Jump to content

New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.


Paulus

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You link to an article about OLED where the only EVFs mentioned are those of the NEX 5N and 7, yet you have not introduced them in the discussion?

 

Oh, for pity's sake, Phillip; give it a rest. 

 

At no stage did I say I would go out and name better EVFs than the rather ordinary EVF offer with the M(240). That was your gig. I spent 5 minutes Googling and posted the results - that article also mentioned the A99, which at the time (apparently) had a better EVF than the EVF Leica selected. I don't need to say more than that. 

 

If criticism of Leica offends you, I'm truly sorry for you. Similarly, if you want to believe the EVF provided with the M(240) in 2012 was state of the art, go for it. In your idle time, search the forum at that time - there was plenty of criticism of the EVF (I don't have the skill or the energy to bother).  But please, if you want a debate, you're going to have to try considerably harder.  Raising straw man arguments really achieve nothing more than wasted bandwidth. 

 

It's okay if you like your camera and EVF (I don't even know, or particularly care if you have one); but the fact remains that Leica made a very average decision, in my view, in 2012. And I'm not alone. Trying to play didactic games with me or anyone else won't change that. It let the camera down, and it didn't need to.  You can try to find any number of reasons to reinvent that, but it won't change a thing. 

 

Let's hope that at least the next M will get the same technology as the SL, and it will all work harmoniously - that is the point, isn't it?  Perhaps it's a bit like 24MP. I'm happy with 24MP,  others aren't. You like the current EVF - I don't. It's history now, and thankfully Leica's idea of acceptable EVF is a thing of the past; if the Q and SL are anything to go by. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

John, on this particular hobby horse of yours about Leica selecting a sub par EVF I'm going to have to agree with the group.  You're way off base here dogging Leica, once again.  I got one of the first M cameras and at that time there wasn't much better than the M's EVF.  Yes, there were better EVF's at the time of introduction but, they were all about as crappy... even the EVF2, or what ever the name of the 60hz model was that came out a few months after the M introduction.  It wasn't a whole lot better.  

 

This dog of yours won't hunt.

 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scorn now?

 

Well, if I'm dogging Leica "once again", I have an odd way of showing it (or at least my bank manager would say so). At least we're consistent, though Rick. We've disagreed about the M(240) since its release. I think of it as your blind spot. Your "group" is certainly defensive and vocal ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this topic is far from it's the OT... Since Leica has proven it can produce a decent EVF, it may no longer be relevant.

 

Based on the sketches from LR/LV on the Patent for a hybrid RF/EVF. Leica may take us in new directions. Whether that direction is a complete integration of the two, or just being able to present additional information in the RF, remains to be seen. But the door may be opening, and it sure is interesting.

 

P.S. Don't get me started on the Multi-Dysfunctional Hand Grip...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why constrain the camera to RF?

 

If you really need a constrained RF camera then use an M9.

 

I use cameras as a means to an end, they need to do what I want them to do and not what you want them to do. If they do what I want them to do then I'll buy, if they don't I won't.

I also use a camera as a means to an end. A rangefinder for me is top priority. The rangefinder should IMHO stay by all means. A better sensor / iso etc. would be nice. The body really is okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this topic is far from it's the OT... Since Leica has proven it can produce a decent EVF, it may no longer be relevant.

 

First because I do not use a EVF , i don't know for sure, if it is as fast as looking through the rangfinder. Isn't there a certain delay in the image? And if so, would I mis the splitt-second " dicisive moment " ? Second:  I saw through the Q not long ago, but for me, it was not really impressive compared to the clarity of my M 240 rangfinder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First because I do not use a EVF , i don't know for sure, if it is as fast as looking through the rangfinder. Isn't there a certain delay in the image? And if so, would I mis the splitt-second " dicisive moment " ? Second:  I saw through the Q not long ago, but for me, it was not really impressive compared to the clarity of my M 240 rangefinder.

 

 

I don't use EVF either, but having more data available might be useful. Maybe it's just camera information...

 

But I think Soden might mean this patent might make EVF irrelevant on the M...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't use EVF either, but having more data available might be useful. Maybe it's just camera information...

 

But I think Soden might mean this patent might make EVF irrelevant on the M...

Maybe it's my English, but what has to be available in a M more than shutterspeed, when I already know the diafragm and the iso?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wishes for a new M:

 

Better ISO

Better DR

Perfect Rangefinder

 

Easy to use
Dust prevention
Perfect strong and small body
Stable Software, no Gimmicks
 

no EVF

no Video

no WiFi

 

but GPS

maybe two SD-Slot 

 

Thats all. I promise to buy ;-) 

 

Rolf

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wishes for a new M:

 

Better ISO

Better DR

Perfect Rangefinder

 

Easy to use
Dust prevention
Perfect strong and small body
Stable Software, no Gimmicks
 

no EVF

no Video

no WiFi

 

but GPS

maybe two SD-Slot 

 

Thats all. I promise to buy ;-) 

 

Rolf

Hmmm... I that case I see no reason to upgrade from the 240.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get back to the OP's original post and discuss what we would like in the new M.  I know everyone wants to add their particular feature or delete a feature.  But, I just want to get back to the issue of... toast.   :p   Everyone likes toast.  Why can't Leica use current technology?  Toasters made today are even able toast bagels!    

 

I just don't understand how Leica believes it can charge $7,250 for a camera without a toaster function!!!  Let alone a bagel feature.  I've just sold my Leica M and all of my lenses.  I bought an A7rIIsRX1rD810sHD1080p and my files viewed at 300x are pixel by pixel just incredible.  These pixels just blow me away... and there are so many of them!  I just can't get enough Mega-whatnots.  I'll buy anything if it has more mega-stuff.  

 

Trust me.  I know what I'm talking about.  

 

RickToast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...