jdlaing Posted June 23, 2015 Share #61 Posted June 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) And I think that picture is wrong. The Nex 7, not counting protrusions, is 8 mm thicker than the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Hi jdlaing, Take a look here Q features we will see on Ms?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mornnb Posted June 23, 2015 Share #62 Posted June 23, 2015 While it is true that electronics take more space than a film and pressure plate, it is just a few extra millimeters. Several compact digital cameras show how much thinner than the M you can go. The M bayonet mount has a rather deep flange distance for a mirrorless system. Sony etc brought the lens closer to the sensor (which tends to require the lens to be longer. So while Leica may be able to reduce the height and length of the camera, reducing the width is impractical. Here are the flange distances of various mounts: Fujifilm X-mount 17.7 mm Sony E-mount 18 mm Leica M-mount 27.80 mm Canon EF-mount 44.00 mm Nikon F-mount 46.50 mm Leica R-mount 47.00 mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share #63 Posted June 23, 2015 The M bayonet mount has a rather deep flange distance for a mirrorless system. Sony etc brought the lens closer to the sensor (which tends to require the lens to be longer. So while Leica may be able to reduce the height and length of the camera, reducing the width is impractical. It wasn't impractical for the film M's. The flange distance may be set in stone but it is not the only thing that determines the camera's measurements. I don't think a digital could ever be as thin as a film M but the M240 thickness is not the thinnest it can be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 23, 2015 Share #64 Posted June 23, 2015 If you look at the A7 body, the sensor is placed near the mount, about half distance or more from the back. There is a huge space behind it, that must be crammed with all kinds of electronics. The M sensor sits deep in the body. That looks and feels much more natural to me. I really disliked the balance of the A7 due to being front heavy even with the tiniest of lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted June 23, 2015 Share #65 Posted June 23, 2015 If you look at the A7 body, the sensor is placed near the mount, about half distance or more from the back. There is a huge space behind it, that must be crammed with all kinds of electronics. The M sensor sits deep in the body. That looks and feels much more natural to me. I really disliked the balance of the A7 due to being front heavy even with the tiniest of lenses. The Sony A7 has a flexible screen, the extra casing and hinge equipment is taking up a lot of space. If you look at the distance between the sensor and the rear of the camera, it is smaller on the M240. A LCD is one of the thinner components. I've taken apart smart phones. Take a look at your iPhone or Android device, the LCD on the iPhone 6 for example is a mere 1mm thick, the rest is the battery and circuit board. With a digital camera, most of the thickness is coming from the sensor assembly and the circuit board/processor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted June 23, 2015 Share #66 Posted June 23, 2015 And I think that picture is wrong. The Nex 7, not counting protrusions, is 8 mm thicker than the M. You are probably not very practical with mm in Texas NEX7: 119.9 x 66.9 x 42.6 mm M240: 139 x 80 x 42 mm The NEX7 is about half a millimiter "thicker" than the M, as Sony measures the maximum thickness which includes the grip. You can also see how the NEX7 is overall (i.e. average thickness) much thinner than the M. Oh, and the fact that it uses an APS-C sensor instead of FF does not make any difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 23, 2015 Share #67 Posted June 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The position of the sensor in the above photo is very revealing. Making the M thinner will force a protruding mount like the Sony , and that entails more VF blockage. Not a good idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 23, 2015 Share #68 Posted June 23, 2015 The position of the sensor in the above photo is very revealing. Making the M thinner will force a protruding mount like the Sony , and that entails more VF blockage. Not a good idea. I must be missing something - in the superimposed images posted by CheshireCat, the film plane (from of the sensor) must be in exactly the same place, as the distance from the from of the M and the edge of the E to M Adapter will be the same. According to that image both cameras have a reasonable amount of space behind the film plane, which does suggest that the M could get thinner - IF the electronics behind the face of the sensor and the LCD (which is immediately behind) could be made smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 23, 2015 Share #69 Posted June 23, 2015 I must be missing something - in the superimposed images posted by CheshireCat, the film plane (from of the sensor) must be in exactly the same place, as the distance from the from of the M and the edge of the E to M Adapter will be the same. According to that image both cameras have a reasonable amount of space behind the film plane, which does suggest that the M could get thinner - IF the electronics behind the face of the sensor and the LCD (which is immediately behind) could be made smaller. Nope, in the above photo we see only the film plane of the Sony. The M film plane is very near the camera back. I think the M image above is not correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 23, 2015 Share #70 Posted June 23, 2015 Why is a hybrid EVF and optical rangefinder considered impossible? Is it the insistence that the split-image rangefinder be optical? It doesn't need to be. The Fuji X100T has an optical viewfinder with a popup corner tab that shows - through the lens(!) - a phase-detect driven split image focusing aid. It should not be a big stretch to get that to the center of the finder. You can also switch it to a magnified focus point with peaking. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted June 23, 2015 Share #71 Posted June 23, 2015 Why is a hybrid EVF and optical rangefinder considered impossible? Is it the insistence that the split-image rangefinder be optical? It doesn't need to be. The Fuji works with an LCD screen off to the side of the viewfinder with a prism which reflects the EVF into the viewfinder. This is not too different to how the M240 works with the focus patch and LED framelines reflected into the viewfinder with a prism. The framelines LEDs should be replaceable with an LCD. You'll need a mechanism to block the focus patch when EVF is on. A possible disadvantage would be a RF with lower contrast due to a need to shine through an LCD. A simpler solution may be to go for a full EVF overlay for the focus patch, instead of optical. If Leica is on the ball they'll be trying out all these possible methods in prototypes to figure out what works in the real world. It may be that they prove less effective than the RF in the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 23, 2015 Share #72 Posted June 23, 2015 Attach a Nex-to-M adapter to the Nex-5. Place both the Nex-5 and the M (Typ 24) side by side with the lens mount downwards on a flat surface such as a table. The surface of the display of the Nex will be more distant from the table than the surface of the display of the M. That does not account for any protrusions. It's just the distance from the mount to the surface of the display. I don't know the thickness of a camera display. While the panel might be quite thin, the pane in front of it might not be. In fact, you can see that the hinged display on the Nex is rather more than one mm. (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/219736-2014-possibly-a-big-year-for-leica/page-2?p=2504682&do=findComment&comment=2504682) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted June 23, 2015 Share #73 Posted June 23, 2015 Nope, in the above photo we see only the film plane of the Sony. The M film plane is very near the camera back. I think the M image above is not correct. The focal planes are coincident. The M flange distance is 27.8mm which on a 42mm thick camera is about 1/3 of the camera thickness from the back. As displayed in my picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted June 23, 2015 Share #74 Posted June 23, 2015 Making the M thinner will force a protruding mount like the Sony ... Yes, if Leica cannot reduce the dimensions of the PCB and display. ... and that entails more VF blockage. No. VF blockage only depends on the size of the lens and the position of the VF windows. Camera thickness does not matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 23, 2015 Share #75 Posted June 23, 2015 The focal planes are coincident. The M flange distance is 27.8mm which on a 42mm thick camera is about 1/3 of the camera thickness from the back. As displayed in my picture. But the width of the body proper as measured by the width of the top plate is just 37mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 23, 2015 Share #76 Posted June 23, 2015 Yes, if Leica cannot reduce the dimensions of the PCB and display. No. VF blockage only depends on the size of the lens and the position of the VF windows. Camera thickness does not matter. For the same lens size, the VF will be further away from the lens to keep the same blockage, making the camera wider/higher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted June 23, 2015 Share #77 Posted June 23, 2015 Attach a Nex-to-M adapter to the Nex-5. Place both the Nex-5 and the M (Typ 24) side by side with the lens mount downwards on a flat surface such as a table. The surface of the display of the Nex will be more distant from the table than the surface of the display of the M. That does not account for any protrusions. It's just the distance from the mount to the surface of the display. I don't know about the NEX5, but the NEX7 thickness (measured from M-adapter to the back LCD) will be slightly more, as my picture shows. Not sure what your point is, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted June 23, 2015 Share #78 Posted June 23, 2015 For the same lens size, the VF will be further away from the lens to keep the same blockage, making the camera wider/higher. I don't understand your point. Why would the VF be further away ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 23, 2015 Share #79 Posted June 23, 2015 I don't understand your point. Why would the VF be further away ? To reduce the blockage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 23, 2015 Share #80 Posted June 23, 2015 I don't know about the NEX5, but the NEX7 thickness (measured from M-adapter to the back LCD) will be slightly more, as my picture shows. Not sure what your point is, though. The NEX7 is about half a millimiter "thicker" than the M, as Sony measures the maximum thickness which includes the grip. You can also see how the NEX7 is overall (i.e. average thickness) much thinner than the M. Sorry, my picture above actually shows a Nex7, not a Nex5. The point is that your statement about the girth of the Nex7 is false to fact. The picture I show here does not include the grip. It expresses the distance from mount to display which is larger for the Nex than for the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.