Guest satrycon Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1221 Posted August 28, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) this tech would be interesting though > http://konost.com/?page_id=7182 It wouldn't be an M. We've been here before. The manual, mechanical rangefinder is what appeals to many photographers. Changing it or hybridising it to its detriment is not something that Leica should attempt. They have enough products catering for other types of equipment already. Perhaps adding a manual mechanical rangefinder to the T via an M rangefinder equipped adapter might be a good idea? Though, oddly enough, I don't see many thread extolling such an idea in the T sub-forum . The M is what it is already. I have an EVF for my T (which is okish but I prefer the rear screen mostly) but don't want one on any M and I really don't 'get' the constant discussion about an M EVF's virtues! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 Hi Guest satrycon, Take a look here New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
PeterGA Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1222 Posted August 28, 2016 IF Leica could make autofocus lenses the same size as the M lenses - I think traditional rangefinder photography would be consigned to the 'special order' catalogue. For me the SL has made lenses like the Noctilux go from <50% hit rate on critical focus when used wide open on my M series camera bodies to > 90% when used on the SL. I buy fast Leica M glass to use wide open - otherwise what is the point? Now the SL doesn't give me the chip designed to handle wide M lenses ( like the M series cameras do) - so I have to use my MP for wides in order to preserve maximum edge to edge sharpness - however from 35mm and up - really an EVF system (like the SL) is far superior shooting experience as far as achieving focus and also knowing exactly what the image will look like - before you take it goes. I understand the nostalgia factor that many display regarding rangefinder shooting and what a 'real' M should be - but for me and my purposes I buy a camera BECAUSE of the lenses I can mount. EVF in the SL has demonstrated ( for the first time to me anyway) that the advantages of this type of focusing and composing technology provide outweigh the traditional niceties of a rangefinder. It is no accident that so many Leica M lens owners have bought into Sony bodies - I would hope that Leica provide those of us who have embraced the EVF technology an M option ( as well as the SL option) I expect to see a new M option which incorporates not only the newer GUI of the SL and Q - but also an inbuilt EVF option - I no longer need a rangefinder in an M - IF I get the superior capabilities of the EVF that the SL delivers - especially if the EVF M used a digital split prism focusing system - incorporating zoom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1223 Posted August 28, 2016 The only way to get AF full frame lenses as small as the M's, as others have said, is to have "screwdriver" lenses like the Contax G series, where the focus motor is in the body connecting with the lens via a screwdriver shaft, circular rack and pinion. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with that and nobody can argue that the optical quality of the G lenses was compromised but it would mean a compromise to some degree on AF speed, compared with a piezo or wave motor. Of course it would mean designing another whole new family of lenses. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski542002 Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1224 Posted August 28, 2016 The EVF of the SL may be the best out there but it is to my eyes very inferior to any OVF. Until someone makes an EVF that looks exactly like reality, for me it will always be like watching a TV screen up close. The SL does fool you the first time you look into the EVF but it's very short lived. Hello Edward: To each his own I guess. Yesterday I shot an event with the SL and my Canon DSMKIII. Use the Canon for scenes requiring fast zooms. I've used my SL since June and love it; my EVF viewing experience is not short-lived in the least. To be able to shoot a coupe (with or without flash) and instantly see their facial expression without removing my eye from the camera is fast, efficient and magical. I can easily focus a dark situation quickly, just upping the gain on the EVF. Using my Canon body in very very dim lighting at an event, I need to rely on IR to get close to accurate focus and then I'm not really sure unless I review and enlarge an image on the LCD. My focusing accuracy with the SL and M lens wide open, easily close to 100%. With my M, it was a lot less when shooting quickly and IMO I was good at focusing a rangefinder. I could use another body using M lenses and depending on what Leica has to offer, I'll probably have another M in the future, regardless of it's design. The optics are still the best! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1225 Posted August 28, 2016 Hello Edward: To each his own I guess. Yesterday I shot an event with the SL and my Canon DSMKIII. Use the Canon for scenes requiring fast zooms. I've used my SL since June and love it; my EVF viewing experience is not short-lived in the least. To be able to shoot a coupe (with or without flash) and instantly see their facial expression without removing my eye from the camera is fast, efficient and magical. I can easily focus a dark situation quickly, just upping the gain on the EVF. Using my Canon body in very very dim lighting at an event, I need to rely on IR to get close to accurate focus and then I'm not really sure unless I review and enlarge an image on the LCD. My focusing accuracy with the SL and M lens wide open, easily close to 100%. With my M, it was a lot less when shooting quickly and IMO I was good at focusing a rangefinder. I could use another body using M lenses and depending on what Leica has to offer, I'll probably have another M in the future, regardless of it's design. The optics are still the best! Well, some of us seem to be happier with the EVF experience than others. Nothing wrong with that. My point is that Leica should leave the M as an optical rangefinder camera, with a top of the line external/optional EVF, but no electronic or hybrid built in viewfinders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski542002 Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1226 Posted August 28, 2016 Well, some of us seem to be happier with the EVF experience than others. Nothing wrong with that. My point is that Leica should leave the M as an optical rangefinder camera, with a top of the line external/optional EVF, but no electronic or hybrid built in viewfinders. If this external EVF is at the level of the SL's, or better, I could live with that. It certainly would help keep the M from getting any larger than it already is. I will say that when I used to shoot these same events (as yesterday), with my M's (the M9 & M240), especially when I had both bodies slung over my shoulders, they would always garner comments and attention from the guests at these events. Not a peep out of anyone since I started shooting with the SL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1227 Posted August 28, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I tend to agree with ski542002: I love the optical rangefinder cameras for reasons other than the perfection of their focusing and viewing, and find an EVF of the quality delivered with the SL to be far superior to an optical reflex camera for most shooting needs. Since I bought the SL, it has come down to that I use the M body almost exclusively with 35 to 75 mm lenses, and generally when I am not overly concerned with absolute critical focus on every frame. Only in situations which involve rapid sequence shooting is there any advantage to an optical SLR system, due to the delays involved in any electronic imaging system—with an optical SLR on continuous capture, you're seeing the subject in quick blinks just before a frame is captured where with an EVF the best that can be construed is to see the frame slightly after the capture. But this kind of rapid sequence capture is something that I do so rarely it is of no significance to me. To me, the utter simplicity and ease of use of the M-D typ 262 has become my benchmark for what I want in Leica M cameras. The typ 262 sensor has proven to be excellent, and this model's ease of use and suitability to what I use an M for is dead on accurate. I honestly can't say how I'd improve it, it's that good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1228 Posted August 28, 2016 I would think that someone at Leica is reading this and saying, Well actually, this is what you have Got.. ==> Bigger Body, More Pixels, Faster Processor & updated for latest EVF.. A definite improvement in QC (across the whole range of photographic equipment).. Get your money out Leica lovers"" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1229 Posted August 28, 2016 Hello Edward: To each his own I guess. Yesterday I shot an event with the SL and my Canon DSMKIII. Use the Canon for scenes requiring fast zooms. I've used my SL since June and love it; my EVF viewing experience is not short-lived in the least. To be able to shoot a coupe (with or without flash) and instantly see their facial expression without removing my eye from the camera is fast, efficient and magical. I can easily focus a dark situation quickly, just upping the gain on the EVF. Using my Canon body in very very dim lighting at an event, I need to rely on IR to get close to accurate focus and then I'm not really sure unless I review and enlarge an image on the LCD. My focusing accuracy with the SL and M lens wide open, easily close to 100%. With my M, it was a lot less when shooting quickly and IMO I was good at focusing a rangefinder. I could use another body using M lenses and depending on what Leica has to offer, I'll probably have another M in the future, regardless of it's design. The optics are still the best! The Canon 1Ds MkIII is ten years old technology. You should rather compare with the AF of the 1DX MkII, which is from another world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1230 Posted August 28, 2016 I understand the nostalgia factor that many display regarding rangefinder shooting and what a 'real' M should be..... No nostalgia for me, I simply enjoy using mechanical rangefinder cameras using manual focus and in manual mode - I'm in full control and that's how I like to use my cameras. Contrary to many user's experience, I have a 99% hit rate technically (exposure & focus) providing I try hard, and usually know why the 1% is off (the user). Without an electronic coupling between lens and camera, M lenses will always be a compromise on any other system and will pay second fiddle to that system's own lenses. EVFs and electronic rangefinders are not going to improve the image 'quality' but can only change the interface and as I've already said, changing the interface changes the M and then it isn't an M. What can be clearer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1231 Posted August 28, 2016 No nostalgia for me, I simply enjoy using mechanical rangefinder cameras using manual focus and in manual mode - I'm in full control and that's how I like to use my cameras. Contrary to many user's experience, I have a 99% hit rate technically (exposure & focus) providing I try hard, and usually know why the 1% is off (the user). Without an electronic coupling between lens and camera, M lenses will always be a compromise on any other system and will pay second fiddle to that system's own lenses. EVFs and electronic rangefinders are not going to improve the image 'quality' but can only change the interface and as I've already said, changing the interface changes the M and then it isn't an M. What can be clearer? I find it a bit audacious that someone would come on an M forum and say he doesn't like or need a rangefinder and would prefer the M not to have one I thought Erick was an isolated case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1232 Posted August 28, 2016 I find it a bit audacious that someone would come on an M forum and say he doesn't like or need a rangefinder and would prefer the M not to have one I thought Erick was an isolated case Personally, I like the rangefinder as it is - it works, ain't broken and doesn't need any sort of electronic 'fix' as far as I'm concerned . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1233 Posted August 28, 2016 I find it a bit audacious that someone would come on an M forum and say he doesn't like or need a rangefinder and would prefer the M not to have one I thought Erick was an isolated case Ditto. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1234 Posted August 28, 2016 Not that I can support it from a technical standpoint, but it would break my heart if Leica stopped producing/developing mechanical rangefinder cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1235 Posted August 28, 2016 No nostalgia for me, I simply enjoy using mechanical rangefinder cameras using manual focus and in manual mode - I'm in full control and that's how I like to use my cameras. Contrary to many user's experience, I have a 99% hit rate technically (exposure & focus) providing I try hard, and usually know why the 1% is off (the user). Without an electronic coupling between lens and camera, M lenses will always be a compromise on any other system and will pay second fiddle to that system's own lenses. EVFs and electronic rangefinders are not going to improve the image 'quality' but can only change the interface and as I've already said, changing the interface changes the M and then it isn't an M. What can be clearer?You will be able to continue to do so as I don't think that Leica will get rid of the rangefinder in their cameras all together. However many others want other developments and that is fully legitimate. What is the M today is not what it was in the past and probably not what it will be in the future. Sent from my HUAWEI GRA-L09 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1236 Posted August 28, 2016 What is the M today is not what it was in the past and probably not what it will be in the future. Well, actually, it is - and probably still will be in the future - ok its digital but an M3 user ror the 1950s could use an M digital with minimal tuition - unlike most cameras. The M in the future according to some posters here, won't actually be an M and I see little point in debating this yet again when the SL and T cater competently enough for most M lenses and have numerous current technologies built into them - so as I said before, why not add a rangefinder to either of these - this would cater for everyone wouldn't it, and the M could RIP. Perhaps not . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1237 Posted August 28, 2016 Well, actually, it is - and probably still will be in the future - ok its digital but an M3 user ror the 1950s could use an M digital with minimal tuition - unlike most cameras. The M in the future according to some posters here, won't actually be an M and I see little point in debating this yet again when the SL and T cater competently enough for most M lenses and have numerous current technologies built into them - so as I said before, why not add a rangefinder to either of these - this would cater for everyone wouldn't it, and the M could RIP. Perhaps not . Well actually is not, unless you stop at the shape. It has moved from film to digital, from crop sensor to full frame, to live view and evf and it can even shoot video! (and I think that this is much more wired than having an evf). I think a 1950 M3 user would have many things to learn. The SL, T and the Sonies can use M lenses via adapter but that's not why we bought into an M system I believe. I like the rangefinder and I would like to keep it but I could not live without an evf. I think that the current rangefinder is already very good and I don't see much room from improvement. Where much improvement could be done is on the evf. Personally I like the idea of a hybrid camera with built in rangefinder and evf as I don't like to have that "thing" sticking on top of my camera. But then I am from the monochrom side of the forum, so whatever the new M will be, if they won't give me a monochrom version I will probably stick to my 246s with their bad evf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1238 Posted August 28, 2016 ...I see little point in debating this yet again... Dear Leica, If you care at all about your faithful customers please put us and this thread out of our/its misery, one way or another, next month. Thanks in advance, -TW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1239 Posted August 28, 2016 The SL, T and the Sonies can use M lenses via adapter but that's not why we bought into an M system I believe. I like the rangefinder and I would like to keep it but I could not live without an evf. I think that the current rangefinder is already very good and I don't see much room from improvement. Where much improvement could be done is on the evf. Personally I like the idea of a hybrid camera with built in rangefinder and evf as I don't like to have that "thing" sticking on top of my camera. But then I am from the monochrom side of the forum, so whatever the new M will be, if they won't give me a monochrom version I will probably stick to my 246s with their bad evf. Hmmm. So you bought into the M system because of the Monochrome? Otherwise I can't see why it attracts you to it in all honesty. As for shooting video with an M series rangefinder well I've always maintained that this was, and is, a crass add-on (as it is with many still cameras) as its anything but an ergonomic video camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1240 Posted August 28, 2016 Hmmm. So you bought into the M system because of the Monochrome? Otherwise I can't see why it attracts you to it in all honesty. As for shooting video with an M series rangefinder well I've always maintained that this was, and is, a crass add-on (as it is with many still cameras) as its anything but an ergonomic video camera. Hmmm. I didn't bought into the M system because of the Monochrom, I was using M6/M7/R6/R7, 25 years ago? I have been a member of this forum since 2002. I bought one of the first M8 but didn't like the camera and moved to other systems. I came back to Leica when they introduced live view for various reasons that I have no interest in keep on discussing with you. I would rather discuss photography, meaning images, than cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.