AndreasAM Posted August 10, 2015 Share #381 Posted August 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) What does appear to be clear is that the optical viewfinder is not disappearing from the M camera (source for this is Stefan Daniel). If you are referring to the interview with Stefan Daniel, if I remember this correctly, he is stating that the Rangefinder (Messucher) will not disappear, not the (optical) viewfinder. Although the latter is also unlikely. This can mean different things; 1. The mechanical Rangefinder will be continued (maybe indefinitely) 2. The mechanical will be replaced by a Opto-electronic Rangefinder. 3. The will both existing next to each other, perhaps even in different systems. 4. The mechanical will be fased out an replaced by the electronically one, in a few years time. If buyers can get into the OERF His words could imply all four of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Hi AndreasAM, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted August 10, 2015 Share #382 Posted August 10, 2015 I agree with Erfahrener Benutzer.... Another 96 posts and that will be you. The forum has Members (neuer benutzer), Senior Members (Erfahrener....after 100 posts), Sponsoring (premium) members and moderators. The forum names are in red above each post, and of course some folks add their own personal signature. Welcome. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Posted August 10, 2015 Share #383 Posted August 10, 2015 If Apple can do it, anyone can I see no moral objection. Chinese labor is very well paid FYI. This information does not seem to agree with your opinion. http://idflinspect.com/?p=737 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted August 10, 2015 Share #384 Posted August 10, 2015 Another 96 posts and that will be you. The forum has Members (neuer benutzer), Senior Members (Erfahrener....after 100 posts), Sponsoring (premium) members and moderators. The forum names are in red above each post, and of course some folks add their own personal signature. Welcome. Jeff I must say (embarassingly) that I thought neuer benutzer was a name at first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 10, 2015 Share #385 Posted August 10, 2015 This information does not seem to agree with your opinion. http://idflinspect.com/?p=737 This link is bullshit. Do you believe everything you read on the internet? The guys working on Apple products are paid an equivalent of 1000$ per month as a starting point. Middle management can easily make 5000$-10000$ per month. For China this is enormous. In chenzhen it's almost impossible to find any skilled labor because they all work for Apple. Of course you can still find underpaid workers in China, probably in the desert or in deep upcountry but in the cities, that doesn't exist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 10, 2015 Share #386 Posted August 10, 2015 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. Not complicated, but how would "the computer" know if it was the lens or the rangefinder that was out of calibration? It wouldn't have to if the lenses had chips in them that identified each lens specifically. But even 6-bit only codes for the lens catalog number. If someone had 2 of the same lenses "the computer" could not tell which was which. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 10, 2015 Share #387 Posted August 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not complicated, but how would "the computer" know if it was the lens or the rangefinder that was out of calibration? It wouldn't have to if the lenses had chips in them that identified each lens specifically. But even 6-bit only codes for the lens catalog number. If someone had 2 of the same lenses "the computer" could not tell which was which. The computer does not have to know whether the camera or the lens is out of calibration. It just applies the curve including all corrections. The only situation where this does not work is if you have two lenses with the same code, unless there is a way for the computer to tell one from the other. However, this appears not to be a common situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 10, 2015 Share #388 Posted August 10, 2015 This is like reinventing the wheel, really. The rangefinder has been the most accurate way of focusing manually since 1954, and the latest Leica version in the M240 is truly the best ever. I think it's a much better investment for Leica at the moment to work on an AF system rather than try to improve a system that has been already exploited to the max. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted August 10, 2015 Share #389 Posted August 10, 2015 The computer does not have to know whether the camera or the lens is out of calibration. It just applies the curve including all corrections. The only situation where this does not work is if you have two lenses with the same code, unless there is a way for the computer to tell one from the other. However, this appears not to be a common situation. Well there is the possibility that there will be a programmable list of lenses in the camera, which can be expanded by the user. Something tells me that even including "alien" lenses, not present in the in camera Leica lists, could be possible. Not so much by a user, but certainly possible by a dealer, through software and a (by Leica certified) ruler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted August 10, 2015 Share #390 Posted August 10, 2015 I have never heard that the functioning of the roll lever of the manual lens had to be adjusted, or that this is the often mentioned problem with a misaligned RF. To follow up on my (perhaps to early) assumption in my earlier post. My question to the very experienced users of the M (which I am admittingly not) is: With a manual lens "out of whack" (perhaps we should define this better) lies the problem with the lens or with the camera and the mechanical Rangefinder to interact in such a way that exact focusing is possible? I see no reason that it would be a problem with the OERF. as I explained in my earlier post. If you want to eliminate this for these specific lenses, this would be only one more variable which can be noted and stored in the calibration database before calculating the exact difference between measured distance of the lens and OERF. The question rises if Leica wants the OERF to be able to take account of lenses "out of whack" and make the system this flexible to adapt to these lenses. How often does it occur, or is this a minor problem when you compare it to a misaligned RF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 10, 2015 Share #391 Posted August 10, 2015 To follow up on my (perhaps to early) assumption in my earlier post. My question to the very experienced users of the M (which I am admittingly not) is: With a manual lens "out of whack" (perhaps we should define this better) lies the problem with the lens or with the camera and the mechanical Rangefinder to interact in such a way that exact focusing is possible? I see no reason that it would be a problem with the OERF. as I explained in my earlier post. If you want this to eliminate for a these specific lenses, this would be only one more variable which can be noted and stored in the calibration database before calculating the exact difference between measured distance of the lens and OERF. The question rises if Leica wants the OERF to be able to take account of lenses "out of whack" and make the system this flexible to adapt to these lenses. How often does it occur, or are is this a minor problem when you compare it to a misaligned RF? With the current implementation of M type cameras, we observe four discrete cases: The camera is well adjusted and so is the lens. The camera is well adjusted and the lens is not. The camera is not well adjusted while the lens is. Neither the camera nor the lens are well adjusted. There have been cases where Leica can not adjust the lens for lack of parts. Those lenses will only be in focus at one or very few points within their range if focussed by the RF. It is possible for a well adjusted camera to lose its adjustment. It it also possible for a lens to do so. It is even possible for a new camera or lens to be improperly adjusted out of the box. I do not know of any cases where the same lens performs differently on different bodies which are all adjusted properly. So, with the manual M system, both the lens and the body must be adjusted and it is possible for either to be out of tolerance. In some instances, determining which is the culprit can be difficult. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted August 10, 2015 Share #392 Posted August 10, 2015 With the current implementation of M type cameras, we observe four discrete cases: The camera is well adjusted and so is the lens. The camera is well adjusted and the lens is not. The camera is not well adjusted while the lens is. Neither the camera nor the lens are well adjusted. There have been cases where Leica can not adjust the lens for lack of parts. Those lenses will only be in focus at one or very few points within their range if focussed by the RF. It is possible for a well adjusted camera to lose its adjustment. It it also possible for a lens to do so. It is even possible for a new camera or lens to be improperly adjusted out of the box. I do not know of any cases where the same lens performs differently on different bodies which are all adjusted properly. So, with the manual M system, both the lens and the body must be adjusted and it is possible for either to be out of tolerance. In some instances, determining which is the culprit can be difficult. Well here comes the definition of a well adjusted lens in play. if you mean by well adjusted, that it is conforming to a standard, so that it plays well with the optimal averaged RF, I think we have a winner with the OERF, because the OERF is out of the equation for good focusing. It is always well adjusted (by software, after production and mounted in the camera) It leaves only the question for which tolerances (of being not well adjusted), it becomes a problem with a lens to focus well, so that it is necessary to store the deviation of the lens in the calibration table of the OERF for this lens. For existing M-lenses it only has to be done once. For new M-lenses an after production measurement can be stored in a chip and read by the OERF in the calibration table. It is all about refining tolerances, not especially by mechanical adjustment anymore, but by software en electronics. The logistics of it will speed things up incredibly for the customer and reduces service costs for Leica. Just thinking out loud. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 10, 2015 Share #393 Posted August 10, 2015 As a matter of note I have had three M240s of various vintage and they are all tack on. They are also tack on with all my new lenses. Including the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 zm. Some of them were knocked and this did not effect the focus at all. I had the use of 6 M9/Ps of various vintage from their release, 2 had vertical alignment off and two needed general focus adjustment. That is by no means a statistical valid sample but from speaking to other Leica users I have reasonable confidence that tweaks in the M rangefinder have now put its reliability just north of my DSLR experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted August 11, 2015 Share #394 Posted August 11, 2015 This is like reinventing the wheel, really. The rangefinder has been the most accurate way of focusing manually since 1954, and the latest Leica version in the M240 is truly the best ever. I think it's a much better investment for Leica at the moment to work on an AF system rather than try to improve a system that has been already exploited to the max. Don't worry, I'm pretty confident that Leica will continue to make at least some models of M camera with a classic mechanical rangefinder for as long as they are in business / we are all still alive. At present, they have more different simultaneous models with mechanical rangefinder than I think at pretty much any time in their entire history (M, M Monochrome, M-E, M-P, M-A + special editions)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted August 11, 2015 Share #395 Posted August 11, 2015 Christmas delivery sounds cool See below Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 11, 2015 Share #396 Posted August 11, 2015 Not to demean the new Sony A7RII owners, but looking at that camera (i have not held it, but did send an A7R back early on for shutter noise and vibration) it sure has a large lump on top of it for the EVF. I keep wondering why I read so many complaints here about the M240 EVF lump. At least one can remove it or not use one at all on an M if one so desires. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 11, 2015 Share #397 Posted August 11, 2015 This way it cannot pretend to be a rangefinder at least but the M's EVF could (and will) be much better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 11, 2015 Share #398 Posted August 11, 2015 Well, it's that M240 EVF lump that's keeping me from using it as often as I would like. With the EVF on, it doesn't fit in any of my bags. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 11, 2015 Share #399 Posted August 11, 2015 Well, it's that M240 EVF lump that's keeping me from using it as often as I would like. With the EVF on, it doesn't fit in any of my bags. Takes much less room than the Visoflex though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 11, 2015 Share #400 Posted August 11, 2015 Takes much less room than the Visoflex though... And weights much less too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.