The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

M240 or 6D (interesting post on Diglloyd)

fotografz

Well-known member
IMO, based on what and how he shoots, this guy didn't need a Rangefinder in the first place.

My assumption is that to most, the new M-240 will still be primarily a Rangefinder, but offer options to expand usage and make it more versatile on occasion ... not unlike Leica has done in past with all the do-dads one could buy for the older film Ms like the Visoflex, etc. Not that those bolt on do-dads were directly competitive with the advent of 35mm SLRs ... just added value to their Rangefinder.

BTW, I have a few friends working with the new 24-70-II ... LLoyd must have tested a much, much, much better copy then they have is all I can say.

-Marc
 
V

Vivek

Guest
When he proclaimed that the MM is a $#%T product, I knew for sure he has no clue about anything.
 

wentbackward

New member
IMO, based on what and how he shoots, this guy didn't need a Rangefinder in the first place.

My assumption is that to most, the new M-240 will still be primarily a Rangefinder, but offer options to expand usage and make it more versatile on occasion ... not unlike Leica has done in past with all the do-dads one could buy for the older film Ms like the Visoflex, etc. Not that those bolt on do-dads were directly competitive with the advent of 35mm SLRs ... just added value to their Rangefinder.

BTW, I have a few friends working with the new 24-70-II ... LLoyd must have tested a much, much, much better copy then they have is all I can say.

-Marc
Marc, I shared precisely these sentiments when I read his review of the M9. He kept banging on about needing live view for critical focus on images where he could clearly use hyper focal. People like him are dangerous with a bit of knowledge.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
When he first started 3-4 years ago, he was quite objective. I even paid for a 1 year subscription. But I think he recently lost his marbles :D
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I can't wait to see all these new higher spec cheap as chips CaNikon lenses coming out to better Leica's lenses - I have to say I am quite amazed at the ( apparent fact?) that the new zoom from Canon is better than certain Leica primes....what a pity we can't all just bolt the old 24-70 Canon zoom and be done with all Leica lenses in one fell swoop...for pocket change too!!

have to go now - because I PMSL and hurt myself whilst ROFLMAO...
 

Paratom

Well-known member
just yesterday I shot Canon (5dIII) and Leica (MM and S2) in same conditions again and found that while the Canon delivers very good IQ the Leica delivers better and more special IQ.
IMO the Leica M excels even with Summarits and Summicrons, you dont need the new apo-summicron.
The 5DIII excels in AF speed and flexibility by far and also delivers very nice IQ.
The good AF was THE reason for me to get a DSLR and thats why I would prefer the 5dIII over the 6d. The 24-70II seems to be indeed a fine lens.

I agree with all that these are 2 very different cameras. Different enough for me to use both.

The author forgot that the 24-70 does not really replace a 21mm lens, so he should add the Zeiss 21/2.8 to his calculation.
 
Last edited:

jaapv

Subscriber Member
Just confirms my opinion of this bloke - He is aiming to outdo Ken Rockwell - and succeeding. :ROTFL:
 

Seascape

New member
It's fairly obvious from Digiloyd's experience that the 6D 24-70 zoom kit is vastly superior to the M240 alternative :eek:

Didn't see that coming, better cancel that pre-order and let some other sucker move up on the wait list.

Glad I read this thread......the things you learn on the internet, :rolleyes:
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Let me provide a different perspective . I never rely on LLyods conclusions his shooting requirements are completely different than mine . He enjoys hiking or biking to remote locations and shoots primarily landscapes. My work is almost all street shooting with a dose of travel work (postcards). So we have different requirements .

When he thinks about a Leica M he is interested in small,light weight (because he is hiking in the mountains ) and the access to the superb M lenses. To get the most out of the M glass he wants LV as do most landscape photographers (nothing wrong about wanting to have the very best focusing ). I could go on but a Leica M is a high quality portable system . He also raves about the CCD aesthetic and the brilliance he can achieve with the best Leica M glass.

He is not a RF advocate and as Marc indicated above ..he doesn t not appear to appreciate RF shooting . But thats probably because of the type of work he routinely does .

His tests are very thorough ..some of the best I ve found anywhere . Exceptional consistency in both taking the test shots and processing them . He also provides insights into the tests themselves ..like concerns about field curvature or focus shift biasing his examples .

Couldn t agree more that he is frequently outspoken on details that most will never see. Heck I look sometimes several times to even see what he is talking about . He does seem to enjoy taking confrontational positions and this after a while creates a question about the value of his reporting .

But ..I think you maybe "throwing the baby out with the bath water " by discarding his work as either inaccurate or somehow flawed . I don t have to agree with his conclusions to appreciate his testing and insights .
 

barjohn

New member
Let me provide a different perspective . I never rely on LLyods conclusions his shooting requirements are completely different than mine . He enjoys hiking or biking to remote locations and shoots primarily landscapes. My work is almost all street shooting with a dose of travel work (postcards). So we have different requirements .

When he thinks about a Leica M he is interested in small,light weight (because he is hiking in the mountains ) and the access to the superb M lenses. To get the most out of the M glass he wants LV as do most landscape photographers (nothing wrong about wanting to have the very best focusing ). I could go on but a Leica M is a high quality portable system . He also raves about the CCD aesthetic and the brilliance he can achieve with the best Leica M glass.

He is not a RF advocate and as Marc indicated above ..he doesn t not appear to appreciate RF shooting . But thats probably because of the type of work he routinely does .

His tests are very thorough ..some of the best I ve found anywhere . Exceptional consistency in both taking the test shots and processing them . He also provides insights into the tests themselves ..like concerns about field curvature or focus shift biasing his examples .

Couldn t agree more that he is frequently outspoken on details that most will never see. Heck I look sometimes several times to even see what he is talking about . He does seem to enjoy taking confrontational positions and this after a while creates a question about the value of his reporting .

But ..I think you maybe "throwing the baby out with the bath water " by discarding his work as either inaccurate or somehow flawed . I don t have to agree with his conclusions to appreciate his testing and insights .
I agree with you completely. Careful controlled testing is very hard work and he does appear to be very diligent and careful with full explanations for what he is seeing along with well chosen examples.
 

Jeff S

New member
Some things he suggests to the writer seem quite reasonable, e.g., that he actually try out the Canon system to see if it suits his needs, rather than just pushing his own POV. But, at other times, he just seems foolish, as when he states that the 50 APO Summicron is a 'must have' lens, as if something like the 50 Summilux asph (or a host of other options) would be totally unworthy.

I find most of these types of comparisons amusing in any case, as I doubt most people could guess the camera or lens used by looking at a print in the first place. There are just too many variables in the entire workflow from camera to print, and too many different individual needs and preferences, to get so hung up on absolute statements about camera/lens choices.

It's unusual to find reviewers (like Sean Reid, for instance) who provide objective analyses, clearly state their own needs and preferences, and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.

Jeff
 

barjohn

New member
Jeff,

I too appreciate Sean Reid's reviews but they are lacking in what they could be due to his selection of Adobe Flash for presentation. As a friend of Sean's I have tried to encourage him to use a different format but he is concerned with having his material used and copied and feels that until a new format offers him the equivalent security he can't change. In addition to not being compatible with all of my Apple hardware, the inability to easily see larger images or 100% images means that I can't always see what he sees to draw his conclusion. Lloyd makes it easy to see 100% images and that really helps when he is making a visual point. Both have their prejudices. Sean likes RF viewing and Lloyd doesn't, Sean like street and Lloyd likes landscape. Both present relatively objective reviews when reviewing equipment. The thing I miss on Sean's reviews is the lack of using targets other than vegetables such as portraits, and landscapes along with test targets in the lab. For example, I can't determine skin tone from vegetable shots or small street shots. In my opinion they both do very good work and their work compliments one another. I don't always agree with either of them but that is where personal experience, preference and bias come into play.
 

MirekE

New member
For my purposes, Leica M seems to be an ideal landscape camera. The system is smaller and lighter than FF DSLR (especially with wide lenses) and does not require heavy tripod. The sensor is optimized for best color and resolution - both important for landscape. Electronic viewfinder probably offers superior focusing compared to LV.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Let me provide a different perspective . I never rely on LLyods conclusions his shooting requirements are completely different than mine . He enjoys hiking or biking to remote locations and shoots primarily landscapes. My work is almost all street shooting with a dose of travel work (postcards). So we have different requirements .

When he thinks about a Leica M he is interested in small,light weight (because he is hiking in the mountains ) and the access to the superb M lenses. To get the most out of the M glass he wants LV as do most landscape photographers (nothing wrong about wanting to have the very best focusing ). I could go on but a Leica M is a high quality portable system . He also raves about the CCD aesthetic and the brilliance he can achieve with the best Leica M glass.

He is not a RF advocate and as Marc indicated above ..he doesn t not appear to appreciate RF shooting . But thats probably because of the type of work he routinely does .

His tests are very thorough ..some of the best I ve found anywhere . Exceptional consistency in both taking the test shots and processing them . He also provides insights into the tests themselves ..like concerns about field curvature or focus shift biasing his examples .

Couldn t agree more that he is frequently outspoken on details that most will never see. Heck I look sometimes several times to even see what he is talking about . He does seem to enjoy taking confrontational positions and this after a while creates a question about the value of his reporting .

But ..I think you maybe "throwing the baby out with the bath water " by discarding his work as either inaccurate or somehow flawed . I don t have to agree with his conclusions to appreciate his testing and insights .
Just as an example: I could never duplicate the AF-problems he described to have with the S2.
When I e-mailed him about it he seemed not much interested to find out if anything had changed after his test of this particular S2.

If it happens 2-3 times that someone writes 10 pages about a prodcuct but some of his main findings are totally different from what you, as a user of the same product find out - than one looses trust in the methology of a reviewer.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I am at a loss to understand the patience of some of the folks who pay to read such crap.

Ken Rockwell, at least, is open about what he spews out and everything he spews is visible to one and all.
 

jaapv

Subscriber Member
The moment I wrote him off as a serious voice was when he was gobsmacked to find that a deep red filter produces focus shift on a non-Apo lens and promised to do "further testing on this issue" Basics 1 of photography:rolleyes:....
Being constitutionally unable to focus manually does not inspire much confidence either.
 
Top