jaapv Posted February 20, 2015 Share #21 Posted February 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) True. Somebody obviously was not telling... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Hi jaapv, Take a look here New direction for Leica rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
biglou Posted February 20, 2015 Share #22 Posted February 20, 2015 Thougts? - Yes - forget itOf course they could make a new camera with a new range of lenses, but the point about the hybrid viewfinder in the (excellent) Fuji cameras is the electronic connection between the camera and the lens . . . and M lenses have no electronic connection, so the camera does not know what distance has been focused on (and therefore the parallax and field of view corrections). Or what aperture has been selected. There isn't any way of making bug free robust reliability in such a hybrid viewfinder without electonic lenses. Simple as that. Ovelays become inaccurate, focus confirmation a guess etc. etc. If you're asking for a better plug in EVF, then I'm right with you - faster refresh, more resolution, eye sensor, absolutely! Hi Jono, If i am not mistaken you don't need to have any electronic connection between lenses and camera. A captor linked to the rangefinder mechanism can provide the distance information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 20, 2015 Share #23 Posted February 20, 2015 Leicas are very, very expensive for fairly low tech camera bodies, so let's see some more value for our money. Wolfloid, having had a quick scan through your posts I have to say that I'm amazed that you actually bother with Leica as you are clearly very dis-satisfied with virtually all their products. Perhaps it is time to consider whether they are likely to produce anything which you want to use rather than suggest that they actually build something that you might just want to use (and which you might well think is/will be flawed anyway)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted February 20, 2015 Share #24 Posted February 20, 2015 Leicas are very, very expensive for fairly low tech camera bodies, IMHO a rangefinder of this quality is pretty high tech....or do you mean that anything which is mechanical can't be high tech? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 20, 2015 Share #25 Posted February 20, 2015 Hi Jono,If i am not mistaken you don't need to have any electronic connection between lenses and camera. A captor linked to the rangefinder mechanism can provide the distance information. Yes indeed, but not the exact field of view, or the Aperture - to get proper overlays you really do need exact information - which of course you do have with an X-pro1, and of course the actual focal length varies slightly between different leica lenses. You could just have an EVF in the same hole as the rangefinder . . . . . but my impression is that isn't very easy to accomplish either. . . . . and why bother if you can't do overlays etc. The idea that Leica should 1. copy Fuji 2. do it worse (because of these issues) seems like a bad idea to me! It would irritate the existing users, and fail to lure in those who really like the idea (as they'll buy the Fuji for a fraction of the price). Remember also that the Fuji optical mode is NOT a rangefinder! all the best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 20, 2015 Share #26 Posted February 20, 2015 Remember also that the Fuji optical mode is NOT a rangefinder! And building a hybrid rangefinder/EVF would be some feat, even more so if it should fit the dimensions of a body like the M (Typ 240). Some people are talking about such a hybrid rangefinder as if it did exist somewhere and Leica was just reluctant to use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 20, 2015 Share #27 Posted February 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) True. Somebody obviously was not telling... I doubt that. And you don’t need info from Olympus or Epson to know that there would be higher resolution display panels in the future. Still the M (Typ 240) was developed and built to a certain specification which did not include support for EVFs above some resolution and/or frame rate. The line had to be drawn somewhere. If Leica had decided to postpone the introduction of the M (Typ 240) by a few years the camera would never have used the Olympus/Epson EVF and its interface anyway – the new interface developed for the T would have been available then. But you cannot postpone new products indefinitely and there will always be something new on the horizon that you have to decide to ignore if you ever want to bring a product to market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pop Posted February 20, 2015 Share #28 Posted February 20, 2015 This, and similar topics, have been discussed forever and a day on this forum and others. Not that there's anything wrong with daydreaming, asking, etc. But I've always really struggled with the constant chatter along the lines of "why doesn't Leica build a camera more like the Sony/Fuji/Canon/etc?" This covers everything from flip out screens to 50mp sensors to ISO 500,000 to 4K video, to OIS, burst rates, 500mm AF lenses, and so on. People really - really - need to understand that Leica isn't about that with the M cameras, whether digital or film. If they're enamoured with Sony, they should buy one. I won't, simply because I absolutely hate the interface on a Sony...the M240 just is at the boundary of detail for me. And it's not because I'm a luddite, it's because minimalism was always the ethos of the M series. And often times, greater simplicity and elegance costs more - whether it's because of simpler technology, or whatever reasons. I just know that I'm not anxiously wringing my hands waiting for a hybrid OVF/EVF to suddenly make my Leica experience 'that much better'. It was like the obsessed discussions over screen resolution with the M9. Who cares? While the better res of the 240 is nice (I own both), it hasn't really affected my photography in any way whatsoever. "What we are losing is the idea of perfection. As long as reviewers lament the lack of features in stead of applauding the choice for austerity we will drift away from that cultural phenomenon that has long been the hall-mark of civilization: perfection by limitation; poetry and black-and-white photography share this characteristic and alas both are difficult to find." - great quote from Erwin Puts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mijo Posted February 20, 2015 Share #29 Posted February 20, 2015 I would like to see a dedicated ISO dial on a regular digital M body. I don't like having to hold down the ISO button and use the scroll wheel to change the ISO. The only other thing I would change is the dirrection in which the shutter speed dial turns in relation to the LED metering arrows (it's opposite of the MP and older film M bodies). I carry both a digital and anolgue M bodies when I go out and it still throws me off when I go from one body to another. Other than that I'm fine with the digial M bodies that I've owned (MM and M-E). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 20, 2015 Share #30 Posted February 20, 2015 Buy the other brands if that is what you want. 240 already is got too much crud on it. The M9 with a non corrosive sensor is the perfect M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfloid Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share #31 Posted February 20, 2015 I would have thought that if the thread seems boring or old hat etc. then it would be easy just to ignore it and move on. Why all the hostility and rancour? As to those suggesting that 'I just go buy a Fuji' well, I have one - the X100S, and it is a fine camera, but it does not take my manual focus Leica lenses. Thank you Jono Slack for at least addressing the limitations of my thoughts in a practical way. If I understand what you are saying, combining an EVF with the mechanical rangefinder won't work. I was thinking you could just have the rangefinder OVF just as it is now, with its parallax adjustment but limited information, and in addition have the possibility to switch to an EVF (through the same window) with more information and the possibility to magnify. I realised that it would require some very elegant design, but had not realised it was impossible. I do realise that simplicity and minimalism are very desirable features, and that is, believe it or not, what attracts me to M cameras. However, I also believe that well-integrated technology can sometimes be integrated into a minimalist design without killing the original idea (the iPhone is a good example). The M will evolve, like it or not. For those that hate the idea of making things more complex, well most of you have already moved over to digital, and have left behind the simplicity of the purely mechanical bodies and film, with no start up time and absolutely minimal or no battery dependence. Making that decision was already a move towards the 'clutter' and buttons that many of you claim you hate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 20, 2015 Share #32 Posted February 20, 2015 Have a look at the design of the optical viewfinder. Where and how would you insert the hardware to implement the projection of additional information? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 20, 2015 Share #33 Posted February 20, 2015 Thougts? - Yes - forget itOf course they could make a new camera with a new range of lenses, but the point about the hybrid viewfinder in the (excellent) Fuji cameras is the electronic connection between the camera and the lens . . . and M lenses have no electronic connection, so the camera does not know what distance has been focused on (and therefore the parallax and field of view corrections). Or what aperture has been selected. There isn't any way of making bug free robust reliability in such a hybrid viewfinder without electonic lenses. Simple as that. I think this also shows how wolfloid's concept is indeed possible. We've seen things called impossible in the past, only to have them realized later. The answer is: it's possible with a new range of lenses. And we know a new range of lenses is possible because Leica has already done that with both the S and the T and the cinema lenses. So, I say ... anything is possible. As to those suggesting that 'I just go buy a Fuji' well, I have one - the X100S, and it is a fine camera, but it does not take my manual focus Leica lenses..... I do realise that simplicity and minimalism are very desirable features, and that is, believe it or not, what attracts me to M cameras. However, I also believe that well-integrated technology can sometimes be integrated into a minimalist design without killing the original idea (the iPhone is a good example). The M will evolve, like it or not. For those that hate the idea of making things more complex, well most of you have already moved over to digital, and have left behind the simplicity of the purely mechanical bodies and film, with no start up time and absolutely minimal or no battery dependence. Making that decision was already a move towards the 'clutter' and buttons that many of you claim you hate. Those who complain about such things don't seem to realize that they are deep into technology with digital photography. If they were firm on the concept of simplicity and minimalism, they would be nowhere near a digital camera or any camera that runs on batteries. The M will evolve, as we've seen from the M8 to the present. But more importantly, there is room to consider an alternate M alongside the current M, same size & format but with new lenses. Not as a replacement, but as another option. Leica seems to be able to make other camera & lens lines, so it is possible — though unlikely. By the way, unlike your X100S, Fuji's X-T1 and X-Pro1 will take manual focus lenses with an adapter, although the format is smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 20, 2015 Share #34 Posted February 20, 2015 ... If they were firm on the concept of simplicity and minimalism, they would be nowhere near a digital camera or any camera that runs on batteries. .... Those references to "simplicity" and "minimalism" keep on astonishing me. First, I fail to see how or why simplicity or minimalism should be desirable as such. True, one can often observe that - all other being "equal" - the simpler or less complex design results in more desirable features. However, there is no guarantee that the more simple or more minimalist design must produce a superior product, and the opposite is observable quite often. Then, I don't quite see how or why a digital camera should be called less simple or less minimalist than a mechanical one plus all those chemical processes taking place in a film plus the industry required to let us keep on making our pictures. A digital camera is mostly a solid state device. Its workings can be altered at will by a mere replacement of its software. In this sense, a range finder is not minimalistic. It is quite complex, it can go out of whack, it has no self correcting mechanisms and it requires an unusual amount of precision work. It takes a complex set of tools and skills to repair and adjust. A mechanical camera such as the Leica is neither minimalistic nor simple. It has lots of mechanical parts which interact in ways not every mechanic and not every photographer understands. The optochemical and chemical processes in a film can be fiendishly difficult to control in a way which guarantees consistent results. This is neither minimalistic nor simple, depending on your expectations on your equipment. What is, indeed, minimalistic about a range finder is its user interface. It is, however, somewhat limited in its applicability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 20, 2015 Share #35 Posted February 20, 2015 I think this also shows how wolfloid's concept is indeed possible. We've seen things called impossible in the past, only to have them realized later. The answer is: it's possible with a new range of lenses. A whole new line of lenses. Good gosh, that would be unbelievably expensive and worse, it would orphan the legacy of Leica lenses. It seems that you are suggesting moving into the T line and abandoning the rest. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 21, 2015 Share #36 Posted February 21, 2015 If there is one thing that would kill off the M line it would be to orphan the mechanical lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted February 21, 2015 Share #37 Posted February 21, 2015 IMHO a rangefinder of this quality is pretty high tech....or do you mean that anything which is mechanical can't be high tech? Well mechanical can be high tech and high priced like a $20,000 Rolex, but it may not keep time as well as a cheap $150 Citizen watch. The tech I am talking about is Leica having a half-ass sensor in a $7000 cam. For the $ Leica should be first in sensor tech or at least match the best. Rangefinder is nothing big. They made plenty of film rangefinders that didn't cost a fortune. Leica sensor can produce, but only under the best circumstances. rangefindercamera3 : Photo If conditions are not right or you shoot hi ISO Leica is a poor choice for the job. De Wallen - Amsterdam's Red Light District : Photo The Leica sensor esp is not grat for single image HDR. The ONLY reason I shoot Leica is for the mechanical controls and rangefinder. My Fuji's have much nicer sensors. But the controls on the screwy Fuji are a nightmare. Leica is the only game in town for my wants. Bottom line is Leica is way too high priced to be a mainstream pros cam and Leica always seems to have outdated sensors in the new cams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 21, 2015 Share #38 Posted February 21, 2015 A whole new line of lenses. Good gosh, that would be unbelievably expensive and worse, it would orphan the legacy of Leica lenses. It seems that you are suggesting moving into the T line and abandoning the rest. A new line of lenses is what Leica does. In recent years, they have introduced two new lens lines: for S cameras and for T cameras. And apparently there are some unbelievably expensive cinema lenses from a related Leica company. So "unbelievably expensive" doesn't seem to bar the introduction of a new line of lenses. I'm not suggesting "orphaning" any lenses or "moving into the T line and abandoning the rest". That's why I wrote " an alternate M alongside the current M, same size & format but with new lenses. Not as a replacement, but as another option." Sorry if that's not clear, but I don't think it could be any clearer. If there is one thing that would kill off the M line it would be to orphan the mechanical lenses. That's why I didn't suggest "orphaning" the mechanical lenses. I'm not suggesting a replacement for the mechanical lenses. There's no reason to orphan the mechanical lenses. I'm talking about a separate, additional lens line for a separate, additional camera line. Not a replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 21, 2015 Share #39 Posted February 21, 2015 Why all the hostility and rancour? Because the topic has been 'done to death' and yet it just can't be left alone. Use of the (clearly little used) search function will show that such threads simply go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....... Why can't people just accept that the M rangefinder is a 'tried and tested' design. By all means discuss a new camera system, but not a modified M rangefinder - for all the reasons which everyone has/will state. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 21, 2015 Share #40 Posted February 21, 2015 Well mechanical can be high tech and high priced like a $20,000 Rolex, but it may not keep time as well as a cheap $150 Citizen watch. The tech I am talking about is Leica having a half-ass sensor in a $7000 cam. For the $ Leica should be first in sensor tech or at least match the best. Rangefinder is nothing big. They made plenty of film rangefinders that didn't cost a fortune. Leica sensor can produce, but only under the best circumstances. rangefindercamera3 : Photo If conditions are not right or you shoot hi ISO Leica is a poor choice for the job. De Wallen - Amsterdam's Red Light District : Photo The Leica sensor esp is not grat for single image HDR. The ONLY reason I shoot Leica is for the mechanical controls and rangefinder. My Fuji's have much nicer sensors. But the controls on the screwy Fuji are a nightmare. Leica is the only game in town for my wants. Bottom line is Leica is way too high priced to be a mainstream pros cam and Leica always seems to have outdated sensors in the new cams. What sensor that is suitable for short register legacy lenses would you propose then? Sony, for instance, was, when Leica was designing the 240, not able to offer one, reason Leica had to go for a bespoke sensor. It is the most advanced sensor for the purpose. Btw, how you can judge sensor quality from the images you publish in your post (interesting use of a fisheye if I may say so) is quite beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.