giordano Posted January 12, 2015 Share #561 Posted January 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The adjustable viewfinder dioptre is one of the things that Leica puts in their non-rangefinder cameras. Could it be that it is incompatible with the rangefinder system? Somebody with a deep knowledge of optics should delve into this. It would be a nice feature for sure. It's possible to make a range/viewfinder with dioptre adjustment, but with conventional optics it would require movable lenses in the eyepiece for which there's absolutely no space in M bodies. Sticking them in a housing on the back (à la Contax G2) would, I'm pretty sure, require a lower magnification and cost brightness. So I think this will have to wait for a total redesign of the M RVF—but just perhaps there's a solution on the horizon in the form of plastic lenses whose shape and therefore power can be adjusted in situ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Hi giordano, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
colonel Posted January 12, 2015 Share #562 Posted January 12, 2015 Neither of those would impress me as much as some innovation from Leica itself. Such as an overall reduction in the bloat, back to the dimensions of an M4. Such as a self-cleaning sensor. And a remapping utility. (Although neither of the latter would be Leica innovations, merely adopting what other cameras have had for ages now). I would like to see them finally abandon the separate baseplate. Well my opinion is that I love the size, almost the same as the M7. I'd hate the M4 size, too small too slippery and no good for telephoto lenses (R and others). Sensor remapping would be good, but as its so rare perhaps Leica could just email you a firmware after you email them a DNG. I also love the baseplate. Much better security and protection then those flappy plastic doors. Innovations I am looking for are wifi and 4G so an SD card may never need to be taken out. A dual SD card system would also be good. It would also be nice to have projected and more accurate frame lines. A head up display of settings in the VF would be good, maybe with a discreet button just to do this whilst pressed. Lastly a single video option should lead to a comprehensive sub-menu of video options. More control over format, size, fps, etc. Can't think of anything else ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 12, 2015 Share #563 Posted January 12, 2015 Well my opinion is that I love the size, almost the same as the M7. I'd hate the M4 size, too small too slippery and no good for telephoto lenses (R and others). Sensor remapping would be good, but as its so rare perhaps Leica could just email you a firmware after you email them a DNG. I also love the baseplate. Much better security and protection then those flappy plastic doors. Item 1 makes no sense at all, because the M7 is 1.5mm taller than an M4 but otherwise their dimensions are identical. The digitals are significantly deeper/thicker/fatter, that's the game-changing issue. I agree the M4 size is "too small too slippery and no good for telephoto lenses (R and others)". That's is because it was designed to be used with compact rangefinder lenses up to 135mm. And SLR lenses were designed to be fit to SLR's, not kludged to a rangefinder body via an adapter that cripples out their auto diaphragm and requires viewing through a jittery little shoe-mounted monitor The firmware-emailing remapping would be fine with me. Anything that avoids the time and expense of shipping the camera off for such a simple operation. And it would allow Leica to decide whether remapping would exceed their tolerances or not. Very cool idea. I never said Leica should use a flappy plastic door. They could have the baseplate in 2 parts, one fixed, one hinged just past the battery/SD card compartment. They would need to design a different latch, as the current one is on the opposite end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted January 12, 2015 Share #564 Posted January 12, 2015 Nor has this MEMBER argued against wishing to have improved ISO on the next M - it is quite likely to have that. He has merely pointed out that this will probably be of minor concern to quite a few users. I don't recall asking for you to point anything out to me, nor do I recall stating that "what I want in the next digital M" would be based on the minor concerns of other users. Again, not entirely sure why someone who's a moderator, at least part of the time, would think posting rebuttals to people's personal opinions in a thread ASKING for personal opinions is productive, whether you're using blue ink or not. There is a balance of differing opinions regarding iso performance and banding both in this thread and in the many online reviews of the M240. Were I to rebut all of those opinions, I might even get up to a 38,000 post count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiOnara Posted January 12, 2015 Share #565 Posted January 12, 2015 24MP is perfect. They can now start to make the M thinner again and also start working on ISO levels. An M with the Sony A7s ISO capabilities but at 24MP would be perfect! I love being able to shoot at f5.6 in very low light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2015 Share #566 Posted January 12, 2015 I don't recall asking for you to point anything out to me, nor do I recall stating that "what I want in the next digital M" would be based on the minor concerns of other users. Again, not entirely sure why someone who's a moderator, at least part of the time, would think posting rebuttals to people's personal opinions in a thread ASKING for personal opinions is productive, whether you're using blue ink or not. There is a balance of differing opinions regarding iso performance and banding both in this thread and in the many online reviews of the M240. Were I to rebut all of those opinions, I might even get up to a 38,000 post count. If you don't want comments on your opinions, why do you post them on a discussion forum? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 12, 2015 Share #567 Posted January 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I enjoy telling myself that my opinion is wrong. At least, I think I am wrong. But I am probably wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2015 Share #568 Posted January 12, 2015 Nono - you’re wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted January 13, 2015 Share #569 Posted January 13, 2015 I'm not sure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscheffler Posted January 13, 2015 Share #570 Posted January 13, 2015 Both the D4 and the M240 do black-frame subtraction for long exposures. I think that is an operation better performed in post. Thankfully, both camera allow this feature to be turned off. Jim OK, this forced me to take a very careful second look at my M240, but couldn't find the menu setting to disable black frame subtraction. Where is it? I also checked the manual and couldn't find reference to such a feature... however, I did discover that one of my requests already exists. There is a way to set a manually selected shutter duration between 8-60 seconds. That would have been handy recently photographing fireworks! I find 8 seconds too short for getting a nice set of bursts, and would have preferred ~15/16 seconds... (pg. 188) Oh, another feature I would like to see is display of the manually set shutter speed as a numerical value in the viewfinder, as is the case in aperture priority. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted January 13, 2015 Share #571 Posted January 13, 2015 OK, this forced me to take a very careful second look at my M240, but couldn't find the menu setting to disable black frame subtraction. Where is it? Oops. My bad -- I think. I can't find a way to turn it off, either. I've never had a camera where I couldn't turn it off, I don't think. I also checked the manual and couldn't find reference to such a feature... Oh, it's there. Set the shutter to 8 sec, and take a picture. Then watch the camera display "Noise reduction" while it makes the dark-field exposure and counts down from 8 to 0. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscheffler Posted January 13, 2015 Share #572 Posted January 13, 2015 Sorry, I meant I couldn't find reference to how to turn it off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 13, 2015 Share #573 Posted January 13, 2015 Item 1 makes no sense at all, because the M7 is 1.5mm taller than an M4 but otherwise their dimensions are identical. The digitals are significantly deeper/thicker/fatter, that's the game-changing issue. I agree the M4 size is "too small too slippery and no good for telephoto lenses (R and others)" Often repeated and simply exaggerated. Certainly not true of the M9. The M9 is thinner then the M6 TTL (Leica M6 TTL is the same size as M7) Leica M6 TTL is 1% (1 mm) narrower and 4% (3 mm) shorter than Leica M9. Leica M6 TTL is 3% (1 mm) thicker than Leica M9. Both Leica M6 TTL and Leica M9 weigh the same (585 grams). Leica M9 and Leica M are the same width (139 mm) and both of the same height. Leica M9 is 12% (5 mm) thinner than Leica M. The extra thickness of the M is only 1mm, the rest is due to protrusions of the new screen and the thumb grip and wheel. Leica M4 dimensions: 138x77x33.5 mm Leica M6 TTL dimensions: 138x77x38 mm Leica M9 dimensions: 139x80x37 mm Leica M dimensions: 139x80x42 mm - See more at: http://camera size.com/compare/#213,389 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2015 Share #574 Posted January 13, 2015 Often repeated and simply exaggerated.Certainly not true of the M9. The M9 is thinner then the M6 TTL (Leica M6 TTL is the same size as M7) Leica M6 TTL is 1% (1 mm) narrower and 4% (3 mm) shorter than Leica M9. Leica M6 TTL is 3% (1 mm) thicker than Leica M9. Both Leica M6 TTL and Leica M9 weigh the same (585 grams). Leica M9 and Leica M are the same width (139 mm) and both of the same height. Leica M9 is 12% (5 mm) thinner than Leica M. The extra thickness of the M is only 1mm, the rest is due to protrusions of the new screen and the thumb grip and wheel. Leica M4 dimensions: 138x77x33.5 mm Leica M6 TTL dimensions: 138x77x38 mm Leica M9 dimensions: 139x80x37 mm Leica M dimensions: 139x80x42 mm - See more at: http://camera size.com/compare/#213,389 Very misleading, this includes the thumbrest. In reality the Leica M has virtually the same dimensions as the M9. (in my measurements 139x80x37.5 mm) The thickness of the M6 TTL is incorrect as well, as far as I recall it should be 34 mm. Do you mean the M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 13, 2015 Share #575 Posted January 13, 2015 The thing is that both the M9 and the M have protruding parts; in fact both the display and the wheel of the M9 protrude quite a bit, about as much as the thumb rest of the M. For some strange reason Leica chose to measure the depth of the M9 (etc.) without any protruding parts – as is customary in the industry –, but include the protrusions when measuring the depth of the M (Typ 240). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 13, 2015 Share #576 Posted January 13, 2015 Very misleading, this includes the thumbrest. In reality the Leica M has virtually the same dimensions as the M9. (in my measurements 139x80x37.5 mm)The thickness of the M6 TTL is incorrect as well, as far as I recall it should be 34 mm. Do you mean the M8? These stats are from camerasize.com and its definitely the M6 TTL Interestingly just looked at my M7 manual and it said 138x79.5x38 which confirms the width but says it is even taller then the M6 TTL As I said at the top the M240 width includes the thumb rest leaving the actual body width change as 1mm or less. The camera size stats include the thumb rest as stated by Leica I believe camerasize.com does not measure the camera, it merely reports the manufacturers stated size. Therefore there can be disparity in basis of course However the point is well taken, simply the digital Ms are not thicker, one is actually thinner the previous film Ms and the other is less then 1mm thicker. So it's a whole non-issue IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2015 Share #577 Posted January 13, 2015 Hmm.. it appears that is correct for the M6TTL. Funny, I cannot recall it being thicker than the M6 that went before it. Decidedly taller, yes...Warthog moment I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted January 13, 2015 Share #578 Posted January 13, 2015 Sorry, I meant I couldn't find reference to how to turn it off. A long time ago, I was one of the first purchasers of a Kodak CMOS FF camera. I believe it was Kodak's first FF CMOS camera. It was 14MP and had no AA filter, which turned out to be a bad combination: false color all over the place. I'd only had it for a day or so when I took it to Death Valley (yeah, I know; a classic dumb move). I was at Badwater making pictures of the sunset over the Panamints. The clouds were great, and I kept working well after sundown. It got darker and darker (no moon), the exposures got longer and longer, and I could see the camera less and less well. I made an exposure, and pressed the shutter release again. Nothing happened. After a few seconds, the camera started working again. That behavior kept up, and got worse as the exposures got longer. Back at Furnace Creek, I figured out what had happened and turned dark-frame subtraction off. Let's say that you and I are not clueless klutzes and there is no way to turn the feature off in the M240. This sounds like a camera manufacturer who thinks he knows better than the photographer what the right thing to do is. It does not sound like a camera designer what believes in minimal in-camera raw processing. The sad truth is that single shot black frame subtraction is a crude way to deal with dark current. It reduces frame-to-frame-invariant noise, but actually increases frame-to-frame-variant noise by a factor of 1.414. A better way is to make a series of 16 or so dark exposures and average them to produce a correcting image that can be subtracted from the real ones to reduce dark-current noise. An immense benefit in most circumstances is that the real exposures can be made with no delay in between. A disadvantage is the requirement to precede or follow the real exposures with the calibration exposures. There are several programs that automate the process. One is called Images Plus. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 13, 2015 Share #579 Posted January 13, 2015 The M6 Classic, M6TTL and M7 thickness are the same (they fit the same ERC). The reason for the specs being thicker than an M4/M4-2/M4-P is due entirely to the protruding ISO dial of the metered models. The body castings themselves are identical in depth. OTOH the M8/M9 3.5mm depth increase over an M4 is the body casting itself. All anyone has to do to verify this is measure an M6/TTL/7/P baseplate against an M4-era baseplate (will be found to be the same); then measure that against an M8/9/240 baseplate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted January 13, 2015 Share #580 Posted January 13, 2015 What I would like next: #1 hands down - self-cleaning sensor. Less weight - getting it back to what the M9 weighs would be great. More dynamic range. The ability to shoot 1/6400 and 1/8000. Customizable frame lines... like 16:9 or 2.35:1 Less lag when using LV/EVF. What I DON'T want changed: the rangefinder. I find the rangefinder to be an amazing way to manually focus. Far easier than manually focusing a DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.