mjh Posted September 4, 2015 Share #741 Posted September 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) That is to say, will a camera along these ideal guidelines, when the ratio is below 2.0, becomes thicker to accommodate the increased flange distance, if you compare this to the T and M/Q measurements? I doubt one would increase the flange distance for a mirrorless camera – Sony didn’t when they started using the E mount for FF. This would also rule out a T-mount for FF, because it is 45 mm wide, thus a ratio of 1.0 with the image circle of a M or R. Not the ideal 1.5 to 2.0 ratio you are talking about when developing a new Ideal futureproof FF- mount. It isn’t ideal but as I said, the ideal throat size for a mirrorless FF camera would be huge. Sometimes the technically best design cannot be realised as it wouldn’t appeal to customers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Hi mjh, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted September 4, 2015 Share #742 Posted September 4, 2015 Well, the mount cannot be wider than the camera (nor, in reality, the lens...) You can always increase the camera size if necessary. But would people accept this, even like it? Some have wondered why an FT or MFT camera isn’t nearly as small as a Pentax Auto 110 (the legendary SLR for pocket film) but customers did accept the sizes of MFT bodies – they are actually easier to handle than an Auto 110 that is probably just too tiny. But a mirrorless FF camera that’s as tall as a medium-format body? I rather doubt that people would be buying it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 4, 2015 Share #743 Posted September 4, 2015 ..... It isn’t ideal but as I said, the ideal throat size for a mirrorless FF camera would be huge. Sometimes the technically best design cannot be realised as it wouldn’t appeal to customers...... I understand, but this would complicate the lens design and has its repercussions with the dimensions of the lenses, look at the Sony/Zeiss and Fuji lenses. I would be curious what in this case would be the lesser tradeoff, somewhat bigger throat/flange distance or bigger more complicated lenses, with compromised quality? I understand that a larger flange distance would limit backwards compatibility with the M-lenses. So this limits the possibilities in a new mount design We don't now what customers do or won't appreciate, when it comes to this choice in quality? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 4, 2015 Share #744 Posted September 4, 2015 You can always increase the camera size if necessary. But would people accept this, even like it? Some have wondered why an FT or MFT camera isn’t nearly as small as a Pentax Auto 110 (the legendary SLR for pocket film) but customers did accept the sizes of MFT bodies – they are actually easier to handle than an Auto 110 that is probably just too tiny. But a mirrorless FF camera that’s as tall as a medium-format body? I rather doubt that people would be buying it. Correct. One reason why Oly and Panny lenses are so sharp in the corners is due to the early decision on throat size. One reason why Sony has to compromise with software in he corners is that their throat is so tight. Both design decisions probably the right ones at the time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted September 4, 2015 Share #745 Posted September 4, 2015 MJH - release timing ...... I agree .... ........ plus Leica appear to have learnt the lessons of the past and most recent product announcements have been followed by release of the item within a few months ..... and in sufficient quantities to provide at least a sprinkling to most main dealers worldwide. Any M replacement will be announced when it is ready to ship ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted September 4, 2015 Share #746 Posted September 4, 2015 Monochrom 1 was announced in May 2012 and I got mine August 28. Monochrom 2 was announced in, April, right? And available May 14th. Michael's reminder of how getting something announced at photokina changes Leica's desire to announce and ship is an explanation for the gap between the M-240's September unveiling and late February shipping. What follows is a combination of wishful thinking and pattern recognition: the next LFI is set to be released on September 25th. I am betting (figuratively speaking) that whatever it is - new M, new system camera -- is announced prior to that date so we can get a full update of it in that issue. And then I bet that, like the M8 (announced in September, available early November) and the M9 (announced September 9th, had mine delivered September 25th) we will not have to wait overly long for it to to be shipped. Photokina is the outlier, with a five-month gap between M announcement and delivery; the pattern for M cameras since 2006 is announcement - fulfillment is <four months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 4, 2015 Share #747 Posted September 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) [...] However, I don’t quite see which role DFD could usefully play in a rangefinder camera, be it a traditional opto-mechanical or some new-fangled electronic rangefinder. Talk about fangled, peruse this. BTW, this week I combined a laser rangefinder and a viewfinder camera (Plaubel Veriwide). It works! But a laser beam is not people friendly. (to be on-topic, it uses a Leica viewfinder) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 4, 2015 Share #748 Posted September 4, 2015 Dr. Kaufmann posted a picture of a nice pair of new binoculars on his Facebook page. Is that a V-lux behind? https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/11845208_10206413558871899_3797733082580155581_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted September 4, 2015 Share #749 Posted September 4, 2015 Dr. Kaufmann posted a picture of a nice pair of new binoculars on his Facebook page. Is that a V-lux behind? https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/11845208_10206413558871899_3797733082580155581_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9 All speculation (from me) is halted from this moment, let the hype begin!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 4, 2015 Share #750 Posted September 4, 2015 It is obviously a Leicaflex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted September 4, 2015 Share #751 Posted September 4, 2015 In the next M the red dot will be lit by LED from behind. I just saw this in my dream last night.Maybe I should not eat spicy curry just before going to bed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 4, 2015 Share #752 Posted September 4, 2015 In the next M the red dot will be lit by LED from behind. I just saw this in my dream last night. Maybe I should not eat spicy curry just before going to bed. Just count Leica lenses (owned or on your wish list) instead of sheep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hey You Posted September 5, 2015 Share #753 Posted September 5, 2015 Many contributors want the next generation "M" to have a thinner body If Leica introduces some form of electronic viewfinder, it could perform tasks presently assigned to the rear LCD. The camera can then be made thinner (and more "purist") by dispensing with this LCD. I would be happy with that. If the electronic viewfinder is also a rangefinder, I trust Leica to improve upon the present mechanical version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 5, 2015 Share #754 Posted September 5, 2015 My old timer's aesthetic makes me very unhappy with cameras in which the lens is massive compared to the body. Most of such is due to placing auto-focus mechanics into the lens, which I understand in engineering terms. But I do not have to like the ergonomics that make me feel like I am merely an extension of some nerds idea of a proper camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 6, 2015 Share #755 Posted September 6, 2015 This is the first time I agree with Pico I totally do not understand the obsession with slimmer and smaller bodies. Many times I have wished the M240 was thicker when I had the 85 sonnar or 35 distagon mounted. I have used the A7 for a while and one of the reasons I hated it, besides the technical deficiencies, is the nerdy way it looks with the ultra thin body and disproportionate long lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted September 6, 2015 Share #756 Posted September 6, 2015 I have used the A7 for a while and one of the reasons I hated it, besides the technical deficiencies, is the nerdy way it looks with the ultra thin body and disproportionate long lenses. First world problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 6, 2015 Share #757 Posted September 6, 2015 I am always just about to agree with someone then they finish off with a comment about a Sony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markforce Posted September 6, 2015 Share #758 Posted September 6, 2015 First world problem. ...because a discussion on a new Leica camera ain't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted September 6, 2015 Share #759 Posted September 6, 2015 My old timer's aesthetic makes me very unhappy with cameras in which the lens is massive compared to the body. Most of such is due to placing auto-focus mechanics into the lens, which I understand in engineering terms. But I do not have to like the ergonomics that make me feel like I am merely an extension of some nerds idea of a proper camera. It's not only esthetics, but form/function. My Noctilux or 75 (current lenses of choice with my M-240) are perfectly balanced with a rather heavy body. When using them on the T, I have to compensate overbalance by force of fingers and wrists, which make shutter release less smooth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted September 6, 2015 Share #760 Posted September 6, 2015 This is the first time I agree with Pico I totally do not understand the obsession with slimmer and smaller bodies. Many times I have wished the M240 was thicker when I had the 85 sonnar or 35 distagon mounted. I have used the A7 for a while and one of the reasons I hated it, besides the technical deficiencies, is the nerdy way it looks with the ultra thin body and disproportionate long lenses. It's called the Apple-ite. A very common disease, notably with copycats like Scamsung. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.