Eesand Posted March 30, 2016 Share #61 Posted March 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) to me the ideal scenario is an M with EVF and the Q sensor. Doesn't need video and LCD. I keep looking at the SL and think that adapting lenses is sub-optimal, and the SL is too much of a camera for us M style shooters. The next RF M oughta have the Q sensor as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 Hi Eesand, Take a look here The Leica M-D thread - merged.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jlindstrom Posted March 30, 2016 Share #62 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Or how about Q with T/SL mount? One could then adapt M lenses to it.. consider it like a full frame T with traditional styling or mini SL ;-) I think there lies the problem.. it would have serious affect on 4 different series of camera sales. Kill the T, cause problems for Q, SL and M. Edited March 30, 2016 by jlindstrom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 30, 2016 Share #63 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Or how about Q with T/SL mount? One could then adapt M lenses to it.. consider it like a full frame T with traditional styling or mini SL ;-)Is this a complicated way to say the new SL is too big ?I think we all agree Edited March 30, 2016 by CheshireCat 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSON Posted March 30, 2016 Share #64 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) I really hope the announcement comes soon! I'm really on the cusp of getting a Typ 262, but would rather have a consumer version of the M60. Has anyone shot with the M60? I'm curious how it works out logistically? Like for example, how do you know how many shots you have left or how does your camera tell you it's buffering between pictures. Edited March 30, 2016 by JSON 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 30, 2016 Share #65 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) I really hope the announcement comes soon! I'm really on the cusp of getting a Typ 262, but would rather have a consumer version of the M60. Has anyone shot with the M60? I'm curious how it works out logistically? Like for example, how do you know how many shots you have left or how does your camera tell you it's buffering between pictures. Hi Json, The M60 is very simple in operation. As you turn the camera on, the LEDs in the viewfinder briefly give you the percentage of battery power and SD card capacity, then they go off. If you want to check, you press the "video" button (this is its only purpose). The red LED on the back of the camera flashes as the buffer is loading the image. All very straightforward and intuitive. The only improvement Leica could have made was to include a connector for those wanting an EVF (I don't, for this camera) - it wouldn't be upgradable so it would always be hampered, in my view. If the M-D is as you expect, it will be a lovely camera. Edited March 30, 2016 by IkarusJohn 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindstrom Posted March 30, 2016 Share #66 Posted March 30, 2016 I'm really on the cusp of getting a Typ 262, but would rather have a consumer version of the M60.] I got the M 262. No regrets, it's a fantastic camera. It feels positively light, no extra crap on it (features) and what struck me the most was the VF. Maybe my memory serves me wrong, but I don't recall any of my previous M's having been so bright (including M240). Also the new shutter is fantastic. It's just a tiny little "snick" when you fire it and the general feel of it is nice & solid. To me it feels like a proper updated version of the M9 I used to have and regretted trading it to M240. Each to their own, but I rate the M262 higher than M240 and the margin is not small.. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSON Posted March 30, 2016 Share #67 Posted March 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hahah! You two ( IkarusJohn & jlindstrom ) aren't helping! Those were perfectly awesome answers for both sides. I'm really leaning towards the M262 right now and selling it in the future if the M-D is what I expect it to be. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynp Posted March 30, 2016 Share #68 Posted March 30, 2016 If a pedestrian M60 had in a sensible way show the histogram, for me it will be enough. I don't know where Leica can project the histogram. But I ain't Leica and they, being very clever , should have a solution already. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DezFoto Posted March 30, 2016 Share #69 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) For what it's worth, I would welcome an "M" with an EVF instead of a rangefinder as a secondary/backup body. With how easily/frequently Leica lenses and bodies can go out of calibration, it would be nice to have another body where that isn't a concern. When the SL was rumored, I was desperately hoping it would be a Q with an M mount. Edited March 30, 2016 by DezFoto Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted March 30, 2016 Share #70 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Hello Everybody, A point of clarification:That: The M1 was the third "M" camera following the M2 which was second is appropriate. That: The M3 is the first "M" camera is also correct. The numerical sequencing up thru & including the M9 reflects what it is supposed to*. Because it is not a chronological sequence. The same with the Leicaflex & "R" cameras. Right up to & including the R9. After the M9 & the R9 things may or may not be different. But: That is a different kettle of wax, or perhaps a different bowl of fish. Best Regards, (A Different**) Michael * This has been discussed before in a number of Threads. ** Please see Exodies Post #26, this Thread. Edited March 30, 2016 by Michael Geschlecht Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 31, 2016 Share #71 Posted March 31, 2016 For what it's worth, I would welcome an "M" with an EVF instead of a rangefinder as a secondary/backup body. With how easily/frequently Leica lenses and bodies can go out of calibration, it would be nice to have another body where that isn't a concern. When the SL was rumored, I was desperately hoping it would be a Q with an M mount. actually it is quite rare for a lens to go out of calibration as they are adjusted by shims. In forty years of M use I have never had a camera go out of adjustment spontaneously either. Th only - easily adjusted by the user- vulnerable connection is the roller. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted March 31, 2016 Share #72 Posted March 31, 2016 So from a technical point of view ... doesn't having an EVF necessitate being able to stream continuously from the sensor: i.e. 'live view'? In which case, isn't it strange to build that on the 262 platform, whose main difference from the 240 was removal of 'live view'. I'm still hoping this thing is just a basically a M262 (i.e. optical RF) but without a screen and at the same or lower price. Or does 262 just mean: less than an M in some way? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2016 Share #73 Posted March 31, 2016 Hello everyone, yet another absorbing thread.....Thank you. I like all of us wonder what any new iteration of the M will turn out to be, and of course wonder whether it's going to try to suck more money out of my wallet. A couple of personal points on all of this. I've been away from using my M240 for nearly a couple of months, working on the other side of imaging, cinematography......But coming back to it this past week or so I have to say that there's little about the camera that I'd change. Would I like it thinner? Sure. Would I like it to be without video? Sure, but that function I've learned to ignore and not let it annoy me now. I really like the idea of the 262, but frankly I'd miss not being able to use the EVF, ( I have the Olympus version ), on the 24mm and wider lenses that I favour often. I like the idea too of an M60 type of an M and the absence of an LCD because I generally shoot with the 240 and my MM as if they were film M's, I do not "chimp".........But here again, like the video option in the 240, I can ignore the LCD too..........And then there's the odd fact that a Leica without a LCD, and without video and without whatever else is only too likely to cost more than the models with. Less is more expensive with Leica. So really I have come to realize that for me the M240 is truly well suited to how I like to work and it's going to take a lot to pull me away from this tool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted March 31, 2016 Share #74 Posted March 31, 2016 The more I think about it the more I'd like an interchangeable lens Q. Please. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindstrom Posted March 31, 2016 Share #75 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) ^ So would it then be with AF and called the Q-S or sans AF and called the Q-M? Or because of interchangeable lenses The iQ? [emoji23] Edited March 31, 2016 by jlindstrom 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted March 31, 2016 Share #76 Posted March 31, 2016 The more I think about it the more I'd like an interchangeable lens Q. Please. ...or an M with an EVF. I know, I know, it wouldn't then be an M, but perhaps it would be an M-D? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted March 31, 2016 Share #77 Posted March 31, 2016 ^ So would it then be with AF and called the Q-S or sans AF and called the Q-M? Or because of interchangeable lenses The iQ? [emoji23] You posted while I was typing. Sans AF, Q-M, has a certain ring to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted March 31, 2016 Share #78 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) I have a somewhat different opinion on the Q. I think they should basically just make it a FF point-and-shoot. Interchangeable lenses? Nah, the main thing I liked about the Q was the excellent autofocus, and we've seen how big the AF lenses for the SL are! For me M lenses belong on an M. An M should have an optical viewfinder. And practically nothing else. I hope M-D stands for: Minimalism Delivered. Edited March 31, 2016 by kkonkkrete Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted March 31, 2016 Share #79 Posted March 31, 2016 I have a somewhat different opinion on the Q. I think they should basically just make it a FF point-and-shoot. Interchangeable lenses? Nah, the main thing I liked about the Q was the excellent autofocus, and we've seen how big the AF lenses for the SL are! For me M lenses belong on an M. An M should have an optical viewfinder. And practically nothing else. I hope M-D stands for: Minimalism Delivered. You're right of course, the lenses would likely be way too large. Hell, just give me an M with a top of the range processor and accessory EVF and I'll be a happy bunny. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexx Posted April 1, 2016 Share #80 Posted April 1, 2016 Hybrid finder would solve it. You wouldn't use EVF if you didn't want but there would be an option. I use EVF only when I use Nikon 60/2.8 AF-D macro, but if I had anything wider than 28, I would use EVF more. Having EVF on top is just wrong though, it should be one hybrid viewfinder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.