An M10 that has a viewfinder with 3 magnification levels: wide, standard, telephoto?

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M system should offer two different lines of cameras, the classic camera and a more affordable an electronic camera. It may be a partial intersection between the two models (live view in both, for instance, etc.). Many people would buy one of each flavor...

 

I am rather sure, we'll have those different lines sooner or later (perhaps anounced before next Photokina and available then, perhaps even available before).

 

Though the other line will be no M. It will cost less than the M9, but won't be cheap. It will make you use the M lenses - hopefully without any cropping factor. It will have the electronic devices for focussing we know from other mirrorless brands.

 

Customers will get a chance to decide what they like, and if they like it very much, perhaps there will be no M10. If there is something like an M10 (which I don't hold for sure) it will have the conventional rangefinder.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mmradman]

 

We can like it or not, but it looks like the full digital camera is here to stay.

 

 

1+

 

It is not what I like but what is there to buy in the shop. At least Sony is working hard to provide cutting edge EVF rather than offering rear LCD only like first NEX-3/5 or X1.

 

Abandoning rangefinders would not be an evolution but a regression (RF & SLR user speaking).

 

It is not evolution it is probably revolution.

 

Not all revolutions are to everyone's taste, sometimes old guard end up headless or shot or loose optical RF.

 

Top tier DSLRs will probably continue with optical VF for some time, but for mass market EVF seems to be next big thing.

 

IMHO for Leica it is the question how to provide a product that will give them desired market penetration. Any post M9 camera fitted with optical VF wont do it on its own. Potential future purely optical RF camera could still exist in parallel with trendier model fitted with all bells and whistles, cheaper too, that would sell to the wider audience.

 

We live in interesting technological times, for some this will be curse, and for the others blessing, not to mention digital R solution.

 

Edit - missed upper post, different cameras for different needs/wants, providing Leica can pull it off.

[lct]

No need to abandon RF to put a clip-on EVF in a hotshoe.

[bill]

The modern EVFs have much higher resolution than a TV, and the trend is towards better image quality overall, including higher refreshing rates, etc. It is not the same.

 

You are missing my point.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaques]

No one actually sees 'reality' let alone a camera. What we see is an interpretation made in our brains (at the back) of data collected by our eyes. There is a microscopic delay as well. And when you look through an optical finder it's not WYSIWYG- in reality what the lens sees is what you get- and without a doubt an SLR does a better job in that regard. I mean you can't even see DOF with an RF finder- let alone the actual border of the image. This idea that you are somehow seeing more 'truly' with RF than with other cameras does not stack up for me...

 

seeing outside of the frame is great, sure- wouldn't it be possible to have a crop setting that allows a little bit of the sensor to used for an 'out of the frame' EVF setting? With 24MP sensors and such losing a little data won't matter...

 

It seems if there was to be an optical finder that supports multiple focal lengths it would be somewhat like the X-100 finder- possibly with mechanical zooming. Even without zooming- it would be an interesting camera- Imagine having the small 135 frames we are used too- then flicking a lever and switching to a 100% EV view? If it was well done in some regards it would be better than the M finder: perfect parallax at all distances. Only one frame visible at a time. No frame 'flare'. Frames highly visible under all light conditions...Complete frames- not just corners... Wider than 28mm frames? etc. Add to that the ability to fully customise your finder- displaying whatever info you want- or keeping it absolutely minimal- as you like.

 

I imagine a lot of users of this forum will wet their pants when such a camera is released- whether it be Leica or another manufacturer.

 

I think it is telling that Mr Daniel recently mentioned the X-100 when discussing the future of Leica... If he wasn't planning on challenging/bettering that camera why would he mention it at all?

[jaques]

just re-read my post and realised what a load of cr@p it mostly is... I hadn't had my second coffee- now I have had three- I am going to write an even worse one (two is the sweet spot). Of Course Mr Daniels already has a better camera (or three) than the x-100- but I do think we may see some type of M mount camera with some type of electronic finder with some influence from the x-100 finder... and not necessarily from Leica.

And unlike other users Leica listens to me:. Early Last year I was on the phone to Solms about my M8... I was chatting away with the Leica rep (Uwe) and mentioned that I wished they had made a true Chrome M9- with no logo on the front- and the old script on the top. He said many people don't want the script and cover it with tape. I told him they should charge a premium to not engrave Leica on the top of the camera- not the other way around. I reminded him that Leica should never have moved away from its wonderful script Logo- the very essence of the Leica line. It was a crime against such a fine historic brand image... He agreed that the script was wonderful... I then mentined returning the little frames around the front windows as in the M3/m2- they protect the glass and look great... They were there for a reason... he went quiet...

 

One year later out comes the M9-P! My camera! Solms listened . They didn't add back the window frames:confused: I assume they are saving that for the M10:rolleyes: Two out of three aint bad- and the sapphire glass seals the deal. They made the M9-P for me- the least I could do was upgrade...

 

Next camera on my wish list is the Leica CLD (listening Solms?)

 

small classical optical rangefinder camera- based on the CL/CLE- but with larger finder- even M finder?

 

Crop Sensor if necessary to keep size/cost down- camera must be significantly smaller than M9 line- and much cheaper. Does not need to be quite as good IQ wise- except at higher ISO's...

 

Fully weather sealed- coming with one 35mm standard (f2? pancake?) M mount lens- weather-sealed (optional f1.4 as well?)- only available with the camera and perfectly matched to it... I believe a camera should come with a lens... OK- other M lenses wont be weathersealed- too bad- take your special edition lens/'s for those extreme conditions.

 

Live view- on large LCD (designed so that the purist can attach a durable metal cover to the LCD- for absolutely pure no chimping/decisive moment work... Video. Inbuilt fill flash. Flash & Cable release sockets on one side of the camera (plugged). Wireless connection. Two card slots. 24MP? Plug in EVF?

 

Cost: 2800USD (with lens)

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Regarding the reality of RF and DSLR viewfinders, in neither case do we see what we are going to get. The RF does not show the actual range of tones that will be rendered and with a DSLR (at least the ones I've handled) do not show accurate DOF because their screens are so transparent in order to assist what - I'm not sure.

 

When things were more complex, one could estimate DOF in the M2 right in the finder. It took a bit to master but once done the eye was trained to previsualize DOF.

 

I have a Panasonic G1 and the live view is dreadful in bright light because it dims too much. Putting it up to my eye causes a disturbing disruption. I use it now only for close-ups. I will not be buying another digital camera. The M9 suffices.

[jaapv]

I imagine a lot of users of this forum will wet their pants when such a camera is released- whether it be Leica or another manufacturer.

 

 

I would not be surprised, given that that has been happening at the introduction of the Panasonic G series, Micro 4/3rds system, Ricoh GXR,Fuji X10, Fuji X100, Sony NEX series,etc.,etc..

[jaques]

I would not be surprised, given that that has been happening at the introduction of the Panasonic G series, Micro 4/3rds system, Ricoh GXR,Fuji X10, Fuji X100, Sony NEX series,etc.,etc..

 

true- but those cameras only made them act like they were wetting their pants. The one I proposed would make them actually do it...

[Guest srheker]

Abandoning rangefinders would not be an evolution but a regression (RF & SLR user speaking).

 

Indeed!

 

And...why where all those people praising Fuji's X100? Because of the real Finder!

[nowherean]

I do wish for a bit of viewfinder zooming goodness with my 90mm. The frame lines are too small for me to enjoy shooting with that lens on M series.

[jankap]

Have you tried the 135mm already?

Jan

[jaapv]

Indeed!

 

And...why where all those people praising Fuji's X100? Because of the real Finder!

Actually - I detect a marked lack of interest in this accomplishment amongst a majority of forum members....with a vocal minority

[kanzlr]

I now use an M8, NEX-5N with an since yesterday I also own a Ricoh GXR Mount.

The NEX EVF is really amazing for what it is. It competes with usable SLR finders like a D700 one (which I finally sold last year). Thing is, if you prefer an RF, neither will do.

 

So far the GXR mode 2 focusing is the best non RF way of focusing an M lens, but when those two RF images align, you can be sure the focus is spot on. With the electronic viewfinder, you only see that the focus looks good, but not if a bit left or right wouldn't be better. And in a hurry you have to rely on focus bracketing, if at all possible.

 

THAT'S the problem. Not resolution of an EVF, etc.

 

An SLR has the same problem if it lacks a split prism.

 

Gesendet von meinem Galaxy Nexus mit Tapatalk

[jankap]

Jaap, magnifiers for the eyepiece of the M9 are offered as accessories. Is it known, why these cannot be inside the camera? It costs an extra lever, that is true.

See the start of this thread.

Accessories get lost, get dirty and/or lie in the box at home. No good solution.

Jan

[mjh]

magnifiers for the eyepiece of the M9 are offered as accessories. Is it known, why these cannot be inside the camera?

They would take up space, adding to the depth of the body (which would be decidedly unpopular it appears).

[jaapv]

Jaap, magnifiers for the eyepiece of the M9 are offered as accessories. Is it known, why these cannot be inside the camera? It costs an extra lever, that is true.

See the start of this thread.

Accessories get lost, get dirty and/or lie in the box at home. No good solution.

Jan

 

Well put - my magnifiers lie at home in the box, as I find them no good solution I would vastly prefer a variable diopter, which seems to be (I'm told) extremely difficult to implement on an M type viewfinder.

[jaques]

it's funny- this thread started before the X1pro was announced- if you take the title- remove 'm10' and replace it with 'camera' then you have the fuji:

 

a " 'camera' that has a viewfinder with 3 magnification levels: wide, standard, telephoto"

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mjh]

it's funny- this thread started before the X1pro was announced- if you take the title- remove 'm10' and replace it with 'camera' then you have the fuji:

Well, not quite. The X-Pro1 has two magnification settings, not three. And the way it achieves this (namely be sliding in an additional lens in front of the viewfinder) isn’t really applicable to a rangefinder camera. A variable magnifier for the eyepiece would be. Fuji, on the other hand, has decided against a variable magnifier since it wouldn’t mix all that well with their hybrid viewfinder. Which only goes to show (again) that rangefinder and non-rangefinder cameras are quite different beasts.

[jaques]

why wouldn't such a design be applicable to a rangefinder camera? just genuinely curious.