IkarusJohn Posted July 17, 2016 Share #761 Posted July 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not 'new' according to Stefan Daniel, who said in this awkward floor level interview with Thorsten at 2012 Photokina that everything was new in the M240 except the structure of the RF, which was borrowed from the M9, but with improved accuracy (he didn't specify how).... http://overgaard.dk/leica-M10-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-Leica-M10-Monochrome-Digital-Rangefinder.html [At about 10min, 30 sec.] Jeff Often discussed here. All I know is when I asked if the "improved" rangefinder could be included in my M9P or Monochrom, I was told it wouldn't fit ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted July 17, 2016 Share #762 Posted July 17, 2016 All I know is when I asked if the "improved" rangefinder could be included in my M9P or Monochrom, I was told it wouldn't fit ... So why were you even interested given that it's "not on your list at all"? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 17, 2016 Share #763 Posted July 17, 2016 So why were you even interested given that it's "not on your list at all"? Jeff Are you being obtuse? or is this a serious question (I can't tell). Okay, I'll bite (though I'm not really sure why). I have an M Edition 60 (which you were at pains to point out is a repackaged M(240), with which it shares the rangefinder). I was asking about the M9/Monochrom version. If there was a better mechanism (which the M(240) version seems to have), I was interested for those cameras. It isn't on my list for the M60 - I'm very happy with that rangefinder. Can I tell the difference from the M9 based viewfinder? I think so, but then there are others here who say I'm deluded (a Norwegian poster, if I recall correctly). Then again, there are others who say it is an improvement (Tim Ashley and Steve Blitz among others). More critically, I seem to recall that the dimensions of the M(240) are largely driven by the rangefinder mechanism. Improving the rangefinder and making the camera smaller seem to me to be mutually exclusive with current technology - if what I'm told is correct (an assumption, it has to be acknowledged). So, it would seem that any "improvement" to the rangefinder would, in all likelihood, be a different beast altogether - not something which would interest me if I was in the market for a new digital M (which I am not). Is the M(240) rangefinder in the M-A or any other film based M camera? I don't think it is. Sounds like I'm saying the current manifestation of the M is a technological dead end. The optical-mechanical coupled rangefinder has been in M cameras since 1954 and each new version has been cumulative. Why would the next M digital be any different? Particularly as there is so much in the M(240) that can be improved ... I'm happy with what I have - a couple of film Ms, M60 and Monochrom, SL and 2 zooms. What more can one need ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardM Posted July 17, 2016 Share #764 Posted July 17, 2016 OK,let pu it that way - what is the technical limitation to increase the focusing field? Sure, compared to M9, M240 has much brighter EVF and focusing much easier. But look, we all getting older, not younger, and currency my vision is minus 3 on both eyes.i don't want to switch to autofocus cameras just because i have troubles with focusing.if there is strong cons agains field increase than someday i will have to switch from RANGEFINDER to any other system. Which is pity given the M lenses collection i currently have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 17, 2016 Share #765 Posted July 17, 2016 Need? What's that got to do with I'm happy with what I have - a couple of film Ms, M60 and Monochrom, SL and 2 zooms. What more can one need ... Need? Funny concept around the forum. Wish I had money for everyone who said something similar over the years, only to add a treat or two every now and then. Usually the new purchase comes with a comment like "but that was the one thing I've always hoped for". Nothing wrong with that, of course. But endlessly amusing. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 17, 2016 Share #766 Posted July 17, 2016 True. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 17, 2016 Share #767 Posted July 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Must they? Is that because they have competition? Or because the M(240) is flawed and not selling well? Or Leica isn't making money? The M(240) has significant flaws, but neither the rangefinder nor the size would rate on my list at all. Providing an EVF at least as good as the SL will surely be a minimum, but improving the rangefinder? How? Electronic focus confirmation or some other gimmick? I think you have said on many occasions, Jaap - M stands for messucher etc etc. Leica themselves have said the camera is their flagship and it will remain so. Isn't it all about manual lenses, and a coupled rangefinder? The rangefinder is new in the M(240) - why does it suddenly need improving, and what would you do to it? As for size, I guess anything is possible, but every digital M is now the same size - that's a level of standardisation that's unlikely to change. If that's the priority, the camera is close to perfect - the size is surely not a driver to attract new customers; that is a nostalgic issue for M film camera users. Time will tell, I guess. An incremental improvement to the existing camera, and/or a gee-whizz departure from what we've had to date (I thought that was the SL) - carbon fibre body in a new smaller form factor, faithful to the coupled rangefinder but with the latest innovations technology has to offer ... can I have some of what you're smoking? Better rangefinder and smaller - yep, I can see the queues forming already ... Yes, Leica needs to sell cameras, and the attendant lenses, in order to survive. Saying " my present camera is perfect" and making only incremental improvements will not attract new customers, nor induce the current ones to upgrade. You are right that the M must retain its niche of being a Messsucher camera which is essential for its survival, but one or two technologies have moved forward since 1954... Just about the only part of the camera which is still free of present-day technology is the view/rangefinder. Which is great for nostalgia, but not for sales. As for size, I notice that the #1 complaint about the digital M cameras in general is the size. I'm sure that Leica noticed it too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted July 17, 2016 Share #768 Posted July 17, 2016 I do not beliebe that there will be a new M at the 2016PK:Maybe they bring something completely new? J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 17, 2016 Share #769 Posted July 17, 2016 I have zero info but the new rangefinder, if any, will be digital or won't be new i suspect. The EVF should be updated also. What my crystal ball doesn't show is whether the EVF will be integrated in the OVF or remain an accessory finder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 17, 2016 Share #770 Posted July 17, 2016 There is more than one way to integrate an optical viewfinder and rangefinder with digital technology. Leica has always surprised us with their innovations, let's wait and see what comes up - or even whether something comes up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 17, 2016 Share #771 Posted July 17, 2016 Yes, Leica needs to sell cameras, and the attendant lenses, in order to survive. Saying " my present camera is perfect" and making only incremental improvements will not attract new customers, nor induce the current ones to upgrade. You are right that the M must retain its niche of being a Messsucher camera which is essential for its survival, but one or two technologies have moved forward since 1954... Just about the only part of the camera which is still free of present-day technology is the view/rangefinder. Which is great for nostalgia, but not for sales. As for size, I notice that the #1 complaint about the digital M cameras in general is the size. I'm sure that Leica noticed it too No, I don't think that is right. In many ways, it is the rangefinder that sells the M camera. Without it, was is it? The M with, what ... EVF? Any difference from the SL will be nothing but artifice, and an out of date mount. Why not just buy an SL? I guess an EVF only M would still have the M baseplate? If not, why stop there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 17, 2016 Share #772 Posted July 17, 2016 The new rangefinder introduced with the M (Typ 240) was the biggest change/improvement in this area in a couple of decades. I don’t quite see Leica making further massive changes just yet. I have no information from Leica about their plans with the M line but a bigger focusing patch just isn’t very likely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.j.z Posted July 17, 2016 Share #773 Posted July 17, 2016 I just want an M with a sensor with (much) better low light capability. I do not need an EVF or video or WLAN etc. If Leica does not provide this soon I will have to switch to another system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted July 17, 2016 Share #774 Posted July 17, 2016 I do not beliebe that there will be a new M at the 2016PK: Maybe they bring something completely new? J It be quite surprising if they failed to announce a significant upgrade to the M soon. The 240 is coming up on 4 years now, which is about 93 in camera years. The 262 and M-D might extend sales for a bit, but it's hard to imagine anyone other than the most dedicated or desperate buying a new 240 at this point. As Jaap pointed out, they need to sell cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonomaBear Posted July 17, 2016 Share #775 Posted July 17, 2016 I love the idea of rangefinder / EVF integration. My Q is the perfect everyday image taker for me and my 70 year old eyes -- but -- I want interchangeable lenses, hence a M system. If the EVF showed what the sensor "sees" with a 28 (24?) optical image surrounding (anticipate subject movement and timing ala HCB, I would drain my bank account quickly. For situations where the stealth of a silent camera (no focal plane), I still have my Q. 28mm is perfect in those situations. a 50, 35, 75 etc. for other occasions. Old DSLR to be used in the weird situations... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 17, 2016 Share #776 Posted July 17, 2016 It be quite surprising if they failed to announce a significant upgrade to the M soon. The 240 is coming up on 4 years now, which is about 93 in camera years. The 262 and M-D might extend sales for a bit, but it's hard to imagine anyone other than the most dedicated or desperate buying a new 240 at this point. As Jaap pointed out, they need to sell cameras. Doesn't that rather assume that the next M is going to be hotter, better, faster etc etc ... Maybe it won't. To solve the EVF, dynamic range and MP "problems" needs a considerable rethink of the camera. A new EVF needs a new processor and probably bigger battery. Dynamic range a new sensor. More MP puts pressure on dealing with larger files, shutter slap and so much else. I always understood the M9 had a slower topspeed (1/4,000 v the M8's 1/8,000) to avoid this problem. Certainly, getting sharp images with both the D800E and A7R required considerably more thought and care than on the M camera. So, for me, it's a case of be careful what you wish for. I like the optical viewfinder - the EVF implementation (and all that comes with it) is better to my mind on the SL. If you start with that and a focal plane shutter, the rest tends to fall into place. Other than adding a better processor (to take a better external EVF) and better sensor (of roughly the same MP), the M camera is pretty close to the best it can be. I'm not sure switching to a electronic shutter is the way to go - perhaps it's the future, but not yet ... If you want much of what is being asked for here, you want a different system, it seems to me. Here's a question, what happens if you get rid of the baseplate? It really serves no purpose, yet Leica has retained it. Why? If you decide to get rid of it, where do you stop? This question is really for PeterH - the M camera is built around nostalgia. Get rid of that nostalgia, where do you stop? Is the optical viewfinder really a state of the art way of viewing and focusing? It's quaint, but you can't move the focusing point, it's hopeless beyond 90mm (and at 90mm for many) and wider than 28mm, the parallax is vague for framing at best, the framing box doesn't scale for the focal length you're using and there's no real focus confirmation (in the digital age, focus shift is a real problem). I think we need to be realistic here - the M system, as it is, is all about nostalgia. I love the fact that it has an excellent digital sensor in it, and that it makes the most of both worlds, but its core functionality (a coupled rangerfinder) is over 60 years old ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted July 17, 2016 Share #777 Posted July 17, 2016 Doesn't that rather assume that the next M is going to be hotter, better, faster etc etc ... Maybe it won't. Theres no speculation or assumption about technology or sensor advancement in that all. We can all see what has transpired over the past four years. Any parts upgrade cant help but boot faster, have larger buffers, higher EVF resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 17, 2016 Share #778 Posted July 17, 2016 I think you miss my point - sure, technology has improved (somewhat) over the last few years, but Leica has not always adopted those "improvements". In fact, they tend not to, until they are convinced they actually advance their idea of photography. I rather like them for that as coming from film, many of the technological advancements available have not necessarily improved my photography, and in many cases they have had the reverse effect ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted July 17, 2016 Share #779 Posted July 17, 2016 If they made the body thinner and maintained the same flange-sensor distance with a protruding lens flange; it would be possible to swap the flange and introduce a M-mount lens turret Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 17, 2016 Share #780 Posted July 17, 2016 Look at the thickness of the new R-L adapter and think about the adapter for use of HCD lenses on the X1D-50c. Yes, you gain a thinner body, but the lens length and overall bulk remains the same. Doesn't it come down to what feels comfortable in your hands? I'm not sure I see virtue in the film M over the digital M cameras - compared to almost every other camera of similar capabilities, the difference is marginal. To me. And not worth stressing over. I'm sure Leica has thought this through ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.