pgk Posted November 12, 2015 Share #121 Posted November 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The visoflex was valid when it was first introduced, SLRs were a far better solution as history illustrates. Adding an electronic visoflex only makes sense if it offers a better solution in terms of viewfinder view than anything else available, otherwise its a tack-on. Adding features to the M series cameras will always be contentious simply because it is a 'purist's' camera. History has also shown that it has a resilient design as it has survived in pretty much the same format as when it was introduced in 1953. It has of course evolved, and will continue to do so. The question is not so much about its eventual evolution as about what will actually enhance its usability rather than simply bolster its specifications and features - and are there as marketing points rather than anything else. To me the facility of video (which I have to accept some do use albeit perhaps not all that often) is about marketing. The form format of the M does not make it an easy video tool and like many similarly shaped cameras the resulting video is probably rarely well shot. The intent of the M cameras has always been the production of 'quality' images - tacking on anything other than a very good video ability detracts from this - as it is its just another camera that can shoot mediocre video. But once its accepted that things can be tacked on what is next? The inclusion of an 'emergency' 'phone or gps, perhaps the ability to uploads apps so that images can be tweaked and adjusted in camera. If someone wants a camera with a heavy specification then there is already a lot of choice. Adding excess or irrelevant features is as good a way of reducing a buyer base as any other. What there isn't much choice in is in the area of minimalist, simplistic, enthusiast's cameras such as the M. Meddle with this and you risk taking away its fundamental difference and diluting its sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Hi pgk, Take a look here New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #122 Posted November 12, 2015 That is just as true today as it was in the 60's when the first SL appeared. Except instead of LV it was a mirror. As in old times, people needed to make a choice. Like today's implementation of Visoflex, the old version was poorly implemented. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted November 12, 2015 Share #123 Posted November 12, 2015 The addition of an EVF, liveview, focus peaking and magnification to the M240 has allowed me to swap a heavy medium format digital kit for a Leica kit at a third of the heft and girth. I forget the video button is there and as such it doesn't bother me. I use the OVF and or the EVF depending on the job in hand. These additions have opened up many new possibilities and genre to the M system and as such I welcome them. Had they not been available I wouldn't have bought into the system. I doubt I'm alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #124 Posted November 12, 2015 All these features are better implemented and integrated on the SL.. Oh, Visoflex pre-dates the M by a couple of decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 12, 2015 Share #125 Posted November 12, 2015 Visoflex pre-dates the M by a couple of decades. Really? I thought Viso I was from 1951... Do you have an earlier date? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #126 Posted November 12, 2015 Really? I thought Viso I was from 1951... Do you have an earlier date? Well my oldest Visoflex lens is a 400mm lens from 1932, per Puts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted November 12, 2015 Share #127 Posted November 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) All these features are better implemented and integrated on the SL.. And no doubt they will be better implemented on the next M. I'm not looking for an integrated EVF. The M system has become my one stop workhorse using OVF and EVF. I have no interest in the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 12, 2015 Share #128 Posted November 12, 2015 Well my oldest Visoflex lens is a 400mm lens from 1932, per Puts No Visoflex then, was the PLOOT if memory serves. Anyway Leitz did not make TTL cameras in the thirties (if Puts does not say the contrary...) but they kept selling Visoflexes for M users after the Leicaflex was launched actually. I had a v2 and v3 then and now the "Visoflex" is an EVF. Just a necessary evolution if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #129 Posted November 12, 2015 No Visoflex then, was the PLOOT if memory serves. Anyway Leitz did not make TTL cameras in the thirties (if Puts does not say the contrary...) but they kept selling Visoflexes for M users after the Leicaflex was launched actually. I had a v2 and v3 then and now the "Visoflex" is an EVF. Just a necessary evolution if you ask me. So the name Visoflex is a marketing name given to the PLOOT. They are the same thing a mirror reflex box. An attachment to a rangefinder to give SLR capability. That is also the purpose of the current version as well. Does the name Rube Goldberg mean anything to you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #130 Posted November 12, 2015 No Visoflex then, was the PLOOT if memory serves. Anyway Leitz did not make TTL cameras in the thirties (if Puts does not say the contrary...) but they kept selling Visoflexes for M users after the Leicaflex was launched actually. I had a v2 and v3 then and now the "Visoflex" is an EVF. Just a necessary evolution if you ask me. So the name Visoflex is a marketing name given to the PLOOT. They are the same thing a mirror reflex box. An attachment to a rangefinder to give SLR capability. That is also the purpose of the current version as well. Does the name Rube Goldberg mean anything to you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 12, 2015 Share #131 Posted November 12, 2015 Soden, on 12 Nov 2015 - 11:04, said: That is just as true today as it was in the 60's when the first SL appeared. Except instead of LV it was a mirror. As in old times, people needed to make a choice. Like today's implementation of Visoflex, the old version was poorly implemented. Actually the old Visoflex was brilliant and perfect for leisurely work. It is still my favourite Macro setup: M9-Viso3-bellows-TeleElmar 135 head-compendium-ring LEDs. Nothing beats that plain matte screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 12, 2015 Share #132 Posted November 12, 2015 So the name Visoflex is a marketing name given to the PLOOT. They are the same thing a mirror reflex box. An attachment to a rangefinder to give SLR capability. That is also the purpose of the current version as well. And we still need it today. Nothing new under the sun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 12, 2015 Share #133 Posted November 12, 2015 Soden, on 12 Nov 2015 - 09:18, said:Soden, on 12 Nov 2015 - 09:18, said:With the advent of the SL the M does not need to be the universal tool in Leica's stable. Leica can now work on the core elements of what is the M. Without the need for compatibility, video, LV etc. If you need any of these features just buy a SL. What direction Leica will take the M has been hinted at by certain new patents, and hints at improvements in the range finder. Whether or not a specific feature is added or removed, is really unimportant if the M is going to evolve. OK. Can I use you as a packhorse when I travel for 6 weeks and need both long and short lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #134 Posted November 12, 2015 And we still need it today. Nothing new under the sun. My point, if you missed it, is that (as in days before) the SL does it better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #135 Posted November 12, 2015 OK. Can I use you as a packhorse when I travel for 6 weeks and need both long and short lenses? I need that for the M today. That does not change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 12, 2015 Share #136 Posted November 12, 2015 What does not change either is the need for versatility in a travel camera, even if some of the aspects are not optimal. As long as they are suitable to get the shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #137 Posted November 12, 2015 What does not change either is the need for versatility in a travel camera, even if some of the aspects are not optimal. As long as they are suitable to get the shot. So you still shoot with a CL? What does not change is the ability to use every M or R lens you have. What does change is the EVF. I am not suggesting you sell your existing gear to buy this new beast. But that Leica should be no longer tied to the idea of more features of current thinking in future designs and concentrate on its vision of what the M is about. What that is, I don't know, but I do know Leica is stagnant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 12, 2015 Share #138 Posted November 12, 2015 My point, if you missed it, is that (as in days before) the SL does it better. And my point, that i'm sure you did not miss, is that not everybody can afford both M and SL cameras, that Leica Ms have always had Visoflexes and that the current one needs LV, so there is nothing to complain about... i don't know what i could add to make myself understood if needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted November 12, 2015 Share #139 Posted November 12, 2015 What does not change either is the need for versatility in a travel camera, even if some of the aspects are not optimal. As long as they are suitable to get the shot. But inclusion of sub-optimal features does little for Leica's reputation does it? A niche product like the M rangefinder has to do what doit does very well indeed. Add more features which aren't so good and this risks damaging the overall reputation of the product. Low volume, high cost sales rely on quality implementation. No camera can be all things to all photographers. The M has always been limited in terms of its versatility and features. Change this and the risk is that its core features appear less specific and individual. FWIW I have Canon 5D2 cameras with both live view and video. I haven't used either for a couple of years (and although I have filmed using the camera for tv programmes, this was when the camera first came out and I wouldn't want to do so with a (basic) stills camera again). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted November 12, 2015 Share #140 Posted November 12, 2015 And my point, that i'm sure you did not miss, is that not everybody can afford both M and SL cameras, that Leica Ms have always had Visoflexes and that the current one needs LV, so there is nothing to complain about... i don't know what i could add to make myself understood if needed. Leica chooses it's customer base, via its price point. That's basic retail. Yes, Visoflex a 1930's concept helped. But the SLR still almost killed Leica. Hence the birth of the SL. That may also be partially true today, at least from blackstone's point of view. The SLR was old in 1930's, I have one from 1914. Leica took out a patent, a short while ago, which may take the M in new directions. I find that very interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.