Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M240 aka Leica M10, M-P, M60

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 02-28-2012   #41
Ben Z
Registered User
 
Ben Z is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,554
Twisting statements out of context works for politicians because they know the masses won't bother to research. But on a short thread on a net forum where the posts are right there at hand, not so much
__________________
MY GALLERY
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2012   #42
Jeff S
Registered User
 
Jeff S is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 271
That's why I cited the post #'s...for all to see.

Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2012   #43
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
What's the meaning of those rolleyes emoticons? "What a Jerk", "Grow Up", "You Jackass"?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2012   #44
Jeff S
Registered User
 
Jeff S is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCT View Post
What's the meaning of those rolleyes emoticons? "What a Jerk", "Grow Up", "You Jackass"?
These are directed at the statement, not at the person. The statement is ridiculous, not the person. To say that "the M9 is substantially better than the M8 in every way" is, to me, a ridiculous and untrue statement. Based on your well articulated prior posts, I would think that you would agree.

There's a difference between that and someone saying that I personally don't know how to see details. And then when I give my background to support my ability to differentiate, the response is again a personal attack.

What I find amazing, forgetting about all the 'who said what' commentary, is that so far I seem to be in the minority here as one who has actually printed under controlled conditions using both cameras, side by side, and viewed actual prints to determine (for me, not anyone else) if there is any meaningful difference between the 2 cameras at my print sizes.

I get that people are in love with their M9s and will defend them to their death (correct that...until they get an M10). But, when people chime in without any such testing on their own (or in Ben's case, he chimed in even when he personally didn't see a difference in his own prints, which to me is the only relevant standard, regardless who did the printing), the conclusions they submit are not credible to me. Doesn't mean they are a bad person, just that their conclusions lack foundation.

Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2012   #45
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,612
Sadly, this thread seems to have gone way out of line.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2012   #46
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff S View Post
To say that "the M9 is substantially better than the M8 in every way" is, to me, a ridiculous and untrue statement.
Dear Jeff,

I have both, and yes, I do see a difference. But what of it? As I think I said earlier, a very important point was getting my focal lengths back, especially fast wide-angles: I was screwing up my courage to buy a 24/1,4 when the M9 came out. No contest!

And, again as I said in an earlier post, really, all you are arguing with is 'substantially'; and, it appears from the above 'in every way'. To counter that with 'ridiculous and untrue' strikes me as very nearly as much an overstatement as 'substantially better in every way'.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2012   #47
Jeff S
Registered User
 
Jeff S is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
I have both, and yes, I do see a difference. But what of it? As I think I said earlier, a very important point was getting my focal lengths back, especially fast wide-angles: I was screwing up my courage to buy a 24/1,4 when the M9 came out. No contest!

And, again as I said in an earlier post, really, all you are arguing with is 'substantially'; and, it appears from the above 'in every way'. To counter that with 'ridiculous and untrue' strikes me as very nearly as much an overstatement as 'substantially better in every way'.
On paragraph one above, Roger, I fully understood your rationale regarding focal lengths. Many agree. On issues other than image quality, I too presented my own preferences for the M8.2 over the M9 (last two paragraphs of post #19). Different strokes is all, and that's what good discussion is about. There's no right or wrong on these points, merely personal preference.

On your second paragraph, we just disagree. At least we're arguing over statements, not our mothers.

Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2012   #48
Viktor Sebastian
~
 
Viktor Sebastian is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Iceland
Posts: 328
I've been using a leica m for 40 years as well. Oh wait, i'm not even 30.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2012   #49
Glass Addict
Registered User
 
Glass Addict is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 93
Well, I quit reading after first page.

I had M8.2 but now have M9... reason?

I like having a dedicated ISO button...

Lighten up, I come to RFF to relax.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-29-2012   #50
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 782
As one of my lenses needs calibrating, my dealer now has my M9. He kindly loaned me a M8.2 while the lens is being matched with the body, and I've just started to look for differences in image quality between the two cameras.

This afternoon's limited shooting seems to show little difference between the M8 and M9, if one were to think of the M8 image as a crop of the M9's. I think the M9 has slightly different white balance and colour, and I think it is sharper or more detailed at 100% view. I don't have any IR filters, nor are many of my lenses coded, but so far I haven't encountered the dreaded purple black synthetics or over-vignetting in the Zeiss 21/2.8.

I haven't made any prints so I can't compare them in that fashion.

I am also finding the M8.2 slower to view things like menu functions. It also appears to have a different-sounding shutter recock motor! The M9's motor seems to have a higher pitch compared with the M8.2. I prefer the sound of the M8.2!
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-29-2012   #51
aldobonnard
Registered User
 
aldobonnard is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 272
The M8 was a missed prototype
The M9 is a M8 with more pixels and corrections from the "prototype" M8

and that's the reason why I have a R-D1 :-))

(c'mon, have a laugh !!!)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-29-2012   #52
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,156
Hmmm.. Different strokes for different folks I guess - the RD1 lasted one week with me for all its warts. Basically a Bessa (which I already disliked in the film days) with some Nikon D70 electronics thrown in... - My 2006 M8 I still have and I find only gradual differences when switching to it from the M9.... There is nothing prototype-like about it.
Still, the RD1 has its following, so I am probably missing something here.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-29-2012   #53
rf1552
Registered User
 
rf1552 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 46
ok, thanks for all your input guys. Im leaning towards maybe an m8.2 instead of an M9. I really wanted to see the difference but I printed out two 12x18 landscape shots taken with the M8 and the M9 and out 12-15 ppl I showed them to- 0% of my friends and photography friends could tell the difference besides a bit more detail in the M9 shot. From 4-5 ft away, they couldnt tell between the two. Sealed my decision on not upgrading to an M9.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-29-2012   #54
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by rf1552 View Post
. . . 0% of my friends and photography friends could tell the difference besides a bit more detail in the M9 shot. . .
Yes, 'a bit more detail' is about all I'd realistically expect, though actually 'a bit more detail' can be a surprisingly complex subject. A lot depends on how much that 'bit more detail' is worth to you. That in turn depends on what sort of subjects you shoot, and what you like in a picture. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' in it, and indeed you'd be foolish to 'upgrade' after performing a real-world test that answers your questions.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-29-2012   #55
DennisPT
Registered User
 
DennisPT is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 270
I revisited the M8 3 years later with the M8.2 and found myself enjoying it a lot more, very likely because I've stopped thinking about the crop. But again, that's me and I'm glad the OP has got this sorted out.
__________________
Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.– HCB
Konica RF Hexar, BP M8.2 & assorted lens .
Latest GAS attack: Summar of Love
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2012   #56
Ben Z
Registered User
 
Ben Z is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Hmmm.. Different strokes for different folks I guess - the RD1 lasted one week with me for all its warts. Basically a Bessa (which I already disliked in the film days) with some Nikon D70 electronics thrown in... - My 2006 M8 I still have and I find only gradual differences when switching to it from the M9.... There is nothing prototype-like about it.
Still, the RD1 has its following, so I am probably missing something here.
My RD1 lasted me longer than a week, but I can't say I miss it, or constantly having to take it halfway apart to readjust the rangefinder. The image quality for 6mp wasn't half bad though, and it was about a lot less sensitive to IR that the M8. I think I probably would have kept it longer had it not been for Epson's virtual abandonment of it in terms of repair service. The reason I remember the RD1 as fondly as I do, is that "coincidentally" soon thereafter Leica stopped insisting a digital M was impossible, and not too much later introduced the M8. I felt the same way about my Hexar-RF and how "coincidentally" soon thereafter Leica stopped insisting an M body with an electronically-controlled shutter and AE was impossible, and not too much later introduced the M7.
__________________
MY GALLERY
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2012   #57
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Z View Post
My RD1 lasted me longer than a week, but I can't say I miss it, or constantly having to take it halfway apart to readjust the rangefinder.
Well, yours is probably not the average user experience. I find it pretty effortless to remove the hot shoe once a year or two.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2012   #58
Ben Z
Registered User
 
Ben Z is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
Well, yours is probably not the average user experience. I find it pretty effortless to remove the hot shoe once a year or two.
I agree it was pretty effortless, but it got old fast, especially since it was happening every few weeks even though I put a drop of nailpolish on the screw, and I was constantly taking test shots because I was afraid to trust it. It was odd because the screw didn't seem like it was loose. There probably was some anomaly in my particular rangefinder because like you said, it's not typically that bad. There were other things about the camera I wasn't fond of like the 42mm-effective maximum wide frames and manual frame switching, but all in all it was a very nicely executed camera and for 6mp the IQ was impressive, and it suffered from much less IR than the M8, that's for sure. I really liked that I could change all the settings I ever needed with the top dials and could flip the screen over and it was hidden and protected. I only use my M9 screen for the menus and wish it didn't have to remain exposed. The thumb-shutter cocking lever was nicely familiar after decades of film cameras. So as you see it's not as if I hated the camera, and to this day I admire it for being groundbreaking.
__________________
MY GALLERY
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2012   #59
elmer3.5
Registered User
 
elmer3.5's Avatar
 
elmer3.5 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Age: 44
Posts: 543
Hi, the m9 has the same photodiodes density of the m8 sensor, had an upgraded m8 and now an m9, i find impressive the m8 pictures but it canīt be used when you like to have both control of dof and 50mm fov.

If i was a wide angle shooter i wuld go for an m8 but i enjoy too much using real 50mm.

The crop factor can be annoying even with 1.3x.

But besides that my lte chrome m8 was better built than my black m9, even the neckstrap was better this m9 one is loosing all threads and now is hairy, the plastic caps that hold the strap fastened to the camera lugs are all lose!

Not to mention the black finish...
__________________
Elmer3.5

m9 + sonnar zm 50
m3 + rollei sonnar 40
g1 + planar 45
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2012   #60
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
I would not choose a crop camera for wides. It is the main problem of R-D1 & M8/8.2 IMHO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2012   #61
Cyriljay
Registered User
 
Cyriljay's Avatar
 
Cyriljay is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff S View Post
C'mon guys...substantially? in every way?

I own 2 M8.2s and would have owned 2 M9s instead (cost is not an issue), but after trying the M9 and making prints for 14x18 (framed) size, there was no justification for moving to the M9. I don't print super big, don't shoot super wide, nor at high ISO (400 ASA worked fine for me for a few decades).

Given my workflow, I find that there are far more differences in print quality by what happens down the chain after the files come from the camera (once starting with either the M8 or M9)...everything from software to papers to custom profiles to printer to inks...and all the myriad judgments and settings along the way.

I recently hung an exhibit of color and b/w prints for a gallery at a major TV network studio, where there is a 3 year wait list for shows. The building manager and many staff told me it was the nicest show they had seen in years. All prints were made using the M8.2 (except one scan from an M6 neg).

I suppose my show would have been 'substantially' better in 'every way' if I had only had the common sense to use an M9.

Oh, and not that it makes any difference in the print quality, but I'll take the following features of my camera any day compared to the M9: the 2m frame lines are the best I've used on any M...ever (and this has real effect on my picture taking); I much prefer having a top display; and I get chrome and sapphire screen without having to pay anything extra. In addition, for the same FOV, I prefer using my 50 Summilux asph and the 50 frame lines anyday compared to using my 75 Summicron asph...never liked those 75 lines on any M.

Plus, with a second generation camera (M8.2), I didn't have to put up with all the teething problems of the M8, unlike what some M9 users have had to endure along the way, e.g., red edge, purple fringe, card issues, sensor crack issues, buffer issues with huge files, etc. I expect all this to be sorted out, and none was a real influence on my purchase decision, but you did say the M9 was substantially better in every way. Please spare me.

Jeff
I second Jeff and love my M8 and Now it is Upgraded to M8.2 and i am happy with just 3 Cron lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2012   #62
Tom Niblick
Registered User
 
Tom Niblick is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 222
Getting back to the original question, I noticed a few minor IQ differences when I switched from the M8 to a M9. The color response seems slightly different giving the M9 a slight edge but the M8 files look slightly sharper. Making this comparison is like splitting hairs. In day to day use, there is very little difference between the two cameras. In fact, the M8 was an absolutely stellar camera. I wish I could have afforded to keep mine but the M9 was such a stretch financially that it had to go. No regrets but anyone looking for a great camera on a "budget" should consider a good used M8.

Tom
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-08-2012   #63
Redridge
Registered User
 
Redridge is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
I loved my M8.2.... great image quality because it uses the lenses sweet spot (the middle of the lense). With that said, my M9 gets used the most because of the FF... IQ is very, very, very close between the two.... that is all I can say really.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-08-2012   #64
noimmunity
scratch my niche
 
noimmunity's Avatar
 
noimmunity is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lyon/Taipei
Age: 54
Posts: 3,113
The conclusion to draw from this and countless other threads and photos is that the IQ isn't that different (Tom sums up the differences the best). Get the M9 if you need to print really large, or if you need FF. FF seems to be about the most convincing argument in favor of the M9.

Hey Jeff, thanks for speaking up!
__________________
jon 小強


flickr
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2013   #65
bideford
Registered User
 
bideford is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 75
I only found this thread because my M8.2 has the dreaded coffee stain and it looks like I have to make the choice as to whether I should use the upgrade path through Solms. Love the M8.2 and have resisted the temptation up to now to upgrade mainly due to being used to the crop view through my lenses (and yes I know I could crop the full frame images to suit). As I do crop I am however tempted by the greater resolution of the FF. At any rate with the admittedly cosmetic stain I do have a choice to make.

Late to the party I may be, but from a relatively innocent OP question it does astound me how a thread can fall to such depths.

Cheers and chill everyone (and please resist the temptation to flame me - I'm not that defensive/fragile/bothered).

James
  Reply With Quote

Coffee Stain
Old 10-05-2013   #66
kena
Registered User
 
kena's Avatar
 
kena is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 53
Posts: 115
Coffee Stain

My M8.2 also just got the "coffee stain". What is the protocol from Leica on this? Are they still offering some sort of replacement / upgrade program? I'm not the original owner but do have the original purchase receipt. K
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2013   #67
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
AFAIK Leica used to offer upgrades to M9 or M9-P bodies under the following conditions:
Within 2 years (warranty period): free of charge
Within 3 years: 1500 EUR (M9) or 1920 EUR (M9-P)
Within 4 years: 2000 EUR (M9) or 2420 EUR (M9-P)
Within 5 years: 2500 EUR (M9) or 2920 EUR (M9-P)
Within 6 years: 3000 EUR (M9) or 3420 EUR (M9-P)
See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...ml#post2223419
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2013   #68
bideford
Registered User
 
bideford is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 75
Thanks LCT - I have seen those numbers elsewhere and hopefully they are somewhere near the mark (although maybe against the M-E). One of the reasons I got the M8.2 was for the sapphire screen and unfortunately unless they are able to find a M9-P from somewhere I will lose out. Other than that I can only hope that they recognize that M8.2 resale prices are higher than M8's and are willing to offer m a little more.....

Either way I still take a hit - this will cost me and I will be without a rangefinder for a period of time. The stain may be cosmetic but it will affect the resale value (or make it more difficult to sell perhaps) - I was really happy with the M8.2 as well!

When I got the camera I had to send it off to Solms for a sensor pixel remap(?) and I have to say the service and communication was excellent. They turned it round in less than two weeks just before Christmas.

James
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2013   #69
wpm
Registered User
 
wpm is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 40
I'm not here to fan the flames between which has better IQ, the M8 or 9.
Two weeks ago I bought an M8.2 in good shape with just a little brassing for character. I held my breath with all the known issues with Leica no longer supporting that model. I decided it would quench my GAS for a digital M for awhile.
Anyway, as to image quality, I've noticed that with certain grays, notably my Mazda MX5, the image comes out blue. I've used coded and non-coded lens, with and without ir cut filters, auto white balance and wb taken with an expo disk. Still comes out blue. Am I missing something or am I destined to deal with this in pp?
Thanks in advance for any help.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2013   #70
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
A grey card may suffice but there is always a bit of tweaking to do in PP.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2013   #71
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,384
Better high ISO, full frame, no IR filters and being able to manually select lens I think thats enough to warrant the upgrade.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2013   #72
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,206
This is a very interesting thread

it could be made more so by comparing the M8 and M9 to the M240 as well

I've adjusted the original title hoping to get additional M240 comparisons


Stephen
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2013   #73
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,940
I like using the M8 and the M9. I use with the M9 a wide angle lens, which works well with a FF camera. I use with the M8 a 50mm lens to get a short tele for portraits. The set of cameras is great for my needs.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2013   #74
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is online now
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 4,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viktor Sebastian View Post
I've been using a leica m for 40 years as well. Oh wait, i'm not even 30.
I enjoyed this post more than a lot of the others.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2013   #75
LCT
Registered User
 
LCT's Avatar
 
LCT is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,365
For upgrading to M-E see: http://*******.com/p8alm7r

Quote:
Originally Posted by LCT View Post
AFAIK Leica used to offer upgrades to M9 or M9-P bodies under the following conditions:
Within 2 years (warranty period): free of charge
Within 3 years: 1500 EUR (M9) or 1920 EUR (M9-P)
Within 4 years: 2000 EUR (M9) or 2420 EUR (M9-P)
Within 5 years: 2500 EUR (M9) or 2920 EUR (M9-P)
Within 6 years: 3000 EUR (M9) or 3420 EUR (M9-P)
See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...ml#post2223419
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-02-2013   #76
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
This is a very interesting thread

it could be made more so by comparing the M8 and M9 to the M240 as well

I've adjusted the original title hoping to get additional M240 comparisons


Stephen
Happily.
If you are looking for a dramatic increase in image quality in run-of-the-mill photographic circumstances as some posters here are doing you will be disappointed in the M over the M9 (as with he M9 vs the M8; we are into diminishing returns in digital photography by now) Even the increased noise performance is not very important for standard photography - even an M8 can be teased into good low-light shooting; the M9 more so and the M makes it a bit easier again. I find it of limited relevance.

Having said that I am home today from shooting in harsh tropical light for the last five weeks and the M forges ahead in dynamic range. That makes far more of a difference than a pixel-splitting resolution or acuity variances.
This alone is -to me- more than worth the upgrade.

Added to which the more accurate rangefinder, better framelines, better build quality and superb shutter are not to be discounted either.

Not to mention the EVF, simple as it may be, which allows an enormous versatility by being able to use just about any 135 format lens ever made, as long as it has manual controls.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2013   #77
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 587
I own a second-hand M8 that works beautifully. I know that if I buy a more expensive gear, I will be a better photographer. SO, I will upgrade to M-240 as soon as I get the money, which may take years and years (by that time there will probably be an M-260 or M-280),
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2013   #78
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
The framelines on the M8 and M8.2 are not essentially different. RF framelines can only be 100% accurate at one given distance. As the lens is focussed to infinity, they will get too narrow. Experienced users compensate for this. Normally one would expect framelines to be accurate at the shortest focussing distance, to avoid accidentally cut off edges. And that was the way it was on the M8. As the M8 attracted quite a few new users that were not familiar with the phenomena and protested, Leica decided to take a chance and shift the optimum accuracy from 1 m. to 2 m. As this is closer to the usual shooting distance of 3 m. and less pronounced at infinity, the gamble paid off in far less complaints. But the "zoom" effect of the field of view in relationship to the framelines is unaltered. And now the framelines are too wide at closest focussing distance on the M8.2. So on the M9 they reverted to 1 m. And you know what? Nobody even noticed...
That is a question I have (maybe for another thread): What are the frame lines for? I have never used it, because I never shot film with the M8 or Leica. I always use the card reader. Maybe that is the reason the made the M-E, just for people like me. Why isn't the M-E more popular???
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2013   #79
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,940
Maybe, the owners of an M9 may not see sufficient improvements in the M-E to buy it to replace their M9? I am guessing.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2013   #80
Joe AC
Registered User
 
Joe AC is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff S View Post
And if you took the time to 'delve into it,' and really mastered it, you'd find that prints from your M8 would be better than anything you're currently producing with your M9. And if you're not concerned about print quality, then why bother with any of this? Your agreeing with Jaap holds no water if you haven't verified it...in print.

Jeff
What is the reason that you believe this to be true? I ask the question sincerely only because it make no sense. Not on paper anyway.

Joe
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.