M10: A Vital Part

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...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?...

This makes sense because Leica customers do want a rangefinder and would be happy to be able to do macro and telephoto as well. Exactly like 50 years ago. The Visoflex has become obsolete and will be replaced by a clip-on EVF hopefully.

[Advertisement]

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

[rosuna]

You buy the classical model, for manual focus lenses, and other people buys the electronic model, with AF lenses. Many people would buy the two models. What is the problem?

[hifigraz]

If one looks at the direction taken with the M9 Hermes, then the days of flash are a foregone conclusion. After all isn't that one reason to purchase thef/0.95 Noctilux.

 

I've ordered a nocti by myself, but I don't think faster glass oder higher iso can be an adequate alternative to strobist light.

[mjh]

Does this honestly make sense?

I think it does. We will see whether Leica think’s the same. The camera would only gain more versatility while retaining everything the M is loved for. It’s a no-brainer really.

 

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?

That, too, would make sense, but indeed it would have nothing to do with the M system (which is the topic of this thread after all). Leica might decide to pursue this road at some time, but probably not this year.

 

To be honest an EVF only M would lose many existing dM users like myself who won't even consider buying it.

I don’t think there will ever be an EVF-only M.

[pgk]

You buy the classical model, for manual focus lenses, and other people buys the electronic model, with AF lenses. Many people would buy the two models. What is the problem?

The problem is building an M mount camera which can provide AF. Whilst this might be technically possible, I don't see it as a simple option myself. Much easier to produce a more efficient custom mount for AF lenses - but then a camera without an M mount and with new, AF lenses, couldn't be an M10 now could it?

 

As I've said before, I have no problem with a new camera featuring LV, EVF, AF, etc., but I don't want to see the existing rangefinder concept messed up. The M10 could feature improvements and innovations but why mess around with simplicity. IMHO a 'classical' model could feature less and still be innovative.

 

Just out of curiosity I wonder just how many Visoflex units were actually produced?

[hifigraz]

I don’t think there will ever be an EVF-only M.

 

Me too, a EVF-only Camera would simply not be a M

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... a EVF-only Camera would simply not be a M ...

If implemented properly, it would.

 

That said, I'm pretty sure the M10 won't be EVF-only. But maybe the M11 will. I'm looking forward to it.

[hifigraz]

If implemented properly, it would.

 

That said, I'm pretty sure the M10 won't be EVF-only. But maybe the M11 will. I'm looking forward to it.

 

But only with some sort of ultra highdef resolution, ultrasharp, fast no lag EVF ....

 

I don't think that in the newar to mid future a EVF will be able to replace an optical device such as a finder in a dslr or a rangefinder camera.

[lct]

Even with an ultra super EVF, we would always see Through The Lens. TTL. Nothing to do with a rangefinder.

[sdai]

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

 

you guys are crazy ... have you heard anything called - tripod? ;-)

[sdai]

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.

 

That would required very decent shutter speed ... perhaps with the help of articial lighting.

 

I also bought a OM-D not long ago, IMHO its stabilization capability can't make up the shake which might occur with the combo you've mentioned about ... but it may be just me and my hands. :-)

[01af]

I don't think that in the near to mid future a EVF will be able to replace an optical device such as a finder in a DSLR or a rangefinder camera.

Well, you're wrong. The 'future' is already there. See the Sony DSLT line of cameras or the Fujifilm X series of rangefinder cameras.

 

 

... we would always see Through The Lens. TTL. Nothing to do with a rangefinder.

Your imagination is limited. It will be TTL only when designed this way. But then, there's nothing wrong with TTL view. A camera is not required to have a non-TTL viewfinder in order to be a rangefinder camera.

[sdai]

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.

 

Michael, the M10 needs to have decent focusing assistance if it's also the R solution - be it a electronic RF, or sort of focus confirmation via phase detection - contrast detection or focus peak via live view.

 

With today's pixel count and hight magnification of tele lenses, guesstimation and EvF simply won't cut the job.

 

The "official" R solution has to deliver much better than just an after market adapter.

[sdai]

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?

 

Spot on ... count me out too - we can do such a survey among those who adapt m lenses with NEX5 or NEX7 and i bet a vast majority of them rely on focus peak on screen as the most reliable means to achive focus.

 

But, I may be wrong as almost always ... :-)

[mjh]

Michael, the M10 needs to have decent focusing assistance if it's also the R solution - be it a electronic RF, or sort of focus confirmation via phase detection - contrast detection or focus peak via live view.

Of course.

[algrove]

Any thoughts about a Mevil a la Viso with AF lenses having the shutter in each lens like the S2 offers. Or is this just stupid?

[AlanG]

Any thoughts about a Mevil a la Viso with AF lenses having the shutter in each lens like the S2 offers. Or is this just stupid?

 

Mechanical shutters probably will be on the way out before long.

[bocaburger]

The only reason I bought an M9 is because it is basically my M7 with a digital sensor instead of film. If the M10 departs from that in some way that can't easily be made invisible, I'm gone from Leica. That simple.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Some things to keep in mind:

 

Historically: Leitz/Leica has always primarily been a lens maker. They happen to do a good job of building the boxes, etc in which the images created by their lenses are captured. Whether film or digital.

 

Leitz/Leica has a Secret Weapon/Achillies heel: The combined range/viewfinder.

 

It does some things better than other viewing/focussing systems do.

 

It is a very expensive dinosaur tied to a vanishing industry. Some things other viewing/focussing systems do better.

 

Also: Leitz/Leica has always primarily been a lens maker. They happen to do a good job of ............

 

That is to say: The boxes are not their direction. The lenses are.

 

Their problem is the combined range/viewfinder: How to replace what does something so well within its parameters w/ something which will adequately satisfy those parameters while expanding into areas where it traditionally has had limitations.

 

And build lenses for this system & maintain a proprietary hold.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[jaapv]

The only reason I bought an M9 is because it is basically my M7 with a digital sensor instead of film. If the M10 departs from that in some way that can't easily be made invisible, I'm gone from Leica. That simple.

So what brand would be more "Leica" then? I suggest you would not be "gone" but simply would carry on shooting your M9.