jaapv Posted May 29, 2016 Share #1201 Posted May 29, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm curious about the EVF desire that some request. There is nothing like real time live view. The relative small form factor, lenses and real live view of the rangefinder seem to be the only reason to buy the kit. Adding all the stuff that other cameras include result in a "me too" camera. I use EVF's in cinema settings and consider them at best, a necessary evil. For me, the EVF takes you steps further away from this miracle of reality we live in. You are fiddling with the camera rather than focusing on the surrounding environment. To my fairy Godmother, I would ask for: A greatly expanded ISO range base 25 to 50,000 with pixel binning for noise control ( if needed). A super quiet shutter. Extended battery life. Faster write speeds. I don't see the benefit of more mp's. The diffraction limit would be too confining - especially with such a high ISO base. The reason so many 80mp backs are for sale for cheap is due to this extreme limitation. You can't shoot beyond 5.6 with those beasts and you end up having to focus stack. To me, this isn't the best option when using a street camera. I guess that you are never are in the situation that you want to use a rangefinder in general but need a wider range of focal length occasionally but have no desire to carry a second system Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 Hi jaapv, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scaryink Posted May 30, 2016 Share #1202 Posted May 30, 2016 For me, the idea of an all in one system ends up as an all in one compromise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 30, 2016 Share #1203 Posted May 30, 2016 And carrying a rangefinder and a DSLR system ends up as a hernia or stroke... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted May 30, 2016 Share #1204 Posted May 30, 2016 Or builds muscles, if not character. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 30, 2016 Share #1205 Posted May 30, 2016 Or builds muscles, if not character. I'm well past that; any muscle or character that hasn't been built by now is unlikely to appear in future... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1206 Posted June 1, 2016 Well, I finally had a look at an M-D on Saturday - a nice looking camera and felt fine, but..... Having looked and thought, it still seems to me to be hamstrung - like a modern car with a crashbox. So its not for me. I understand its appeal but will leave it for others to use. FWIW at the same even most of the major players were showing gear. Leica was the most innovative by far - and I had a friend (Nikon user) with me who agreed. The Monochrome and M-D illustrated this perfectly to say nothing of the SL. 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 suppose the last niche (though we can always think of more!) would be a Monochrom M-D, a camera in which I would have no interest whatsoever, but I can imagine quite a few might. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1207 Posted June 1, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would be much more interested in a Q with M mount than in a successor to the M Typ 240. As it is I find the 240 the ultimate camera for my wishes and would be loth to pay thousands of Euros for -to me- just an improved EVF. Even if Leica would play magic with the RF. Sensor- and other electronic improvements would do nothing for my photography. Just comparing my M8 images against my present photographs makes that abundantly clear. A real EVIL camera which would be essentially that same EVF in a dedicated smallish body would hold far more interest for me. It would be a real upgrade from my present Nex7 with adapter. And from the DMR which sees little use nowadays, come to think of it, maybe it should go into the Buy and Sell . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1208 Posted June 1, 2016 If it has an M mount it's an M not a Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1209 Posted June 1, 2016 Whatever, no inclination for that overtired and pointless argument; it would probably have its own designation and thus be neither. BTW, the SL has a T mount and is not a T... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1210 Posted June 1, 2016 Just as old and tired as wishing for a Q with a removeable lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1211 Posted June 1, 2016 The cameras are called whatever Leica calls them... Maybe HC for Hoary Chestnut . I'm sure there are people ready to dub such a hypothetical camera the M16... I don't think that I am alone in seeing an EVIL camera in a reasonably small form factor as a nice addition to the Leica stable. The SL is close, but its link to the S system and the lens concept has made it too big for the purpose. An EVF system camera based on manual M lenses with an option to integrate future smallish AF lenses would fill a gap. The Q body seems to be a reasonable platform, but only Leica can decide whether it would work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1212 Posted June 1, 2016 The SL is certainly not the M with an EVF However I still think a camera of the M's form factor with the rangefinder replaced with an EVF and MF lenses has no USPs An EVF APS-C AF camera already exists in the form of the T. A FF in the form of the SL. I very much doubt Leica will want another AF CSC Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1213 Posted June 1, 2016 Yes - but the T is not FF and the SL too big (and expensive). For the moment I suppose other manufacturers will fill the gap, albeit not satisfactory right now. It could be Leica, though, if they felt like it... I do agree that such a camera would need to have AF capability, even if only for future lenses. It is not as if Leica has not been playing with the idea of an M with added AF... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1214 Posted June 1, 2016 The M concept is very beautiful and very unique. It will continue to sell well whilst it sells well, which could be indefinitely. It certainly has no direct competition which is pretty unique these days. Perhaps what you are after is a "mini-SL" I could see a certain attraction for such a device. Perhaps Leica could make a darker range of smaller lenses as well as the premium brighter TL lenses However, like it or not, it'll have a devil of a fight against the A7 series. Leica will have to differentiate with jewellery value. That could be quite good enough to sustain a smaller premium market but I'd be surprised if any more. BTW I agree with you about the SL. Fine as a professional camera but if I was tempted I would personally much rather go for an S which is a similar weight and size but has a quite unique sensor and probably some of the sharpest commercial lenses ever made Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1215 Posted June 1, 2016 Well, maybe. The ability to take M lenses natively and a completely different approach to Sony in user interface -more classic, simpler menus, less buttons etc.- might well differentiate a Leica enough - as long as they would avoid the "me-too" route in features and complexity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1216 Posted June 1, 2016 Well, maybe. The ability to take M lenses natively and a completely different approach to Sony in user interface -more classic, simpler menus, less buttons etc.- might well differentiate a Leica enough - as long as they would avoid the "me-too" route in features and complexity. I see your point on everything except the ability to do AF on the M mount Seems crazy to reverse engineer AF on a mount never designed for it, or for heavy telephoto lenses, when you have a brand new TL mount designed for purpose... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1217 Posted June 1, 2016 I'm not saying it is practical, or even possible. I do know that the thought has been considered at Leica, (outcome wholly unknown) Who knows, the company that came up with surprising solutions like the R-ROM and the six-bit coding - and even originally AF itself - might figure something out. They did redesign the body and mount support of the M Typ 240 exactly with heavy lenses in mind because of LV and EVF. I see the throat diameter of the M mount as more of an obstacle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1218 Posted June 1, 2016 I'm not saying it is practical, or even possible. or desirable ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1219 Posted June 1, 2016 Judging by posts on this Forum, desirable for some (not me). But it might be neccesary to widen the appeal of such a postulated camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted June 1, 2016 Share #1220 Posted June 1, 2016 I would actually rather see a fixed AF 24-75 on a Q to be honest... (although I would worry about the size of it!) It may even be even a replacement for an M for some users, if the lens was small and fast enough. If it had a Leica script on top (a la 'P' versions) it might be just the most popular Leica ever...! Then the original M series could continue to 'plough its own furrow' and avoid any conflict with some of the more conservative customers... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.