ddp Posted September 22, 2010 Share #21 Posted September 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have no real problem with the designs...very cool pdf as well. As far as the hot shoe goes - I would have little issue with none up there. I have a very simple M workflow at this point. As has been hinted, I think we're looking at the future of the M line. Think about it - the new frameline illumination method could make sense in a world where you have a 0.95 Noctilux and a future model with much higher ISO sensitivity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 Hi ddp, Take a look here Is that a prototype M10 model in front of the M9 S.E.?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted September 22, 2010 Share #22 Posted September 22, 2010 No PC socket on the M8/9 and no hot shoe on the next generation M. Hot shoes are a thing of the past. Ugly from a design point of view too, much better to do away with it altogether. I can see a new demand for flash powder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 22, 2010 Share #23 Posted September 22, 2010 Nr 3 or 5 for me thank you. I can see the reason for the lack of flash-shoe, without a doubt the designer was told to focus on the history and tradition of Leica, then probably watched endless hours of interviews with HBC, Robert Frank etc... most of whom probably never used a flash. In the name of traditional reportage and street photography the flash shoe was only a accessory for wide finders or leica meters... since those are now included in the camera for most lenses there is no particular reason for these any more. I bet the designer was thinking "it will be a removable cover not to ruin to lines of the camera". . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 22, 2010 Share #24 Posted September 22, 2010 Wireless triggering of a dedicated Leica flash with custom camera clamp? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted September 22, 2010 Share #25 Posted September 22, 2010 I don't think so - the hot shoe is still needed for the external viewfinders. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 22, 2010 Share #26 Posted September 22, 2010 I don't think so - the hot shoe is still needed for the external viewfinders. Stefan Some of us would like to do away with those... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 22, 2010 Share #27 Posted September 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why don't they just do away with all of that finicky self focusing thing as well... it's so 1954. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted September 23, 2010 Share #28 Posted September 23, 2010 Man, do I like my M6, M7 and M8.2 now more by the minute! I understand the proud feeling of the project involved people, having accomplished, what they did. It was a piece of hard work on a tight schedule. I am involved regularly in similar projects, which is a wonderful work. I do though disagree with the different design hints completely for now. The hotshoe must stay. It is a mainstay in historical compatibility with many accessories, Leica produced. Making these accessories obsolete damages the Leica heritage of full system compatibility par example. I am not saying, I ever use one of the old finders or even contraptions like double shoe adaptors, to fit bubble levels and finders, like some people like to do with their RF cameras. I do like though, to use a Universal Wide Angle Finder from time to time on my film bodies and the M8.2 A smart move would be, to remain with a hotshoe, fully compatible with all Leica products AND redesigning it with a databus for new accessories (EVF, …) The hints of refreshing an historically grown design with new input from an automotive designer is a smart move, but went in a wrong direction for my personal taste. But then again, am I a person, who always grows into new industrial designs in automotive - I often find myself in disliking a new model at first sight, only to find out at second look about the higher quality of design over the predecessor. I like the play with new materials and I very much like the idea of redesigning the technical body shell for benefits of structural integrity, easier manufacturing, better weather sealing, easier servicing. I do not like at all, how DeSilva went very far in changing or even omitting traditional design features of the M. I actually love the looks of the M9 - it's edgy top deck design is very beautiful to my eyes. It has a very purposeful look and shows, being a tool. The packaging with the rewind edge makes sense from an engineering perspective - very little so to the eyes of an designer, which resulted in omitting the feature by DeSilva. I feel, it has to be there. DeSilva should concentrate on making the new M look more sleek, less fat, as the current digital M does look - even compared to the M6 classic. Every time, I use that chrome M6 classic, I feel, how sleek and beautiful this body is. The clean, straight top deck does look more voluptuous - the M8 design solved this by including a round LCD as a detail, distracting from this fat look. I could go on and on, brainstorming about this. We are at a very interesting crossroad now. Leica does redesign the M - rightly so. Leica gives the customer a chance of input on this, albeit final decisions will be made to the biggest part by the decision makers in the Leica board though, not by us on an internet forum. I am looking forward, to what comes ahead. If the new design is unpleasing, but rich owners scrap their old digital (M9) to move on - good to some. I will pick one of the last classic Ms then for cheap ;-) If Leica only makes an a la carte version in MP simplicity without Logos and engraving in black paint please - I really need that one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted September 23, 2010 Share #29 Posted September 23, 2010 Some of us would like to do away with those... I guess all of us would. However, I see two options to bridge a larger range of focal langhts - either the optical system gets scaled down (which would mean a darker viewfinder) or larger (I'm trying to imagine an even larger, integrated universal wide-angle viewfinder). Of course, there is the third option of an electronic viewfinder. I haven't seen a convincing system yet, but, being far-sighted, a telescope to infinity appears to work best for me. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Mitchum Posted September 23, 2010 Share #30 Posted September 23, 2010 Thought that myself. but they're rejected design models for the M9T. You can read about this in a design document download from the official site. Strangely they are identical to the sketches they were proudly showing off yet the final camera looks nothing like them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted September 23, 2010 Share #31 Posted September 23, 2010 I absolutely agree. That would be my design favorite as well. Stevee If Leica only makes an a la carte version in MP simplicity without Logos and engraving in black paint please - I really need that one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PasMichiel Posted September 23, 2010 Author Share #32 Posted September 23, 2010 Wireless triggering of a dedicated Leica flash with custom camera clamp? Build-in wireless trigger... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 23, 2010 Share #33 Posted September 23, 2010 According to Sein Reid, the Leica Man does not mount his flash on his M camera. He uses a zip-tie and his wrist and a Nikon extension cord. If the M10 uses a blue tooth flash trigger, I can make a killing selling red zip-ties... I mean flash wrist straps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PasMichiel Posted September 23, 2010 Author Share #34 Posted September 23, 2010 According to Sein Reid, the Leica Man does not mount his flash on his M camera. He uses a zip-tie and his wrist and a Nikon extension cord. If the M10 uses a blue tooth flash trigger, I can make a killing selling red zip-ties... I mean flash wrist straps. And DuckTape... But for real, I never found a good matching flash for the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 24, 2010 Share #35 Posted September 24, 2010 Oh agree totally - there is a completely lack of "good" system M flash. The Olympus FL33 is close, but it does not TTL control from the M, however as far as Im concerned, this is where a M system flash must go, small, compact, with flexible head. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PasMichiel Posted September 24, 2010 Author Share #36 Posted September 24, 2010 Oh agree totally - there is a completely lack of "good" system M flash. The Olympus FL33 is close, but it does not TTL control from the M, however as far as Im concerned, this is where a M system flash must go, small, compact, with flexible head. . I agree. I use the Metz 20BC6 on the body. It's okay, but no TTL, no tilt and I have to downgrade the flash time to the old m-times (1/50 or less, so with the m8 I use 1/30) I do have a Metz 54MZ3 too. It has TTL, but is heavy and big on the M I think, so I use it remote off-shoe (no ttl) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/132001-is-that-a-prototype-m10-model-in-front-of-the-m9-se/?do=findComment&comment=1450827'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.