ianman Posted November 23, 2016 Share #201 Posted November 23, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. now now, there is no need to get unpleasant. But you may have noticed the word "all" in the sentence "all the electronics do not need to be behind the actual sensor". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2016 Posted November 23, 2016 Hi ianman, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 23, 2016 Share #202 Posted November 23, 2016 At any rate, there might be some future development there, who knows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted November 23, 2016 Share #203 Posted November 23, 2016 I agree with Dezfoto that the sensor assembly can be pushed further back on the M. The A7 series is thicker than the RX1 because of the heatsink required for 4K video, but also because it houses IBIS and a tilting screen, none of which the M features. None of this has to do with the frontside of the sensor assembly (flange distance, lens protusion) and thus unrelated to the lens being fixed or interchangeable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2016 Share #204 Posted November 23, 2016 That is true to a certain extent hence the extreme sensor-back distance. It does not tell us anything about the available gap- if any - in the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 23, 2016 Share #205 Posted November 23, 2016 Sure Sony bodies are thinner but lenses (same Elmar 50/2.8 v2 here) do protrude further from them. Not a problem for mirrorless cameras but hardly compatible with optical rangefinders i suspect. A bit of liposuccion should suffice to remove some extra grease though hopefully . 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=3154539'>More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted November 23, 2016 Share #206 Posted November 23, 2016 There's no rangefinder mechanism in Sony cameras. The lenses are not rangefinder coupled. Youre comparing apples and oranges trying to force the issue that if Sony Cameras are thinner then a Leica M can be thinner. It doesn't work that way. You either buy a Sony and use the M lenses in a hobbled fashion or use a Leica M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted November 23, 2016 Share #207 Posted November 23, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The biggest problem with sensor design regards to camera design is and always has been, heat dissipation. Thinner cameras run hotter at the sensor. Larger sensors run hotter. The heat issues with the RX and NEX lines of Sony cameras are well known. Making the M thinner isn't just about moving some electronics, unfortunately. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted November 23, 2016 Share #208 Posted November 23, 2016 The biggest problem with sensor design regards to camera design is and always has been, heat dissipation. Thinner cameras run hotter at the sensor. Larger sensors run hotter. The heat issues with the RX and NEX lines of Sony cameras are well known. Making the M thinner isn't just about moving some electronics, unfortunately. Gordon Agreed. I must reiterate, however, the electronics have not much to do with it on an M body. It's the rangefinder mechanism that controls most of it. Look at it this way: The register distance from rear element to film plane/sensor has never changed. Everything in front of the film plane/ sensor to the rear element and the focusing cam stayed the same. The difference is adding things behind the sensor like the chips and motherboard. You can't just move those around in a camera that is already full of other things. The sensor/mount plate/motherboard and chips are kind of a fixed array. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted November 24, 2016 Share #209 Posted November 24, 2016 I'm not sure what the argument is anymore, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what's obvious. 1. With the current technology, the sensor can be pushed further back if the camera does not feature IBIS or 4K recording. 2. Thus the body can be thinner and lighter if the design allows for the lens mount and RF mechanism (housing) to protude from the front of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2016 Share #210 Posted November 24, 2016 1.Could you tell us the exact difference in thickness between the M8 sensor assembly and the M one? Just throwing out "with present technology" is rather unconvincing. 2.Everybody agrees that if the sides of the camera were slimmer the mount would protrude more, if the sensor plane remains the same. Nothing new there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vec Posted November 24, 2016 Share #211 Posted November 24, 2016 Between this and phones I'm not really sure what the enticement of "thin at all costs" gets you. If the camera with lens assembly is the same size as before, what difference does a few mm make really? We all agree that the flange distance between the lens mount and sensor can not change. The electronics for the sensor sit behind the sensor (it's at least sitting on a thin PCB, likely larger to allow for some heat sinking). Behind that you have an LCD and cover glass and buttons. These are all required thicknesses. All you can do is carve the body away and leave the lens mount sticking out like the Sony. So, following this to the conclusion, you have a camera with a protruding lens mount and a rangefinder section that's proud of the rest of the body. I'm at a loss why this is such a huge win? It takes up about the same amount of space in my bag with a lens mounted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 24, 2016 Share #212 Posted November 24, 2016 I agree with Dezfoto that the sensor assembly can be pushed further back on the M. The A7 series is thicker than the RX1 because of the heatsink required for 4K video, but also because it houses IBIS and a tilting screen, none of which the M features. None of this has to do with the frontside of the sensor assembly (flange distance, lens protusion) and thus unrelated to the lens being fixed or interchangeable. The distance from the mount for an M lens to the display on the back of the camera is greater for the Sony NEX-5N than for the Leica M (Typ 240). From this it follows that the back of the body of a Sony NEX-5N is thicker than the back of the body of the Leica M (Typ 240), measuring from the plane of focus to the display. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKW Posted November 24, 2016 Share #213 Posted November 24, 2016 ...So, following this to the conclusion, you have a camera with a protruding lens mount and a rangefinder section that's proud of the rest of the body. I'm at a loss why this is such a huge win? It takes up about the same amount of space in my bag with a lens mounted. Agreed. I think the only real benefit with thinner body would be the possibility to bring back 0´58, 0´72 and 0´85 viewfinders. And that would be nice, indeed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 24, 2016 Share #214 Posted November 24, 2016 [...] I think the only real benefit with thinner body would be the possibility to bring back 0´58, 0´72 and 0´85 viewfinders. And that would be nice, indeed! A major benefit for me would be to hold a thinner body with no need for a handgrip, a Thumbs Up or whatever Thumbie. I don't need such accessories for my Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Panasonic, Ricoh, Sigma and Sony bodies. I don't need them either for my Leica M3, M4-2, M6J, R4s and Digilux 1 bodies. Only exceptions are my M8.2 and M240. Time to get back from this viewpoint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2016 Share #215 Posted November 24, 2016 Depends on your hand, I guess. Quite a few users find the film M cameras too thin nowadays, me included. I agree on the Thumbie-type accessories - I find them rather unpleasant, even the thumbwheel on the 240 is not optimal for my grip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 24, 2016 Share #216 Posted November 24, 2016 Depends on your hand, I guess [...] No need for special hands when ergonomics are well designed if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2016 Share #217 Posted November 24, 2016 Working with professional tools in another discipline I can assure you that the fit of a tool to the hand varies per individual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 24, 2016 Share #218 Posted November 24, 2016 The next M will tell me if my hands are normal or not hopefully. So far my dozen other cameras say yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted November 24, 2016 Share #219 Posted November 24, 2016 Normal or abnormal hands, I walk around all day with M in hand without any trouble. Also my finger can handle the M controls (except with gloves). As opposed to most other DSLR / mirrorless where I need to grow an extra arm and have a couple of new joints on some fingers in addition to direct brain - camera implant . And dont get me started on other cameraes viewers that imo are exhibitioners . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted November 24, 2016 Share #220 Posted November 24, 2016 i want one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.