jaapv Posted July 10, 2016 Share #121 Posted July 10, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yep, but with the M being conceived as a travel/reportage camera a removable EVF is well within the concept. It was not for nothing that Leica offered an optical Visoflex for decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 Hi jaapv, Take a look here no rumors. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted July 10, 2016 Share #122 Posted July 10, 2016 Exactly. I seem to recall what Mr Kaufmann said at the M240's launch: "best of both worlds" or something like that. With a faster EVF, cleaner high isos and a silent shutter, the M would be unbeatable as a (manual focus i would add) travel/reportage camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted July 10, 2016 Share #123 Posted July 10, 2016 I tend to disagree. In the film era, SLR cameras surpassed RF cameras for travel/reportage by the mid-1960s due to their versatility and responsiveness without the need for add-on components like Visoflexes and such. The only downside was a bit more bulk (not much in the case of an OM-1 or Nikon FM) and the additional noise of their operation. The RF camera became a more specialized instrument, used with a limited range of lenses as befit its design best. Nothing has changed about that today except that the TTL electronic camera now exists to take the place of the optical SLR, eliminating the mechanical complexity and the noise of operation. With a sufficiently good viewfinder system as in the SL, there is no need for a dual viewfinder system, which slows a photographer down with more choices that must be made and the working methodology that changes entirely as you switch from one viewfinder system to the other. The remaining advantage to be taken of the M is that its lenses are compact and the body slightly more compact than the SL. That's why it remains in my kit. I find the M-P to be awkward to use with long lenses, or ultra-wide lenses, despite the EVF and regardless of the present implementation's particular strengths or weaknesses. It's simply not shaped best to take advantage of the wider range of lens types for typical hand-held reportage—the SL does a better job for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 10, 2016 Share #124 Posted July 10, 2016 The SL is simply not a rangefinder. My A7s mod is as compact and is faster, cleaner and quieter than my M240 but it is not a rangefinder either. SL and A7 are just what they are, modern TTL cameras. The only camera combining the capacities of RF and TTL cameras has been, is and will remain hopefully the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted July 10, 2016 Share #125 Posted July 10, 2016 But you see, there is where we differ: I see little benefit to 'combining the capacities of RF and TTL cameras'. The combination doesn't net any practical benefits to me, other than to package two entirely different things into one—the design fundamentals which make one superior to the other for particular purposes are at odds with one another when combined and not as proficient as the dedicated solutions with a single design center. It is convenient, for sure, that I can carry the M-P plus the EVF plus a mount adapter and occasionally fit a 180mm lens even if I mostly use a 35 and 75mm with it, but the M is not ideally shaped nor configured to use with 180mm lenses even with all the add-ons. I get better photos if I carry the SL with that lens, and the SL does just as well with the other focal lengths using my R lenses. I keep the M because there are times when all I want is the two shorter lenses and the M is a more compact solution for that carry. It is across this divide in opinion that we will likely stay because my opinion is based on my experiences and preferences, with many different cameras, developed over the course of my lifetime and is going to be hard to dislodge. Such it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 10, 2016 Share #126 Posted July 10, 2016 I would agree with you if you were the only client of Leica but even oldies with dozens of cams/lenses like yours truly are glad to bring a small bag with a compact camera able to do RF and TTL at will. YMMV of course . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2016 Share #127 Posted July 10, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) But you see, there is where we differ: I see little benefit to 'combining the capacities of RF and TTL cameras'. The combination doesn't net any practical benefits to me, other than to package two entirely different things into one—the design fundamentals which make one superior to the other for particular purposes are at odds with one another when combined and not as proficient as the dedicated solutions with a single design center. It is convenient, for sure, that I can carry the M-P plus the EVF plus a mount adapter and occasionally fit a 180mm lens even if I mostly use a 35 and 75mm with it, but the M is not ideally shaped nor configured to use with 180mm lenses even with all the add-ons. I get better photos if I carry the SL with that lens, and the SL does just as well with the other focal lengths using my R lenses. I keep the M because there are times when all I want is the two shorter lenses and the M is a more compact solution for that carry. It is across this divide in opinion that we will likely stay because my opinion is based on my experiences and preferences, with many different cameras, developed over the course of my lifetime and is going to be hard to dislodge. Such it is. Interesting, but personally I wouldn't agree, actually don't agree with you regarding the SL, though I do see where you're coming from. I agree that the M rangefinder best suits a small range of lenses, for me that's within the 21-50mm range. Under 28mm one obviously needs to use an external VF either the EVF or an OVF, and if one does go over 50mm the M's EVF option is a great facility to have………….But to each their own, whatever floats your boat. Above 50mm and into tele' ranges I personally believe that a Leica S type or in my case Nikon DSLR's are still a better choice than the electronic EVF that the SL and it's like offer. Give me a full optical VF every-time, whether it's the RF M system, the S or a DSLR mirror/pentaprism system. I've looked, looked hard but I've yet to find an EVF that comes close to what I need in a VF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted July 10, 2016 Share #128 Posted July 10, 2016 Why does everyone still think we need a SINGLE M style camera? Surely the technology exists for Leica to make a range of "M" cameras? One for the RF guys and another with the entire top plate replaced by an electronic version but cosmetically the same. One with high MP and one with lower resolution and great low light performance. I doesn't have to be one or the other. Plus if Leica do that quite a few of us would end up with a couple of them. M (2 resolutions with add-ons) ME (electronic VF- 2 resolutions) MD (no screen-lower res) Monochrom (hig res - with add ons) Something for everyone.... And the SL isn't that big. If you add the MF (to get the GPS) grip and EVF to an M it's almost exactly the same size and weight as the current 240. Gordon p.s. All I really want is the next M to have an accessory grip with a built in arca swiss dove tail. Although it's more than likely that I'll shoot with an SL and an XPro2 with it's hybrid VF, which I really like. Both work nicely with my M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted July 11, 2016 Share #129 Posted July 11, 2016 Interesting, but personally I wouldn't agree, actually don't agree with you regarding the SL, though I do see where you're coming from. I agree that the M rangefinder best suits a small range of lenses, for me that's within the 21-50mm range. Under 28mm one obviously needs to use an external VF either the EVF or an OVF, and if one does go over 50mm the M's EVF option is a great facility to have………….But to each their own, whatever floats your boat. Above 50mm and into tele' ranges I personally believe that a Leica S type or in my case Nikon DSLR's are still a better choice than the electronic EVF that the SL and it's like offer. Give me a full optical VF every-time, whether it's the RF M system, the S or a DSLR mirror/pentaprism system. I've looked, looked hard but I've yet to find an EVF that comes close to what I need in a VF. What precisely do you "need in a VF?" I read this as that it's a matter of personal preference for you, rather than anything technological. But if you're happy with your choices, it's all good. (bolded) Interesting that I tend to go in exactly the opposite direction when I'm looking for more reach. The problems with tele work have to do with the lenses becoming larger and heavier than I want to carry, combined with limitations on speed and lack of depth of field. At the limits with extreme telephotos, air quality as well as system stability become the constraining factors. For this reason, when I go to longer and longer effective focal lengths, I move down to smaller formats (Micro-FourThirds) where I can use a very fast 85mm f/1.8 or still fast 50-200/2.8-3.5 to achieve the FoV of a 150 or 400mm lens in a very hand-holdable package. The Olympus E-M1's excellent in-body-image stabilization combined with these lenses nets super results even hand-held with good 16 Mpixel raw files. All choices. And way off the track of "what rumors are circulating about a new M lately?" I fear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 17, 2016 Share #130 Posted July 17, 2016 Strange that there are no rumors about a new M, in general we know it 3 or 4 months before Now this could be taken to indicate there is no imminent launch of a new M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 17, 2016 Share #131 Posted July 17, 2016 ....................... And the SL isn't that big. If you add the MF (to get the GPS) grip and EVF to an M it's almost exactly the same size and weight as the current 240. ....................... But... That's why many people like the fact that the EVF is detachable and that the MFGrip is too, exactly because they want something smaller than the SL. And don't forget a lot of people are calling for a new M that's smaller than the current M. But I agree with most of your post, and in some ways the M line is already quite diverse, so different versions could make a lot of sense. And if one version flopped compared with another, that might teach us all something interesting too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 17, 2016 Share #132 Posted July 17, 2016 Why the desire for EVF ? Surely looking through glass is preferable ? An integrated EVF is surely right answer but I'd only use for wide and then I might keep my top viewfinders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted July 17, 2016 Share #133 Posted July 17, 2016 Why the desire for EVF ? Surely looking through glass is preferable ? Ah, when you hit 70 years of age you will be able to answer this question yourself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clactonian Posted July 17, 2016 Share #134 Posted July 17, 2016 Ah, when you hit 70 years of age you will be able to answer this question yourself Almost there bar a month or three and I wear varifocals but still prefer a rangefinder. That's my choice of course and I readily accept that others may prefer something different but I'm not sure it is age related. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 17, 2016 Share #135 Posted July 17, 2016 Any rumours about a new M?Interesting question. I seem to recall Jaap hinting at something exciting (shortly after the SL was released) and Michael hinting nothing coming this year. I tend to think Michael might be on the money. What does that mean? Leica is ready for a revolutionary M camera? Doesn't want to crowd the still relatively new S(007) and SL? I can't believe they don't have improvements for the M ready to go ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted July 17, 2016 Share #136 Posted July 17, 2016 Why the desire for EVF ? Surely looking through glass is preferable ? An integrated EVF is surely right answer but I'd only use for wide and then I might keep my top viewfinders I prefer the RF when I can. It feels more involved. However for wide and long lenses outside the RF range an EVF allows me to carry only a single device. Plus it gives dead accurate framing, electronic horizon, live exposure preview for when those things are useful. Also at the end of a wedding my eyes do get tired. It's nice to change it up. But for AF systems I much prefer the EVF. I would not have bought the SL if it had an OVF. Hopefully the new M will have an add on EVF this good (but be adjustable like the M). Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 17, 2016 Share #137 Posted July 17, 2016 About year ago i did concrete and precise preditction - "New M. This year. This Fall". That’s the problem with precise predictions – they are much more likely to be wrong. The new M you predicted for last fall did not materialise and I would not recommend trying again with a prediction for this fall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 17, 2016 Share #138 Posted July 17, 2016 No new M for the 10th anniversary of digital Ms? Incredible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted July 18, 2016 Share #139 Posted July 18, 2016 Leica will have some goodies at 2016PK, but the new M will be released at a dedicated Leica-event - as for many of the major, latest releases. With some deliberate/non-approved leakages prior to THE event. And with lots of invitations. Me thinks... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiggiGun Posted July 18, 2016 Share #140 Posted July 18, 2016 The "8854" (whatever IT stands for) will be the next generation "M" probably called "D" for Digital rangefinder in a M3 size body Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.