New Leica M 240 follow-up in 2017 : The speculations.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

X1D?  Really.  This is a huge, by comparison, camera with huge lenses.  How is a MF camera relative  to this discussion?  

 

 

A number of fair points, Rick.  But I wouldn't exactly describe the X1D as huge by comparison, particularly depth (top view) and weight....

http://cameradecision.com/compare-size/Leica-M-Typ-240-vs-Hasselblad-X1D

 

Yes, the lenses are bigger, but small by digital MF standards.  I qualify MF by the term digital, since anyone who has shot 'real' MF film knows that the X1D sensor size isn't close to even the smallest 6x4.5 film format, and not hugely bigger than 35mm.  MF is now more a marketing term.

 

A lot of M users might be interested.  But I agree that's mostly irrelevant to the M design.

 

Jeff

[Tailwagger]

But, the M isn't ever going to be a state of the art digital camera...

 

I think this is an interesting supposition, but it largely hangs on whether or not you believe providing more MPs, 4k EVFs and the like are necessary conditions for being considered state of the art. Given in the mainstream market there are so many arts involved that are either tangential or irrelevant to a manual focus RF camera, most would probably never confer such a title on a new generation of M regardless of what underpinned it. But state of the art is just one state of many. It says little or nothing about it's relative value to either those that precede or follow it. What really counts is not what makes the tool state of the art, but rather the art one is able to practice with it.

 

The M resides on a island of its own.  Regardless of what many might see as insurmountable deficiencies, it continues to differentiate itself by conferring the ability to compose the shot while seeing beyond the frame.  I've come to embrace that single capability as crucial and requisite, regardless of whether the implementation is optically based or otherwise. But its no news that this is not a universally held view, nor, given how most go about approaching photography, should it be.  So while the next gen M might not rise to more general notions of state of the art, when held up against my more limited set of requirements, by definition, it almost certainly will be.  

Edited December 17, 2016 by Tailwagger

[Advertisement]

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

[Rick]

A number of fair points, Rick.  But I wouldn't exactly describe the X1D as huge by comparison, particularly depth (top view) and weight....

http://cameradecision.com/compare-size/Leica-M-Typ-240-vs-Hasselblad-X1D

 

Yes, the lenses are bigger, but small by digital MF standards.  I qualify MF by the term digital, since anyone who has shot 'real' MF film knows that the X1D sensor size isn't close to even the smallest 6x4.5 film format, and not hugely bigger than 35mm.  MF is now more a marketing term.

 

A lot of M users might be interested.  But I agree that's mostly irrelevant to the M design.

 

Jeff

 

 

Jeff,

 

I agree with all of this.  And, yes the cool X1D isn't a lot bigger than the M.  And, the lenses of the X1D are what make it "huge."  But, I'd like to see a link to the comparison of the new M10.  We are talking about the M10 here.

 

Also, I agree the X1D is not a true MF camera as the S is not really a true MF camera... and they both use basically the same sensor group with just different aspect ratios.  The S is not practically inferior in sensor size. 

 

The S, in my opinion is a much better camera for this category.  If, you want a small MF camera I guess you want portability.  But, the S isn't a whole lot bigger with lenses.  But, the s is a much better choice for studio and field with faster handling, more lenses, and probably better lenses (but I'm pretty sure the Hasselblad lenses are going to be quite nice).

 

Rick

Edited December 17, 2016 by Rick

[Peter H]

Jeff,

 

I agree with all of this.  And, yes the cool X1D isn't a lot bigger than the M.  And, the lenses of the X1D are what make it "huge."  But, I'd like to see a link to the comparison of the new M10.

 

Also, I agree the X1D is not a true MF camera as the S is not really a true MF camera... and they both use basically the same sensor group with just different aspect ratios.  The S is not practically inferior in sensor size. 

 

The S, in my opinion is a much better camera for this category.  If, you want a small MF camera I guess you want portability.  But, the S isn't a whole lot bigger with lenses.  But, the s is a much better choice for studio and field with faster handling, more lenses, and probably better lenses (but I'm pretty sure the Hasselblad lenses are going to be quite nice).

 

Rick

 

 

 

Rick, I agree with a  lot of what you're saying about the M, but I don't think you're right about the size comparisons.

 

I've pinched this picture from the net so I can't vouch for its accuracy but there's no reason to doubt it; the dimensions seem to be right and it's just how I remember it:

 

 

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!

 

And the S is very close indeed to double the weight of the X!D, and its lenses are bigger and heavier too.

 

I've handled these cameras extensively and the XiD feels very like an M in the hand, (exactly what I imagine an AF M would feel like) and the controls are superbly intuitive. Whilst it's not a MF in the traditional sense, its sensor yields significantly different results from Leica's 24mp 36x24mm sensors. But it isn't a rangefinder, and that's the difference that will count for many.

 

But for all those M users who are not wedded to the rangefinder/OVF experience but value the camera for other reasons, perhaps to do with with usability and picture quality there is another quite compelling alternative to be considered.

 

My ideal camera has always been the one that carried the largest film format or sensor in the smallest body, and the X1D is winning at the moment.

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Peter H

[Rick]

Peter,

 

Can you compare the X1D to the M3 so I can see the difference.

 

And yes the S is bigger.  But, stick a lens on it and this becomes the sort of argument about the Sony Alpha compared to the current M.  The Sony looks a lot smaller until you add the lenses.   

 

No doubt the X1D is going to be a cool camera.  Just not as usable as the fast S with its optical view finder and fast frame rate for studio and field work.

 

The blackout time of the X1D would be a deal breaker for a lot of studio and other shooters.

 

Rick

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks for the responses - I think there is some misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) of my suggestion, or perhaps rational and understandable fear that Leica will screw up what is a fabulous camera.  I started a response, and it got longer and longer; so I ditched it.

 

Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting the M10 should have an EVF.  I'm saying the M lenses are too fantastic to be hobbled by the limitations in the M rangefinder mechanism.  I think the M10 will be a dead end - yes, it will get better processors, better dynamic range and ISO, but the digital technology available has hit the ceiling where the optical rangefinder is concerned.

 

So, I'm suggesting Leica should introduce a new M mount camera (as an addition to the M variants) - same form factor, but remove the current rangefinder.  That would suggest an EVF, which would be no bad thing; I can't think of any other alternative, and the SL has the best EVF around.

 

Turning to Rick's post (excuse the selective quotation:

 

 

I know this is long but, I think there is some difference in what you and others see as the M system.  But, I know that you own and understand the M.  So, I am confused as to why you want to change the M to an EVF platform?  The M is an optical system and I'll explain why it is so - and I understand you know all of this, I guess.  

 

I do, and no I don't want to change the M system from an optical system to an EVF.  I want and like the M system, but it's come to the end of the road.  Leica continues to develop M lenses - it needs another platform for those lenses, other than the SL and TL.  As Peter says, they're too big and too heavy; besides, the SL is really about AF and the TL is APS-C (nice as it is).  I have no interest in Sony, and I don't think I'm alone in that respect.  Sony is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

The RF is fit to focus Leica manual RF lenses I must point out.  The lenses the Leica M is designed to focus are manual with helicoids.  Dismissing the helicoid, and removing the RF would mean that Leica would need to utilize an EVF to focus manual lenses.  

 

EVF is not completely suitable for manual lenses.  It may have some advantages for off center focus and low light focus, but it can't be as accurate as the RF because the RF is inherently a vernier alignment method and our eye can discern vernier alignment with much greater accuracy than any other manual focus method.  Any.  

 

The only way an EVF would be more accurate would be if the user engaged focus magnification which works well on tripod and can work well in some circumstances.  But a well trained RF user can compete with that method and may very well prefer it.

 

Focus peeking is too inaccurate.

 

No, that's simply not correct.  The helicoids have nothing to do with it - they are a rangefinder mechanism.  The fundamental point is that the lens is uncoupled from the sensor, which means two unconnected systems - focus shift, lack of calibration and lack of magnification all come into play. We all know this.

 

The lens focus is manual, and is fabulous, regardless what camera it is attached to.

 

In practice, the EVF in the SL wins hands down, any Leica lens, any day.  It really is that good.  Not focus peaking, or anything like that - just focusing.  Magnification is also useful for critical focus handheld, but most photography (apart from static subjects like landscape and architecture) is not on a tripod and magnification still works very well in practice - the joystick is just under your right thumb.

 

So, the RF can be fit for purpose:  Ability to focus an extensive selection of the finest manual focus RF lenses.  That is all it has to be fit for duty.

 

Those finest M lenses are really what I am talking about.  With few exceptions (28 Summicron, previous version) modern M lenses focus and perform better on the SL than on the M - that may be sad, but it's a plain fact proven by better photographers than me.

 

The bigger problem is as I alluded to above - fixing the focus and metering patch in the middle of the (inaccurate) frame is not fit for purpose.  Worse, the patch takes up such a large proportion of the 135mm lens that Leica warns against using it wide open if critical focus is important - it's always important on a tele.

 

X1D?  Really.  This is a huge, by comparison, camera with huge lenses.  How is a MF camera relative  to this discussion?  

 

Do you think the archetypical M user going to run around with this camera that has a blackout time so long.  This is going to be a studio or landscape camera.  By the way, a better suited camera would be the S with an 80ms blackout (comparable to an optical DSLR) and the S has very comparable image quality, but I digress.

 

I know you know this.  I think you are trying to conflate the advanced technology of the X1D with the quaint Leica M technology.  But, they are entirely different concept cameras as is the SL you mention above.

 

Sure.  From the pictures, the X1D is no bigger than the SL, and apparently lighter and more ergonomic.  IS your issue with the X1D its size or the size of its sensor?

 

From comments here, I think many M users are looking very seriously at the X1D.  They're also selling their M gear for the SL.  I don't think the larger sensor is an impediment.  I don't think the X1D is an entirely different concept because of its sensor (though technically, you're correct).  What I and most photographers want is a compact, ergonomic camera, with good lenses and the best sensor - I think Hasselblad will offer exactly that.

 

The M is a street shooter.  A travel camera.  A sometime landscape tool.  A small take along camera.  Designed to shoot small manual lenses.  It is not a Medium format or a AF SL.  

 

Exactly.  No one is suggesting the M should be huge, Medium Format or AF.  I'm not sure where you get that idea.  But the fact that M owners are seriously looking at the X1D and SL suggests that they offer something the M doesn't.

 

The option of an M variant in similar form factor, but without the limitations of the optical viewfinder would meet your list and would remain faithful to the very best hing about the M system - its lenses.

 

I disagree that the demands of digital photography are beyond the optical system of the M.  The optical system of the M is ideal suited for the purpose of shooting the manual focus line of M lenses.  

 

Then we disagree.  Yes, the lenses are fantastic, but focus shift, poor calibration, inaccurate framing and fixed focal and metering patches do not bring out the best in them.

 

But, I don't want an EVF in the current M if it means the exclusion of the excellent optical RF/VF.  

 

The M10 will always be available, I'm sure.  Leica clearly has the willingness and capacity to make the M in a number of variants.

 

I also agree that Leica could make an M with an EVF in the body.  I think that we are seeing Leica move exactly in that direction.  This rumored M seems to be drawing a distinction between the RF M and "something else."  But, I imagine that "something else" is already here - it is the venerable SL.

 

Yes, I think that is probably right; though we've both made M predictions in the past, and been completely wrong ... The answer is not the SL.  I thought it was, but it's an AF system, with its no compromise lenses.  My concern is that the optical RF is holding the M back, and if Leica doesn't deal with the issue, the system will die - the M10 will join the M7 and MP, with Leica saying they'll keep making them as long as people order them, or not.

 

I think that your suggestions are well thought out but, should be directed towards the new SL.  Leave the new compact M10 alone and let Leica make it the fast little street shooter it once was.  I can't wait and I hope they focus on that essence of the M and make everything about it better not more.  I'd even give up video even though personally I don't completely agree with that omission but, I do understand it.

 

If, Leica delivers a technologically current little M I think they won't be able to make them fast enough to keep up with initial demand.  I'd suggest everyone get on their dealer's order list now.  We are all going to want one.  

 

No, I don't think you're right.

 

Future M owners will look at the SL and say why do I need to go to a bigger camera, when I can get a better sensor and better camera, with primes in the X1D.  They'll sell up their M lenses and switch.  Why?  Conceptually, the X1D is compact, light, has the same clear and simple approach to menus and controls as the M, and it offers a very good sensor with (35mm equivalent) lenses in 75-35-25mm focal lengths with clear direction on future lenses.

 

What's not to like?

 

Now, that's not to say that Hasselblad won't having teething issues, but so does Leica.  An option in M mount with all the other things properly delivered would close that gap.

 

 

Sorry this is so long - Rick took the time to make a considered and long post, so I thought I'd better respond.

 

Cheers

John

Edited December 18, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi John,

 

I know this is long but, I think there is some difference in what you and others see as the M system.  But, I know that you own and understand the M.  So, I am confused as to why you want to change the M to an EVF platform?  The M is an optical system and I'll explain why it is so - and I understand you know all of this, I guess.  

 

And, if Leica wants to make an EVF M, so be it.  Doesn't make sense to me because I'd just buy the SL or the Sony Alpha system and mod it like LCT did.  I suspect Leica couldn't make a better EVF M as the Sony Alpha with mod.

 

 

 

The RF is fit to focus Leica manual RF lenses I must point out.  The lenses the Leica M is designed to focus are manual with helicoids.  Dismissing the helicoid, and removing the RF would mean that Leica would need to utilize an EVF to focus manual lenses.  

 

EVF is not completely suitable for manual lenses.  It may have some advantages for off center focus and low light focus, but it can't be as accurate as the RF because the RF is inherently a vernier alignment method and our eye can discern vernier alignment with much greater accuracy than any other manual focus method.  Any.  

 

The only way an EVF would be more accurate would be if the user engaged focus magnification which works well on tripod and can work well in some circumstances.  But a well trained RF user can compete with that method and may very well prefer it.

 

Focus peeking is too inaccurate.

 

So, the RF can be fit for purpose:  Ability to focus an extensive selection of the finest manual focus RF lenses.  That is all it has to be fit for duty.

 

 

X1D?  Really.  This is a huge, by comparison, camera with huge lenses.  How is a MF camera relative  to this discussion?  

 

Do you think the archetypical M user going to run around with this camera that has a blackout time so long.  This is going to be a studio or landscape camera.  By the way, a better suited camera would be the S with an 80ms blackout (comparable to an optical DSLR) and the S has very comparable image quality, but I digress.

 

I know you know this.  I think you are trying to conflate the advanced technology of the X1D with the quaint Leica M technology.  But, they are entirely different concept cameras as is the SL you mention above.

 

The M is a street shooter.  A travel camera.  A sometime landscape tool.  A small take along camera.  Designed to shoot small manual lenses.  It is not a Medium format or a AF SL.  

 

 

I disagree that the demands of digital photography are beyond the optical system of the M.  The optical system of the M is ideal suited for the purpose of shooting the manual focus line of M lenses.  

 

Obviously, an updated EVF will be helpful for some situations and will extend the usefulness of the M for some users that want to use the M in expanded ways.  For some it will not be useful because they use the camera in other ways. Personally, I'll welcome the new EVF and will have some limited use for it as I do now with the crappy M240 EVF.  

 

But, I don't want an EVF in the current M if it means the exclusion of the excellent optical RF/VF.  

 

 

 

 

Again, you continue to want the focus patch to be movable and feel the metering is inaccurate which I don't seem to have a problem with.  I understand the limitations you describe but they don't have a practical liability in the way I use the camera... as a compact fast camera.  

 

I do agree that the EVF should have a movable focus point and maybe we will see that.  Mostly, I just look forward to a visually useable EVF without all of the rolling shutter.  But, for adapting long lenses the camera really needs some sort of IS.  But, all of these things are outside the original purpose of the M.  But, I agree they should be included and I hope they will be.  I agree that Leica can and should continue to provide up to date quality of features... not necessarily more.

 

I also agree that Leica could make an M with an EVF in the body.  I think that we are seeing Leica move exactly in that direction.  This rumored M seems to be drawing a distinction between the RF M and "something else."  But, I imagine that "something else" is already here - it is the venerable SL.

 

I think that your suggestions are well thought out but, should be directed towards the new SL.  Leave the new compact M10 alone and let Leica make it the fast little street shooter it once was.  I can't wait and I hope they focus on that essence of the M and make everything about it better not more.  I'd even give up video even though personally I don't completely agree with that omission but, I do understand it.

 

If, Leica delivers a technologically current little M I think they won't be able to make them fast enough to keep up with initial demand.  I'd suggest everyone get on their dealer's order list now.  We are all going to want one.   

 

RickM

+1

Thanks for typing all that on my behalf.

[Rick]

Hi John,

 

To distill all of that down to a couple points.

 

First, I have to disagree that the fabulous EVF is accepted by everyone to be a better way to focus M lenses.  It is not.  The Rf is a far more accurate way to focus the lenses.  For some folks and under some circumstances it may be easier but, it simply and physiologically can not be more accurate.  A finely focused vernier optical system is more accurate.  

 

You and others may like the fine EVF in the SL, but it is not more accurate yet and it doesn't relegate the M RF to the end of the technological line.

 

Placing an EVF in the M would be cool, but that is what the SL already does.  Sure, the mount could be specific for the M and the size of the body could be smaller, but folks would ask for AF.  Then the system would end up the size of the SL or at least the lenses would be much bigger. You might want a smaller M that is specific for M lenses and you don't want AF.  Then just put an EVF on the M10.

 

Basically, I think the M10 is the way forward for the M line.  I believe Leica is defining the new direction of the M10 as the antithesis of the all singing and dancing everything to everyone camera.  That is found in their other well defined product.  I don't believe we will ever see an EVF in the M unless or until it can exist in some sort of hybrid VF. 

 

As for your statement of a lot of M users changing to or interested in the X1D:  This is going to be a clumsy relatively large camera with very slow handling and an EVF that is not state of the art.  Pixel peeking, large printing, and maybe landscape photographers are going to like it.  But, it isn't going to erode the M base.  

 

And, you state the X1D is a better camera?  You know better than to say that.  I know you mean more pixels and larger sensor and other techno-stuff.  But, not better.

 

Rick 

[Rick]

+1

Thanks for typing all that on my behalf.

 

Your welcome, but I just copied and pasted your posts with some paraphrasing.    

 

Rick

[jmahto]

 

.......

 

Future M owners will look at the SL and say why do I need to go to a bigger camera, when I can get a better sensor and better camera, with primes in the X1D.  They'll sell up their M lenses and switch.  Why?  Conceptually, the X1D is compact, light, has the same clear and simple approach to menus and controls as the M, and it offers a very good sensor with (35mm equivalent) lenses in 75-35-25mm focal lengths with clear direction on future lenses.

 

What's not to like?

.......

 

Cheers

John

 

I don't know for sure that M users are looking at X1D as alternative. M's appeal is old fashioned (and fast) RF focusing through clear VF and ability to use jewel like lenses. I don't see any parallel with X1D. In fact SL will be more threatened with X1D if X1D speeds up.

 

And I don't get the idea of M being held back due to optical RF. Nobody expects it to be rapid shooter sports camera. As long as it has state of the art sensor it is fine. Additional state of the art EVF is bonus.

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Rick,

 

Thanks for the response.  Have you tried the SL with your M lenses?

 

As you know, I have some of the trickier M lenses from a focusing perspective, and psychologically, physiologically (and vernier, whatever that means), focusing these lenses on the SL is better than on any of my 4 M cameras - first, because calibration isn't an issue, second because I can focus on what I want to in detail, and last because if I am at all concerned about nailing a small detail, I get two levels of useful magnification.

 

I don't use focus peaking as it is not sufficiently accurate.

 

Why can't I get that with the parallax system in the M?  Assuming accurate calibration and no focus shift, the patch is the same size, regardless of the focal length used.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy using my M cameras in the focal lengths between 28 - 90 (less the 90), but the worrying thought that even if I nail the focus, that might not translate onto the sensor is less than ideal.

 

We can agree to differ - I think I disagree with just about everything you say on most topics - but to say the RF system in the M is always better, is simply not true in practice.  I am not the only one to say this - if you look back at Jono's review of the SL, he was very clear about accuracy of focusing using the SL EVF.

 

Anyway, I have things to do.  Nice chatting.

John

[IkarusJohn]

I don't know for sure that M users are looking at X1D as alternative. M's appeal is old fashioned (and fast) RF focusing through clear VF and ability to use jewel like lenses. I don't see any parallel with X1D. In fact SL will be more threatened with X1D if X1D speeds up.

 

And I don't get the idea of M being held back due to optical RF. Nobody expects it to be rapid shooter sports camera. As long as it has state of the art sensor it is fine. Additional state of the art EVF is bonus.

 

Oh dear - what has sports got to do with it?

[jmahto]

Oh dear - what has sports got to do with it?

Just wanted to set the expectation clear. I guess your main argument (which I am trying to follow) is that M lenses can be focused better by EVF than traditional RF mechanism. The way I see, EVF can be supplement to fill in the RF limitations (off center, long lens etc.) but it can't be a substitute.

 

Edit: In fact some wavy shaped field of focus (such as in 35 FLE) can be better focused using RF that using EVF. Tim Ashley wrote a blog about it some time ago. For a lens to be really used by EVF focusing, it has to have non-wavy field of focus.

Edited December 18, 2016 by jmahto

[IkarusJohn]

My expectation is an M camera that does what M cameras are good for (compact, walk about, fabulous MF lenses), without the limitations imposed by the optical viewfinder - fixed patch, to name but one ...

 

No one is suggesting turning the M camera into something it isn't; just redefining what it is - a platform for M lenses.  The SL shows that actually, the optical RF isn't essential ...

[jmahto]

This is the Tim Ashley's blog post. It has been discussed in this forum before.
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/leica-m-240-with-35mm-f1-4-fle---some-observations

Just to be clear: No one in right mind suggests that RF focusing is best in all situations but it is yet to be beaten by EVF focusing in it's comfort zone. I don't have my M with me for last three months and I am forced to shoot with Sony mirrorless. I can certainly adapt to EVF way of focusing by I am still way slow and don't enjoy looking through the lens. I can't wait to get my M back. Its on its way from New Jersey.

[Rick]

Hi Rick,

 

Thanks for the response.  Have you tried the SL with your M lenses?

 

 

 

Yes.  Love the EVF on the SL.  Easy to focus M lenses.  Would love to have it in the M with the RF.

 

Rick

[lct]

[...] Future M owners will look at the SL and say why do I need to go to a bigger camera, when I can get a better sensor and better camera, with primes in the X1D.  They'll sell up their M lenses and switch.  Why?  Conceptually, the X1D is compact, light, has the same clear and simple approach to menus and controls as the M, and it offers a very good sensor with (35mm equivalent) lenses in 75-35-25mm focal lengths with clear direction on future lenses. [...]

 

Why would future owners of a compact rangefinder look at any bulky gear with no rangefinder? Either they want a rangefinder and have nothing to do with X1D or SL. Or they want a mirrorless camera and they have the choice between compact (Sony or M+EVF) or bigger (X1D or SL) cameras. What is in danger here is not the optical RF but the SL itself which is caught between the hammer and the anvil sort of i.e. smaller FF on one hand and same size MF cameras on the other hand. Let alone if Leica makes a compact SL (why calling it an M?) which would push the big one towards the exit i'm afraid. 

[IkarusJohn]

This is the Tim Ashley's blog post. It has been discussed in this forum before.

http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/leica-m-240-with-35mm-f1-4-fle---some-observations

 

Just to be clear: No one in right mind suggests that RF focusing is best in all situations but it is yet to be beaten by EVF focusing in it's comfort zone. I don't have my M with me for last three months and I am forced to shoot with Sony mirrorless. I can certainly adapt to EVF way of focusing by I am still way slow and don't enjoy looking through the lens. I can't wait to get my M back. Its on its way from New Jersey.

 

Written two and a half years before the SL release.

 

That review was written primarily about the wavy plane of best focus on the 35 Summilux FLE, which is particularly an issue with RF focusing (focus and recompose).  Focusing off the sensor with an EVF negates that problem - I have that lens, and nailing focus off centre is reliable, accurate and a breeze.  The issue Tim identifies is applicable only with an RF ...

[IkarusJohn]

Why would future owners of a compact rangefinder look at any bulky gear with no rangefinder? Either they want a rangefinder and have nothing to do with X1D or SL. Or they want a mirrorless camera and they have the choice between compact (Sony or M+EVF) or bigger (X1D or SL) cameras. What is in danger here is not the optical RF but the SL itself which is caught between the hammer and the anvil sort of i.e. smaller FF on one hand and same size MF cameras on the other hand. Let alone if Leica makes a compact SL (why calling it an M?) which would push the big one towards the exit i'm afraid. 

 

That's a blind alley - my point is that the strength of the M system should be viewed as the fabulous lenses, and less so the rangefinder.  If people want the rangefinder, it will be there for them.  No one, least of all me, is suggesting to take it away.  But, for many, the shortcomings of the rangefinder are insufficient to keep them with the M lenses (if you believe what you read on the forum).

 

Some even prefer the Sonys ...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

[...] Some even prefer the Sonys ...

 

They prefer the Sonys over the SL but they want an M if they like rangefinders...