On The Meaning And Implications Of No New M At Photokina

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not that i'm interested myself but a digital rangefinder could solve the endemic problem of RF miscalibration. 

 

Like the SL and T do? I wonder just how big a problem this is with current lenses? There will inevitably be some problems as its a mechanical system, but I have had no substantial and unsolvable problems with current or recent lenses, though I have had with a number with much older lenses (135/90 especially, and a 'pre-digita'l 75s - solved by sending some to Leica).

 

I'm sure that the technology exists for a digital rangefinder but to make it acceptable to current M users it would have to be extraordinarily good and offer substantial advantages over the existing viewfinder. Given the lenses' inherent digital limitations I would be surprised if Leica went down this route given that the SL solves most of the problems and interfaces well with M lenses. A digital rangefinder might just be 'clever' and inform the raw adjustment software about approximate focus distance and this coupled with 6-bit coding could help adjust files, but the aperture will remain an estimation too. In other words, we already have the SL and modifying the M offers little if any advantage, but could offer substantial disadvantages if its interface was not stunningly good. We will see but I will be very surprised if Leica took this route unless their research really does show a substantial number of customers prepared to buy such an electronic rangefinder equipped camera.

[lct]

Like the SL and T do? [...]

 

Both SL and T bodies are TTL cameras. An M with a digital rangefinder could remain an RF camera. As i said above i am not interested myself but this is exactly what i would think about if i were Leica.

[jaapv]

Like the SL and T do? I wonder just how big a problem this is with current lenses? There will inevitably be some problems as its a mechanical system, but I have had no substantial and unsolvable problems with current or recent lenses, though I have had with a number with much older lenses (135/90 especially, and a 'pre-digita'l 75s - solved by sending some to Leica).

 

I'm sure that the technology exists for a digital rangefinder but to make it acceptable to current M users it would have to be extraordinarily good and offer substantial advantages over the existing viewfinder. Given the lenses' inherent digital limitations I would be surprised if Leica went down this route given that the SL solves most of the problems and interfaces well with M lenses. A digital rangefinder might just be 'clever' and inform the raw adjustment software about approximate focus distance and this coupled with 6-bit coding could help adjust files, but the aperture will remain an estimation too. In other words, we already have the SL and modifying the M offers little if any advantage, but could offer substantial disadvantages if its interface was not stunningly good. We will see but I will be very surprised if Leica took this route unless their research really does show a substantial number of customers prepared to buy such an electronic rangefinder equipped camera.

Umm... I am a bit stumped by the phrases "inherent digital limïtations"and "SL solves most of the problems" Are the limitations inherent to the lenses or can they be solved? In the latter case there is no reason why a digital rangefinder could not solve the perceived problems as well.

[LocalHero1953]

The potential benefits of a so-called digital rangefinder (whatever that may be) are 1. It might be cheaper to make and less bulky and 2. It might be user-calibratable and more reliable.

Both of those would be valuable.

 

Whether such a digital rangefinder can be made at an acceptable cost is another matter.

[pgk]

Umm... I am a bit stumped by the phrases "inherent digital limïtations"and "SL solves most of the problems" Are the limitations inherent to the lenses or can they be solved? In the latter case there is no reason why a digital rangefinder could not solve the perceived problems as well.

 

'Inherent digital limitations' - that old chestnut data transfer which cannot be resolved unless the lenses are redesigned with electronic components included. The SL does most of what can be done without such data transfer. A digital rangefinder might add in an approximation of the focused distance which would allow more fine tuning in terms of raw image file adjustment. But that is the only image benefit that I can see it offering.

 

Of course if you don't want any raw file adjustment then these are all irrelevant but since that is the direction most equipment is now taking, to not offer adjustments is potentially disadvantageous.

An M with a digital rangefinder could remain an RF camera.

And hereby lies the problem. How would this work - an enlargable central view of the RF patch in an EVF which otherwise looks like the current OVF? Using an EVF is an inherently different experience to using an OVF, which is why I don't want to see the OVF replaced. And the EVF would have to be exceptionally good, and responsively be indistinguishable from real time, to make such an EVF competitive with the OVF to make the shift viable to me and I don't think that we are anywhere near this yet. I suspect that the existing OVF will see me out  .

[jaapv]

'Inherent digital limitations' - that old chestnut data transfer which cannot be resolved unless the lenses are redesigned with electronic components included. The SL does most of what can be done without such data transfer. A digital rangefinder might add in an approximation of the focused distance which would allow more fine tuning in terms of raw image file adjustment. But that is the only image benefit that I can see it offering.

 

Of course if you don't want any raw file adjustment then these are all irrelevant but since that is the direction most equipment is now taking, to not offer adjustments is potentially disadvantageous.

And hereby lies the problem. How would this work - an enlargable central view of the RF patch in an EVF which otherwise looks like the current OVF? Using an EVF is an inherently different experience to using an OVF, which is why I don't want to see the OVF replaced. And the EVF would have to be exceptionally good, and responsively be indistinguishable from real time, to make such an EVF competitive with the OVF to make the shift viable to me and I don't think that we are anywhere near this yet. I suspect that the existing OVF will see me out  .

Well, the patent filed postulates two little cameras, one swiveling (shifting digitally internally I suppose) to replace the optomechanical part, the resulting RF patch (and framelines)being projected into the optical viewfinder. The only tolerance point left would be the helicoid-roller interface. That should make the system considerably more precise than the present system, which works rather well already.

However, there are far more patents than actual products, so we'll have to wait and see.

 

As long as we don't see light field technology in the M -which seems to be rather impossible- there won't be any raw file adjustment for focus.

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either but how else do you explain the M-mount ciné lenses? Are they making them just for the Red cameras?

Yep. Theses lenses are intended to be used with video cameras. That’s the whole point. You could use these lenses on an M, but why would you? Leica’s (partly) video-centric camera is the SL.

[pgk]

That should make the system considerably more precise than the present system, which works rather well already.

 

Thanks jaapv

 

Problem as I see it is that increased precision is only beneficial if it is usable. But making it more usable requires a substantial shift in the way RF in the M cameras works. So its catch 22 - modify and potentially lose those of us who like the mechanical system and work within its limitations, or retain and lose/don't gain those who want something different but who don't want a T or SL type system.

 

FWIW I had the Canon 85mm f/1.2 lens and found that the biggest problem focussing it was the ability to perceive the absolutely precise area upon which it focussed - which in a way is much the same as the M's inherent limitation. Whilst Live View sorted this out it is not easily/viably usable in many situations where precise focus and composition both need to be considered simultaneously in real time. I fear that we, the user bit, are the final limiting factor .

[jaapv]

Well, the user experience by the patented system should be very close to the present one.

Thinking this through, it should even be possible to shift the position of the RF patch in such a system. But I suppose that would be  a bridge too far.

[pgk]

Thinking this through, it should even be possible to shift the position of the RF patch in such a system. But I suppose that would be  a bridge too far.

 

..... or resize it or place it in the 'compositional' frame so composition and fine focus can be seen together, or ..... a load of other potentialities. But is this really (even if viable) the interface we want to use for RF photography? Genuine question because I don't want to use an EVF - I do and they are ok but the delight of theM for me is the OVF, real time viewing and full manual focus/exposure control. I am fully in charge and my pre-visualisation and results are up to me. EVF removes this by offering an interpreted view which I personally do not want to use as my primary view.

[jaapv]

Yes - but this has nothing to do with an EVF. The viewfinder would remain fully optical, only the patch and framelines would be generated electronically.

[edwardkaraa]

Having tried all available systems in the last few years I came to the conclusion I much prefer optical systems, whether a rangefinder or a SLR. No matter how good and accurate they are, using electronic viewing devices bring me neither joy nor satisfaction. Maybe I'm old fashioned or backward thinking but that's the way I like it, and I hope Leica remains faithful to its fundamentals.

[biglou]

The strenght of the rangefinder is its quickness even in very low light when you are used to it.

If you have lots of time and really want to adjust focus precisely in different parts of the frame then reflex view or EVF is much more adapted.

Let's stay with the rangefinder as it is, precise and very practical i think.

What should remain in the next M but much improved is the optional EVF.

Then we would have the best of both worlds.

[mjh]

Yes - but this has nothing to do with an EVF. The viewfinder would remain fully optical, only the patch and framelines would be generated electronically.

I am pretty sure an electronic rangefinder would only be developed with an electronic viewfinder in mind. Combining an optical viewfinder image with a digitally generated rangefinder patch would only complicate matters and re-introduce the calibration issues an electronic rangefinder should solve.

[jaapv]

Why? Calibration of the electronic part should be much simpler than the present mechanical system.

[mjh]

Why? Calibration of the electronic part should be much simpler than the present mechanical system.

Sure, as long as it stays electronical. A rangefinder combining an optically created image with an electronic one would be difficult to implement. An electronic rangefinder would be based on two electronically created images from the two camera modules, i.e. it would be purely electronic. On the other hand there could be a rangefinder overlay much like Fuji has done in the X-Pro2 where the digital rangefinder occupies a corner of the viewfinder image.

[jaapv]

We'll just have to wait for whatever Leica comes up with, I guess.

[UliWer]

Well, Leica has a very strong tradition to introduce new products - some months or even years before they are ready.

 

Even the M3 was changed in so many details years after it was introduced to the market - it just wasn't ready as a "new" camera.

 

Perhaps they broke with this tradition on the way from Solms back to Wetzlar.

 

They already gave up a long standing tradition of consecutively numbering their cameras. After the M9 there is only an "M" with some odd numbers for "Types".

 

Perhaps this reduction to "M" means that we could expect some essential changes - new processor, second generation of a "Max" sensor for example - without much noise about a "new" model - just Type 242 or 250.

[Bill Livingston]

I found this on my Facebook feed and thought its pretty apt for here too...

 

Obviously everyone is arguing about the new iPhone 7 and wondering why Apple don't simply follow their customers ideas and make what they say they want...

 

Well here's why! :D

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Anyone want to do an 'If Leica were a democracy' mock up...?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

We'll just have to wait for whatever Leica comes up with, I guess.

Why couldn't you have said that at the start of the thread? 4 pages of speculation, totally wasted.