IkarusJohn Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share #41 Posted October 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) If we take Leica at their word - "das Wesentliche", or the essentials, what is the defining characteristic of the M camera? manual focus lenses between 18mm & 135mm optical view finder aperture priority, to the extent there is any automation available light photography The fundamental point, though, is the optical rangefinder with manual focus lenses of a limited range. That is it's strength as it results in a compact, extremely high quality camera system that works best with handheld image taking - the sort of thing you do travelling, walking about your own city and enjoying time with family. It can also work well for landscape and other things, but this is its core function. I understand people wanting video, long telephotos, zooms, AF and all the other things that technology can provide for us, but that is not what the M camera is about - there are other cameras for that - the S looks like a fantastic camera to me (big, heavy, expensive, but weather sealed, fabulous AF lenses and what looks like an amazing image quality), and I think we can assume that the SL will provide a more portable version, without the mirror box and with a 35mm sensor. If the EVF is good enough, it will provide a real alternative to a dSLR, which the A7 series already tries to do. But the M, I'd rather it gave up trying to be all things to all photographers, and just focussed on its core strength and strived to improve on that rather than offering other things. The S, the SL, the T and X cameras have the other things covered. I understand people finding video useful from time to time, and it is a no-cost option, but adding something because you can (and not doing it to the standard of the rest of the camera) for me dilutes the purity of the whole. If video remains, I hope at least it can be disabled as a no-cost option. Cheers John PS - one of the great flaws in the M system (for me) is the fixed focal point in the middle of the viewfinder. It's not so much that at wide apertures at relatively short focal distances focus and recompose really doesn't work; it's more that we all tend to put our subjects in the middle of the frame, which I do find stultifying. A big part of composition is where you put the subject, and the tension you can create by balancing the subject off centre against the rest of the picture, or as Lars used to say in relation to the 21mm focal length, thinking like an Chinese picture maker, and having a number of subjects across the image in the same plane. I don't think a movable focal point combined with the optical view finder is even remotely realistic, so a high quality EVF is probably an essential part of the system (provided it isn't picked up cheap from another manufacturer, repriced with a huge Leica premium, and unable to be upgraded - that was not a good look). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here Next M Camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
algrove Posted October 12, 2015 Share #42 Posted October 12, 2015 Sounds like a bit of a Q solution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 12, 2015 Share #43 Posted October 12, 2015 [..] it's more that we all tend to put our subjects in the middle of the frame […] Count me out please. I've always focused and recomposed since the seventies. I find it easier and faster than moving the focus patch which is useless for me. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted October 12, 2015 Share #44 Posted October 12, 2015 Count me out please. I've always focused and recomposed since the seventies. I find it easier and faster than moving the focus patch which is useless for me. YMMV. I'm doing a lot of tripod based work at the moment. And the M with it's great wide lenses is perfect for the job. But on a tripod focus/ recompose is a pain. I agree that it's easier and faster. And I'm more than happy doing this with the RF. But EVERY other EVF camera on the market can focus off centre. This would be an absolutely critical thing for me. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 12, 2015 Share #45 Posted October 12, 2015 Sounds like a bit of a Q solution. indeed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted October 12, 2015 Share #46 Posted October 12, 2015 IkarusJohn, I agree with you and I think it's an important point. The M can have "features". But it's the only brand to concentrate on the essentials as a priority and it's important to me that the features don't get in the way of the fundamentals in any way. It occurs to me that you could do this fairly easily in the menus by having sub menus hide if a feature was disabled. For example, if you disabled video it would be great if all the video settings collapsed until video was re-enabled. Then those that like the "value add" can have them and those that don't can get a simpler looking menu system and camera operation. It should be possible to disable and hide video, jpeg settings and live view menus pretty easily. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 12, 2015 Share #47 Posted October 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think we're a bit stuck in an elderly paradigm. The mindset most often found here seems to be that the M system consists of one kind of body with a rich set of lenses and a few more or less useful doodads. The discussion then centers on the question of how many functions the body must have with the polyfunctionists vs the oligofunctionists. What if the the M system grew into a family of bodies, each of which addressed the essentials of a rather narrow set of use cases? The ORF for the street photog and photo journalists which needs the direct interaction with very few basic functions, perhaps a body with a solid state ERF which offers a great flexibility for short and long lenses, a body without any dials, display and so on for tripod, laboratory and bench use and so on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 12, 2015 Share #48 Posted October 12, 2015 I googled obligofunctionist and it came back empty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share #49 Posted October 12, 2015 Hi Philipp, I get the sense that Leica have moved away from "poly-functioning" the M camera (I might be completely wrong on this, as usual). The M-E was little more than a simplified M9 continuing the CCD sensor for those who didn't want to make the more significant shift to the M(240) with all that adopting the CMOS sensor brought with it (particularly, live view and video). Unless the next M iteration is a huge departure from the M(240), why would they bother with an M(240)-E? That would suggest the continuation of the M(240) and Monochrom. The M-P, M Edition 60, Kravitz and Safari versions are just typical Leica "refreshments" to boost sales as they work on the new model. I love the functionality that technology brings, but hate the way in which it is presented most of the time - driven by what the processor can do, rather than what photographers want and need. In 35mm format, I see this as the biggest distinction between Sony at the one extreme and Leica at the other (with Canon & Nikon in the middle - Nikon, perhaps giving more attention to simpler functionality). That's what makes the SL so interesting. Jono has already hinted that the SL will be a complement to the M system, which suggests an M mount adapter (so it can be used with an M system without needing to add AF lenses). That would bring poly-functionality to the M system, while relieving the M camera from some of the things that do not play to its strengths. For me, the problem is I won't be able to afford an SL body for some years. Other priorities will prevail. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 12, 2015 Share #50 Posted October 12, 2015 I googled obligofunctionist and it came back empty. It's a term I just made up. It derives from "oligo" (not "obligo") for few or rare, "function" for capability, "ist" for a person in favor of; i.e. persons favoring cameras with the least possible number of functions. (...) For me, the problem is I won't be able to afford an SL body for some years. Other priorities will prevail. Yes, the same applies here. Actually, I think that at the moment I am quite content with the set of cameras I have, if such is possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted October 13, 2015 Share #51 Posted October 13, 2015 Count me out please. I've always focused and recomposed since the seventies. I find it easier and faster than moving the focus patch which is useless for me. YMMV. So have I, but its not always the best method as it results in slightly missed focus especially when shooting wide open. Options are always best...just because you have the option doesn't mean you have to choose to use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 13, 2015 Author Share #52 Posted October 13, 2015 Count me out please. I've always focused and recomposed since the seventies. I find it easier and faster than moving the focus patch which is useless for me. YMMV. It's not possible (or perhaps, practicable) to move the focus patch with the optical view finder, but it is with an EVF. My comment was really more an observation that images taken with M cameras do tend to have the subject centred. Our experiences with focus and recompose clearly differ - the depth of field of images taken with the AA 90 Summicron, 75 Summilux, 0.95 Noctilux and 50 Summilux ASPH wide open is, at most, 2mm at 1 metre. Granted, pushed out to 5 metres the tolerance increases to around 800mm which provides more useable latitude, but between 1 and 2 metres, the likelihood of your carefully set best plane of focus shifts considerable - assuming there is actually a flat plane of best focus across the image (which is unlikely). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted October 13, 2015 Share #53 Posted October 13, 2015 "For me, the problem is I won't be able to afford an SL body for some years. Other priorities will prevail. Cheers John" John. You will have an SL body within one year of its availability. A man with an M60 does not have "other priorities". This is a good thing, not bad, and I suspect I will have one too. I too have other priorities, but my weaknesses often prevail and my priorities must therefore bend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 13, 2015 Author Share #54 Posted October 13, 2015 You may well be right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 13, 2015 Share #55 Posted October 13, 2015 .... What if the the M system grew into a family of bodies, each of which addressed the essentials of a rather narrow set of use cases? The ORF for the street photog and photo journalists which needs the direct interaction with very few basic functions, perhaps a body with a solid state ERF which offers a great flexibility for short and long lenses, a body without any dials, display and so on for tripod, laboratory and bench use and so on? It's what they did when Leicas were the dominant cameras in 35 mm photo (M4 M1 MD... ) : nowadays each of the supposed "specialized" bodies would make so little numbers that they ought to be sold at stellar prices to make them profitable (not that the current M price are so low... ), or sold at loss which means suicide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted October 13, 2015 Share #56 Posted October 13, 2015 I think we're a bit stuck in an elderly paradigm. The mindset most often found here seems to be that the M system consists of one kind of body with a rich set of lenses and a few more or less useful doodads. The discussion then centers on the question of how many functions the body must have with the polyfunctionists vs the oligofunctionists. What if the the M system grew into a family of bodies, each of which addressed the essentials of a rather narrow set of use cases? The ORF for the street photog and photo journalists which needs the direct interaction with very few basic functions, perhaps a body with a solid state ERF which offers a great flexibility for short and long lenses, a body without any dials, display and so on for tripod, laboratory and bench use and so on? The "polyfunctionists" wants AF, so any M variant will not keep them happy. To keep them happy, Leica needs to make a camera wich has AF. Rumors says it's on its way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted October 13, 2015 Share #57 Posted October 13, 2015 On the topic of moving the focus point: obviously never going to happen with a purely optical RF. But with an EVF/hybrid viewfinder, I definitely think this could be made to work well. You could have just 9 focus locations, on the thirds and midlines, and an array of 9 small buttons on the back of the body. With the camera already held to the eye, you could select which of the 9 focus locations you wanted, just by pressing the corresponding button (or a scroll wheel like on DSLRs, but I personally find that too complicated as you have to pay attention to which focus point is being highlighted). If the buttons were arranged properly, you could definitely select one by feel, using your thumb, with the finger on the shutter button, and it would not involve any menu diving or anything. I could definitely get into something like that. It would still be focus-recompose but with much smaller body rotations = greater accuracy. That's no solution for the tripod dudes, but there could be a screen drag option, like on the Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted October 13, 2015 Share #58 Posted October 13, 2015 When you look at a scene what is in the centre of your field of view becomes the subject because your vision system works best there; you also focus on that subject. If you make a picture with a subject (signalled in whatever way - focus, splash of colour, emotion jerking object, ...) off to one side then when you look at that picture you will put the subject in the centre of your field of view which means one side of your vision will be background picture and the other side will be gallery wall. This is an approach like any other, but is it worth doing more than once in ten thousand images? And if not is it worth making the camera more complex for? Your viewers are going to centralise the subject anyway; why not stick it in the middle? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted October 13, 2015 Share #59 Posted October 13, 2015 I think we're a bit stuck in an elderly paradigm. The mindset most often found here seems to be that the M system consists of one kind of body with a rich set of lenses and a few more or less useful doodads. The discussion then centers on the question of how many functions the body must have with the polyfunctionists vs the oligofunctionists. What if the the M system grew into a family of bodies, each of which addressed the essentials of a rather narrow set of use cases? The ORF for the street photog and photo journalists which needs the direct interaction with very few basic functions, perhaps a body with a solid state ERF which offers a great flexibility for short and long lenses, a body without any dials, display and so on for tripod, laboratory and bench use and so on? Sounds great Philipp, and then every family member its own firmware! I can't wait! Maarten Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 13, 2015 Share #60 Posted October 13, 2015 When you look at a scene what is in the centre of your field of view becomes the subject because your vision system works best there; you also focus on that subject. If you make a picture with a subject (signalled in whatever way - focus, splash of colour, emotion jerking object, ...) off to one side then when you look at that picture you will put the subject in the centre of your field of view which means one side of your vision will be background picture and the other side will be gallery wall. This is an approach like any other, but is it worth doing more than once in ten thousand images? And if not is it worth making the camera more complex for? Your viewers are going to centralise the subject anyway; why not stick it in the middle? ...... and a 150 years worth of photographers have managed perfectly well without being able to move an AF focussing patch on a screen ....... and with 24mp you have plenty of room to crop anyway. .... as usual, add a seemingly unnecessary and previously unwanted facility to a camera and for a select few it becomes a 'deal breaker' and source of derisory comments when it's missing. The M series is complicated enough as it is ....... just leave what works well alone and make what it does better and faster ...... not engage in camera bloat to keep up with the competition ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.