Jeff S Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1241 Posted August 28, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sensor quality is not much of a difference between cameras, that is not much of a selling point any more, lighter, hmmm... disputable - balance with heavier lenses, handling and stability make that a discussion point, smaller, sounds easy, but the geometrics of the viewfinder and legacy register distance get in the way, so that leaves price. In Leica Land: . So yes, it can be that hard... All logical....but remember we're dealing with M customers here, where the difference of a half millimeter, the color or presence of a dot, the extra weight of a bigger (and better) battery, etc, etc can seemingly cause a blood vessel to burst. Unfortunately I think people are swayed by that last MP, etc....no matter what they initially say. It's rarely about the ability to make a good print with gear that already exists....from lots of manufacturers. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1242 Posted August 28, 2016 Yeah, they complain about a battery that is 60 grams heavier, and then go out and buy a Summilux 21, that will mainly live in the bag, as the camera is weighed down by a Noctilux... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1243 Posted August 28, 2016 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. Hmm, maybe yes, maybe no. Short of finding a time traveller it is difficult to be sure. But I jumped from M2 to M9 with a minimal learning curve, with no instruction, and no reading of the manual. In the intervening period I'd used a Pentax MX in parallel with the M2, and then a series of cheap digital compacts. I then discovered that Leica had made a full frame digital camera, borrowed a body for the weekend, and found it had exactly the same characteristics I valued in the M2: simple, fundamentally manual operation, optical viewfinder, compact size (well, maybe a bit bigger), took my old M lenses and produced superb image quality. These remain what I value in the M series - I don't have a problem with video, EVF etc, as long as they don't change these characteristics. I may be an outlier here, but I don't value the rangefinder in itself. But as long as I want manual operation, including focusing, I can't see a good alternative yet to the current optomechanical rangefinder. If Leica produces one that is as seamlessly integrated into the camera and is more precise, accurate and fast to use, I will welcome it. No, this is not nostalgia; it's just a way of working with a camera that suits my brain in one of its many configurations. In another configuration, it is happy to wrap itself around my SL and its zooms in all its combinations of auto, semiauto and manual operations with available and studio lighting. Frankly I don't give a damn, my dear, what letter they call the camera, as long as they realise that people take photographs in different ways. If that means a new M with no rangefinder but an SL mount, EVF, AF, IBIS, video etc, and a new W with M mount, fully manual operation, optical viewfinder etc, then so be it. If it walks like a duck....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 28, 2016 Share #1244 Posted August 28, 2016 Yeah, they complain about a battery that is 60 grams heavier, and then go out and buy a Summilux 21, that will mainly live in the bag, as the camera is weighed down by a Noctilux... Who's done that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1245 Posted August 29, 2016 The fact that some lenses are heavier than others is not a reason to accept heavier bodies. My 90/2 v2 from the seventies weighs almost 700g and sits perfectly well on my slim M3, M4-2 and M6J let alone my Sony and Fuji bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1246 Posted August 29, 2016 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). ... What can be clearer? This (i.e., the 99% claim) must be jest or hyperbole ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1247 Posted August 29, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah, they complain about a battery that is 60 grams heavier, and then go out and buy a Summilux 21, that will mainly live in the bag, as the camera is weighed down by a Noctilux... More likely to complain about thickness, then put on a case. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterGA Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1248 Posted August 29, 2016 I am happy that you have a "99% hit rate technically (focus and exposure) etc etc" - you Sir are clearly in a league of your own! 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? Please no need for hyperbole - I suggested that an EVF with electronic rangefinder might be something that Leica considers - clearly this is an 'audacious' position on my behalf...as for not liking or needing rangefinders I own and use three different Leica M bodies and have been shooting with Leica for decades. 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...
Ecaton Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1249 Posted August 29, 2016 Yeah, they complain about a battery that is 60 grams heavier, and then go out and buy a Summilux 21, that will mainly live in the bag, as the camera is weighed down by a Noctilux... I complained about the weight. And went out to buy the Elmarit 28, Summarit 50 an ME 90 as the real Leica travel set. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1250 Posted August 29, 2016 Wel, I use a collapsible Elmar-M on an M6 when I feel like that, but it feels too small and light in my hands after using digital Ms over the last decade. It is just what we are used to. TBH, a smaller, lighter body would not be much of sales argument to me. But that's just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maaglo Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1251 Posted August 29, 2016 I am happy that you have a "99% hit rate technically (focus and exposure) etc etc" - you Sir are clearly in a league of your own! Please no need for hyperbole - I suggested that an EVF with electronic rangefinder might be something that Leica considers - clearly this is an 'audacious' position on my behalf...as for not liking or needing rangefinders I own and use three different Leica M bodies and have been shooting with Leica for decades. Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1252 Posted August 29, 2016 I am happy that you have a "99% hit rate technically (focus and exposure) etc etc" - you Sir are clearly in a league of your own! Actually I simply use my cameras within their design parameters. I have the 75/1.4 and now the 135/4 which are at the limit of the rangefinder's accuracy, but even these are quite usable if you practice and concentrate - if subjects are moving or contrast is low then this is not always possible and you just have to accept such limitations. But 99% is perfectly achievable if eyesight permits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1253 Posted August 29, 2016 99%? I envy you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1254 Posted August 29, 2016 You have to read his claim properly - 99% hit rate provided he tries hard. Not an unbelievable (if valueless) boast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1255 Posted August 29, 2016 You have to read his claim properly - 99% hit rate provided he tries hard. Not an unbelievable (if valueless) boast. My eyesight is good enough to read others' claims i believe but with difficult lenses like 90/2, 75/1.4 or 135/4, 99% hit rate with a rangefinder is simply impossible w/o a tripod and some serious focus bracketing for me. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1256 Posted August 29, 2016 My eyesight is good enough to read others' claims i believe but with difficult lenses like 90/2, 75/1.4 or 135/4, 99% hit rate with a rangefinder is simply impossible w/o a tripod and some serious focus bracketing for me. YMMV. Serious focus bracketing would lower your 99% rate as some of those pictures would be out of focus. Which is why live view is so important to me. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1257 Posted August 29, 2016 Serious focus bracketing would lower your 99% rate as some of those pictures would be out of focus. Haha! well seen. 99% is perhaps reachable with an EVF but better use a tripod and avoid moving subjects then. Avoiding pixel peeping at 100% magnification could be a good idea as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1258 Posted August 29, 2016 I have a 90/2 which I use on my M240. My hit rate with it is pretty good (improved when moving to M240 from M9). If I were to use an EVF, I would use three times more time to focus and the hit rate would not improve significantly. Focusing with a rangefinder is much faster than with EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1259 Posted August 29, 2016 I have a 90/2 which I use on my M240. My hit rate with it is pretty good (improved when moving to M240 from M9). If I were to use an EVF, I would use three times more time to focus and the hit rate would not improve significantly. Focusing with a rangefinder is much faster than with EVF. I don't know if it would be faster but it could be less accurate, especially wide open, so.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 29, 2016 Share #1260 Posted August 29, 2016 I don't know about 99% but I never miss focus on stationary subjects with a rangefinder, even with the ZM 85/2 or 50/1.5 unless I'm being careless. With moving subjects I do miss focus but less than with the EVF. Even with the excellent SL, anything moving looses sharpness while it remains possible to find the subject edges with the rangefinder. Now someone will tell me he has the opposite experience, and that's perfectly ok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.