edwardkaraa Posted October 25, 2015 Share #1941 Posted October 25, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) An external EVF as good as that on the SL. An external EVF can be dispensed with by the M purists.I tried an external viewfinder on the T and I will never use another one. adding and removing the thing was a pain, it wouldn't fit easily in a bag when attached to the camera and always looked vulnerable when sat atop the camera. I'd rather see a built-in EVF that can be ignored by traditional users, although once they try it they may actually prefer it if it is of high quality. Mike. That's exactly how I feel about external EVF. I hardly ever use the EVF of my M240 for these reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Hi edwardkaraa, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
colonel Posted October 25, 2015 Share #1942 Posted October 25, 2015 What, exactly, is an "M purist"? Thanks!, s-a Me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 25, 2015 Share #1943 Posted October 25, 2015 Me Not even close. An M purist shoots film only with an M body and M lenses. You are an M purist once removed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 25, 2015 Share #1944 Posted October 25, 2015 In principle the light-gathering capability depends only on the total area, so it does not matter if you have 4 small pixels with same area as one large. This is however is only true if the read out noise is negligle but the best most recent sensors have a read out noise of close to one electron. A second limit is the space in between the pixels, if it reaches a significant fraction of the total area, than reducing pixe size results in increasse noise. I am skeptical of that. All factors being equal, I'm a large pixel well〖pixel size〗 fan. When I write of 'noise' I mean errors in reading, but more important with today's generally excellent processors are the limitations of acquiring light. Light collection increases with larger pixel wells. There is no way around that. A number pixel wells of the same total area as one larger well does not equal the sum of the smaller pixels in terms of information acquired (photons). Even 'binning' smaller pixels does not help. Smaller pixels increase the likelihood of well overflow, lower dynamic range, lower ISO potential. Whether the effects are enough to discourage one's liking is a matter of taste, not metrics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 25, 2015 Share #1945 Posted October 25, 2015 ... and what's with this http://leicarumors.com/2015/10/23/check-out-this-leica-m-typ-801-concept-camera.aspx/#more-38189 Leica Typ 801 That is somebody’s idea what the next M should be like – somebody without any connection with Leica. Fan fiction so to speak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 25, 2015 Share #1946 Posted October 25, 2015 ... and what's with this http://leicarumors.com/2015/10/23/check-out-this-leica-m-typ-801-concept-camera.aspx/#more-38189 Leica Typ 801 Leica M-Mount Leica Open API system allows rapid user innovation. Water sealed milled aluminium or titanium body 30% decrease in weight over previous M systems 60MP CMOS sensor Maestro II processor 11 fps ISO range 25 - 50,000 Contrast focus assist system 4k (4096 x 2160) @ 24 fps video Built-in Wi-Fi, GPS and Device Sync Adaptive touchscreen Hybrid analogue / digital knobs Two SD memory cards slots Shutter speed: 1/8000 s to 60 s The Design is also not so good ... and another I don't want ... I hope that this is not the M-future - looks too technical Doesn't sound like an M. The core function of the M camera is the optical rangefinder, complete with the limitations that brings. If you enjoy the rangefinder, and you're happy with the 16-135 range (and can make that work), that's good. I love mine in the 21-90 range, and improving functionality in that range is great. Anything more ore or less, I'll look for other alternatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 26, 2015 Share #1947 Posted October 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not even close. An M purist shoots film only with an M body and M lenses. You are an M purist once removed. In which case your own definition of an M purist I disagree with I suppose light meters are the work of the devil .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 26, 2015 Share #1948 Posted October 26, 2015 Not even close. An M purist shoots film only with an M body and M lenses. You are an M purist once removed. Given that the purpose of the original Leicas was to provide a small, convenient and rapid camera, and to achieve that required innovative design and cutting- edge technology, surely in today's world using a film M is pretty far removed from "purist". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 26, 2015 Share #1949 Posted October 26, 2015 Given that the purpose of the original Leicas was to provide a small, convenient and rapid camera, and to achieve that required innovative design and cutting- edge technology, surely in today's world using a film M is pretty far removed from "purist". It all went downhill with the self-capping shutter and the introduction of the lever advance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted October 26, 2015 Share #1950 Posted October 26, 2015 It all went downhill with the self-capping shutter and the introduction of the lever advance. Not to mention rewind cranks... s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgoldstein2000 Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1951 Posted October 27, 2015 This has been said before but all I want is a fully electronic M. If it has the mechanical rangefinder AND modern manual focusing techniques (focus peaking, electronic RF) all the better. This isn't because of a dislike of RF focussing it's because of a frustration of the RF going out of focus. Give me a Q sized body where I can use focus peaking and have the wide angle performance of M lenses as seen on an M and I am happy camper and will buy multiple bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1952 Posted October 27, 2015 I think that's the thing ... if they get the next M really 'right', stick to the basics and only add features that are genuine no-compromise improvements, then people will be happy to buy multiple bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1953 Posted October 27, 2015 This has been said before but all I want is a fully electronic M. If it has the mechanical rangefinder AND modern manual focusing techniques (focus peaking, electronic RF) all the better. This isn't because of a dislike of RF focussing it's because of a frustration of the RF going out of focus. Give me a Q sized body where I can use focus peaking and have the wide angle performance of M lenses as seen on an M and I am happy camper and will buy multiple bodies. the RF doesn't go out of focus with the M240 system. However the mechanical precision is one of the joys of the M series in general. If its assisted by digital calibration thats fine, but focus peaking, already included, is only useful for tripods or telephoto. Getting rid of the RF is a bit like saying that I prefer my Tag/Omega/etc. with the automatic movement replaced by a quartz one. Saying that, I would be happy with some kind of hybrid VF, as long as a purely optical one, with a view wider then the sensor, remains. Also happy to have more info projected in the OVF if its optional Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rshseow Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1954 Posted October 27, 2015 Reading this forum, most M users: Love the rangefinder. Are comfortable using external viewfinders. Rarely use a flash. Are quite happy with a 24MP sensor. If this is the case, I think the next M should just introduce the following enhancements over the M240. An external EVF as good as that on the SL. An external EVF can be dispensed with by the M purists. Maestro 2. ISO up to 50,000. Silent shutter. I am not sure about others, but I don't desire much more. Good ideas. My wish list for the next M in the order of priority [*]Silent shutter in the form of global shutter therefore no banding for artificial light such as flourecent light [*]24MP and exceeds ISO performance of A7s and A7sII for zone focusing at f8-/f16 at low light [*]Maestro 3 with at least 4GB buffer so that "DXO" or "LR" equivalent raw converter can generate fantastic JPG file in-camera [*]WiFi and GPS since it is great for reportage This will be a dream reportage and compact M camera for street photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff S Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1955 Posted October 27, 2015 I'm more simple. 2 things. -Built-in Sensor cleaner -Rangefinder calibrated for every lens. I'm only sharp with 3 of 4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1956 Posted October 27, 2015 That is somebody’s idea what the next M should be like – somebody without any connection with Leica. Fan fiction so to speak. Engineering design is so easy when you just use magic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1957 Posted October 27, 2015 Good ideas. My wish list for the next M in the order of priority [*]Silent shutter in the form of global shutter therefore no banding for artificial light such as flourecent light [*]24MP and exceeds ISO performance of A7s and A7sII for zone focusing at f8-/f16 at low light [*]Maestro 3 with at least 4GB buffer so that "DXO" or "LR" equivalent raw converter can generate fantastic JPG file in-camera [*]WiFi and GPS since it is great for reportage This will be a dream reportage and compact M camera for street photography. Typo? A global shutter is most susceptible to fast motion distortion, but not so for florescent lighting unless it is defective. Florescent lights pulse at a very high rate and are unlikely to cause no distortion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1958 Posted October 27, 2015 [...]-Rangefinder calibrated for every lens. I'm only sharp with 3 of 4. I'm not sure how that can be done unless every lens has a chip to identify itself. Simply presuming a lens is a certain type cannot suffice due to build variations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1959 Posted October 27, 2015 Typo? A global shutter is most susceptible to fast motion distortion, but not so for florescent lighting unless it is defective. Florescent lights pulse at a very high rate and are unlikely to cause no distortion. There is no motion distortion with a global shutter; in fact that is one of the main reasons a global shutter would be desirable. But then I doubt a suitable sensor would be available in time for the next M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1960 Posted October 27, 2015 There is no motion distortion with a global shutter; in fact that is one of the main reasons a global shutter would be desirable. But then I doubt a suitable sensor would be available in time for the next M. I confused global with rolling shutter, didn't I. Thanks for the correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.