keithlaban.co.uk Posted December 30, 2016 Share #561 Posted December 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) An M optimised for M lenses and with an accessory EVF that is equal in quality to that of the SL seems to be the camera that many here want, myself included. Pretty please... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 Hi keithlaban.co.uk, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LocalHero1953 Posted December 30, 2016 Share #562 Posted December 30, 2016 I'd like a detachable EVF of the same standard as the SL's. I understand that it may not be possible. I have said ad nauseam that giving the M a top-class detachable EVF alongside its peerless optical viewfinder/rangefinder, together with giving them the the same sensor would make the two cameras parallel in terms of excellence. One would be the optimum agile and capable manual focus camera, the other would be the optimum versatile platform for an incredible range of lenses including the wonderful new SL lenses. At the moment it feels to me that people's nostalgic impulses are encouraging Leica to relegate the M to a smaller and less photographically advanced niche than it needs to occupy. Thanks, I understand where you're coming from. I only want the EVF on the M as an occasional extra for calibration checking and macro; two separate viewfinders are too irritating for normal use. I value the M for its direct simplicity of function and operation, and I don't see that as a nostalgic impulse - just a different way of working with a camera. I don't use the M lenses on the SL body at all, though I suppose if I ever succumbed to a Noctilux, that would be an exception. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 30, 2016 Share #563 Posted December 30, 2016 Thanks, I understand where you're coming from. I only want the EVF on the M as an occasional extra for calibration checking and macro; two separate viewfinders are too irritating for normal use. I value the M for its direct simplicity of function and operation, and I don't see that as a nostalgic impulse - just a different way of working with a camera. I don't use the M lenses on the SL body at all, though I suppose if I ever succumbed to a Noctilux, that would be an exception. How would you feel about an M with an EVF as it's only viewfinder, with manual focussing as it is on the SL? I don't mean instead of... I mean as well as... I can see a market for two M models, one with an EVF and one with an OVF... and an auxiliary EVF for those who want one camera body with an OVF and occasional use of a detachable EVF (I too find two veiwfinders on one camera a pain... (not that I ever use the optical when I use the EVF on the 240...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 30, 2016 Share #564 Posted December 30, 2016 The key to the M rangefinder's longevity is quite simply its simplicity. Anyone familiar with the M3 could pick up say, an M9, and with a few minutes explanation, be using it. Add on or include an evf and other bits and the camera changes, becomes more complex and there is more to go wrong. I'm not actually bothered whether Leica make an 'M mount' camera with a fold out 1m square evf or whatever fancy extras people want, as long as they continue to build an extremely simple model with just the bare necessities required to take photos - like the original film M cameras. For a whole host of reasons I see an evf 'M mount' as being at an evolutionary dead end I'm afraid, as it will fail to compete with other systems (as I have explained enough times). An OVF M on the other hand is unique, has a heritage second to none and will continue to have a small (hopefully economic) number of adherents because it offers a different way to take photographs. For those wanting an 'M mount' camera with and evf can I suggest that a full-frame T with a bolt on electronic viewfinder incorporating an electronic rangefinder would be a solution as it would work with M lenses via an adapter just as well as any other 'M mount' camera whilst also allowing TL and SL lenses to be used. Why compromise the M rangefinder when there is just as viable a potential alternative which is not a dead end? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 30, 2016 Share #565 Posted December 30, 2016 RF also depends on mechanical tolerance which has to be within specified limits. Boost the magnification and you shift the tolerance requirement which has to be tighter. Its a trade off. Given that M lenses will have a tolerance, changing the rangefinder has to operate so that this is not pushed outside the new limits which are created. I suspect that what exists now cannot be shifted so we are stuck with the lenses/apertures that we have regardless of rangefinder specifications. Makes sense as far as optical rangefinders are concerned but how about electronic ones? The EBL of such rangefinders would be still relevant i suspect but magnification could be as simple to bring out as it proves to be now in current EVFs. Just a guess though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 30, 2016 Share #566 Posted December 30, 2016 There still would be a significant mechanical component. With tolerances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 30, 2016 Share #567 Posted December 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) How would you feel about an M with an EVF as it's only viewfinder, with manual focussing as it is on the SL? I don't mean instead of... I mean as well as... I can see a market for two M models, one with an EVF and one with an OVF... and an auxiliary EVF for those who want one camera body with an OVF and occasional use of a detachable EVF (I too find two veiwfinders on one camera a pain... (not that I ever use the optical when I use the EVF on the 240...). An M with just an EVF? Not for me - I agree it's a dead end. You'd have an EVF that opens up all the possibilities of exposure simulation and AF, but with a dumb lens unable to communicate with it or respond to the camera. The logical alternative would be an M-sized body with an L mount - the hypothetical QL. The L mount has clearly been designed as Leica's mount for the future ever since the T was announced: that yawning hole with just a couple of tiny T lenses to fill it. I don't know what I'd opt for if there were a M, QL and SL all running in parallel. I'll just wait and see if and when. A lot depends on a question of lens design that my ignorance cannot answer: are there benefits that only come when the lens is physically big? If so, then that is an argument for keeping the SL body and its lenses. Considerations: - M lenses are small, but they don't focus as close as the SL lenses, which has been an unexpected and useful bonus of the SL system. - TL and MFT (e.g Olympus) lenses incorporate AF in a small package: can this be scaled up to full frame, still in a small package and with M/SL standards of IQ? - If you want very fast AF, does the use of light AF lens elements mean that the rest of the lens has to be big? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 30, 2016 Share #568 Posted December 30, 2016 Thanks, I understand where you're coming from. I only want the EVF on the M as an occasional extra for calibration checking and macro; two separate viewfinders are too irritating for normal use. I value the M for its direct simplicity of function and operation, and I don't see that as a nostalgic impulse - just a different way of working with a camera. I don't use the M lenses on the SL body at all, though I suppose if I ever succumbed to a Noctilux, that would be an exception. I really struggle with this obsession about the "difficulty" of focusing the Noctilux. The DOF @ 0.95 is approx. double the DOF of a Summicron 90 @ 2.0. 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=3175944'>More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 30, 2016 Share #569 Posted December 30, 2016 I really struggle with this obsession about the "difficulty" of focusing the Noctilux. The DOF @ 0.95 is approx. double the DOF of a Summicron 90 @ 2.0. At the moment it is a difficulty I am unlikely to encounter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 30, 2016 Share #570 Posted December 30, 2016 There still would be a significant mechanical component. With tolerances. It is yet easier to focus 90 and 135mm lenses with my 0.91x (M3) and 0.85x (M6J) optical rangefinders. Pushing magnification to 0.91x or even 1:1 through an electronic RF could resolve most if not all focus difficulties some of us may have at present eventually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 30, 2016 Share #571 Posted December 30, 2016 Enter the magnifiers -which don't work for me btw. - easier, but not more accurate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markforce Posted December 30, 2016 Share #572 Posted December 30, 2016 Possibly not, but I see exactly what Peter is getting at. Whether or not it would make me change from my M-P 240 for whatever new model is around the corner, is doubtful, I am really happy with my existing M, but it would probably attract new customers to Leica and make life a lot easier for many of the existing owners who struggle on occasions. Not everyone wants a specific camera for a specific purpose... particularly when that secondary use is only on rare occasions. My M is perfect for 90% of the photography I do... but I can't really hand it to someone to use without a long and convoluted lesson... at which point whoever is the recipient of all this additional information says 'why do you bother?' Or hands it back to me shaking their head in bemusement. There are other limitations too, but, frankly, they don't get in the way of the sort of photography I do so they are of little consequence to me. If they were, I would have bought a different camera in the first place. I completely accept that an M is a niche camera and isn't suited to all needs, but making it a little more flexible and easier to use by updating it in a way that doesn't compromise its main purpose surely would increase the potential customer base? I still think an EVF model and a traditional OVF model is the way forward. I'm not bothered about AF, but I would quite like a EVF of the standard in the SL with all the benefits it would bring in using wider or longer lenses easily without adding to the complexity. I would buy a second EVF body to complement my current M-P 240 and use it with either my Summilux 50 Asph and Elmarit 90... or particularly, the SEM 21 I have promised myself at some point in the not too distant future. My M-P 240 could then have the Summilux 35 FLE permanently attached and I would have exactly the system I need and I would find both cameras enjoyable and flexible enough for all my photographic needs. Potential new customers to the M would have a choice of either body to go with the best lenses available... upgrading bodies as funds allow and the improvements justify. I don't really understand why anyone would argue against that...? Would you want to maintain the 'purist' approach even if it means less future M users? As long as the 'purist' body remains available, I don't see how even the most conservative M user could object... You should treat yourself and get that 21, regardless Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 30, 2016 Share #573 Posted December 30, 2016 It is yet easier to focus 90 and 135mm lenses with my 0.91x (M3) and 0.85x (M6J) optical rangefinders. Pushing magnification to 0.91x or even 1:1 through an electronic RF could resolve most if not all focus difficulties some of us may have at present eventually. Your argument is unsound. Any system which relies on a mechanical interface with the lens (ie a rangefinder) is limited by the tolerance to which the mechanical actuation between lens and camera is built. The means that even using magnification to align two images will, whilst it may appear to be correct, not necessarily be accurate in terms of where the lens is physically focussing - and this will include an electronic rangefinder if it relies on physical interaction with the lens. If it doesn't then it is not a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 30, 2016 Share #574 Posted December 30, 2016 An M with just an EVF? Not for me - I agree it's a dead end. You'd have an EVF that opens up all the possibilities of exposure simulation and AF, but with a dumb lens unable to communicate with it or respond to the camera. Well put - I like the 'dumb lens' descriptor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 30, 2016 Share #575 Posted December 30, 2016 Enter the magnifiers -which don't work for me btw. - easier, but not more accurate. Lot more accurate through image magnification for me and this is true at almost all apertures. I even focused at f/16 with a 21/4 lens here: https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-9HCp32k/0/O/DSC03825_c1si.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Samples/i-GHStVhv/0/O/DSC03833_c1si.jpg FWIW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 30, 2016 Share #576 Posted December 30, 2016 While I don't care much for the EVF, and prefer a simple camera like the 262 that replaced my 240, I fully understand some users need for a high quality auxiliary EVF and would be very happy if Leica continues offering two options like the 240/262 simultaneously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveBK Posted December 30, 2016 Share #577 Posted December 30, 2016 An M optimised for M lenses and with an accessory EVF that is equal in quality to that of the SL seems to be the camera that many here want, myself included. Pretty please... Agreed Or at least as good as the Q EVF.. SL EVF would be awesome, but I am quite doubtful we will get that.. I have been shooting M lenses on an SL (rental) body for the holidays. In addition to any RF vs EVF focussing arguments, I find metering/framing benefits of the SL as well. Focusing & Metering at the shooting aperture removes any question of focus shift... Re: framing, shooting last night with a flare-prone lens (35/1.4 MS Optics), actually being able to see the flare in real time was extremely useful. This allowed me to place the flare intentfully rather than having them appear randomly when I review photos later. What I do miss from the M is the out-of-framelines view. Of course with glasses I really only see this with a 50mm anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted December 30, 2016 Share #578 Posted December 30, 2016 No conversation here will alter the new m and it will not be very different to what exists already ps there will be no 2017 technology just old stuff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 30, 2016 Share #579 Posted December 30, 2016 Well put - I like the 'dumb lens' descriptor. I get that... but maybe I am being stupid.... I was thinking about all those people who have been enjoying manual focus on an SL with M lenses and I was wondering, if that was available in an M package, would anyone be interested. I know I would for wide or long lenses. I have used an SL with M lenses (although admittedly only out and about at Leica Mayfair) and although I like the SL, it's just a little too big and actually, not as pretty and comfortable to use as an M. I would like something like that myself as a second body, particularly for <24mm or >90, and I'm sure others would too... and I think quite a few new customers would find it quite an interesting proposition too. I doubt those who have been using their SL with M lenses would agree it was a 'dumb lens on a smarter camera' and therefore not something worth considering (there are many on here who really sound very happy with the results they are getting... we all have seen some very good examples of M lenses in use in the SL thread... so why is this such an 'no, no' here??? Do you really object to an M body with a built in EVF working in exactly the same way as the M lenses work on an SL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted December 30, 2016 Share #580 Posted December 30, 2016 The SL and M lenses is the best thing since sliced bread[emoji7][emoji7][emoji7][emoji7][emoji7] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.