mjh Posted October 6, 2011 Share #21 Posted October 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hmm. Leica said much the same thing about a full frame digital M when they came out with the M8, no? "Cannot be done". "You would have to change the lenses". Etc etc. As I recall. So? It still doesn’t make sense to add stuff like an articulate display or a detachable sensor module, both adding to the depth of the body, when one actually strives for a thinner body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Hi mjh, Take a look here m10 concept - leicarumours. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest srheker Posted October 7, 2011 Share #22 Posted October 7, 2011 Hmm. Leica said much the same thing about a full frame digital M when they came out with the M8, no? "Cannot be done". "You would have to change the lenses". Etc etc. As I recall. That was a completly different problem. Rather with the angle of light hitting the sensor and the sensor handlingt this than the flange focal distance. It was not solved by changes in thickness or flange focal distance but with a different sensor design, "bending" the edges of the sensor towards the light. You can't add a tiltalble LCD to a camera and make it thinner by this. As the tilt mechanisms adds to the thickness. (As a system for a changeable sensor would.) You can't reduce the flange focal distance, so if you want a M10 to be as thick as the M4, the film and the hinged door of the M4 are the limit. If your sensor and Display are thicker, you won't be able to make the camera thinner! And if you look at the M8/9 you'll notice that thefolks at Leica already had to "steal" some Millimeters bei raising the bayonett slightly over the frontside of the camera, comapred to the M4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
40mm f/2 Posted October 7, 2011 Share #23 Posted October 7, 2011 If there is no live view I can dispense with the LCD on the back. I would be happy with a small OLED display (like S2) for navigation and a histogram. But a wireless connection to any external device of choice would be nice for chimping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srheker Posted October 7, 2011 Share #24 Posted October 7, 2011 If there is no live view I can dispense with the LCD on the back. I would be happy with a small OLED display (like S2) for navigation and a histogram. But a wireless connection to any external device of choice would be nice for chimping. Are you shure that the OLED of the S2 is sufficient do handle all menu settings? Yes I want a compact camera and I like the thickness of the M4 more than that of the M9, but if I have the choice between a camera the size of the M9 and "a camera the size of the M4 plus an external wireless LCD or iPhone/iPad" * I will always choose the M9. The reason is quite simple: - Compact means "a camera with a lens on a strap over my shoulder" with full functionality. - If want to operate my camera standing in the street not sitting at a desk. And when I'm standing in the street I can't hold two devices because then I'd need a third hand to operate the controls on one of the devices, but I only have two hands! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted October 8, 2011 Share #25 Posted October 8, 2011 Nice. I think it is only missing: 1. Reversible LCD so that you can turn it around completely. 2. Removable digital back by using the baseplate as the "cartridge" for future sensor upgrades (or introducing cheaper APS-C sensors a-la Ricoh GXR for skint people like me). 3. The size of a film M6 (with the weight of a meterless film M4-P). EDIT: 4. And a physical, old school ISO dial on the back. I'm having a hard time envisioning this. You want: - a reversible LCD with an ISO dial on the back - a removable digital back using the baseplate as the cartridge: so you want some kind of board that slots into the guts of the camera between the lens and the reversible LCD? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 8, 2011 Share #26 Posted October 8, 2011 If want to operate my camera standing in the street not sitting at a desk. And when I'm standing in the street I can't hold two devices because then I'd need a third hand to operate the controls on one of the devices, but I only have two hands! As far as I know the S2 can be operated with just two hands – you hold the camera in both hands and operate the four menu buttons using your thumbs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srheker Posted October 8, 2011 Share #27 Posted October 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) As far as I know the S2 can be operated with just two hands – you hold the camera in both hands and operate the four menu buttons using your thumbs. Michael, of course I know that you can operate the S2 with two hands, like virtually any other camera. I was referring to his idea of an M10 with the S2's OLED on top but without a LCD on the back, that uses an iPhone or a dedicated external LCD wireless as a substitute for the missing LCD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 8, 2011 Share #28 Posted October 8, 2011 I don’t think a camera that would always be operated tethered was an option – not for an M-type camera anyway. But a tethered touchscreen as an additional option could have its uses. Or suppose there was a detachable back with a touchscreen that could control the camera whether it is attached to the camera or used as a remote control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srheker Posted October 8, 2011 Share #29 Posted October 8, 2011 I don’t think a camera that would always be operated tethered was an option – not for an M-type camera anyway. So we agree. But a tethered touchscreen as an additional option could have its uses. Or suppose there was a detachable back with a touchscreen that could control the camera whether it is attached to the camera or used as a remote control. Maybe on medium format studio cameras. One of the arguments from apple, when the made the batteries of their macbooks non-exchangeable was, that it saved space for more cells. Making a component detachable virtually always increases the volume, because both parts need complete housings and an interface and locking mechanism between them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #30 Posted October 10, 2011 I really hope it will not be like this since I find it quite ugly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srheker Posted October 11, 2011 Share #31 Posted October 11, 2011 I really hope it will not be like this since I find it quite ugly. Designers and photographers seem to be quite different, I'd guess most photographers would prefer a camera with the option to fix a camera strap. Designers seem to think there is nothin more cool than a shoulder holster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioalessi Posted October 16, 2011 Share #32 Posted October 16, 2011 Removable battery doors on phones and computers are horrible. Most damage to Palm Treo phones come from dropping it getting into your car. The external antenna would get damaged and the back battery cover flys off with the battery always landing in the center under the car in a puddle in grime. The keyboards wore out in six months with heavy texting. The screen stylus always got lost or was to small to hold. Most people under 30 don't have a watch or an Ink pen and many not even a wallet. So it's great the way the iphone is. The camera is a different tool. It's a specialize acquisition device. So the removable battery outweighs the negatives. An iphone or computer is a generalized multi use device needing space to be the premium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.