M10: A Vital Part

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica Rangefinder is compromised because of it's extreme sensitivity to correct mechanical alignment, a problem solved by focussing using what the sensor is seeing.

 

My M9 arrived with a woefully maladjusted rangefinder, yet although I lack both factory equipment and factory training, I was able to adjust it (infinity and gain) to exquisite precision in a couple hours. And in nearly two years of use and dozens of long airplane trips, my rangefinder is still in perfect adjustment. IMHO, better quality control at Leica is the only solution needed.

[Advertisement]

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

[bocaburger]

But now you have small systems everywhere, and high quality images (depending on software manipulation, not just optical finesse) can be found in a wide range of products. The M system needs a wider public.

 

Just how much wider a public do you think is out there willing to spend $8K+ on a body and $3K and up on single focal-length lenses? IMHO the only reason Leica has as large a market for the M system as they do is because it's unlike anything else out there, and I'm referring to the uniqueness of the rangefinder concept, not the superior ability of their lenses to resolve cat hair. Not even all the die-hard M users are convinced to buy the Leica-badged Pannys, and that ought to be a lesson for Leica that the more comparable their features are to some other brand, more people are going to go with the far less expensive choice.

[sdai]

... that ought to be a lesson for Leica that the more comparable their features are to some other brand, more people are going to go with the far less expensive choice.

 

Well said!

 

By no means Leica should try to screw up the M which has reached its perfection and die trying to "improve" it with all sorts of compromises.

 

If it's time when they determine something "new" is due ... do it from scratch.

[algrove]

I guess I'm the exception. I bought into the M system, yes because it was digital, but more so due to the superb reputation (and due my now having used them) the quality of the Leica M lenses.

 

As for Leica getting a much larger market share, right now with the world's economy in the dumps, I do not see much hope, even for those of us who can well afford it. Sure many of us will trade up, but after getting an M9P and then an MM do I really need to trade up for another camera body? Not now. When the time comes show me the meat.

 

Not if it has an EVF lump stuck on top of it like my wife's X-2. I read all what is said by all of you, but that lump is an after thought, nothing more. Those of you willing to lay out what probably will be in excess of US$ 8000 for a camera with a lump of an EVF (costing even more $) on top of it by justifying that we currently use VF on the hotshot location anyway so why not get a new Mwhatever with an even bigger lump on top, are just kidding yourselves. Have many of you hand held the X-2 with the EVF on top? Now take the EVF and place it as best you can on your M9 in order to imagine what the new Mwhatever will resemble. Pretty ugly piece is non simplicity.

 

I want simplicity and elegance, which I consider the M9/MM models to have.

[lct]

We could live sans Visoflex when we did not need it so why would we have to buy an EVF if we don't want it?

[bocaburger]

Those of you willing to lay out what probably will be in excess of US$ 8000 for a camera with a lump of an EVF (costing even more $) on top of it by justifying that we currently use VF on the hotshot location anyway so why not get a new Mwhatever with an even bigger lump on top, are just kidding yourselves.

 

The best thing about that lump on top is that no one has to buy it...unlike if it were built in.

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The best thing about that lump on top is that no one has to buy it...unlike if it were built in.

 

Agree, but if you don't want the lump on top then why buy the Mwhatever?

[lct]

To have less noise, more speed, less color shifts... and an EVF to do macro and telephoto with my R lenses.

[marknorton]

Have many of you hand held the X-2 with the EVF on top? Now take the EVF and place it as best you can on your M9 in order to imagine what the new Mwhatever will resemble.

 

I take your point but M users have been putting these carbuncles on top of their cameras for years.

 

Put any of the 6 current lenses wider than 28mm - used to be 8 but the Elmarits have gone and I would include the two 28s as well, making it 10 - and you'll probably want to use an aux finder. The dedicated single focal length ones are OK but the Frankenfinder did not get its nickname for nothing. It's an abomination even though I prefer it for 28mm.

 

Leica will have scored a spectacular own goal if the EVF is uglier than the FF - I can just imagine a poll to find out which deserves that particular crown. If you think back to the old Nikon Photomic head, that worked because the end result looked designed from scratch. The danger is that the EVF will look just like a cheaply engineered, overpriced under-performing add-on. You can sympathise with the publicity photographers having a tough time deciding which angle is the least objectionable. Underneath?

[sdai]

To have less noise, more speed, less color shifts... and an EVF to do macro and telephoto with my R lenses.

 

No one uses an EVF to do these kind of work even in the SLR world. For your specified purpose, live view with a decent high resolution LCD should handle it much better.

[jaapv]

Err...I often use my teles handheld or with a shoulder brace. Hold the camera with a 2 kg lens at arms' length? I think not...

The same goes for macro, often handheld with the Visoflex...

[lct]

No one uses an EVF to do these kind of work even in the SLR world. For your specified purpose, live view with a decent high resolution LCD should handle it much better.

Try this with my 280/4 my friend

[jaapv]

Actually my standard lens on the DMR is a Vario-Elmar 105-280

[rosuna]

Just how much wider a public do you think is out there willing to spend $8K+ on a body and $3K and up on single focal-length lenses? IMHO the only reason Leica has as large a market for the M system as they do is because it's unlike anything else out there, and I'm referring to the uniqueness of the rangefinder concept, not the superior ability of their lenses to resolve cat hair. Not even all the die-hard M users are convinced to buy the Leica-badged Pannys, and that ought to be a lesson for Leica that the more comparable their features are to some other brand, more people are going to go with the far less expensive choice.

 

M system and rangefinder were the same thing for many years... but that may change in the future. It has to change.

[jonoslack]

No one uses an EVF to do these kind of work even in the SLR world. For your specified purpose, live view with a decent high resolution LCD should handle it much better.

 

I do - every day - with the OMD and my Leica R lenses - mostly the 60 elmarit for macro and the 180 APO together with the 80-200 f4 for telephoto- it works really well without a tripod.

[lars_bergquist]

We could live sans Visoflex when we did not need it so why would we have to buy an EVF if we don't want it?

 

We could live without the Visoflex because it was utterly outdated by then, and any SLR did it better. Today ther SLR is on its way out. The EVIL camera is on the way in.

 

Live view capability will expand the usefulness of the M. It is not a dead end, like the Visos were.

 

The old man from the Age of the Visoflex II

[pgk]

Today the SLR is on its way out.

 

Live view capability will expand the usefulness of the M.

Bold statements Lars. I doubt the first myself and the second assumes that a future M will be regarded as an M1/D/Da - ie as a platform for lenses other than the existing M range (which have fundamental limitations to their use) unless that it, that it is so heavily modified that it is an M merely in name. In which case I would suggest that it is very doubtful that it will retain the rangefinder and it is therefore like the M1/D/Da - a platform for other equipment. I cannot see the logic in this from Leica's marketing point of view - their strength lies in designing lenses - there is nothing that comes close to fast, compact M primes in terms of quality size and longevity. Why produce a camera for these which is compromised. A new full-frame, compact camera system with LV, EVF, AF, etc and the ability to use its own purpose designed superlative Leica lenses, and existing M lenses, by all means, but not a bastardised M, please.

[mjh]

the second assumes that a future M will be regarded as an M1/D/Da - ie as a platform for lenses other than the existing M range

The main use of the M10 would continue to be what it has always been – to serve as a vehicle for M lenses. With the adaptability of R lenses it would also provide the promised ‘R solution’, something R photographers have been clamouring for for years. That many other types of manual focus lenses – flange distance permitting – would be adaptable as well is just inevitable and nothing Leica could control. Although I’m positive they wouldn’t mind – adaptable lenses would mostly fall under the label of ‘old glass’ whereas M lenses are a segment where there’s still innovation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rosuna]

The possibility of a EVF-only M camera is a logical consequence of this evolution of the M rangefinder camera.

 

The economic rationality of such a product is a different problem. It would make sense if there is a substantial price difference between the classical model (rangefinder) and the full-electronic one.

 

We will have all the answers in a few weeks...

[pgk]

The main use of the M10 would continue to be what it has always been – to serve as a vehicle for M lenses. With the adaptability of R lenses it would also provide the promised ‘R solution’, something R photographers have been clamouring for for years. That many other types of manual focus lenses – flange distance permitting – would be adaptable as well is just inevitable and nothing Leica could control. Although I’m positive they wouldn’t mind – adaptable lenses would mostly fall under the label of ‘old glass’ whereas M lenses are a segment where there’s still innovation.

 

I accept all this but building an 'M' camera for this purpose means producing a hybrid with attributes of compacts with LV and EVF but most importantly, if its to compete against other systems out there, lacking AF, whilst still retaining a rangefinder. Does this honestly make sense? Would it not be better to simply develop a new camera which is not an M and which does not have a rangefinder and is thus not an M10?

 

The possibility of a EVF-only M camera is a logical consequence of this evolution of the M rangefinder camera.

 

But without AF if would be as specialised a camera as the M1/MD/MDa were and the total sales of these three over a long period was ~25k and mostly for specialist applications in science and similar.

 

To be honest an EVF only M would lose many existing dM users like myself who won't even consider buying it. It has no appeal. Is that a good starting point to market from?