Jeff S Posted November 18, 2015 Share #361 Posted November 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I had one lens it would be useless - why would I want to know the frame lines for lenses I don't have? That's worthless information. Worthless to you, not to some others (even citing next purchase as a reason)... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182986-frameline-selector-lever-purpose-snake-legs/ I could also link to many threads from newbies looking to add a second lens, or to those discussing dislike of 75mm lines when considering that focal length, etc. I also have an M with a lever and one without, but that's hardly the point, which seems more about the continued challenge by one person here as to why there is one at all (as if someone's a fool for wanting one). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 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!
UliWer Posted November 18, 2015 Share #362 Posted November 18, 2015 Having not read all entries in this thread, I am not sure whether the following thought has already been mentioned: We know the "A-la-carte" option for film Leica-M-bodies. I really see no reason which could prevent Leica from offering something like this also for the digital M. The original M (type 240) and the M-P-version show that they are able to produce slightly different bodies at the same time. You might opt for frame levers as well as for or against video, chrome, black anodizised or black paint bodies etc. Their might also be different designs for settings and menues. When they were still producing at Solms limited capacities may have been a reason for limiting the options. Higher capacities in the Leitz-Park in Wetzlar with slower demand for the newest M will give better chances. Of course different options will have their price; that's no big knews for Leica customers. BTW: The Leica Website - the version in German! - already offers "A-la-carte" for any M (only the English Version limits it to the M7 and MP...). So they just had to accustom their production to their (German) offers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 18, 2015 Share #363 Posted November 18, 2015 This dog of yours won't hunt. It's even worse. But the outcome is cute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted November 18, 2015 Share #364 Posted November 18, 2015 While I don't use the preview lever, and don't regret its passing, I'm not worried that other people do. If it comes back, I won't write to the papers. But I wish, how I wish that framelines were accurate. I might use them more if I could be sure they actually told me what would be in the frame and what would not. As it is I generally leave a bit to spare and crop in post. Someone with more knowledge of optics than me could say if accurate digital framelines could be calculated: if so, I hope they come with the next M. No amount of calculation could make the frame lines accurate. The problem is the different position of the lens and the viewfinder window; due to parallax some things will be present in the viewfinder which are not present in the sensor and vice versa. As you can imagine, if the frame lines were over such a part of the scene then they couldn't be in the picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 18, 2015 Share #365 Posted November 18, 2015 No amount of calculation could make the frame lines accurate. The problem is the different position of the lens and the viewfinder window; due to parallax some things will be present in the viewfinder which are not present in the sensor and vice versa. As you can imagine, if the frame lines were over such a part of the scene then they couldn't be in the picture. That's only part of the "problem". The field of view of any lens varies with the distance between the lens and the image plane. Hence, focusing your lens to infinity will move the lens as close to the camera as it will go; it then will have the widest field of view. The closer you move the camera to your subject the greater the distance between lens and image plane will grow; this will result in a narrower field of view. The frames in a M-Type camera will most closely match the image at one or two meters, depending on the model. It's a bit like looking through a window or doorway from different distances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monochrome Posted November 18, 2015 Share #366 Posted November 18, 2015 "I cannot imagine Leica limiting the attraction of their main product to a larger audience for the sake of a small group of -admittidly loyal- old customers. Knowing Leica, I am sure that they will continue to provide sidelines if there is some demand" Well, i think that is exactly what Leica should do. The M is since the 1970's a camera for enthousiasts, be it amateur or professional, and it seems from the posts here that a lot of longtime users want it to be a simple, clean photo camera. I think we can agree there is room for a basic model that does just that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted November 18, 2015 Share #367 Posted November 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's only part of the "problem". The field of view of any lens varies with the distance between the lens and the image plane. Hence, focusing your lens to infinity will move the lens as close to the camera as it will go; it then will have the widest field of view. The closer you move the camera to your subject the greater the distance between lens and image plane will grow; this will result in a narrower field of view. The frames in a M-Type camera will most closely match the image at one or two meters, depending on the model. It's a bit like looking through a window or doorway from different distances. Of course you are right, but I imagined that that could be corrected for in computer generated frame lines perhaps painted in the viewfinder with a laser beam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 18, 2015 Share #368 Posted November 18, 2015 "I cannot imagine Leica limiting the attraction of their main product to a larger audience for the sake of a small group of -admittidly loyal- old customers. Knowing Leica, I am sure that they will continue to provide sidelines if there is some demand" Well, i think that is exactly what Leica should do. The M is since the 1970's a camera for enthousiasts, be it amateur or professional, and it seems from the posts here that a lot of longtime users want it to be a simple, clean photo camera. I think we can agree there is room for a basic model that does just that. Well, that is exactly what Leica is doing. As I said: OFF option (video might have gained (even ) more acceptance had the button been multifunctional/programmable), ME, M60, film cameras, Monochrom, a la carte... Long may it continue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 18, 2015 Share #369 Posted November 18, 2015 The next M-E will become an updated M240 i suspect so aside from special series, i can't seem to foresee a sans video digital camera in the future of Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 18, 2015 Share #370 Posted November 18, 2015 But, if demand exists, they might make a stripped camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 18, 2015 Share #371 Posted November 18, 2015 I understand the level of inertia here by some, however Leica will inevitably rationalise the M. It was only 3 years ago that Leica took its film M camera from the M7 to full frame digital. A remarkable feat, which commercially saved the company. I'm not ignoring the M8, just focusing on full frame and pointing out that the M9 was effectively a digital M7. The strengths of the digital M cameras remain that core - compact, excellent optics, based around the rangefinder, manual focus, aperture priority. The problem with the additional functionality offered by the M(240) is that it does not sit well with that core functionality. There is insistence that video will stay, yet it's a poor implementation; the addition of R compatibility works only with the EVF or the LCD which is also poor. None of this additional functionality is anywhere near as good as the core functionality brought over from the M7 and the M9. The strength of the M camera is that core. Let me put this another way. If a buyer was coming to digital Leica afresh, perhaps with an M6 and a few lenses and an R8 with some R glass, what would they buy? Money no object, they'd want the M for what it has always been; compact and fabulous. That is what it is best at. For the R glass, they choose the SL, and not give the M a second glance for its video or EVF. The SL is so much better at all that. The M is the classic, compact camera with the best glass. Why try to make it something it isn't? Time will tell. There may be variants, but the core of the camera needs to play to its strengths, otherwise it will get lost as a poor second cousin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 18, 2015 Share #372 Posted November 18, 2015 Being forced to carry both an M and an SL might make me move away from Leica. I've done enough of that in the R times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 18, 2015 Share #373 Posted November 18, 2015 I understand the level of inertia here by some, however Leica will inevitably rationalise the M. It was only 3 years ago that Leica took its film M camera from the M7 to full frame digital. A remarkable feat, which commercially saved the company. I'm not ignoring the M8, just focusing on full frame and pointing out that the M9 was effectively a digital M7. The strengths of the digital M cameras remain that core - compact, excellent optics, based around the rangefinder, manual focus, aperture priority. The problem with the additional functionality offered by the M(240) is that it does not sit well with that core functionality. There is insistence that video will stay, yet it's a poor implementation; the addition of R compatibility works only with the EVF or the LCD which is also poor. None of this additional functionality is anywhere near as good as the core functionality brought over from the M7 and the M9. The strength of the M camera is that core. Let me put this another way. If a buyer was coming to digital Leica afresh, perhaps with an M6 and a few lenses and an R8 with some R glass, what would they buy? Money no object, they'd want the M for what it has always been; compact and fabulous. That is what it is best at. For the R glass, they choose the SL, and not give the M a second glance for its video or EVF. The SL is so much better at all that. The M is the classic, compact camera with the best glass. Why try to make it something it isn't? Time will tell. There may be variants, but the core of the camera needs to play to its strengths, otherwise it will get lost as a poor second cousin. Fully agreed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 18, 2015 Share #374 Posted November 18, 2015 Being forced to carry both an M and an SL might make me move away from Leica. I've done enough of that in the R times. I'm sure you carry more than one M body in your safaris, Jaap. What's the inconvenience if one of them was an SL instead? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 18, 2015 Share #375 Posted November 18, 2015 No I don't The second camera is a Sony NEX7. I am not about to spend 5000 Euros to drag another heavy camera. The multifunctionality drew me to the 240. At home often use my M9 instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 18, 2015 Share #376 Posted November 18, 2015 Fair enough Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted November 18, 2015 Share #377 Posted November 18, 2015 Being forced to carry both an M and an SL might make me move away from Leica. I've done enough of that in the R times. I wonder how this debate has played at Wetzlar? - Design the SL and the next M with sufficient functional overlap (e.g. removable hi-res EVF for the M, video button) that you can in theory have full functionality of both bodies across the widest range of lenses and uses. But Leica would lose out if each of us only bought one variety. - Or design them with no overlap (purist M, with clunky/no EVF, no video), so that you'd have to buy both if you want both a compact experience and a full spectrum of focal length and application. Leica would make more money from selling bodies, but I suspect there would be more irritated customers - like Jaap. Even though I've gone down the road of having both, I can see the value in keeping the M as versatile as possible, even if the ways it does this are not needed by some users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 18, 2015 Share #378 Posted November 18, 2015 The problem with the additional functionality offered by the M(240) is that it does not sit well with that core functionality. There is insistence that video will stay, yet it's a poor implementation; the addition of R compatibility works only with the EVF or the LCD which is also poor. None of this additional functionality is anywhere near as good as the core functionality brought over from the M7 and the M9. Not the problem, your problem. Once again, everyone has his/her own preferences. The core strengths of the M not only remain in the M240 for me, they exceed all prior digital versions...better RF, quieter, smoother shutter, better build, etc...things covered here ad nauseam. And this core sits well for me with other options.... I can turn off LV and video in an instant, with no intrusion, if desired. Or I can turn on LV just to test lens/camera focus calibration....an issue with modern digital M's. If added features begin to intrude, or begin to affect ergonomics in a negative way...for me... then I might have a different opinion. Others have different views. Blanket statements always fail (see what I did). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 18, 2015 Share #379 Posted November 18, 2015 I doubt Leica will remove functionality from the M(240), but that doesn't change the debate. Let me put this another way. One signal approach Leica has adopted from the beginning is that any addition or change to it's cameras needs to be driven by improving the final image. It has never included functionality because it can - that's the Sony approach. If it doesn't improve the photograph and you can't do it well, don't do it. That, more than anything else is why I didn't buy the M(240). Besides, I had M lenses. The added functionality gave nothing for me. Yes, the core was improved, but the M9 was fine, until it's sensor died. The M isn't about adding your R lenses to your bag, it's about the M lenses. If you want long telephotos etc, then yes, it's the SL you need. The M system isn't improved in any respect by adding R lenses, in my view. I resigned myself to having another camera for telephotos, AF, video and anything else electronics bring me. But for compact simplicity and fabulous lenses, I'll take the M every time. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMB Posted November 18, 2015 Share #380 Posted November 18, 2015 Being forced to carry both an M and an SL might make me move away from Leica. I've done enough of that in the R times. You got me sad. I never thought you say this. The world is end. I feel the same. Francisco. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.