Jump to content

Why would anyone want a Leica with no screen?


dant

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very, very nice! Way to go!

 

Now please make this a regular production version with:

 

- black paint finish option

- vulcanite style leatherette

- bring back the M8 style battery meter/ frame counter window

- give me a frame preview lever

- make the shutter speed dial not rotate infinitely

- make it no more costly as the last digital M I bought

 

… and I place an order.

+1

And add tethering, please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

x
  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply
It could never revert to the thickness of the M6. The sensor and motherboard ( and battery) take up too much space. If one would like such a camera it would have a protruding lens mount and would need a smaller battery.

 

Protruding lens mount would not detract from the comfort of holding the camera as a thick body does.

 

Nobody is forcing you to buy a "P" model, though.

 

Straw-man argument, because nobody ever said anything about being forced to buy a P model. The statement was just about the tactic of down-speccing each new generation and then speccing it back up again later on as a P model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Movie button on top, DPReview says:

 

"The M-60 can't shoot movies. We checked. The small circular button on the top-right of the camera has been repurposed as a quick 'status check' button which displays battery charge information in the viewfinder when pressed."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having shot with an MDa with the 21 mm for few years, I really like the concept. And I think this is a beautiful camera too.

 

Did you guys see this ;)

 

PHOTOKINA EXCLUSIVE! Leica Signs Macaca Nigra as Spokesprimate | New Camera News

 

Bwaahahahaha damn near spit my coffee all over the keyboard :D In the words of the iconic Larry The Cable Guy, "I don't care who y'all are, that there's funny!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Movie button on top, DPReview says:

 

"The M-60 can't shoot movies. We checked. The small circular button on the top-right of the camera has been repurposed as a quick 'status check' button which displays battery charge information in the viewfinder when pressed."

Not that I will ever own one but that is nice to know. How would you know what is left on your SD card?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could never revert to the thickness of the M6. The sensor and motherboard ( and battery) take up too much space. If one would like such a camera it would have a protruding lens mount and would need a smaller battery.

 

Nobody is forcing you to buy a "P" model, though.

 

No we were talking about the M60 - it looks just like an M Typ 240 without the stuff on the back. The M-P is of course mostly a cosmetic makeover of the M Type 240 and is therefore the same thickness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Straw-man argument, because nobody ever said anything about being forced to buy a P model. The statement was just about the tactic of down-speccing each new generation and then speccing it back up again later on as a P model.

 

Yes. And if you don't like it don't buy it. It is not a personal insult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would've been cooler with a shutter cock lever. Oh well, can't afford it anyhow.

 

It would be even cooler if, like a mechanical watch, winding the lever would produce sufficient stored energy which could be converted to electricity such that the battery could be dispensed with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be even cooler if, like a mechanical watch, winding the lever would produce sufficient stored energy which could be converted to electricity such that the battery could be dispensed with.

 

 

That is an impossibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an impossibility.

 

I posted the following during an itchy-thumb outbreak a couple of years ago:

 

Do the maths. I don't have a film M to hand so I used a Nikon F because it doesn't have either a particularly short or particularly light wind lever travel. The lever is about 40mm long, travels about 180 degrees and needs a force of about 5N (a bit over 0.5 kgf) to move it. This means that the energy for one stroke of the lever is of the order of 0.04 * pi * 5 joules, say 0.6 joules.

 

Mark Norton showed in his power consumption thread that the M8 draws about 200mA when idling and 600mA or more when active (shutter button half-pressed, writing to card etc.) and a lot more while winding the shutter. 200mA at the nominal 3.7V of the M8/9 battery is about 0.7 watts - which is 0.7 joules per second.

 

In other words just to keep a M8 idling you'd need to thumb the wind lever about once a second - and triple that while it was taking a shot, processing it and writing it to the card. And that's assuming 100% efficient dynamo, power management and energy storage. The M9 is generally believed to have about the same power needs.

 

Assume generously that the M10 needs only 10% of the power of the M8 (therefore no live view, wifi, GPS, electronic framelines or what have you) and you'd still have to crank every few seconds to keep the camera alive.

 

Sod that for a game of soldiers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Protruding lens mount would not detract from the comfort of holding the camera as a thick body does.

 

True. But simply putting a protruding mount (say by 6-8mm) on a body the thickness of a film M would change the relative positions of (a) the lens flange (and hence the rangefinder cam on the lens) and (B) the pivot point of the roller cam follower inside the body. That in turn would change the relationship between (a) the focusing movement of the lens and (B) the angular movement of the shaft on which the cam follower is mounted, and which through a further cam works the swinging lens that produces the moving image for the rangefinder.

 

Compensating for that would as far as I can make out mean serious and expensive redesign of the RVF (which would have meet the extremely tight tolerances imposed by current fast sharp lenses and high-resolution sensors).

 

I'm certain that Leica were reluctant to make the digital Ms as fat as they are (and to accept the concomitant reduction in VF magnification from 0.72 to 0.78). In fact the lens mount on the digital Ms does protrude more than on the film Ms - by a millimetre or so - and I presume that this is the maximum that the could be achieved within the basic M2-4-6 RVF design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...