50/1.4 ASPH wide open.I'm not convinced. Even if the colour shading issues are well handled I am very satisfied in my belief that the rangefinder in the M240 focusses many M lenses better than does magnified EVF. In fact, EVF focus often places the field of focus such that the potential of the lenses is not well realised at all.
Right, could not have said it better!There are pros and cons for each method of focussing. RF focussing is fine providing the element you're focussing on is more or less centred in the frame. If not, as soon as you focus then recompose you shift the point of focus, which is particularly problematic when focussing a lens like the 50/1.4 ASPH wide open.
An EVF allows you to choose a focus point anywhere in the frame (although not with the M240).
Me three.Me too.
I'm still not convinced by the M240 image qualities ... even though rangefinders are still my preference, I can't get past that (not to mention the $7,000).
Seriously, the M Monochrome saved the day in terms of rangefinder work for me since B&W and rangefinder are synonymous to my way of thinking anyway.
However, it'd really be nice to use all these expensive M lenses, or at least some of them, on a color camera. I rued the day I sold my beautiful chrome M9P, and had thought to correct that mistake by replacing it.
Now I'll wait on that until we see how the a7r does. If I have to go CMOS, might as well be 36 meg with Sony's latest sensor technology. So, I think the problem has been solved for a lot of folks, and especially MM users.
Seriously, I cannot wait to bolt my "Vampire of the Night" M50/0.95 on this a7r with 36 meg and better ISO performance. Black cat in a coal mine at midnight? No problem!
- Marc
Oh, and it doesn't hurt that I can use all my Zeiss ZA AF lenses on this if I wish.
I have no experience shooting with an M240 with EVF. But I found focussing accuracy to be very high when shooting my 50 LUX ASPH on an NEX7. In fact, I was achieving a higher number of accurately focussed shots with this combo than with my M9. This was possibly due to the point of focus being thrown out whenever I focussed/recomposed with the M9.Whilst you are certainly right about the longer lenses, I mildly disagree about framing - people always talk about the benefits of seeing outside the frame with a rangefinder but 35mm and wider lenses offer little advantage if any, and proper wides don't even let you see the frame. So as for framing, I thinks it is swings and roundabouts.
I'm afraid I strongly disagree with you about focus and I am really quite certain about this: many, many people have found that the RF on the M240 gives consistently better focus than magnified EVF. This is counter-intuitive but there is a good reason which has to do with where in the field of focus the point of focus gets placed. I have written about this extensively. Like many lenses, quite a few M lenses have fields of focus which are curved or waved and which have varying depth not only at different apertures but also at different points within the FOV. Magnified focus will always 'place' the point of focus in the middle of the central focussing area. That is just not right for quite a few lenses at quite a few apertures. The 35 Lux FLE for example can focus a planar subject at F4 quite well with the RF but with the EVF, if can easily place focus in a way which is technically 'right' but which does not favour the shape of the lens's field of focus, such that the planar subject will wander in and out of focus.
Really!
For your needs it sounds as if you're making a wise choice then!While I have to agree with you WRT focus and placing the focus point, I must say I am not the user who really studies and keeps in mind field curvature of different lenses, in order to get the optimized focus. Even if that sounds inconsiderately, this is the case. I am doing photography for joy I try to avoid too much technical stuff considering in the back of my head while shooting, at least things like field curvature of the lens I am using. Plus when using WA lenses focus (exact focus) becomes in most cases less important! I am not saying this is wrong to do, just for me not the way I go.
With that in mind, the A7r with its capabilities to focus M lenses seems to be just right.
But I do not try to convince you nor somebody else
A very true and fair point. I wish the M240 point was selectable and the thought of that possibility on the Sony cameras is very tempting. I should also add that if using an M lens with an EVF, it is generally the case that focussing wide open with an EVF then stopping down to shoot will give a result very similar to the RF.There are pros and cons for each method of focussing. RF focussing is fine providing the element you're focussing on is more or less centred in the frame. If not, as soon as you focus then recompose you shift the point of focus, which is particularly problematic when focussing a lens like the 50/1.4 ASPH wide open.
An EVF allows you to choose a focus point anywhere in the frame (although not with the M240).
The problem with Sony is that for a while they tried to compete in a market already owned by Canon and Nikon, but now they seem to be finding a niche for themselves that hasn't already been pushed to the limit yet. Regrettably, this has left a lot of could've'been products, but it's also now given us this.Cool tho the A7 might be, I'm not sold on Sony. Had them in the past and they have a long history of putting things on the market and then not developing them far enough.
The E-M1 is a well worked out part of a comprehensive existing system. I still have and use my E-1 ... one of the finest DSLRs ever made, IMO. I just trust Olympus when it comes to professional grade cameras a lot more than Sony...
Unfortunately, professional photographers with good taste only comprise 1% of Leica's consumer base, the other 99% are posers who shop expensive designer clothing and drive sport cars that could pay off my mortgage. This camera will do nothing to change Leica's direction as long as they keep making cameras with a red dot.What really astonishes me now is the tenor of Leica Users who are believed to be the most conservative ones, but now seem ready to jump boats in larger numbers......
Another theory: Maybe Leica should at one day drop making Camera bodies and specialize completely in Lensproduction, ramp up numbers and finally make stellar earnings on that with a clean and defined portfolio.
The only problem with that : the Leica pricepoints are also defined by the Bodies, but as Zeiss now shows, this could be solved by a lens only production.
Your Thoughts ?
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
A long answer that's same in principle to what I said above, Leica is an impenetrable brand, and the A7r will only serve to potentially sway 1% of their base.Hi Stefan, You never really understood the Leica users! :shocked:
/snip/
Leica are already making lenses for Panasonic (at least lend their name for some lenses!). I do not see what Zeiss have been doing, making lenses regardless of the system.
My thought too. If the A7r will let you place the zoom point anywhere in the frame, it'll be a game changer for manual focus, nothing is as simple as WYSIWYG, field curvature and all (which you will actually see in the finder).Right, could not have said it better!
Trust me it is absolutely true. I and quite a few other people noticed it and then I tested for it extensively and consulted with some very large minds and then I wrote it all up. I have 99.9% faith in it.That is a load of XX. Come on!