jaapv Posted November 21, 2016 Share #181 Posted November 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, yes, I have to dig up a shot of the Novoflex 400 on PIGRIFF-C I used to have, or my 400/5.6 and Televit, but I doubt whether that is very relevant for everyday use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
david strachan Posted November 21, 2016 Share #182 Posted November 21, 2016 A Thumbs-Up helps immensely with larger lenses, but it does create the hassle of taking off the Thumbs Up to use the EVF. I've been using Thumbs-Up's since the M8 days, so shooting a M without a Thumbs-Up feels awkward. As nice as a Thumbs Up, it still can't quite conquer this Great picture John. I love system pics..nicely done. all best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted November 21, 2016 Share #183 Posted November 21, 2016 I have discovered that the grip provided by add-ons like the Thumbs-up, Thumbie or half-cases, etc. is rather eclipsed by the Joby Ultrafit handstrap+Leicatime baseplate. It welds the camera to the hand and, as a bonus, provides a permanent Arca-Swiss plate. (See my Avatar as well) Finding this combo was prompted by the handling of the DMR. abcd.jpg That is interesting. First time I saw such a handstrap. I get somewhat similar results by wrapping the shoulder strap on my hand to shorten it. I use Gordy's strap which is thin and wraps easily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 21, 2016 Share #184 Posted November 21, 2016 That is interesting. First time I saw such a handstrap. I get somewhat similar results by wrapping the shoulder strap on my hand to shorten it. I use Gordy's strap which is thin and wraps easily. There is also this one, which I looked at as well, exactly the same concept, but I found it a bit clunky. YMMV. https://www.peakdesign.com/clutch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Black Posted November 22, 2016 Share #185 Posted November 22, 2016 There has always been a point at which the gadgets need to make a rangefinder useful, e.g. macro accessories and Visoflex, result in deminishing returns. In modern times video on arangefinder might be another example. The pure play EVF or DSLR camera does not need to be as discrete or small as the rangefinder so let's not lumber up the rangefinder with the do everything specification bloat. The picture was offered for humor. I don't think sound minded M shooter would lug around that combo. I used the 180/2 on the A7rII. I'm sure the 180/2 + SL would be proficient combo as well, but I sold the 180/2 awhile back and don't foresee buying one again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haljaberi Posted November 22, 2016 Share #186 Posted November 22, 2016 I have a question, why not leica invest in internal memory for storage at their upcoming M, I mean look at iPhone and iPad, all have storage capacity above 64 GB and have slim design Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2016 Share #187 Posted November 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't think the size of the memory would be of any impact on the size of the camera. Look at SD cards, all the same size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted November 22, 2016 Share #188 Posted November 22, 2016 I have a question, why not leica invest in internal memory for storage at their upcoming M, I mean look at iPhone and iPad, all have storage capacity above 64 GB and have slim design Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk It would be a very good idea , no SD card but a SSD disk with 128 or 256 gb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2016 Share #189 Posted November 22, 2016 No it would not. I carry the SD cards separate from the camera to reduce the risk of image loss in case of theft. And one more part to go wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DezFoto Posted November 22, 2016 Share #190 Posted November 22, 2016 The only way for Leica to make a thinner body (as many wish/have suggested) would be to have a protruding lens mount. I believe this is real That would be true if the Sensor was as far back as the LCD screen in the body, which it isn't. It's possible for the camera to be as thin as an M6 without a protruding lens mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2016 Share #191 Posted November 22, 2016 That would be true if the Sensor was as far back as the LCD screen in the body, which it isn't. It's possible for the camera to be as thin as an M6 without a protruding lens mount. And where would you put the motherboard assembly? Constructions like these are considerably thicker than film+pressure plate, caused by the electronics behind the sensor. In fact, the LCD adds little more -if any- than the depth of the plastic protrusion on the back. To summarize: the extra body thickness needed is caused by the sensor assembly, not by sloppy location geometry of the sensor, nor by the LCD. 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/266426-leica-m-10/?do=findComment&comment=3154206'>More sharing options...
DezFoto Posted November 23, 2016 Share #192 Posted November 23, 2016 And where would you put the motherboard assembly? Constructions like these are considerably thicker than film+pressure plate, caused by the electronics behind the sensor. In fact, the LCD adds little more -if any- than the depth of the plastic protrusion on the back. To summarize: the extra body thickness needed is caused by the sensor assembly, not by sloppy location geometry of the sensor, nor by the LCD. Sensor.jpg I don't know, why don't you ask Sony... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 23, 2016 Share #193 Posted November 23, 2016 I know a lot of folks are predicting a 24MP sensor from the Q and SL. This has never made sense to me since I figured that the Q and SL inherited the MP count from the M... only a newer version. So, I see no reason the new M should not lead once again and move up in MP, but I surely can't know. Then, a thought crossed my mind. Why would Leica increase the magnification of the VF? Well, it certainly could be concern for the loss of elderly M users with failing eyesight. But, it could also be the need to design a better VF to more accurately focus modern lenses such as the APO 50mm on a higher MP sensor!. The 50mm FOV really cries out for at least a 0.72 finder . And the APO 50mm cries out for a higher MP sensor as well. I believe we are going to see at least a 36MP sensor on the new M. I really do. As a certain person said (who has handed the new M) we are all going to want one! Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DezFoto Posted November 23, 2016 Share #194 Posted November 23, 2016 I know a lot of folks are predicting a 24MP sensor from the Q and SL. This has never made sense to me since I figured that the Q and SL inherited the MP count from the M... only a newer version. So, I see no reason the new M should not lead once again and move up in MP, but I surely can't know. I believe that a lot people think that because some Leica reps have outright said they weren't planning on increasing the MP count beyond 24mp any time soon. Of course, if they did admit there was a high resolution sensor on the horizon it could possibly hurt sales of the current models, so they could just be playing their cards close to their chest. Time will tell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vec Posted November 23, 2016 Share #195 Posted November 23, 2016 I don't know, why don't you ask Sony... Well, the flange distance is different and there's the flange extension (orange) in front of the main body. Just take a look at the circle-line icon to the left of the hot shoe -- that's the sensor plane. There's a lot of space behind that. That's where the board and LCD live. Sony isn't inventing new physics here. (edit: Sony E-mount flange distance is 18mm, nearly 1 cm shorter) In the case of the Leica, the flange distance is 27.80 mm, that's an invariant assuming you expect the lenses to work on the new camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2016 Share #196 Posted November 23, 2016 Indeed, and this is an integrated lens-sensor unit with a very short lens-sensor distance. And even then, the lens protrudes mightily. If you want to show a Sony example, take an A7Rii. Notice where the sensor plane is on that one? Now add a Leica M adapter and think where the lens flange would be.... 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/266426-leica-m-10/?do=findComment&comment=3154312'>More sharing options...
DezFoto Posted November 23, 2016 Share #197 Posted November 23, 2016 Well, the flange distance is different and there's the flange extension (orange) in front of the main body. Just take a look at the circle-line icon to the left of the hot shoe -- that's the sensor plane. There's a lot of space behind that. That's where the board and LCD live. Sony isn't inventing new physics here. (edit: Sony E-mount flange distance is 18mm, nearly 1 cm shorter) In the case of the Leica, the flange distance is 27.80 mm, that's an invariant assuming you expect the lenses to work on the new camera. I'm aware of what the focal plane symbol indicates, that's why I chose that shot. Unlike Leica, Sony actually marks the focal plane on their cameras. The point I was making is that (despite your assertion otherwise) there is not a lot of space between the focal plane (which would be the front of the sensor) and the back of the LCD. With the M camera, there actually is, which leads one to the logical conclusion that Sony has managed to put the same amount of electronics in less than half the space. If you look at the M6 (which does indicate the focal place), there's only about 1or 2mm less distance between the focal place and back of the camera than on the RX1. I have all three cameras sitting in front of me, btw. The focal plane on the M240 is roughly in the middle of the large centre contact in the hotshoe, or if you have an M-P, then it's at about the "A" in the "Leica M-P" that's inscribed along the edge of the hotshoe. That's more than twice the distance that Sony needs to pack all the electronics for the CMOS chip, supporting electronics and LCD screen, so obviously it can be done. None of this has anything to do with flange distance, or lenses being mated to sensors. I don't know why you two keep mentioning it. The distance between the focal plane and the back of the camera can be reduced by half, Sony's already proven that. BTW, the main reason the A7 series cameras are thicker behind the focal plane than the RX1 is so they could use larger heat sinks for the sensor, because they designed it with extended live-view and video recording in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted November 23, 2016 Share #198 Posted November 23, 2016 So, why doesn't somebody just redesign a sensor assembly then ? Surely all the electronics do not need to be behind the actual sensor ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted November 23, 2016 Share #199 Posted November 23, 2016 So, why doesn't somebody just redesign a sensor assembly then ? Surely all the electronics do not need to be behind the actual sensor ? Yeah, shame somebody didn't think of that.... This has been a constraint om sensor design, you want the electronics as close to the sensor as posible for a number of reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2016 Share #200 Posted November 23, 2016 I'm aware of what the focal plane symbol indicates, that's why I chose that shot. Unlike Leica, Sony actually marks the focal plane on their cameras. The point I was making is that (despite your assertion otherwise) there is not a lot of space between the focal plane (which would be the front of the sensor) and the back of the LCD. With the M camera, there actually is, which leads one to the logical conclusion that Sony has managed to put the same amount of electronics in less than half the space. If you look at the M6 (which does indicate the focal place), there's only about 1or 2mm less distance between the focal place and back of the camera than on the RX1. I have all three cameras sitting in front of me, btw. The focal plane on the M240 is roughly in the middle of the large centre contact in the hotshoe, or if you have an M-P, then it's at about the "A" in the "Leica M-P" that's inscribed along the edge of the hotshoe. That's more than twice the distance that Sony needs to pack all the electronics for the CMOS chip, supporting electronics and LCD screen, so obviously it can be done. None of this has anything to do with flange distance, or lenses being mated to sensors. I don't know why you two keep mentioning it. The distance between the focal plane and the back of the camera can be reduced by half, Sony's already proven that. BTW, the main reason the A7 series cameras are thicker behind the focal plane than the RX1 is so they could use larger heat sinks for the sensor, because they designed it with extended live-view and video recording in mind. We mention the flange distance because it has to do with the body thickness and lens protrusion. The fact that the lens and sensor have been designed as one unit determines the small dimensions of the whole. An interchangeable lens system can never be as compact. Comparing the RX1 to the M is apples to oranges. You should compare the R7 to the M., the Sony beeing a lemon ( as a fruit, not as a camera) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.