On The Meaning And Implications Of No New M At Photokina

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which also means that focus accuracy cannot be improved. Well it can, but legacy lenses have a tolerance which cannot be altered and building new lenses to even tighter tolerances might result in really eye-watering and bottom-clenching prices . So any electronic viewfinder might make it easier to focus (using an enlarged RF patch possibility) but won't increase focus accuracy. Back to square one. Which leaves us with a delightful and extremely competent design which does what it does very well indeed .

I don't think that is true. Tolerances add up throughout the chain. Improving accuracy in the rangefinder will also benefit older lenses, as witnessed by the M240. The improvements in the rangefinder are as useful on older lenses as on new ones. Legacy lenses can be adjusted to a tighter tolerance span. Leica has been doing that since they went digital.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

[...] I am of the opinion that Leica instead should have made the SL in the same spirit of Leica with simple miniaturized body and lenses. It should have been a Q like body with interchangeable small compact autofocus lenses. [...]

 

+1 but SL and CSL (for compact SL) are not mutually exclusive hopefully.

[edwardkaraa]

I don't think that is true. Tolerances add up throughout the chain. Improving accuracy in the rangefinder will also benefit older lenses, as witnessed by the M240. The improvements in the rangefinder are as useful on older lenses as on new ones. Legacy lenses can be adjusted to a tighter tolerance span. Leica has been doing that since they went digital.

The M240 viewfinder has slightly more contrast that makes focusing easier, and the rangefinder mechanism is more shock resistant. There are no real improvements in the accuracy of the rangefinder.

[edwardkaraa]

+1 but SL and CSL (for compact SL) are not mutually exclusive hopefully.

Hope so too, but now we have neither a body nor compact lenses. The existing ones are definitely not designed for compactness for sure

[pgk]

I don't think that is true. Tolerances add up throughout the chain. Improving accuracy in the rangefinder will also benefit older lenses, as witnessed by the M240. The improvements in the rangefinder are as useful on older lenses as on new ones. Legacy lenses can be adjusted to a tighter tolerance span. Leica has been doing that since they went digital.

 

Accuracy is limited by the rangefinder base primarily. Adjusting lenses to bring them into 'tolerance' (i.e. get them to work as they were intended) is one thing, but their rangefinder 'ramp' and its inherent tolerance is something which no doubt the engineers on the forum will be able to comment on, but there will be a cut-off point beyond which it is uneconomic or simply not feasible to go. I think that the focus accuracy of the M RF system is what it is. At some point we need to accept that the M RF has its limitations and moving beyond them will either require substantial changes in design (unacceptable to many) or higher costs (heaven forbid!) due to more precise engineering and QC. It seems to me that some want an M shaped camera with an M mount but the ability to use electrons for viewfinder and lenses. I see no problem with this other than it will fundamentally change the M RF into something else - and to me the T and SL do this competently enough already - perhaps their transformation into an M shaped body is what might satisfy best? As I said the dCL maybe?

[Paulus]

You can come to terms with ‘no new M at photokina’ now or have your expectations busted on 20 September. But as I said there is no need to despair; ‘no new M at photokina’ doesn’t imply ‘no new M’.

Good news, MJH in so many words is saying a new M will arrive. I'll better start saving right away for the possibility that the new M will arrive at 11-11 2016 being the 11e type ( if one can say the M 240 was the 10th type ) although logic would predict  11-11-2017 ( No Photokina and all primes. )

I'm also glad, that it will be an M, implying, that the rangefindersystem still will be there.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But a new M could just be the rumoured titanium M240! Haruspication will only get you so far in the real world.

[LocalHero1953]

Like others, I can't see how a rangefinder based on a coincident image projected from a base the size of a camera will get you more inherent accuracy than we have.

 

But what we would get with some sort of digital RF (for want of a better term) is the ability to eliminate errors in individual lenses without returning a lens or body to Wetzlar. It should be possible for a user to calibrate a lens via the menu and with the aid of the EVF at, say, close range, 10m and infinity, and for the camera to remember that. Then all the camera needs is to check the 6 bit coding of each lens when attached and apply the calibrating settings. Of course, it would be fooled if you replaced the lens with an identical one, but that is manageable.

 

This would eliminate, at a stroke, the errors due to lenses and bodies that have been made to factory standards of tolerance, but slightly mismatch each other. And no one would have to delve into the RF mechanism with funny shaped screwdrivers, as some here have done.

 

Edit: I realise that such a system of user-calibration introduces a new source of error from those users who are not yet experts at using the opposed thumbs that evolution has given them.

[Paulus]

But a new M could just be the rumoured titanium M240! Haruspication will only get you so far in the real world.

I thought the Titanium M 240 would be announced at the Photokina so it 's not the " new " M .

[Steve Ash]

There are no real improvements in the accuracy of the rangefinder.

It always amaze me when people wholeheartedly put out there claims without any actual background information.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Exodies]

You could make a small autofocus lens by using the photographer's hand to power it and activate a clutch when it is at the correct distance.

[lct]

Accuracy is limited by the rangefinder base primarily. Adjusting lenses to bring them into 'tolerance' (i.e. get them to work as they were intended) is one thing, but their rangefinder 'ramp' and its inherent tolerance is something which no doubt the engineers on the forum will be able to comment on, but there will be a cut-off point beyond which it is uneconomic or simply not feasible to go. [...]

 

I'm no techie at all but the "ramp" (i.e. the mechanical base length i guess) is not the only factor for focus accuracy. The point of a digital RF is that focus accuracy could be enhanced through what Jaap called above "amplification" possibly. 

[biglou]

 

I'm no techie at all but the "ramp" (i.e. the mechanical base length i guess) is not the only factor for focus accuracy. The point of a digital RF is that focus accuracy could be enhanced through what Jaap called above "amplification" possibly. 

 

 

Yes, amplification.

There is also another factor to consider, even if you have a visually accurate enough mean you need also to be able to set the distance accurately to the lens.

Most of Leica's rangefinder lenses have movement not demultiplicated enough to render very small incremental movements easy or even possible.

[pgk]

But what we would get with some sort of digital RF (for want of a better term) is the ability to eliminate errors in individual lenses without returning a lens or body to Wetzlar. It should be possible for a user to calibrate a lens via the menu and with the aid of the EVF at, say, close range, 10m and infinity, and for the camera to remember that. Then all the camera needs is to check the 6 bit coding of each lens when attached and apply the calibrating settings. Of course, it would be fooled if you replaced the lens with an identical one, but that is manageable.

 

This would eliminate, at a stroke, the errors due to lenses and bodies that have been made to factory standards of tolerance, but slightly mismatch each other. And no one would have to delve into the RF mechanism with funny shaped screwdrivers, as some here have done.

 

Edit: I realise that such a system of user-calibration introduces a new source of error from those users who are not yet experts at using the opposed thumbs that evolution has given them.

 

Canon allow for some 'in-camera' calibration of lenses - I read it in the manual for one of my cameras. Never had to use it because it sounds like a recipe for disaster to me for getting things wrong AND I'm pretty sure it was lens specific (i.e. it identifies the individual lens) which as you point out is not possible other than with 6-bit coding). Which brings us right back to the fact that people want to add more electronics to a camera which has very little communication between lens and body (merely 6-bit). So factors such as focus shift would still exist and such a body would only work best with the latest lenses. When will the penny drop that its far better to start with a new system altogether than tinker with an older, perfectly good one (within its existent limitations) and complicate matters for a perceived but potentially flawed advantage?

[jmahto]

   

 

Yes, amplification.

There is also another factor to consider, even if you have a visually accurate enough mean you need also to be able to set the distance accurately to the lens.

Most of Leica's rangefinder lenses have movement not demultiplicated enough to render very small incremental movements easy or even possible.

 

If the patch is electronic then you don't necessarily need amplification. Software can measure RF alignment by signal processing and gives you focus/no focus indication by beep/LED.

 

Not sure I understand the last sentence fully. The ramp on the RF lens is what it is. It can't be made more sensitive (since it is fixed in all lens produced) and I am not sure the limitation of focusing is due to the ramp's sensitivity (limit). Limitation (IMHO) is due to operator not able to see the alignment patch clear enough. This can be solved by either electronically magnifying the patch and/or by software detection as I said above.

[jaapv]

THat is correct and the breason of the theoretical limits of the rangefinder.

[pgk]

If the patch is electronic then you don't necessarily need amplification.

 

Yes you do. If you don't have amplification of the image how do you know precisely which point is being focussed on - especially with longer lenses? Increased focus accuracy requires increased appreciation of where the point of focus is.

[biglou]

 

If the patch is electronic then you don't necessarily need amplification. Software can measure RF alignment by signal processing and gives you focus/no focus indication by beep/LED.

 

Not sure I understand the last sentence fully. The ramp on the RF lens is what it is. It can't be made more sensitive (since it is fixed in all lens produced) and I am not sure the limitation of focusing is due to the ramp's sensitivity (limit). Limitation (IMHO) is due to operator not able to see the alignment patch clear enough. This can be solved by either electronically magnifying the patch and/or by software detection as I said above.

 

 

I probably did not express the idea clearly enough, english is not my language.

What i meant is as follow:

 

" demultiplication " of the focusing ring of the lens means it is possible to build two lenses, first needing two full circles to go from infinity to closest distance when the second needs only a 60° movement to do the same.

 

The precision of focus of the first lens will be much better than the second, all other things equal.

Most of Leica rangefinder lenses have quite limited movement of the ring.

This is good enough to rougly and very quickly reach adequatly the focus considering the overall precision of the system, tolerances with film and the fact the camera was a " reportage " camera where swiftness was placed above other considerations.

 

Digital and computer habit to enlage every picture 100% Leica already reworked and improved the telemeter precision of the M240.

 

If a new telemeter was brought with even better capacity then the demultlication of the focus ring of all or most M lenses will become (it is alreadythe case i think) the limiting factor for a perfect focus.

 

When Zeiss designed the Otus lenses they understood the problem and the rings turn frankly for a quite small change, it allows very precise small adjustments i cannot achieve with my 50 apo-summicron, even with patience and care.

But Otuses are not range finder coupled, small and light enough to fit a Leica M or quick enough to be used for quick snaps, different tools for different use.

 

What the M240 introduced was the option of the EVF.

This is great but alas at the time and until now it is not a good enough one.

With it you have all the precision needed in certain cases, with telephotos, macro lenses and whatever.

I wish Leica improves the M EVF and electronics where possible.

I do not see the need for a telemeter improvement.

Keep live view, telemeter as is, an excellent EvF and drop video.

With some more pixels, fast electronics and humidity protection you have a perfect new M !

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Don't drop video. I (and quite some others) use and appreciate it, it costs virtually nothing extra, takes no space and can be switched off.

[edwardkaraa]

It always amaze me when people wholeheartedly put out there claims without any actual background information.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Excuse me? Do you know any better information than Leica's press release of the M240? Are you always so obnoxious or are you just having a bad day?