RobertJRB Posted January 10, 2014 Share #241 Posted January 10, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why dont you buy a M7 with films ? I (and many of us) want to use M lenses on a body FF with EVF and without rangefinder If it doesn't come from Leica it will come from Sony/Zeiss and Leica will loose a lot of money If you don't care about the rangefinder, or about leica, why should it be us (people who want a simple rangefinder camera) who should step out and go with an m7 with film? Why should someone who don't gives a thing about rangefinders or leica being the new target for M camera's? Its the same as asking ferrari for a MPV car and telling the people who want a sportscar to get an testarossa. There is a new group of users now who want a FF EVF camera with many functions and the best lenses possible. They don't care about the rangefinder what so ever but do like the leica brand for the quality of the lenses, or the name.. Next to it there is a group of users who like the simple rangefinder without any add-ons and like leica. In my opinion the M 240 tries to be best for both groups. Only to become a mixture which doesn't work. Its not the simple rangefinder camera many like the M9 or MM for. And its not a good FF evf camera like the A7. I even see quite some people stepping back from the M240 to a M9 or MM with a A7 or A7r next to it. At least its my route for the next years. Keeping the M9p, adding a MM and a A7. So thats why I would like to see the next M to be the simple rangefinder camera again like the M9 or MM was. It would give leica its unique position back in the cameraworld. Next to the M series there's much space for a EFV camera which would serve the first group (untill there is a better sony for half the price..). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Hi RobertJRB, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ALD Posted January 10, 2014 Share #242 Posted January 10, 2014 Actually if one takes a look at the red movie camera One can see what is possible with the Leica m range finder. I love the fact that there is video on the m240 I rate that as one of its strongest features. I would be happy with a leica m that makes higher resolution video than 35mm film is the same size, has a bigger rangefinder view focusing window so that it's easier to quickly focus, and then incredible light sensitivity so that I can get beautiful pictures at night on a apo-sum micron 50mm if they ever manage to stop producing crappy $8000 headaches as they are now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethbrp Posted January 10, 2014 Share #243 Posted January 10, 2014 The reason is Mark that to me and many other users Video and Live View on an M camera are just superfluous and it would have been better in my opinion to develop the M9 line more. I would like to have seen on the M instead of video etc, a better flash system ie. at least 1/250th flash sync and with the ability to sync at all speeds by using the FP system implemented on most Nikon DSLR's. That to me as a news photographer would be truly useful. If I want to use long lenses and video I would never even consider a Leica M for that use. Even a cheap DSLR is much more suited to this way of working than any M Leica could ever be. Maybe Leica should bring a cut down M camera out on the lines of the ME that was just a still picture making camera without having to poorly implement all the other stuff. Such a camera would definitely be of interest to me IF though the colour was sorted. Sorry but the Mongolian pictures in the Leica brochure for the M and files that I have seen and downloaded look to me at least, terrible and not a patch on the M9 M8.2 files. Reliability wise the new M seems not too good and I get the distinct impression that it's not really a fully tested finished product and sadly for the 1st time with any Leica, film or digital, I will not be buying, Do you actually own the M 240? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 10, 2014 Share #244 Posted January 10, 2014 Do you actually own the M 240? You're new aren't you...? Sent from another Galaxy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pibitller Posted January 11, 2014 Share #245 Posted January 11, 2014 Electronic Shutter (totally silent) Only one frame for encoded lenses Measure of light on the center of the sensor CMOS Reading of the speed shutter, and corrections in LCD in the finder Without recording of video And like M240 design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo101 Posted January 12, 2014 Share #246 Posted January 12, 2014 I want digital MP, no more, at 2.000€ max, with CCD. b Inviato da mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 13, 2014 Share #247 Posted January 13, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think in the future we will see a fully electronic shutter in the form of the "shutter" is effectively the turning on and off of the sensor. Negating any need for a physical mechanical shutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imsilly Posted January 13, 2014 Share #248 Posted January 13, 2014 I often find it it difficult to get my head around a digital M camera. For me it often seems strange that you'd exchange film for a digital sensor in an M. I often wonder what the point would be? If I wanted a super fast, automated camera with instant gratification I could use a DSLR or some random Japanese mirrorless camera. Cameras built from the ground up to be optimised for digital photography. Ones that took advantage of the technology totally, rather then a halfway house of manual and automatic functions. The problem as I see it is you can't have your cake and eat it. Do you want all the bells and whistles a modern Japanese DSLR or mirrorless camera has? Do you want nothing, but manual controls and a sensor? Having one interferes with the other to the point where neither seems to work properly. The first truly successful digital Leica will not be an M because the whole M rangefinder concept only makes sense when you are shooting film. I would probably just scrap the whole idea of a digital M and build a digital full frame Leica from the ground up. A body with a modern ergonomic shape and controls suitable for a digital camera, that prevent menu diving. Autofocus, but with back compatibility to old M lenses because it's ridiculous in this day and age not to have autofocus. I'd keep an optical viewfinder, but I'd probably drop the rangefinder as modern hybrid viewfinders can provide far better focusing aids. Definitely a stabilised, self cleaning, with onboard phase detection and no-AA sensor. It's sounding a bit like a Sony A7, but I think Sony have gone down the right path, if they haven't exactly hit the nail on the head. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 13, 2014 Share #249 Posted January 13, 2014 ...the whole M rangefinder concept only makes sense when you are shooting film... Why so? M just means rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted January 13, 2014 Share #250 Posted January 13, 2014 I often find it it difficult to get my head around a digital M camera. For me it often seems strange that you'd exchange film for a digital sensor in an M. I often wonder what the point would be? The point is that those of us who enjoy rangefinder photography can continue to do so in the digital age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imsilly Posted January 13, 2014 Share #251 Posted January 13, 2014 Why so? M just means rangefinder. The point is that those of us who enjoy rangefinder photography can continue to do so in the digital age. An optical rangefinder is expensive to produce, needs regular maintenance and isn't as accurate as modern focus aids. Given the choice I would only use an optical rangefinder if there was no focus peaking, hybrid digital rangefinder (i.e. a digitally projected rangefinder patch) or zoom function. Most modern mirrorless cameras forsake an optical rangefinder because of these reasons and are no less easy to focus, or accurate. An optical rangefinder in a film camera is great because you don't have live view aids, but a digital camera does. The one main benefits a traditional M viewfinder has is that it is optical and has no relation to the lens you are using. Meaning it is always clear and bright no matter the lens. Plus it also lets you see around the frame of the shot. These elements could be retained without the expensive rangefinder mechanism, which could be replaced by a number of digital images to assist your shooting. Quite often I miss things like rule of third lines and spirit level that comes with modern digital camera displays. Without the ability to zoom in live view, I'd find macro work almost impossible. Frankly a tradition optical rangefinder is very far down my list of needs when working digitally. I only like it when I'm working with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2014 Share #252 Posted January 13, 2014 Its not the simple rangefinder camera [...] like the M9 or MM [...].Simple? - not really next to an M3 or (if digital) RD1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 13, 2014 Share #253 Posted January 13, 2014 ...An optical rangefinder in a film camera is great because you don't have live view aids, but a digital camera does... No no my friend. There are no LV aids at all if you shoot in "classic" mode. The RF is just more contrasty, mote accurate and the framelines are more visible in low light. They are not visible at all when the camera is off though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethbrp Posted January 13, 2014 Share #254 Posted January 13, 2014 Without being too sarcastic, just one that works would be nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2014 Share #255 Posted January 13, 2014 It IS nice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imsilly Posted January 13, 2014 Share #256 Posted January 13, 2014 No no my friend. There are no LV aids at all if you shoot in "classic" mode. The RF is just more contrasty, mote accurate and the framelines are more visible in low light. They are not visible at all when the camera is off though. What are you banging on about? I was referring to the fact that as a film camera doesn't have a digital sensor, so you get no live view mode. While modern digital cameras take advantage of live view to create all kinds of focus aids like focus peaking and split images. What I was saying had nothing to do with "classic" modes. I think you totally misread what I said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 13, 2014 Share #257 Posted January 13, 2014 I often find it it difficult to get my head around a digital M camera. For me it often seems strange that you'd exchange film for a digital sensor in an M. I often wonder what the point would be? The point is simple: Leica builds what their customers want, namely digital rangefinder cameras. They still sell a few M7 and MP each year but the main business is digital. That is even true for a niche market such as rangefinder cameras. I doubt the continued availability of the M7 and MP was viable if it wasn’t for the digital M models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imsilly Posted January 13, 2014 Share #258 Posted January 13, 2014 The point is simple: Leica builds what their customers want, namely digital rangefinder cameras. They still sell a few M7 and MP each year but the main business is digital. That is even true for a niche market such as rangefinder cameras. I doubt the continued availability of the M7 and MP was viable if it wasn’t for the digital M models. That is probably true, though I have never seen the numbers. What I do find interesting is that Leica do not give many suppliers any new film cameras at all. Here in London you get quite a few digital Leica stockists. Rarely do you get anywhere that sells new M7 or MP bodies. I know in Asia film Leica sales are very healthy. I think digital Leica sales probably make up a larger percentage in Europe and America. Though I still don't see why I'd bother using a rangefinder with a digital camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 13, 2014 Share #259 Posted January 13, 2014 […]The one main benefits a traditional M viewfinder has is that it is optical and has no relation to the lens you are using. Meaning it is always clear and bright no matter the lens. Plus it also lets you see around the frame of the shot.[…] What you're describing here is a digital rangefinder as well. Nothing specific to film at all. […]These elements could be retained without the expensive rangefinder mechanism, which could be replaced by a number of digital images to assist your shooting.[…] Then the camera would not be an M anymore since M means rangefinder as you know. […]An optical rangefinder in a film camera is great because you don't have live view aids, but a digital camera does. […] What I was saying had nothing to do with "classic" modes. I think you totally misread what I said. A digital camera like the R-D1 has no LV, so no LV aids at all. Another digital camera like the M8 has no LV either, so no LV aids either. Same for later and current bodies like M9, M-E and MM. And finally, sorry to repeat, but the M240 in classic mode has none of those things either. If you agree with me then i apologise for having misunderstood such an agreement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 13, 2014 Share #260 Posted January 13, 2014 Though I still don't see why I'd bother using a rangefinder with a digital camera. These cameras are for photographers who prefer a rangefinder camera but also prefer digital over silver-halide (or have customers that do). There is no intrinsic connection tying rangefinders to silver-halide photography. It just happened that when the rangefinder was invented, silver-halide film was the only game in town. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.