lct Posted August 6, 2015 Share #201 Posted August 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) With the significant difference that we would not have to send the body in to fix RF misalignments and that we could benefit from digital magnification as suggested above perhaps... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Hi lct, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
edwardkaraa Posted August 6, 2015 Share #202 Posted August 6, 2015 With the significant difference that we would not have to send the body in to fix RF misalignments and that we could benefit from digital magnification as suggested above perhaps...Honestly I don't believe that would be possible, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 6, 2015 Share #203 Posted August 6, 2015 That would depend on what exactly you magnify. Depending on the resolution of the two "image receptors" (the two auxiliary cameras used for the RF), you could magnify those images before correlating them. Consider the resolution of the cameras built into phones and the cost of those components. Yes- I see your point, still it would depend on the acuity of the enlarged image. Interesting thought though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 6, 2015 Share #204 Posted August 6, 2015 [...] still it would depend on the acuity of the enlarged image [...] +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted August 6, 2015 Share #205 Posted August 6, 2015 We still not now enough about the specifications/capabilities of the opto-Electronic RF (ERF), to guess if it surpasses the optical qualities op the traditional opto-Mechanicall RF (MRF). In the patent it states that the main objections for the new systems are reducing cost and to simplify the manufacturing process of the RF, eliminate the need of adjustments later on and slimming it down. What is not mentioned in the patents is that de range of useable focus lengths, which can be used with the ERF, can be expanded or that the accuracy is improved. So this remains to be seen, certainly in a first iteration of the ERF. What the patent does describe is the possible flexibility to choose the preferred range of focus lengths for which the ERF functions. It can be done by altering the tilt angle (A) of the optical axes of the measuring lenses and their distance from each other ( B ). They also can influence the range and accuracy by altering the focal length of the measuring lenses ( C ) They do say that the fixed unit ERF will be manufactured separately (Panasonic?) and alterations to the system, f.i. because of misalignment, can be simply done, once, by software. What I make of it, is that the ERF, if and when introduced, and MRF will be likely at least comparable in its limitations, no long lenses and the SWA's. For that you can use, hopefully, the integrated, superimposed (and improved again) EVF in the (hybrid) viewfinder, with projected frame lines and focusing with the phase detection on the sensor. This will also the best way to focus in very low light. But, I guess, it gives Leica the opportunity to lower costs (If this will lower the price I don't know), improve the quality of use in the longer term, improve accuracy of focusing for the known lenses, slimming down the camera and introduce AF-lenses (for who is interested) while using a RF. Not bad at all!! It would be even better if they can make a flexible ERF-system that can alter the parameters A,B and C on the go, when using a given lens. But that is a very very long way of!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted August 6, 2015 Share #206 Posted August 6, 2015 My idea for those wanting AF in the M a new bottom plate with a motor mechanically moving the focus tab (a quick cad mockup below), Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/248322-new-m-this-year-this-fall/?do=findComment&comment=2867485'>More sharing options...
lct Posted August 6, 2015 Share #207 Posted August 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Or something like that Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/248322-new-m-this-year-this-fall/?do=findComment&comment=2867492'>More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 6, 2015 Share #208 Posted August 6, 2015 Let's hope they get it right this time If it's bigger than a M6, I'm not interested. Well at least the M6 TTL, M7, M8 and M9 are safe ..... I find moving between a M240 and MP unnoticeable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 6, 2015 Share #209 Posted August 6, 2015 I don't think we should expect the display technology to produce an EVF which can not be told from an OFV within the next few years.Except in the dark or under fluorescent light or if the object moves Perhaps in 50 years .... And good luck seeing wider then the sensor which you can do in the RF .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 6, 2015 Share #210 Posted August 6, 2015 Mustn't be too quick to critics the RF for alignment. I have used 3 M240s of various vintage and the RF has been tack on with each. This is a 33% improvement over the M9 (assuming you can divide by zero ...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted August 6, 2015 Share #211 Posted August 6, 2015 From what I have read so far as for the new camera about to be released, it's not likely to be an M. I kind of think the M240 is the last M! So I will be holding on to my M240 and hoping maybe to pick up a 246 and treat them like gold. Ha! Maybe this all was the plan to begin with marking the M without a numeral. The "M". The only. The last. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 6, 2015 Share #212 Posted August 6, 2015 Would be hard to sell M lenses then. I would not worry about that. But i will keep my M240 long enough to be sure that the new focusing device, if any, is at least as fast and accurate as the current RF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted August 6, 2015 Share #213 Posted August 6, 2015 I find moving between a M240 and MP unnoticeable I find going from the 240 to the M6TTL very noticeable, the 6 is the perfect thickness and has a lot more grip surface on the back due to no LCD screen, buttons, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted August 6, 2015 Share #214 Posted August 6, 2015 My idea for those wanting AF in the M a new bottom plate with a motor mechanically moving the focus tab (a quick cad mockup below), af.jpg I just don't get the "autofocus in an M camera" fetish. Makes no sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 6, 2015 Share #215 Posted August 6, 2015 No - but an AF camera accepting M lenses on the same level as a "real" M side by side with an M (ERF or not) makes a lot of sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 6, 2015 Share #216 Posted August 6, 2015 I find going from the 240 to the M6TTL very noticeable, the 6 is the perfect thickness and has a lot more grip surface on the back due to no LCD screen, buttons, etc. I agree, but the other way around. After habituation I prefer the digital M thickness and heft. It depends on the configuration of one's hands I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted August 6, 2015 Share #217 Posted August 6, 2015 I agree, but the other way around. After habituation I prefer the digital M thickness and heft. It depends on the configuration of one's hands I suppose. LOL, if I want "heft" I'll grab either my D810 / 200-400mm VR or Hasselblad 500ELX / 350mm CF...:-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1888 Posted August 6, 2015 Share #218 Posted August 6, 2015 I just don't get the "autofocus in an M camera" fetish. Makes no sense. For long time M users it isn't that helpful. Most of us have a dslr anyway. But it's great for newcomer. They can start with AF and over time they make more pictures with rangefinder focussing. An M with AF is an easier product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 6, 2015 Share #219 Posted August 6, 2015 I just don't get the "autofocus in an M camera" fetish. Makes no sense. 100% agreeMuch larger and heavier lenses Larger camera And all the AF problems with the imprecise focus dot and the annoyance for switching between AF and MF all the time so the camera doesn't bugger up your perfect setting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted August 6, 2015 Share #220 Posted August 6, 2015 They seem to be learning from the Japs.....Sony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.