Mike Rawcs Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1081 Posted May 5, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) It may challenge the laws of physics but a digital M with the same dimensions as a film M is my wish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Hi Mike Rawcs, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LocalHero1953 Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1082 Posted May 5, 2016 It may challenge the laws of physics but a digital M with the same dimensions as a film M is my wish. At risk of reigniting arguments from an earlier thread................ I still find it strange that a world of electronics and digital technology has resulted in just about every other "device" shrinking while getting more powerful has left digital cameras larger and heavier than their film equivalents. Think telephones, radios, televisions (front to rear at least), TV/video cameras, computers ........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1083 Posted May 5, 2016 At risk of reigniting arguments from an earlier thread................ I still find it strange that a world of electronics and digital technology has resulted in just about every other "device" shrinking while getting more powerful has left digital cameras larger and heavier than their film equivalents. Think telephones, radios, televisions (front to rear at least), TV/video cameras, computers ........ There's a bit of a mistake in there. Digital cameras can indeed be made much smaller than cameras exposing film. But when you take a film camera and insist in making it digital, you are stuck with the geometry of the lens. Placing a motherboard and a sensor stack within the space where there was only a film and a pressure plate is what bloats the Leica. Other constraints are, of course, the size of the optics and the area of the sensor, both of which determine the quality of the image you can produce. In this sense, it's not useful to look at the thickness of a TV set only and to ignore the huge real estate they command within the modern living room. And you can not even place a flower pot or china penguin on top of a modern TV set. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1084 Posted May 5, 2016 There's a bit of a mistake in there. Digital cameras can indeed be made much smaller than cameras exposing film. But when you take a film camera and insist in making it digital, you are stuck with the geometry of the lens. Placing a motherboard and a sensor stack within the space where there was only a film and a pressure plate is what bloats the Leica. Other constraints are, of course, the size of the optics and the area of the sensor, both of which determine the quality of the image you can produce. In this sense, it's not useful to look at the thickness of a TV set only and to ignore the huge real estate they command within the modern living room. And you can not even place a flower pot or china penguin on top of a modern TV set. Philipp, by day I agree with you, but by night I'm an ignoramus who looks at things in a simple way and has no time for arguments about motherboards and sensor stacks. My nocturnal opinion is that advanced technology ought to be at the service of miniaturisation, not shoving motherboards in where they get in the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1085 Posted May 5, 2016 Philipp, by day I agree with you, but by night I'm an ignoramus who looks at things in a simple way and has no time for arguments about motherboards and sensor stacks. My nocturnal opinion is that advanced technology ought to be at the service of miniaturisation, not shoving motherboards in where they get in the way. Yes, we could leave both the motherboard and the sensor out of the camera, then it could be made the same thickness as the film ones. Even better, it would be a film camera. You can not have a digital camera without the sensor and the electronic bits to match. I agree that we can but dream. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1086 Posted May 5, 2016 Yes, we could leave both the motherboard and the sensor out of the camera, then it could be made the same thickness as the film ones. Even better, it would be a film camera. You can not have a digital camera without the sensor and the electronic bits to match. I agree that we can but dream. You know I understand nothing about this type of thing, but I assume that it is possible to make a smaller full-frame changeable-lens digital camera since Sony do it, but for Leica to try to follow suit would mean creating a whole new line of lenses which for so many reasons wouldn't make sense despite being possible. And may well require the ditching of the rangefinder too. In other words making a nicer version of a Sony rather than the next M. Does this make sense? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1087 Posted May 5, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The digital electronics could be moved to a hand-grip as compact as the M motor winder, which would be interchangeable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1088 Posted May 5, 2016 Yes you can make slimmer M camera (like Sony) but mount will protrude and there won't be a place for RF mechanical bits. Leica T is thin, isn't it! Look how thin iPhone camera is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1089 Posted May 5, 2016 Instead of thin, I would want lighter body. A carbon fiber body. Design wise it is quite simple to replace the top and bottom plates with carbon fiber and provide it as option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1090 Posted May 5, 2016 I wonder why there no after market top plate with different material. Is there some copyright issue? I am sure there is a market. Lighter material, engraving, bling.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1091 Posted May 5, 2016 Rangefinder windows, shutter button interface, EVF interface, hot shoe connection, etc. Not the simplest of (reverse) engineering tasks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1092 Posted May 5, 2016 Leica should outsource these as coach builders of cars in old times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted May 5, 2016 Share #1093 Posted May 5, 2016 Instead of thin, I would want lighter body. A carbon fiber body. Design wise it is quite simple to replace the top and bottom plates with carbon fiber and provide it as option. The problem with CF is it shatters rather than bends or warps. It would need to be combined with other materials. Maybe we'll see carbon composites used to reduce the amount of brass in the top plate. It will probably add cost, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marchyman Posted May 6, 2016 Share #1094 Posted May 6, 2016 I assume that it is possible to make a smaller full-frame changeable-lens digital camera ... I think there are constraints imposed by the desire to use your existing lenses. If you don't mind replacing all of your lenses then I bet the camera could be made smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted May 6, 2016 Share #1095 Posted May 6, 2016 I like the size of the M digitals, they are all the same size with a bit of weight variance. So many cameras out there, EVIL's are just too small. Add in a plethora of buttons, and I just can't handle them, even with my average size hands. They are so unbalanced with some lenses, they become very uncomfortable to hold. And hang badly from their straps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted May 6, 2016 Share #1096 Posted May 6, 2016 I don't need anything beyond the M-P which I already own. It already has many more features than I use. But if I buy another digital M anytime soon, it will be the M-D typ 262, because that camera has exactly what I want in a Leica M digital, neither more nor less. For more features than either of those and more versatility, I have the SL. G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 6, 2016 Share #1097 Posted May 6, 2016 You know I understand nothing about this type of thing, but I assume that it is possible to make a smaller full-frame changeable-lens digital camera since Sony do it, but for Leica to try to follow suit would mean creating a whole new line of lenses which for so many reasons wouldn't make sense despite being possible. And may well require the ditching of the rangefinder too. In other words making a nicer version of a Sony rather than the next M. Does this make sense? Yes, it does. Digitizing the M added some girth to the camera because of the constraints that the M carries; they have been named here in this thread. However, shrinking the camera while keeping the image format will result in a slim camera with rather prominent lenses; the reason for this lies in the sensor being rather sensitive to the angle at which the light strikes the cells. Progress, size-wise, could be made by sensors not being all that sensitive to that angle or by shrinking the image format. This has been done before by one Oskar Barnack. This, in turn, would influence the depth of field within the image and presumably the resolution you can attain. TANSTAAFL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 6, 2016 Share #1098 Posted May 6, 2016 .......... TANSTAAFL True, but sometimes the price of your next lunch is an acceptable one. And sometimes it's just money. But in Leica's case it probably isn't just money, so I agree with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 6, 2016 Share #1099 Posted May 6, 2016 If Leica were to rework the rangefinder mechanism they might be able to produce a thinner-protruding mount model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted May 6, 2016 Share #1100 Posted May 6, 2016 I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want... ...a rigorously tested, bug free camera and accessory EVF, available off shelf on announcement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.