jim_a

<p>Many years ago Don Goldberg (DAG) fixed the flare issue on my M6. My M6 now never flares.</p>

<p>Abe, hope this makes you feel better about your "high shutter count" M8. An acquaintance has an M8.2 he purchased new in 2008. As of January 2016 when I last spoke with him, his M8.2 was still in action with 103,708 shutter activations. Of course, YMMV...<br> Either a Zeiss 35/2.8, 35/2 would be good options to consider. A VC 35/2.5 would also be a lens to consider. It's tiny, which is a plus and minus, and inexpensive but still well built. I find the aperture fiddly to change on this lens. </p>

<p>Ok, Jamie. I somewhat ashamedly report I fixed my finder in 5 minutes. Figuring I had nothing to lose, once I look out the two screws holding the top and bottom together, the eyepiece lifts out. Over time the lens simply rotated in the slot. Here's a look inside the finder:<br /> <a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-10-25-20.02.53.jpg"><img src="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-10-25-20.02.53-300x225.jpg" alt="2016-10-25-20-02-53" width="300" height="225" /></a><br /> Click the above image for a large version. Thanks for spurring me on.</p>

<p>Jamie,<br> It may look like the lines are tiny when you have your eye up to the finder with a lot of wasted space to the outsides, but when you look through it the lines are at the edges of what you can see.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have the 21 VC viewfinder. At some point the mask lines have tilted. Have not looked into what it would take to fix this.<br> <img src="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/VC-21mmfinder-239x300.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="1254" /> </p>

<p>I believe it has to show the issue before Leica will replace. Don't have to be the original owner and probably 3-4 month if it needs a new sensor. Stephen's advice is a sound.</p> <p><a href="https://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/Global/2014/Important-Information-Concerning-the-CCD-Sensors">https://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/Global/2014/Important-Information-Concerning-the-CCD-Sensors</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-153341.html">http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-153341.html</a></p>

<p>You will find the M finders up to the M4-2 more accurate. M4-P onward they shank them. In the digital world, Leica went back to 2M optimized frame lines in the M240 series. Shooting a 50 again on those bodies is nice. I could never wrap my head around the 50 frame lines on my M6.</p>

<p>Julie,<br> Lighting and a tripod matter more than crop or ff.</p>

<p>See this link too on his site: <a href="http://macfilos.com/search?q=IIIG&f_collectionId=51b3521ae4b02def90493af1">Leica IIIG search</a></p>

<p>Touch base with Mike Evans at <a href="http://macfilos.com/">http://macfilos.com/</a>. He lives in London. As a keen photographer he is very involved in the Leica world and enjoys close relations with Leica UK.</p>

<p>Scotch Magic Tape. It will lift that print right off.</p>

<p>On the digital side Leica switched back to frame lines optimized for 2 meter with the 240/262 series. I find my M262 as good as the frame lines in my M2. The M9 series used the same 1 meter optimized frame lines found in the later film M's. It's now enjoyable to shoot a 50mm the 262. I could never get myself to visualize all the extra image that appeared on my M6 or M9 with the 50.</p>

<p>Hi Barry,</p> <p>A friend and I are renting an X-Pro2 for a few days next week. I was going to get the M adapter too. Any tips/thoughts on using your M glass on the X-Pro2?</p>

<p>A rangefinder camera is a specific tool. It’s great for some things (documentary) and terrible for other photo applications (sports, wildlife…). Wide angle to normal focal length lenses are the rangefinder’s strength.</p> <p>When we talk rangefinders the discussion centers around Leica simply because Leica occupies 95% of the thought and user space. Yes, they are expensive. No, they don’t take photos that are technically better than a $400 Canon Rebel.</p> <p>Most people think the lenses are the reason to use a Leica rangefinder. That is a side benefit. In the mid-1980’s I purchased my first Leica, an M2, paired with a new 35mm Summicron. Those first 11×14’s I made in the darkroom stunned me with their contrast and corner-to-corner sharpness compared to the images from my Nikkor 35/2. There’s lot of great glass out there. I also use Voightlander and Zeiss lenses. I’m currently using a Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon-C. It’s technically the best 35 I’ve used, even compared to my Leica 35/2 ASPH. Leica lenses are built to last forever. The Zeiss and Voightlanders may not be as well built, but they can be just as good optically and cost a LOT less.</p> <p>Rangefinder photography at its core is about seeing though the rangefinder’s viewfinder window.</p> <p>Famed National Geographic photographer <a href="http://www.williamalbertallard.com/" target="_blank">William Albert Allard</a> said it best in his book “The Photographic Essay.”</p> <blockquote> <p>“With an SLR, you are looking at your subject through the optic; you are literally seeing what the picture is going to look like. You have a device that will show you your depth of field, the area that will or will not be in critical focus. This is particularly true for me, because I’m often shooting at the maximum aperture of the lens, the aperture you actually view through. This helps you see how areas of color are affected. It can tell you if that blue has a hard edge, or if it’s somewhat soft and blended into something else.”</p> <p>“When you look through a rangefinder, though, everything is sharp. The rangefinder window is by and large a focusing and framing device that lets you pick a part of the subject you want to be in critical focus. The only real way you can tell how the rest of the picture is going to look is by experience, or maybe a quick look at the depth-of-field scale on the lens itself. I think the rangefinder frees you up in a certain way. You are probably going to work a little looser in a structural sense, because everything is clean, clear and sharp. When I look through an SLR, I think I’m a little bit more aware of compositional elements, of the structure of the image. With a rangefinder camera, I’m seeing certain spatial relationships.”</p> </blockquote> <p>My first M2 and 35 Summicron was the only camera I used for a <a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/images/categories.php?cat_id=2" target="_blank">project in a documentary photo class in college</a>. Seeing though the rangefinder window freed me in the way Allard describes. Leica M’s have been cameras I’ve enjoyed using ever since. For the kind of photography I enjoy they are a wonderful tool.</p>

<p>The frame lines in the M240/262 series is optimized for 2 meters, and 1 meter in the M9 series. You will find the 2 meter frame lines much more accurate unless you are photographing close up. I am able to easily nail focus with a 50/1.4 wide open with my M262. I was using my Leica M2-R today and noticed the RF on the 262 is superior. It's a great unit and with good eyes you should have no problems. I also had and M-E and the RF unit in it is just as good as the 262. Leica supposedly put a screw back into the rangefinder 24X series that was not in the M9, which is the basis for Leica's claim the RF units are more robust. </p>

<p>+1 for Arthur's picks. I don't have the Voight but being a 35 junkie keep toying with getting one because it's so small and affordable. I do have the 50 Elmar. Can't go wrong with the.<br> If you can find one and cost isn't an issue, try to find a this <a href="http://leicarumors.com/2011/05/25/new-ms-super-triplet-perar-3-535-mark-ii-lens-now-available-for-sale.aspx/">35 Perar</a>.</p>

<p>Hi Allan,<br> <br /> I recently upgraded from an M-E to the new 262. The M-P or 240 would be the same as the 262. Here is my <a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/2015/12/leica-m-typ-262/">review</a> which may help you decide.<br> Having shot Leica film M's before you will be right at home with an M-E or 240 series camera.<br> <br /> Best,<br /> Jim</p>

<p>Marc, I feel your pain. I finally upgraded my 2009 Mac Pro to a Late 2015 27" iMac Retina. I don't like the idea of a Mac and monitor as a single unit and having to put my HD's on the outside. I loved my Mac Pro. But the Retina iMac is the only viable solution if you don't need/want a laptop -- unless you tried Hackintosh. I was hoping the Mac Mini would get quad core i7's. With a PCIe SSD that would have been a Mac Pro killer - hence the crippling. But the iMac screen is something else...</p> <p>At work I'm running LR on a PC laptop. I think we are on 5, but a few updates behind. There is a bug in the Windows version where it can only show a few hundred keywords in the right panel before they get cut off. Just FYI in case that is not fixed yet in LR and it would be hassle.</p>

<p>Thanks Arthur Raid and Marc.<br> Once more 262's get into the wild it will be interesting to see 240-262 file comparisons. I took a photo walk one day at lunch shooting the same scenes with the rented 262 and my Fuji X100T (both in RAW mode). I was struck how similar the colors were from both cameras with the default LR profile. They were much closer than my 262 vs M-E comparisons.<br> Marc, please shoot me an email if you have time to examine the files and have any thoughts. </p>

<p>Arthur, I can up with two reasons why live view is not on the 262:<br> 1. The sensor in the 262 is technically different than the sensor in the 240 according to an article in LFI 1/2016, Page 47. That subject was <a href="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/254414-m-262-sensor-is-technically-different-to-m-240/">thrashed about on this post</a>.</p> <p>Perhaps the sensor being used is not capable of video, which makes the sensor less expensive to produce and implement. For example an original Canon 5D sensor vs the sensor in the 5DMKII. Was Leica looking for every cost saving to get the 262 at the $5K price point?</p> <p>2. The sensor in the 262 really can handle live view and Leica has it turned off simply to differentiate the 262 from the 240.</p> <p>Without implementing LV there is no need for a shutter to open and stay open outside of the camera taking a photo. Could any of this play into the 262 shutter engineering allowing it to be quieter than the 240's? I would like to hear a side-by-side comparison between the 262 and 240. </p> <p>If you think you want or will need LV or video then you still have the 240 series. </p>

<p>After a few weeks of using the new Leica M262 I posted a <a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/2015/12/leica-m-typ-262/">review</a> along with a few videos. One video compares the sound of the shutter to the the M-E. </p>

<p>MixBook was highly rated here <a href="http://photo-book-review.toptenreviews.com/">http://photo-book-review.toptenreviews.com/</a> and <a href="http://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-photo-books,review-2651.html">http://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-photo-books,review-2651.html</a> <br> Also found a <a href=" Review of a Mixbook</a>. Anyone ever use them? </p>

<p>I have the Dell UltraSharp U2412M and recommend it.</p>

<p>This is going to be a big seller, at least in terms of digital M body sales. It you look at what Leica did with the film M-A body, this is along the same lines of thinking. I applaud the purist approach for this camera. If I want to make a quick video of something the iPhone is a much better solution. Have you seen the video out of an iPhone 6s Plus? It's stunning. And it has IS. If I'm serious about making videos I'm not going to be using a Leica M240. There are much better solutions on the market.</p> <p>Leica has taken the Leica M9/M-E and upgraded it with newer technology. If you enjoy the pure rangefinder way of seeing, with minimal technical BS, and pages of menus and like to actually focus the camera yourself, this is a camera for you.</p>

<p>After getting the CC versions of LR and PS loaded on the iMac (4GHz i7, 16GB RAM, 512 SSD, M395X) along with my LR catalog, in head to head test loading the same photos full screen at the same time on my 2009 2.66 GHz Mac Pro using a 256GB Samsung 830 SSD, the Mac Pro is about 1 second slower when it comes to displaying a photo that has to render to be sharp. This is only on a first loading. For cached images the Mac Pro is just as fast. Impressive for such an old Mac and a little disappointing for the iMac.</p> <p>The screen in the iMac is what takes the most getting used to so far. Only had an hour to play with it, but the clarity and sharpness of some photos is crazy. It's like a 3D pop to some images. My old monitor is a Dell 2412M calibrated with a Spyder unit. With both monitors side by side the images on the Dell look terrible. I seldom print but I have to wonder if I need to turn down the brightness on the iMac to better match online viewing for non-retina displays.</p> <p>In the next few days I'll import images on both machines off SD cards and note the times. </p>