AndreasAM Posted September 2, 2015 Share #681 Posted September 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) According to the patent application, the hypothetical camera might have three modes. One would be with the optoelectronic RF, driven by the two auxiliary cameras. This is the mode which has been most discussed here. I don't think it will be as clear as the optomechanical one and not as responsive, either, but it might have advantages over that one. The second might be a plain viewfinder. The patent describes something like a solid state shutter which will block the light path which is not in use at any given moment. The third might just be the plain live view from the camera's main sensor, rendering the camera into an EVIL. The patent states that the OERF will implemented in a optical (hybrid) viewfinder. When the EVF comes in to play, the optical viewfinder has to be blacked out otherwise the prism can't project the picture of the EVF in the viewfinder. In a normal viewing situation there will also be information projected as in a normal EVF, together with the focus directions of the OERF. I personally think that the OERF will be, in a final version, (much) faster and more accurate to use than a opto-mechanical one; electronics helps the human eye. For this reason, it will be easier to focus in low light. When it comes to looking in lowlight/ darkness with the human eye, the rods in the eye can only be used. but when the eye is looking at EVF or OERF information, the human eye also uses the cones. which can form a much sharper and also coloured image. There's speed and accuracy for you!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Hi AndreasAM, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AndreasAM Posted September 2, 2015 Share #682 Posted September 2, 2015 There is no space in an M lens to fit anything in... A small ROM -maybe, but full communicativity would mean a complete redesign and bloat. A good moment to replace a 60 year old mount by something future-proof. A wider mount would enable more telecentric designs and higher quality too. I agree with you on improving on the lens design by getting rid of the limitations of the M-mount, that's where the T-mount comes into play? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 2, 2015 Share #683 Posted September 2, 2015 R mount, M mount … seriously? Wouldn’t a new system get a modern mount rather than be burdened with a legacy mount from the start? Almost any mirrorless system allows M or R lenses to be used via an adapter – no M or R mount necessary. You only need an M mount if you want to build a rangefinder and there is no need for another R mount camera. Of course - just wild speculation on my part. It does seem that Leica will be releasing a significantly different system, so whatever they do to the M, it won't be this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 2, 2015 Share #684 Posted September 2, 2015 Launching a Q with interchangeable lenses now would have a lot of upset Q customers. How so? But then ‘a Q with interchangeable lenses’ is an ill-defined concept anyway. What does it mean? A camera with the general design and handling of the Q but with a lens mount? Or an interchangeable lens camera with the sensor and/or viewfinder of the Q? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted September 2, 2015 Share #685 Posted September 2, 2015 How so? But then ‘a Q with interchangeable lenses’ is an ill-defined concept anyway. What does it mean? A camera with the general design and handling of the Q but with a lens mount? Or an interchangeable lens camera with the sensor and/or viewfinder of the Q? Exactly! The Q is an integrated lens-sensor unit, including the significant post-capture processing that makes the images work at a "lower" price point from Leica's point of view. Perhaps the Q models (28, 35 and 50) at $4,250, the "new product line" (P?) with new interchangeable lenses and automatic everything at $8,000 and up, and then the M typ 360 with M lenses starting at $10,000 and up. That's a lot of cameras, but with brand management from the new CEO you would expect multiple levels. How many S typ 007 Monochrom do you think Leica could sell? Get the Bayer filter off of that sensor and watch the S lenses sing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 2, 2015 Share #686 Posted September 2, 2015 ......... You only need an M mount if you want to build a rangefinder and there is no need for another R mount camera...... You mean that you need a M-mount for an opto-mechanical Rangefinder, with existing M-lenses Otherwise a T-mount could work as well, just needs electronic coupling of lens and camera. A smart M-adapter can then eventually be used for traditional M-lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 2, 2015 Share #687 Posted September 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) T-mount? might be confusing with APS lenses out there... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 2, 2015 Share #688 Posted September 2, 2015 T-mount? might be confusing with APS lenses out there... Let's be in favour for an uniform future Leica mount-solution?! Everybody is telling me that it's possible because of the dimensions and there is already an ample 10-point electronic connector. Sounds future proof. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 2, 2015 Share #689 Posted September 2, 2015 T-mount? might be confusing with APS lenses out there... Why? As I understand it, mounting APS-C lenses (Dx in Nikon terminology) to a standard mount is pretty common, isn't it? The software automatically defaults the sensor to an APS-C crop. I guess it would be possible to mount an APS-C lens to the new camera by mistake, if you also have a T camera. I could be that absent minded, I guess - but then my entire T camera, lens and accessories are with the dealer, so I guess not ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 2, 2015 Share #690 Posted September 2, 2015 Yes, but Leica would again be hampered by an extremely short register distance, even much shorter than the M, doable on a crop camera like the T, but really difficult on full frame. A Newmount-M adapter should ideally be as thin as possible, or even have a negative register (i.e. the lens would sit deeper than the flange) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 3, 2015 Share #691 Posted September 3, 2015 Yes, but Leica would again be hampered by an extremely short register distance, even much shorter than the M, doable on a crop camera like the T, but really difficult on full frame. A Newmount-M adapter should ideally be as thin as possible, or even have a negative register (i.e. the lens would sit deeper than the flange) I understand. The only reason the T keeps getting mentioned was the observation that when the T was released, everyone commented that the mount was big enough for full frame. If that's the case, why develop yet another mount? Leica seems to be able to handle short register distances. Would a full frame version of the T mount need to have the same register distance as the T camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted September 3, 2015 Share #692 Posted September 3, 2015 Yes, but Leica would again be hampered by an extremely short register distance, even much shorter than the M, doable on a crop camera like the T, but really difficult on full frame. A Newmount-M adapter should ideally be as thin as possible, or even have a negative register (i.e. the lens would sit deeper than the flange) The short mount register distance is an opportunity not a problem. The problem with M lenses, wide-angle in particular, is the short exit pupil distance which results in a light path incidence angle farther from perpendicular. A short mount register gives the lens designer more flexibility to give the lens a long or short exit pupil distance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 3, 2015 Share #693 Posted September 3, 2015 I understand. The only reason the T keeps getting mentioned was the observation that when the T was released, everyone commented that the mount was big enough for full frame. If that's the case, why develop yet another mount? Leica seems to be able to handle short register distances. Would a full frame version of the T mount need to have the same register distance as the T camera? It would not be necessarily so, but why use the same mount if the existing lenses for that mount are incompatible? What I mean to say is : of course they could use the T mount, or any other mount for that matter, but when designing new, why not design an optimum mount for FF and any requirements the lens designers might have? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 3, 2015 Share #694 Posted September 3, 2015 Would a full frame version of the T mount need to have the same register distance as the T camera? It would only make sense to use the existing T mount if all the mount parameter stayed the same. FF lenses could easily be designed for the flange distance of the T system. Nikon has shown FF how bodies can recognise APS-C lenses and switch tro crop mode automatically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 3, 2015 Share #695 Posted September 3, 2015 It would not be necessarily so, but why use the same mount if the existing lenses for that mount are incompatible? What I mean to say is : of course they could use the T mount, or any other mount for that matter, but when designing new, why not design an optimum mount for FF and any requirements the lens designers might have? Perhaps they did this with the T-mount, after careful consideration of their vast experiences with existing M and R lenses and weighing in future preferences? The specifics of the APS-C sensor in the T, in relation to the T-mount doesn't increase the amount of design parameters for the workings of a T-mount in FF-format for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted September 3, 2015 Share #696 Posted September 3, 2015 Yes, but Leica would again be hampered by an extremely short register distance, even much shorter than the M, doable on a crop camera like the T, but really difficult on full frame. A Newmount-M adapter should ideally be as thin as possible, or even have a negative register (i.e. the lens would sit deeper than the flange) This is also an issue for the Sony E Mount. So what does Sony do? they make the lens longer to push the rear element further away. At least you get a thinner body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 3, 2015 Share #697 Posted September 3, 2015 The M mount and cameras and lenses will continue There will be an AF FF mount camera based on a modified T mount in the Q style but bigger. I am surprised by the confusion here between the two Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 3, 2015 Share #698 Posted September 3, 2015 I don't see confusion; just some interesting (but ultimately pointless - but hey, when did that ever matter) speculation on what might be coming next, based on optical, engineering and marketing constraints. Some of the speculation is also informed, which is a bonus. I'm OK with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Posted September 3, 2015 Share #699 Posted September 3, 2015 The M mount and cameras and lenses will continue There will be an AF FF mount camera based on a modified T mount in the Q style but bigger. I am surprised by the confusion here between the two I think you might be right on this. It'd be logical for Leica to make use of existing T lens technology whilst capitalising on the undoubted success of the Q. Assuming the M continues, which I guess it will do for the foreseeable future, the emphasis shift towards a T mount Q with AF will, I fear, direct the M down a developmental dead end towards eventual obsolescence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 3, 2015 Share #700 Posted September 3, 2015 I think you might be right on this. It'd be logical for Leica to make use of existing T lens technology whilst capitalising on the undoubted success of the Q. Assuming the M continues, which I guess it will do for the foreseeable future, the emphasis shift towards a T mount Q with AF will, I fear, direct the M down a developmental dead end towards eventual obsolescence. The head of Leica's R&D said recently that they will continue to make film Ms whilst there is demand. It is therefor premature to talk about discontinuation of their biggest brand and money maker, eg. The film and digital M, whilst the demand continues. Personally I see the M market as always small (10,000s of sales) and continuing as small but the new Q interchangeable opening up a new market, rather then pillaging the current one. My M240 doesn't get rid of my RX100, M7 or A7Rii and visa versa. If the M ever lost its unique points (RF, build, workflow, etc) then it would get lost in a sea of similar and competing devices. I am looking forward to my great grandchildren using the latest M for their holiday on Titan, whilst still sneeking a few cheeky Fuji Superia's through their M7/MP whilst using the Google camera embedded in their skull for the boring Facebook stream ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.