colonel Posted August 9, 2015 Share #341 Posted August 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) For a better choice than you propose. You suggest a rather take it or leave it attitude, whereas many Leica users value the qualities of both the M cameras and the highly technologically advanced cameras that are available elsewhere but which, for so many reasons, do not suit their purposes. Is it so unnatural that many people might yearn for a camera that combines the main virtues of the two approaches? In many ways the M9 and the M did that, but time moves on very rapidly in digital-word, and something new is called for. I still don't understand I like to set the aperture, speed and focus myself. The RF is the best manual focus system full stop. Together with the build quality and great and small and light lenses whilst still full frame. That's why I like the M system. I am not against extra technology in the M, in fact I have often expressed a personal desire for many features. For example, my number one want is 4G LTE so I can auto upload raw continuously from anywhere I happen to be, and have them ready on my desktop to edit. However much of the critism is comparing the camera to an AF CSC which is ludicrous. The essence of the M is essentially manual. Leica has the X, T and Q series for those streams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 Hi colonel, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bocaburger Posted August 9, 2015 Share #342 Posted August 9, 2015 I fully expect that some one at Leica is looking at what we're asking for for the next camera. Perhaps so, but I also think the folks at Leica are surely intelligent enough to realize that forums are not necessarily representative of the overall population, nor are the most repetitive and vocal posters on forums necessarily representative of the forum population. However if the next generation M's finder is some sort of bastardization of OVF/EVF it would prove me wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted August 9, 2015 Share #343 Posted August 9, 2015 Perhaps so, but I also think the folks at Leica are surely intelligent enough to realize that forums are not necessarily representative of the overall population, nor are the most repetitive and vocal posters on forums necessarily representative of the forum population. However if the next generation M's finder is some sort of bastardization of OVF/EVF it would prove me wrong. I haven"t read in any post sofar, that one user is advocating bastardisation of the RangeFinder. It is about improving what we already have with technology that comes available, like making an opto-electronic Rangefinder (the official name for it is POERF, I just learned), which will eliminate the need for further adjustment off a misaligned RF, improvement of the accuracy, possible better use of an RF in low light and the increasing of the range of lenses suitable to use with a RF, cutting costs and ... Slimming down the camera to a M6 size, improving the ISO-range, the dynamic range, integrate the EVF onubtrosive in the body etc,etc Call it the new M, call it the new Q, call it Z, I don't care as long as Leica is striving for the best, within the known paradigm of a Rangefinder "das Wesentliche" Do I hear any objections to (the desire to) implement these improvements as soon as possible? I don't think so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 9, 2015 Share #344 Posted August 9, 2015 I don't agree that only old aged users like to use rangefinders. Many young photographers are fascinated by this unique way of shooting. I was shooting the last couple of days quite a lot, with the OVF and with the EVF, and realized that at least for my style of shooting: 1. I really love the EVF for framing, even with lenses longer than 28mm. The verticals are straight OOC, and framing can be very accurate. 2. I really love the rangefinder for focusing. Even with longer lenses, I am more confident with the RF. It is fast and very predictive for moving subjects. Forget about wide angles for EVF focusing. Even with my ZM 25 wide open, 10x magnification, and peaking, the zone of critical sharpness was difficult to ascertain on the focusing ring. So basically my preferred way of shooting for non street shots, or whenever accurate framing is required, is to focus with the RF, then frame with the EVF. If Leica can combine these two features in a camera, I think it would work best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 9, 2015 Share #345 Posted August 9, 2015 So basically my preferred way of shooting for non street shots, or whenever accurate framing is required, is to focus with the RF, then frame with the EVF. If Leica can combine these two features in a camera, I think it would work best. Sounds very similar to when I use my IIIg! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted August 9, 2015 Share #346 Posted August 9, 2015 I don't agree that only old aged users like to use rangefinders. Many young photographers are fascinated by this unique way of shooting. ................... I agree with you, but I don't think people are seriously suggesting that only old people like using rangefinders. although I do suspect the market for them amongst young people is small, not least because of the cost of a contemporary RF camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 9, 2015 Share #347 Posted August 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is no question in my mind that Leica will continue to make a digital CRF camera. I hope it is a more polished product than the M(240), and no I don't think it will be an LCDless Edition 60 style camera. That would be a very brave decision, considering the sales of that camera. It might as well have a manual winder. But, there is a lot Leica can achieve in the digital era if it ditches the legacy of the CRF. That doesn't mean we should all go off and buy Sonys or Fujis instead. There is a considerable gap between those cameras and what Leica can offer. I think the T and the Q are pretty clear on that. Stifling further development because of the legacy of the M makes no sense. I love my RF cameras (I do have 4 of them), and I will continue to use them, but using two viewfinders? A removable baseplate? Time to move on, as the Q shows, it certainly does not need to be electronic clutter, mystifying menus etc. It could still have buttons and dials providing direct control of what we are used to. The Q shows that, and I expect it will also take M and R lenses. My one issue with the Q lens is the AF implementation. The only time an AF has worked for me was my Nikon wide zoom (don't recall the range - 17 to something). That AF worked okay for me as I could nudge the focus manually - something the Q won't allow. Anyway, we will know soon enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 9, 2015 Share #348 Posted August 9, 2015 How can the M240 be more "polished". I can agree it can have a lot of improvements but more "polished" implies it isn't polished, which I fundamentally disagree with. In fact it's the post camera around IMHO. Ditching the CRF makes no sense for the M as it would not be an M anymore. I hope it will be still being made in 100 years, albeit with some more tweaks. I am not sure what an M camera is without a RF. oh yes, a CSC .... In terms of other cameras with an EVF Leica had plenty and will make plenty more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 9, 2015 Share #349 Posted August 9, 2015 I think we must be having parallel conversations, Harold. The M can easily be more "polished" by doing what it does better - rubbish EVF, two viewfinders, video, Swiss army knife grip etc. I know most owners like it, but I think it is trying to be all things to all men. Sure, keep its current functionality if that's what people want, but to my mind with a camera like this, it needs to be absolutely perfect; or as near as damn it. My preference would be for it to do less, but do it well. You're quite right - an M without the CRF wouldn't be an M. I wasn't talking about an M. It wouldn't be an M without a messucher (apparently). I was talking about a new digital camera. I really don't follow your reasoning that an M without CRF is a CSC. I thought CSC stood for compact system camera, like the Fujis etc. Would you call the A7 series a CSC? I certainly wouldn't. We are clearly talking at cross-purposes, here. My view is that Leica needs to keep the M for what it is good at, and what a lot of us love (myself included) - a coupled rangefinder, with manual focus lenses in the range 18mm to 135mm. It's a huge mistake to mess with that basic formula, and I would be very happy if they ironed out the issues with the current version, and stripped away video and all the other things that try to make the M something it isn't. Outside that focal range, it becomes less than stellar, in my view. Hence, I have never bought one. That is what I mean by more "polished" - chose another word if you want, and by all means, disagree. It is my impression that much of the complaint about the M(240) actually turns on the compromises Leica has made to add stuff it didn't need. The core of the M is the CRF, and it's legacy to the M cameras of old - removable baseplate and fixed focus patch, for example. As I think I've mentioned before, that leaves a gap between the X, Q & T cameras and the S camera for a Leica interpretation of a new digital system camera. Not a CSC, but an all singing all dancing Leica version of a full frame digital with interchangeable AF lenses. If you look at what the T has to offer in the APS-C format, and the Q in full frame, but with a fixed lens, then imagine a Leica version of a full frame digital system camera. Again, I probably won't be in the market, but I would think very seriously about a Leica camera like that. Many here, myself included, have gone down the Sony route, and ditched it (many like Karl-Heinz stuck with it) - if the A7r had played nice with M lenses, had the simplicity of the Leica interface, Leica image quality, and a zoom of the quality of the VarioElmarit-R 28-90, I'd still be using it. I hope that clarifies what I'm talking about. Not and M that's not CRF and not a CSC, but a new full frame system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted August 9, 2015 Share #350 Posted August 9, 2015 Isn't it a bit soon to bring out a Q like camera? Also the T hasn't had its three years monopoly yet. For this reason I think talk of an exchangeable lens Q or a full frame T will be wide of the mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted August 9, 2015 Share #351 Posted August 9, 2015 Changeable lens Q is a lot of pipe dreams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 10, 2015 Share #352 Posted August 10, 2015 I haven"t read in any post sofar, that one user is advocating bastardisation of the RangeFinder. It is about improving what we already have with technology that comes available, like making an opto-electronic Rangefinder (the official name for it is POERF, I just learned), which will eliminate the need for further adjustment I supposed it's a matter of semantics but to me making the rangefinder "opto-electronic" is bastarization of sorts. That said, I am not a camera engineer, so since you seem quite positive of your statements, let me ask how exactly making it electronic will "elmininate the need for further adjustment"? If it relies on focus-by-proxy (lens camming set to an assumed standard) and a particular lens' calibration is "off", then how would this "POERF" know and compensate? If focus is achieved off the sensor, then the shutter would need to be open for focusing, then close and re-open and re-close for the capture, then re-open to allow refocusing. Similar to the "advanced" metering in the M240, and likewise creating a time-lag and increased wear-and-tear on the shutter mechanism. I'm just curious how such a POERF would be more than a gimmick, like advanced metering, which has more downside than up. A properly-calibrated opto-mechanical RF is capable of spot-on focusing, and at least in my 40+ years of using them, not easily prone to becoming misaligned barring a severe impact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 10, 2015 Share #353 Posted August 10, 2015 That is true - a POERF would still be liable to mechanical maladjustment. The main advantages might be higher accuracy, better visibility, smaller size, lower cost, more freedom of viewfinder magnification, the possibility of a variable diopter correction. In other words, removal of many of the restraints of the fully optomechanical RFVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 10, 2015 Share #354 Posted August 10, 2015 That is true - a POERF would still be liable to mechanical maladjustment. The main advantages might be higher accuracy, better visibility, smaller size, lower cost, more freedom of viewfinder magnification, the possibility of a variable diopter correction. In other words, removal of many of the restraints of the fully optomechanical RFVF.Fantastic. So now any company in Japan or China will be able to make it, and surely cheaper than Leica. Here goes the last handicraft argument out of the window. German engineering becoming obsolete once more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 10, 2015 Share #355 Posted August 10, 2015 That is true - a POERF would still be liable to mechanical maladjustment. And if it was, indeed, maladjusted? You'd focus on something very close, once using the RF and once using live view. Repeat with an object very far away. The computer in the camera then would know where the lens has to be moved to in order to take a sharp picture. For lenses with a marked focus shift, repeat for different apertures. That sounds to me about as complicated as manually setting the white balance using a grey card. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 10, 2015 Share #356 Posted August 10, 2015 Fantastic. So now any company in Japan or China will be able to make it, and surely cheaper than Leica. Here goes the last handicraft argument out of the window. German engineering becoming obsolete once more. Any company in Japan or China already can built optomechanical rangefinders. The'yre to economically sane to do that, though. They also can make lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted August 10, 2015 Share #357 Posted August 10, 2015 Fourty years ago we had two lines of 35mm Leica cameras, reflex and rangefinder. We still have the rangefinder but no more the reflex (i do not count the S as not 35mm and not mirrorless) For a 35mm rangefinder we need a mirrorless camera with a much better viewfinder than the one currently availiable for the M240 and lense's closing of diaphragm when actuating the shutter. So i wish Leica makes new lenses, not autofocus, but more simply with a diaphragm contact trigerred by the camera. Also an adaptor able to do the same thing with Leica R lenses and independant makers could do the same for Nikon, Canon etc... This done, and it would not be very complicated implement nor costly, the Mxxx could become an universal platform, the best and only rangefinder and one of the finiest mirrorless equivalent to the reflex we had. Is it too simple ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 10, 2015 Share #358 Posted August 10, 2015 Fourty years ago we had two lines of 35mm Leica cameras, reflex and rangefinder. We still have the rangefinder but no more the reflex (i do not count the S as not 35mm and not mirrorless) For a 35mm rangefinder we need a mirrorless camera with a much better viewfinder than the one currently availiable for the M240 and lense's closing of diaphragm when actuating the shutter. So i wish Leica makes new lenses, not autofocus, but more simply with a diaphragm contact trigerred by the camera. Also an adaptor able to do the same thing with Leica R lenses and independant makers could do the same for Nikon, Canon etc... This done, and it would not be very complicated implement nor costly, the Mxxx could become an universal platform, the best and only rangefinder and one of the finiest mirrorless equivalent to the reflex we had. Is it too simple ? We? Who is we? And why? A better EVF would be nice and maybe more in keeping with our sense of propriety, but this one was pretty good when the camera came out. The one on the next iteration-internal or external- will be pretty good right now and obsolete in three years time... And why would we need to bloat lenses with an automatic aperture? I may be getting old, but I am not yet too feeble to turn an aperture ring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 10, 2015 Share #359 Posted August 10, 2015 Fantastic. So now any company in Japan or China will be able to make it, and surely cheaper than Leica. Here goes the last handicraft argument out of the window. German engineering becoming obsolete once more. German engineering is a silly argument. I don't care which human being builds my camera, as long as it is done to my liking. It sounds a bit naive that handicraft would be restricted to one nation. Current products are assembled from components that may come from anywhere. Mercedes C class cars are assembled in the USA, Toyota cars in the UK, Philips televisions in Taiwan, BMW has a huge factory in South Africa, why should cameras remain provincial? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted August 10, 2015 Share #360 Posted August 10, 2015 We? Who is we? And why? A better EVF would be nice and maybe more in keeping with our sense of propriety, but this one was pretty good when the camera came out. The one on the next iteration-internal or external- will be pretty good right now and obsolete in three years time... And why would we need to bloat lenses with an automatic aperture? I may be getting old, but I am not yet too feeble to turn an aperture ring. Well maybe i did explain myself well. I am not saying automatic aperture in the sense that the camera should set it. The problem with mirrorless and diaphragm manually reset after setting the distance (not closed to the setting when trigerring the shutter) is that you can't set the distance lens wide open and then shoot at the choosen aperture quickly. On a stativ no problem, on the street impossible. With an EVF i am not able to set the distance properly and quickly with a closed diaphragm, are you ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.