Leica M 10

[imants]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess that's why old eyes eye of other cameras and lenses. ...... me I am happy for no evf just a old rangefinder system

[jonoslack]

If you're interested in the next M, it will have that same instrument i'm afraid but also a (not so) modern EVF i suspect. This way your non ageing eyesight will be able to play with appealing albeit slower substitutes like focus peaking and image magnification .

Hmm - maybe EVF evolution isn't quite what it seems - worth remembering that the humble visoflex on the T (which, on the basis of the Leica Rumors suggestion, is presumably what you're referring to as a "(not so) modern EVF" has 3.7m dots, whereas the Modern EVFs from cameras like the A7rII and the E-M1II are only around 2.5 - I've just been comparing it on my T with the new one on the Olympus, and the T is at least as large and bright and has noticeably better resolution.

[jonoslack]

The rangefinder is about to be put to rest even the diehards are rethinking as their eyesight ages

I don't beleive a word of it - I'm sure that the M cameras will always have a rangefinder - and it would be surprising if Leica suddenly decided to discontinue them!

[jaapv]

Hi There Jaap

I don't think you're right about it not being suitable for OVF use - remember that the WATE is also a true zoom - but with detente for each of the focal lengths - this lens might be the same - detentes for 28,35,50,75 and then the option to use it as a full zoom with the EVF.

I wouldn't hold my breath though!

Hi Jono - that might well be, however, it is not what the "leak" by Dr. Rohde suggests. The lens appears to be  a bit large regarding viewfinder obstruction too.

I will believe the lens when I see it, though, it might well end up at Westlicht as an unfulfilled design study in a decade's time - for a crazy price.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Hmm - maybe EVF evolution isn't quite what it seems - worth remembering that the humble visoflex on the T (which, on the basis of the Leica Rumors suggestion, is presumably what you're referring to as a "(not so) modern EVF" has 3.7m dots, whereas the Modern EVFs from cameras like the A7rII and the E-M1II are only around 2.5 - I've just been comparing it on my T with the new one on the Olympus, and the T is at least as large and bright and has noticeably better resolution.

 

Jono, thanks for the info. I've not tested the EVF on the T, but that is good to hear.

[lct]

Hmm - maybe EVF evolution isn't quite what it seems - worth remembering that the humble visoflex on the T (which, on the basis of the Leica Rumors suggestion, is presumably what you're referring to as a "(not so) modern EVF" has 3.7m dots, whereas the Modern EVFs from cameras like the A7rII and the E-M1II are only around 2.5 - I've just been comparing it on my T with the new one on the Olympus, and the T is at least as large and bright and has noticeably better resolution.

 

OK if the 'M10' could compete with those cameras price-wise but for $7k more or less one could expect more cutting edge performances than the T's EVF don't you think so. Reminds me of the M240 unable to feed its EVF at more than 30 fps in 2013. We could have quoted other cameras with "not so modern" performances then but they did not sell for the same price either and we've got a sluggish EVF since then. Explain me that there would be no room enough in a slimmer 'M10' to fit a better EVF and i could follow you though i guess.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK if the 'M10' could compete with those cameras price-wise but for $7k more or less one could expect more cutting edge performances than the T's EVF don't you think so. Reminds me of the M240 unable to feed its EVF at more than 30 fps in 2013. We could have quoted other cameras with "not so modern" performances then but they did not sell for the same price either and we've got a sluggish EVF since then. Explain me that there would be no room enough in a slimmer 'M10' to fit a better EVF and i could follow you though i guess.

 

Don't you think we would need to see that performance before making a judgement? My point was simply that the performance was capable of being better then either of the new, top of the range mirrorless cameras, and that doesn't seem to me to be (not so) modern. But hey - this is all based on a theory on Leica Rumors who are also saying the camera has the same sensor as the SL, which, if true, means that it should be able to feed an EVF fast - but it's perfectly possible that it's all bollocks and the next M has a hybrid viewfinder and a new method of autofocusing M lenses (Contax did it )

[LocalHero1953]

Hmm - maybe EVF evolution isn't quite what it seems - worth remembering that the humble visoflex on the T (which, on the basis of the Leica Rumors suggestion, is presumably what you're referring to as a "(not so) modern EVF" has 3.7m dots, whereas the Modern EVFs from cameras like the A7rII and the E-M1II are only around 2.5 - I've just been comparing it on my T with the new one on the Olympus, and the T is at least as large and bright and has noticeably better resolution.

I've become educated enough now to realise that EVF performance is a combination of sensor size, processor speed and EVF resolution. The performance of the original T appeared to be handicapped by something other than EVF resolution. How is it performing now, with respect to response to subject movement and blackout/freeze during shooting? Though I mean to have a look myself next time I get to London.

[chris_tribble]

I've become educated enough now to realise that EVF performance is a combination of sensor size, processor speed and EVF resolution. The performance of the original T appeared to be handicapped by something other than EVF resolution. How is it performing now, with respect to response to subject movement and blackout/freeze during shooting? Though I mean to have a look myself next time I get to London.

Paul - I'd be interested to hear about this too.  The resolution of the M EVF wasn't a disaster for me - it was the cripplingly slow performance that rendered it of such limited use.  In performance spaces, I've found guessing the frame with a 21 to be the only quick way of working.  If the new M10 really does use the Leica EVF then I'd hope it's performance was as least as good on this platform as it is on the TL?  Very grateful to hear from users of this combination and who have experience of the M240's EVF to get a sense of how they compare.  Jono? I know you use both the 240 and the T.  Are you able to comment on how the EVFs compare in real world use?  re the TL - does anyone know if the focus point can be moved around the screen?

[LocalHero1953]

Paul - I'd be interested to hear about this too.  The resolution of the M EVF wasn't a disaster for me - it was the cripplingly slow performance that rendered it of such limited use.  In performance spaces, I've found guessing the frame with a 21 to be the only quick way of working.  If the new M10 really does use the Leica EVF then I'd hope it's performance was as least as good on this platform as it is on the TL?  Very grateful to hear from users of this combination and who have experience of the M240's EVF to get a sense of how they compare.  Jono? I know you use both the 240 and the T.  Are you able to comment on how the EVFs compare in real world use?  re the TL - does anyone know if the focus point can be moved around the screen?

And is the TL any different from the T in this regard, or is the performance, with current firmware, the same on both?

[steveBK]

I had the T EVF on the X113 for a few months.

As I recall the problem was not the resolution or refresh rate, but the "color tearing" effect.

It uses sequential display tech, which is susceptible to this effect.

I noticed it especially whenever either the camera or my eyeball was in motion.

It reminded me of that weird rainbow effect (especially in peripheral vision) you get off some older projectors when you move your eyes.

 

Knowing the Q EVF used a similar tech (thought different display) initially put me off buying it. 

Fortunately I have found no such issue with the Q EVF.

 

So I would consider a 2017 re-use of the 2013-era T-EVF disappointing. 

Given the lifecycle of these products, anything shipping in 2017 will be "in force" until 2022 or so.. at which point this EVF will be even more laughable.

 

Both the Q EVF and SL EVF released in 2015 are far superior.

[Tailwagger]

So I would consider a 2017 re-use of the 2013-era T-EVF disappointing. 

 

Cant really comment on the EVF per se and perhaps the angst over this is proper, but I'd imagine that its also quite possible that they might be 'retaining' the current interface and resolution, but upgrading the hardware that attaches to it. ie the 2013 version will work, but the 2017 version has improved the guts that hopefully addresses your concerns. 

[Distagon]

The more I read, the more convinced I am that the M10 will not be the successor to the M 240.

 

Leica must have realised long ago that whichever direction it follows with the M-line, traditionalist or futuristic, it will lose a lot of customers. It has to do both to maximise the potential of the M line, but both fully contemporary and traditionalist are no longer compatible in one body without serious compromises.

 

So the M10 will give us a body that is the closest digital equivalent Leica can come up with to the beloved film Ms. And the M 240 will be succeeded by another M with the highest tech Leica wants to use in a camera recognisable as an M.

 

Everything Leica has done since they thought about naming the M typ 240 seems to point in this direction.

 

 

I agree, but read the product line in the opposite sense:

- M 262 = traditionalist product line, with no LCD

- M10 = maximally digital product line (M240 successor), going most of the way to being a interchangeable-lens Leica Q with touchscreen + add-on Typ 020 EVF but preserving a purely optical rangefinder

 

The M262 concession to the traditional / minimalist market segment allows the M10 to be more technologically innovative.

No doubt, we will see an M262 version with the Q's sensor in a couple of years.

 

I anticipate that we will have to wait at least another generation before seeing an integrated electro-optical rangefinder.

[Distagon]

Hey folks,

As I early posted, if you carefull read the ICC filling (click on the blue tap) it states clearly: Leica Medium Format Camera 3 times.

At the top of the page, under Application and at the bottom under Grants.

Add to it the announcement of CMOSIS 48 MP sensor in 4:3 ratio (LR 7 november) and the impossible to identify lens on the

camera I would ask:

Is this Leica's new Mirrorless Medium Format camera in M shape???? There is no reference for dimensions of the camera.

Just my puzzling.

 

Dre

 

 

By definition, a Leica M camera with the fixed flange distance for M lenses must be a Full Frame format.

 

Any medium format camera could not use M lenses, either because they would not throw the appropriate image circle at the standard flange distance, or because their infinity focus and rangefinder coupling would not apply at another flange distance.

 

It's either medium format or an M camera, but can't be both.

 

The FCC label states that the camera is a Leica M10, so it is necessarily Full Frame.

[Distagon]

I don't have an SL or a Q so maybe the answer is obvious - why isn't the SL considered to be the M mount Q?

 

 

The SL can not be the "M-mount Q":

1. Form factor: too large, too heavy, defeating the entire operational concept of the M mount

2. Optimised for L-mount autofocus lenses

3. Lacks sensor micro-lensing to optimise the sensor for M lenses

 

(The lack of a rangefinder is incidental, provided there are other focussing aids that are at least as accurate for manual focus.  Indeed, the SL is probably a superior camera for focussing fast glass such as a Noctliux than any current M is.  The Q demonstrates that the rangefinder is not a "sine qua non" for a good camera in this form factor.)

 

As long as people intend to principally use M lenses there will be a market for a dedicated, M-optimised camera.

[Distagon]

The patent does not call for sensors in front of the body but for two small cameras in the body, about where the two windows of the traditional rangefinder are located. Since such cameras can be quite small (look at the one built into your phone) those two cameras could lurk behind the two glass panes in front of the body.

 

 

Interesting observation.

 

However, can you think of any strong technical reason why a novel, opto-electronic rangefinder would need to preserve the baseline of the current, mechanically coupled M rangefinder?

 

Once there is electro-mechanical coupling of the rangefinder to the lens, there is no reason why an M system's opto-electronic rangefinder's physical baseline would be constrained to 68.5 mm.

 

Indeed, focussing accuracy would suggest one would want to widen the baseline between the sensors as far as practicable.

 

I only mention all of that because the FCC / 'rumour' photographs appear to show an entirely unmodified rangefinder baseline.  I would take that to mean it is much more probable that this is the traditional mechanical rangefinder and not an innovative opto-electronic hybrid.

 

The other factor suggestive of the traditional opto-mechanical rangefinder is that the M10's two windows have their vertical midline on a common line.  That is exactly what one wants for the traditional viewfinder arrangement.  However, for an opto-electronic rangefinder it would then require one of the two sensors to be mounted directly in the vertical midline of the viewfinder window, obstructing the direct line of view for composition.  In other words, the opto-electronic rangefinder would really benefit from two, dedicated sensor windows separate from the optical viewfinder.

 

If the photos are real, they provide strong evidence for a traditional, opto-mechanical rangefinder rather than a new opto-electronic one.

 

But I'm happy to be proven wrong about any of that!

[pop]

The baseline length of any rangefinder could be whatever you want it to be, in principle. However, if you redesign an M type camera, you'd probably design it in a way that it remains compatible to the system's lenses, and that would include the goggled ones as well.

[lct]

The 69.25mm RF's mechanical base length could be shorter and retain the same accuracy with higher magnification but why doing so in a not so compact body like the M? Could be interesting in a digital CL though.

[Exodies]

What's the effect of thermal expansion/contraction on the mechanical linkages in a rangefinder?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

The baseline length of any rangefinder could be whatever you want it to be, in principle. However, if you redesign an M type camera, you'd probably design it in a way that it remains compatible to the system's lenses, and that would include the goggled ones as well.

 

An interesting point. No offense to the goggles and for the record I far prefer the way old school optics draw, but I'd hate to constrain what is possible as a result of having been forced to extend functional backward compatibility to RF optics provided by such lenses.  If you can mount them that should be more than enough... even if they obscure and render the RF unusable and one is forced to use EVF.   Supporting them more fully in the context of the M-D strikes me both as sufficient and more appropriate.