colonel Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1221 Posted June 1, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Many times people have asked for interchangeable versions of fixed lens cameras Fuji's answer to the X100 was the X-Pro1 Sony's answer to the RX1 was the A7 etc. all heavier and bulkier and noisier Why ? 1. Tolerances in construction can be closer on a lens designed and uniquely matched to the sensor. This is why fixed lens cameras typically have slightly better stats then their interchangeable cousins, e.g. sharpness, acuity, etc. no variation on lens mount/camera connections variances 2, The rear elements of the lens and sensor and especially designed for each other and tend to be much closer together 3. You can use things like leaf shutters which can't be fitted to interchangeable designs Therefore any interchangeable Q would probably be between the size fo the Q and the SL. it would certainly not be the size of the Q, in any shape or form. life is all about compromises ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 Hi colonel, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bill Livingston Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1222 Posted June 1, 2016 I would actually rather see a fixed AF 24-75 on a Q I know... That's why I said a fixed lens on a Q and leaving interchangeable to the M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajitmenon Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1223 Posted June 1, 2016 So having used M rangefinders (film and digital) and also the SL, I am actually quite curious what Leica will do for the new M. At first, the ideal scenario seemed to be a merging of the Q/ SL EVF tech into an M sized body and the probable advancements in sensor technology. However, having tried the Q and used the SL quite a bit recently, I am unsure what these changes should be... the SL and Q are great but... they don't "feel" like a Leica. They just seem like very good cameras with the Leica badge and most importantly, the ability to use Leica lenses to the extreme... but they rather feel generic now. It's a strange realization because the use of an M with an optical viewfinder seems to be the ideal Leica experience and anything but makes it generic and just another technological device. Perhaps that's why Leica made the SL because they came to the same conclusions but decided to compete against the competition that could not just "compete" with Canikon but also the A7 series and open up the body to use ALL kinds of Leica glass - R, M , S and cine. And this means they have no intention of incorporating TOO MUCH technology into the Ms. Obviously the new sensor will be improved as will dynamic range. Having used the SL, I feel an EVF negates the Leica experience enough to not include it. It remains to be seen if the Leica engineers think of anything clever to bridge this. The main things I guess I would like to see are simple extensions, especially useful for landscape photography: - Option to NOT have noise reduction for long exposures - ability to move the focus point in Live View to check focus other than just the central point - maybe an intervalometer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1224 Posted June 1, 2016 Many times people have asked for interchangeable versions of fixed lens cameras Fuji's answer to the X100 was the X-Pro1 Sony's answer to the RX1 was the A7 etc. all heavier and bulkier and noisier Why ? 1. Tolerances in construction can be closer on a lens designed and uniquely matched to the sensor. This is why fixed lens cameras typically have slightly better stats then their interchangeable cousins, e.g. sharpness, acuity, etc. no variation on lens mount/camera connections variances 2, The rear elements of the lens and sensor and especially designed for each other and tend to be much closer together 3. You can use things like leaf shutters which can't be fitted to interchangeable designs Therefore any interchangeable Q would probably be between the size fo the Q and the SL. it would certainly not be the size of the Q, in any shape or form. life is all about compromises ... but here we have Leica who already have proven themselves by building à compact digital IL camera, the M, despite a bulky OVF/RF assembly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 1, 2016 Author Share #1225 Posted June 1, 2016 I still feel that the one camera missing from the line-up that would make Leica stand out even more from the competition would be a changeable lens EVF camera purely for MF M lenses. The SL is great but compromised for this purpose by its size, largely a result of its need to accommodate AF lenses. The M with an up-to-date EVF attachment would also come close but would be larger and more expensive than necessary for anyone who prefers to use an EVF. Given the readiness Leica have shown to acccomodate minority demand for reduced versions of the M, is this too much to expect? I have, in the past, been very keen on this idea. However, now I'm not so sure. Using the SL and the M, an M mount camera in M form factor with an EVF doesn't appeal at all. I appreciate this goes against the grain for many here, but I think this would wreck the M system. The M camera is really all about that fantastic viewfinder and fabulous lenses. It's an oddity in the current camera market, dominated by cellphones, Sonys, Fujis and Canikons - they're bulging with options and everything electronics can bring, combined with fantastic lenses. These makers are in a race to the top, because the bottom of the market is a graveyard. A photographer friend is using the Huawei P9, and can't stop raving about the image quality. The M camera's unique selling point is the MF lenses coupled to the rangefinder optical viewfinder. Remove that USP, and what do you have? In developing the SL, I think this is exactly the exercise Leica went through - EVF, no coupling, M lens compatible. Once they were free from the coupling, that opened the new mount, compatibility with all Leica lenses and made AF a possibility. So, what's the SL USP? Fantastic EVF, universal body for Leica lenses, AF lenses (not in camera) and an implementation of electronics which is uniquely Leica in its approach. What would an EVF purely M mount camera offer? Smaller form factor, no AF compatibility (presumably - it would be truly horrible with SL & S lenses, but why remove that compatibility). You'd pretty soon get to a camera which would actually dent M sales and not be as nice to use as the SL. As an SL user, still using my Monochrom and M60, I would have zero interest in such a camera. The SL is perfectly balanced with larger M lenses (21 Summilux, 28 Summilux, Noctilux and 75 Summilux) and the image quality with these lenses is just as good on the SL as on the M. But, the M is special. I hope they don't spoil it by diluting it's core strength - manual lenses, rangefinder coupling. If people want an EVF, make it clip on with the quality of the SL. But don't spoil it. For those wanting an EVF based camera, buy an SL - it fits nicely in the hand and works well with M lenses, and everything else Leica offers. Don't spoil the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Bedford Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1226 Posted June 1, 2016 Hear, hear! The M is exactly what it's meant to be. Improve the sensor, improve the size, improve the firmware, but don't change what the M fundamentally is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1227 Posted June 1, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) .............................. The M camera's unique selling point is the MF lenses coupled to the rangefinder optical viewfinder. Remove that USP, and what do you have? .......................... What would an EVF purely M mount camera offer? ................ For those wanting an EVF based camera, buy an SL - it fits nicely in the hand and works well with M lenses, and everything else Leica offers. Don't spoil the M. I'm not suggesting any change to the M here, just a lighthearted suggestion for another model that would sit comfortably below the M in pricing, to suit those who want a small camera for their M lenses, who almost by definition like MF, who like EVFs, but want full-frame and like Leica's approach to UI. I probably wouldn't buy one but I could see the point of such a camera. This is no criticism of the SL, but it is a very different camera from something along the lines of a MF IL Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1228 Posted June 1, 2016 Which is exactly why Leica could never position such a camera within the M system. An IL/Q or mini-SL would be fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1229 Posted June 1, 2016 How many people will buy both an M and an SL? The rest of us need an M able to do tele and macro the same way as our parents did in the past. Nothing new since the first Visoflex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1230 Posted June 1, 2016 How many people will buy both an M and an SL? The rest of us need an M able to do tele and macro the same way as our parents did in the past. Nothing new since the first Visoflex. Indeed. It's perhaps a symptom of our Leicadom that we are often expected to have multiple, specialist cameras. Basically, an M that will accept long, wide and macro lenses on the relatively rare occasions I want to use them, and will do so in a convenient fashion and deliver the quality I hope for, is all I really want, and by and large that's exactly what the M240 does. A few up-dates would be welcome, principally the external EVF I suppose, and the sensor simply because it's possible, and I'll be very content and still able to take all the photos I want to with just one camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1231 Posted June 1, 2016 How many people will buy both an M and an SL? The rest of us need an M able to do tele and macro the same way as our parents did in the past. Nothing new since the first Visoflex. Perhaps its a technical pipe dream, but I continue to hold out hope that the recent dual cell phone camera work hints that there is a fully digital, EVF-based, true rangefinder, subbing active optics for passive ones, somewhere on the horizon. I wouldn't expect nor desire that it to replace the OVF version, rather compliment it. Fine by me if they give such a camera a new designation, but with one proviso: the native mount is M. I have no desire at this point for AF from my Leica gear EVF or otherwise. Call me recalcitrant or childish, but the SL is a non-starter for me if for no other reason that I refuse to use adapters to support M lenses on a Leica product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1232 Posted June 1, 2016 How many people will buy both an M and an SL? The rest of us need an M able to do tele and macro the same way as our parents did in the past. Nothing new since the first Visoflex. But what about since the last Visoflex? That was 1984 IIRC. Leica specifically built the R system to be used alongside the M and many Leica enthusiasts had both systems, each used to its specific strengths. Nothing about parents here. I did my first Safari using an M4, Visoflex III and Telyt-V 400, and got myself an R4 as soon as I could afterwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1233 Posted June 1, 2016 But what about since the last Visoflex? [...] Here is the last Visoflex. Nothing new under the sun . Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/215101-what-do-you-want-in-the-next-digital-m/?do=findComment&comment=3055070'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1234 Posted June 1, 2016 The last Visoflex was the Visoflex III, which stopped in 1984, the EVF is the latest Visoflex, from 2013, to clarify my post. I hope it won't be the last, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1235 Posted June 1, 2016 And after? It stopped in 1984 - the next Visoflex dates from 2013... and? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1236 Posted June 1, 2016 Well, it leaves quite a gap in time to implement your idea: How many people will buy both an M and an SL? The rest of us need an M able to do tele and macro the same way as our parents did in the past. Nothing new since the first Visoflex. Leica clearly decided that it was better to use the M alongside the R - and with good reason. Many owners agreed, and did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 1, 2016 Author Share #1237 Posted June 1, 2016 How many people will buy both an M and an SL? The rest of us need an M able to do tele and macro the same way as our parents did in the past. Nothing new since the first Visoflex. That's true to a point, but the market has changed considerably since the first Visoflex. In the words of LUF's own wiki, it was "basic and primitive" compared to an SLR. We are in a different space to 60 odd years ago when the Visoflex was first introduced for LTM lenses. In those days, you had choices of bellows rangefinders, Leica type rangefinders and SLRs. Most photography was still B&W, and there was limited choice of lenses. Things changed in the 1960s with the compact Japanese SLRs, but the choices were still rather limited, and dominated by those SLR cameras. These days, the choices are myriad and for most consumers, confusing. Most are happy with their cellphones, and they give very good results. Why on earth would anyone buy into a camera system ... Well, because it is no longer mainstream (that part of the market has gone to cellphones), manufacturers need a unique selling point - hence the continuance of the rangefinder, and Leica releasing odd cameras (when viewed from only 20 years ago) like the M-A (manual winder and no meter), the M-D and Monochrom. Even the SL is novel. In the market sector where Leica is thriving, a jack of all trades camera has less appeal than a camera which has a specific purpose or selling point. Leica markets to the long tail, rather than trying to compete in the centre of the bell-curve; they'd get slaughtered there - didn't we hear that Sony's camera division loses money, and dSLR sales are declining? Granted, still bigger in numbers than any Leica sales, but living in the long tail seems to be profitable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1238 Posted June 1, 2016 Perhaps its a technical pipe dream, but I continue to hold out hope that the recent dual cell phone camera work hints that there is a fully digital, EVF-based, true rangefinder, subbing active optics for passive ones, somewhere on the horizon. I wouldn't expect nor desire that it to replace the OVF version, rather compliment it. Fine by me if they give such a camera a new designation, but with one proviso: the native mount is M. I have no desire at this point for AF from my Leica gear EVF or otherwise. Call me recalcitrant or childish, but the SL is a non-starter for me if for no other reason that I refuse to use adapters to support M lenses on a Leica product. The SL is also a non starter for me for different reasons but i would not mind to get an electronic rangefinder at all provided i don't have to watch a mini TV set all the time. Now adapters like the VM-E for Sony can be very usefull indeed. It helps to hold the camera more comfortably and allows for close focusing down to 20 or 30cm with M lenses. Great experience really but i'm not trying to sell you my Sony . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 2, 2016 Share #1239 Posted June 2, 2016 That's true to a point, but the market has changed considerably since the first Visoflex. In the words of LUF's own wiki, it was "basic and primitive" compared to an SLR. [...] Been there my friend, alas... I just wanted to say that most Leica users won't buy both an M and an SL body, the same way as most of them did not buy both an M4 and a Leicaflex in the past. Then current RF users are still in the same situation as they or their parents used to be in the last century. They still want a rangefinder but they also want to be able to do tele and macro with their favorite camera. There is little difference between optical and electronic Visoflex from this viewpoint. The EVF is simply a super Visoflex but it is still an accessory VF so people preferring TTL cameras will choose an SL the same way as they chose another SL 40+ years ago. Did i say nothing new under the sun? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2016 Share #1240 Posted June 2, 2016 The only quibble I have is with"most of them" My perception is different. There may be regional differences, though. The R was relative more popular in Germany than elsewhere for instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.