A very hypothetical "what if?"

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Michael, I think you can make tele-centric lenses with the same throat size by just making the lens dimensions different, no? The tele centric lenses Leica designed for cinema use were made for existing mounts and flange depths.

[mjh]

Michael, I think you can make tele-centric lenses with the same throat size by just making the lens dimensions different, no?

Telecentric lenses require large rear elements; otherwise how could you illuminate all of the sensor when the incident angles are small? As long as there is no limit to the incident angles then you could do with a small rear element, but for a telecentric lens it would ideally be even larger than the image circle. Obviously a large diameter of the rear element requires a correspondingly large mount diameter. For example, MFT has a throat size of about 38 mm; a similarly dimensioned 35 mm mount would have twice that size, i.e. 76 mm. That’s considerably larger than even the Canon EOS mount, the largest of all the 35 mm mounts.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[BerndReini]

Makes sense, yet more flange depth would offer room for improvement even with spherical lenses, correct? My main point is that adhering to the M mount specs is not ideal for designing lenses used with a digital sensor.

[algrove]

Yes, the picture are the most important thing. But this is exactly what we keep forgetting. I just bought myself a nice Christmas present: a silver gelatin print of a Peter Turnley photograph printed by Voja Mitrovic. When I look at that photograph, I am reminded that I should not think about equipment so much.

 

Which photo?

[BerndReini]

The Paris skyline in 16x20. I got the giggles when I unwrapped the print. I have only looked at it once, before wrapping it up again. It is going to my framer next week.

Edited December 27, 2014 by BerndReini

[colonel]

No, because it's not a Leica.

No other manufacturer will ever build a camera with the same kind of materials, feel and quirks.

And as said above, it's the finest focusing system, bar none, for 28-90mm over 0.7m, and outside that works pretty well if know what you are doing.

I still find it amuzing that so many people need to diss Sony. I have an A7S as well as M and they both have their place. The Sony is a fabulous system but if I have a choice I always pick up M as its a beautiful shooting experience.

The OVF is lovely as well. Controversially I wouldn't mind being able to switch to a full EVF for super wide angle and telephoto.

Having the choice would be nice. I wouldn't pollute the OVF with any projected screen stuff like Fuji though. One or the other via a simple switch.

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Makes sense, yet more flange depth would offer room for improvement even with spherical lenses, correct?

Obviously, but nobody is going that route. The trend (for the last couple of years and probably for many years to come) has been towards even shorter flange distances, but larger mounts (relative to the image circle).

 

My main point is that adhering to the M mount specs is not ideal for designing lenses used with a digital sensor.

Fair enough, but I don’t quite see a new rangefinder system that wasn’t compatible with the M system. That would be even less likely than some vendor challenging Leica with a digital, M-compatible rangefinder camera. Which is quite unlikely to begin with.

[BerndReini]

Fair enough, but I don’t quite see a new rangefinder system that wasn’t compatible with the M system.

 

We are in total agreement on this. I'm saying the competition is coming from the EVF systems, and the fact that future users will accept the EVF as the natural way of seeing the frame. Leica will have to deal with this in the same way as Nikon and Canon, and the T system is one attempt.

[dant]

I've got 4 Leicas. (Had 5)

 

A Fuji Leica knockoff for $2500 would be most welcome...for me it would be bye bye Leica.

 

While Leica is a pretty cam built like a tank it is way overpriced and has a second rate sensor. I shoot it cause it is the only manual rangefinder out there...no other reason.

[Torgian]

If for some reason, someone made an awesome rangefinder that was cheaper, good build quality, and could take an M-mount lens... well, I would probably switch too. As long as it had an optical, not an EV finder.

 

If for some reason they did take a lot of business away from Leica, then I could see Leica either A) exclusively make lenses or Focus more on lenses and come out with the occasional bodies for the 'elite', so to speak.

 

Personally, I would keep my current Leica, but buy the new rangefinder if it had similar build quality and operation as my M, and took the lenses. AND had autofocus for that brand's lenses, which would be pretty interesting.

 

But, most likely, nobody is going to pick up that challenge, which in turn will only cause Leica to possibly grow compliant over time. Not a good thing.

[jaapv]

I've got 4 Leicas. (Had 5)

 

A Fuji Leica knockoff for $2500 would be most welcome...for me it would be bye bye Leica.

 

While Leica is a pretty cam built like a tank it is way overpriced and has a second rate sensor. I shoot it cause it is the only manual rangefinder out there...no other reason.

 

Though I am not a DxO fan, they rate the CMOSIS sensor amongst the best. And the M8-M9-MM series is by far the best CCD sensor ever built....

[jaapv]

We are in total agreement on this. I'm saying the competition is coming from the EVF systems, and the fact that future users will accept the EVF as the natural way of seeing the frame. Leica will have to deal with this in the same way as Nikon and Canon, and the T system is one attempt.

Fact? Future users will only see an EVF, no matter how good, as more natural than optical when electronic retina implants have become the norm. Optical viewing is still the biological norm...

[CheshireCat]

Fact? Future users will only see an EVF, no matter how good, as more natural than optical when electronic retina implants have become the norm. Optical viewing is still the biological norm...

 

This is photography, and there is nothing more natural to it than viewing the final picture you will get on a realtime EVF that outresolves our retina.

No need for cyberpunk implants

 

You can still use the other eye for "optical viewing". Your brain will bridge the two worlds.

[lct]

Hard to achieve with ultrawides or telephotos... An EVF "sees" behind the lens, contrary to rangefinders. Mirrorless cameras are just another kind of TTL camera.

[BerndReini]

Most of us are traditionalists. I am guilty of this myself. If Leica as a company was as stubborn in resisting progress, they would have long been gone. EVFs will absolutely become the norm. Jaap, as a final product you are looking at a photograph first on a computer screen, then on printing paper. The translation to a different medium happens at a certain point anyway, and when EVFs are good enough and fast enough, they will work out quite well. As a matter of fact, they will help us pre-visualizing contrast ratios, depth of field, etc.

 

I guess where we could argue is whether the next generation will even want to look through any kind of viewfinder since they all seem to take photographs with their iphones and ipads anyway. Our arguments might be moot and only relate to us dinosaurs.

[colonel]

I think you will find a complete younger generation looking at interchangeable cameras, specialist cameras and high quality cameras.

 

If the iPhone/smartphone/instagram and it's effects were the "end" of photography you would have to wonder why lomography is doing so well

 

Photography as a considered art form with interesting equipment will always exist

Edited December 28, 2014 by colonel

[lct]

EVFs will absolutely become the norm.

The same way as (d)SLRs became the norm i guess. But the norm did not kill rangefinders did it.

[BerndReini]

The rangefinder is here to stay, that is not the argument, but how much room for expansion in the market there is, since we have a Leica store in almost every major city and a brand new Leica factory, that is the other question. Therefore, getting back to the original question: I don't think any other company will build a rangefinder system because the market demand simply won't support it.

Edited December 28, 2014 by BerndReini

[thrid]

I've got 4 Leicas. (Had 5)

 

A Fuji Leica knockoff for $2500 would be most welcome...for me it would be bye bye Leica.

 

While Leica is a pretty cam built like a tank it is way overpriced and has a second rate sensor. I shoot it cause it is the only manual rangefinder out there...no other reason.

 

I have a feeling that the color science in the 240 is more of a problem than the actual sensor, which is probably one of the better ones around.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Herr Barnack]

In the film era there were cheaper competitors, for instance Voigtlander and Zeiss. None managed to make any impression on the market. Zeiss wanted to build a DRF, but could not come up with a camera that could compete successfully with Leica. And they could draw on a long history of building rangefinders and Sony electronic expertise. The Epson RD1 was an interesting hybrid of a Nikon D70 and Voigtlander film camera, but a white elephant for Epson. As fertile as a mule.

Since then Leica has forged ahead, making the exercise rather uninteresting for others. I could only see this happening as a prestige project, at a price that would make the Leica appear cheap.

 

What camera is a viable competitor or substitute for the M camera? There is no such camera, whether it's film based or digital.

 

Voigtlander or Zeiss film rangefinders vs. the film M cameras? No contest.

Fuji's digital faux rangefinders vs. the M240, M-P or Monochrom? LMAO.

Bottom line: The M camera system stands alone. It is unique, it is one of a kind.

 

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.