Paulus Posted October 15, 2016 Share #181 Posted October 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) One simple thing and Leica would sell many many cameras: get the 240 package in the M6 footprint. Otherwise my M9 is fine......except for that damn whirr....how do you stop that again? What do you mean with " footprint " . The M 240 has the same footprint in my idea. It's an M and isn't more than a few mm bigger. Making the M 240 smaller is not going to happen for reasons already discussed in this forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 Hi Paulus, Take a look here For four years I have waited for this day which has not come. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted October 15, 2016 Share #182 Posted October 15, 2016 The M has become a fat camera i'm afraid. I agree that it should not be bigger than film Ms. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted October 15, 2016 Share #183 Posted October 15, 2016 That's absurd. Film is wafer thin, a sensor is several mm thicker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted October 15, 2016 Share #184 Posted October 15, 2016 What do you mean with " footprint " . The M 240 has the same footprint in my idea. It's an M and isn't more than a few mm bigger. Making the M 240 smaller is not going to happen for reasons already discussed in this forum. It may not happen, but there is no technical reason. Compare closely a Sony A7 and M240. Do you really think the M240 is as small and light as it can be? Coolaid. The thickness of film vs sensor has nothing to do with the issue. It's the thickness of skull LOL If you think the digital Ms have the same footprint as M6, you are not holding both in your hands. The M6 is a dream. The M9 (which I love) is a pig. Even the M6 is borderline, Barnack size would be better yet. They can still make the big ones for those who "like the heft" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 15, 2016 Share #185 Posted October 15, 2016 I made a comparison between an M (Typ 240) and a Sony NEX-5N. I attached an adapter to the Sony so that I could mount an M lens. From lens socket to the display surface, the Sony NEX was thicker than the M (Typ 240). You can not shrink the distance between the lens socket and the sensor surface. It appears that shrinking the distance between the sensor surface and the display surface is not an easy task, either. No amount of LOLing will make the Sony thinner or your post friendlier or better informed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 15, 2016 Share #186 Posted October 15, 2016 I made a comparison between an M (Typ 240) and a Sony NEX-5N. I attached an adapter to the Sony so that I could mount an M lens. From lens socket to the display surface, the Sony NEX was thicker than the M (Typ 240). [...] When i hold my A7s mod it feels significantly thinner than my M240. The adapter is like an extension of the lens and can even be a real extension of it when it has a focus ring for closeups like the VM-E adapter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 15, 2016 Share #187 Posted October 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just for sake of illustration: 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/264784-for-four-years-i-have-waited-for-this-day-which-has-not-come/?do=findComment&comment=3129246'>More sharing options...
pop Posted October 15, 2016 Share #188 Posted October 15, 2016 The Sony is in this particular respect better than the Leica M: it has the old-fashioned mark on top of the body which indicates the focal plane. You can clearly see that the distance from the focal plane to the back of the camera is quite a bit longer on the Sony than on the Leica. Hence, it's conceivable that the Leica body could indeed be shrunk by recessing the front of the body. However, in order to achieve the proper distance between lens and focal plane, the body would sprout a protrusion with the lens mount. How they would couple the lens to the RF is not quite clear; I presume the protrusion would have to be quite a bit wider than the mount. What would you gain? Would you have to add the ugly griplike body part which makes the actual girth of the Sony even greater? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 15, 2016 Share #189 Posted October 15, 2016 Just give me the option for top and bottom in carbon fiber showing sexy weave pattern, saving 100-200 grams and I will open my wallet. Edit: it may be a good business for accessory vendors. I guess there will be a market Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 15, 2016 Share #190 Posted October 15, 2016 [...] Film is wafer thin, a sensor is several mm thicker. Sure but you don't count the pressure plate in your calculation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 15, 2016 Share #191 Posted October 15, 2016 That's absurd. Film is wafer thin, a sensor is several mm thicker. No. it is not. The sensor is as wafer thin as film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 15, 2016 Share #192 Posted October 15, 2016 It may not happen, but there is no technical reason. Compare closely a Sony A7 and M240. Do you really think the M240 is as small and light as it can be? Coolaid. The thickness of film vs sensor has nothing to do with the issue. It's the thickness of skull LOL If you think the digital Ms have the same footprint as M6, you are not holding both in your hands. The M6 is a dream. The M9 (which I love) is a pig. Even the M6 is borderline, Barnack size would be better yet. They can still make the big ones for those who "like the heft" For me there is no difference in holding the camera if it's a MP or an M240/M9/M8 because all are hold in the smae way, like mr. Frank demonstrates: http://precise-moment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/robertfrank-at-moma.jpg The few milimeters at the right hand don't make a difference to me.The fingers are easily capable to adjust between MP and M 240. The camera is supported by the left hand. I cannot make a comparisson with a Sony A7 , because it does not have an " M " viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joakim Posted October 15, 2016 Share #193 Posted October 15, 2016 No. it is not. The sensor is as wafer thin as film. But that is not exactly true if you include everything that makes up a functional sensor such as the glass and the electronics, is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted October 15, 2016 Share #194 Posted October 15, 2016 Personally I don't find the size of the M an issue at all, given I can easily fit it, RSS L-grip attached, along with three of its best buds into the rather modestly sized Billingham Digital. If anything, should the M happen to go on a diet, I'd far prefer a little less weight to a more svelte silhouette. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 15, 2016 Share #195 Posted October 15, 2016 But that is not exactly true if you include everything that makes up a functional sensor such as the glass and the electronics, is it? Or just the packaging of the chip. A sensor is much more than just a piece of silicon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 15, 2016 Share #196 Posted October 15, 2016 But that is not exactly true if you include everything that makes up a functional sensor such as the glass and the electronics, is it? Makes not one bit of difference. The wafer is as thin or thinner than film. The ONLY difference is it is dead flat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsleica Posted October 16, 2016 Share #197 Posted October 16, 2016 The digital M is probably in need of a huge redesign..but good luck waiting for that..! Slim it down..lighten it up...can they do it...probably..but will they...well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted October 16, 2016 Share #198 Posted October 16, 2016 I can't find anyone talking about the thickness of the wafer. The word came into the tread as a description of the thickness of film, not as a piece of silicon. Rather like a split hair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 16, 2016 Share #199 Posted October 16, 2016 Hence, it's conceivable that the Leica body could indeed be shrunk by recessing the front of the body. However, in order to achieve the proper distance between lens and focal plane, the body would sprout a protrusion with the lens mount. How they would couple the lens to the RF is not quite clear; I presume the protrusion would have to be quite a bit wider than the mount. What would you gain? Would you have to add the ugly griplike body part which makes the actual girth of the Sony even greater? Yep. In fact they already did this, subtly. The M digital lens mount protrudes about 2mm more from the front than on the film bodies, which are almost flush. Epson's R-D1 lens mount protrudes about 4mm - but then, they were designing from scratch with their own RF mechanism, and could allow for that difference. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Epson_R-D1_Digital_Rangefinder_Camera.jpg BTW - that Epson also has an image plane indicator between the dials - notice there is about 5mm of thickness behind the image plane even on the top plate (and the body steps out on the back to make it even thicker - just cosmetically disguised). Yes, the image plane of a digital sensor (the front surface of the silicon) is only nanometers thick. What makes the cameras thick is the package for the sensor (casing and contacts), the circuit board behind it, the LCD and its CB, etc. etc. http://www.pcpulab.mydns.jp/main/images/ccd.jpg (The cover glass and shutter are irrelevant, since they are in front of the image plane. They only affect lens clearance (which is why some collapsible lenses or the deep-seated Zeiss Hologon can be bad news for the shutters). Basically, an M digital body must be about 28mm thick from lens mount surface to image plane - the standard since 1954. Plus the sensor thickness. Plus the sensor mount thickness. Plus the CB thickness. Plus back plate thickness. Plus the LCD thickness. Plus any other considerations - in the M240 and its variants, the body thickness is set as much by the larger battery stacked with the SD card holder as by anything else. https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/leica-m-typ-240-review-24007/images/highres-Leica-M-Typ-240-Black-7_1392224144.jpg Trust me. Leica knows their customers want as thin an M body as possible. And they know the viewfinder needs as short a "tunnel" as possible. If Leica could make a thinner digital M body with today's materials and functional requirements - they'd have done it already. But it doesn't hurt to keep asking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 16, 2016 Share #200 Posted October 16, 2016 Just for sake of illustration: M240vsA7s_01.jpg To me personally the M is much more practical. It slides comfortably in the tiniest of spaces in my bag. The A7 takes much more space due to the protruding EVF and handgrip. I know that because I had them both at the same time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.