Paul J Posted December 31, 2016 Share #621 Posted December 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) well obviously they are going to offer both. But everything special about photography disappears with every new generation of camera that manufacturers have to market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Hi Paul J, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted December 31, 2016 Share #622 Posted December 31, 2016 Hard to follow the discussion here. Must be me i guess but at the risk of sounding redundant the 'M10' or whatever name of the next M will be a rangefinder with an accessory EVF. Only question (AFAIK) is to know if Leica will launch a compact SL (aka "QL") mirrorless body separately to the 'M10'. Or am i missing something again? There's also the question about a potential new M (not necessarily the rumored M10) with a new type of digital rangefinder mechanism....or maybe some sort of hybrid system. I'm not predicting or advocating anything, just mentioning ideas in various prior discussions. Many have suggested multiple new M versions, which we already have in increasing abundance. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted December 31, 2016 Share #623 Posted December 31, 2016 It sounds as though you are describing the rumoured M10. I hope not !! I thought the T hasn't got any built-in VF, E or O. It's just got that dreadful touchscreen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 31, 2016 Share #624 Posted December 31, 2016 EVF's are dull. Homogenised and consistent photography made easier is dull. Dull, dull, dull. The EVF is for this time - view a virtualized world through a virtual viewfinder. Not my preference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted December 31, 2016 Share #625 Posted December 31, 2016 But to claim that is all the M system can aspire to is to relegate the M to a historical curiosity, when it should honour its long tradition of continuous technical innovation. This has been said over and over again. Nobody wants the M to be relegated to anything. We are all for improvements. What can be considered an improvement or can be considered removing the uniqueness of the M is the debate. Form what seeing here some people want the M to become some sort of middle-of-the-road bastard child of existing cameras. That's neither improvement nor evolution. It's just killing the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 31, 2016 Share #626 Posted December 31, 2016 Accelerating nicely. We should hit 100 pages by 18th January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 31, 2016 Share #627 Posted December 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) well obviously they are going to offer both. But everything special about photography disappears with every new generation of camera that manufacturers have to market. I strongly disagree. Photography really shouldn't be so much about cameras should it? If there was only one type of camera in the world photography would still be a wonderful, fascinating and important part of our lives wouldn't it? I hardly think it would be diminished in any truly significant way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 31, 2016 Share #628 Posted December 31, 2016 But everything special about photography disappears with every new generation of camera that manufacturers have to market. Yep, it's been a downward spiral since the late 1800's. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 31, 2016 Share #629 Posted December 31, 2016 I strongly disagree. Photography really shouldn't be so much about cameras should it? If there was only one type of camera in the world photography would still be a wonderful, fascinating and important part of our lives wouldn't it? I hardly think it would be diminished in any truly significant way. No, no. no. Part of the magic of photography is the battle between photographer, camera and subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 31, 2016 Share #630 Posted December 31, 2016 No, no. no. Part of the magic of photography is the battle between photographer, camera and subject. Again, I disagree. Although it might be a part of the magic for you, it is certainly not a universal or intrinsic part of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 31, 2016 Share #631 Posted December 31, 2016 yes it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted December 31, 2016 Share #632 Posted December 31, 2016 Two identical bodies with two different focal lengths was perfect (in those days, both bodies were black and white film and obviously manual focus). I see this as an opportunity, not a threat. But this is exactly why I use two M-240 bodies for reportage / performance work. With 28 on one and 50 on the other, 70% of the fields are covered. I then have a DSLR (currently 5D3) with a 70-200 f2.8 L lenses + monopod. This works perfectly for me. I can go from up close and personal to head shots with minimum kit. If the M10 remains purely RF then I'll stick with the same setup. If the M10 implements a really usable external EVF then I'll buy into that. It means that the 18, 21, 90 & 135 FLs will get used more, though I'll probably still hold onto the DSLR + AF zoom for the occasional outing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 31, 2016 Share #633 Posted December 31, 2016 Hi Chris, yes... I was tempted to buy a second M-P 240 for that reason already started... but at the moment it would be a luxury so I am prepared to wait a year or three! A really useable EVF would gain exactly the benefit you and I both want... I think the only difference is I would want the EVF built own on a second body so when changing cameras everything remains the same... (I'm not good at multitasking - when concentrating on what is going on around me, I don't want to keep having to think about whether to look through the camera viewfinder or the EVF on top... I want them both in the same place). As far as the other comments since I got back... I agree with Peter. Photography has nothing much to do with the equipment, for me anyway, and a lot to do with what I want to capture. I don't want a battle between a camera a subject and the photographer... I want to record and create and not have to worry about the camera at all... THATS why I eventually gave up with DSLRs and a short trip into Fuji land and bit the bullet and bought my M. No more battles. Now, its just down to me. The way it should be. Its quite clear there are two camps here. One who enjoys photography as a hobby, with all the side issues with equipment and specs and so on... plus a healthy love/hate with whatever side of the fence you are on so you can discuss it with your fellow enthusiasts... whether it is film/digital, EVF/OVF, AF/MF, tradition/future development... it goes on... Unfortunately, we all get caught up in it from time to time. I really like this line from Peter.... sums it up perfectly... Photography really shouldn't be so much about cameras should it? If there was only one type of camera in the world photography would still be a wonderful, fascinating and important part of our lives wouldn't it? I hardly think it would be diminished in any truly significant way. I suppose it depends on whether your interest is the means to an end, or the end in itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 31, 2016 Share #634 Posted December 31, 2016 I strongly disagree. Photography really shouldn't be so much about cameras should it? If there was only one type of camera in the world photography would still be a wonderful, fascinating and important part of our lives wouldn't it? I hardly think it would be diminished in any truly significant way. I don't often say so, but having made my living from photography for the last 26 years I do have to disagree. Tools need to be fit for purpose. Different tools have different attributes which make them suitable for different applications. Whilst I've met a few photographers who aren't interested in their equipment, most are. One type of camera only would be incredibly limiting and photography would be diminished extraordinarily. Above water, the Leica rangefinder is my camera of choice except where it cannot deliver for specific reasons - then I use dSLRs. Underwater I use Canons but would ideally use a mix of Canons and Nikons as each have lenses with different attributes, and a mix would be useful - economics dictate against this ideal. Mirrorless appeal for specific applications but I still have concerns over their focusability in certain situations and haven't jumped although I dabbled with a T - lovely camera but didn't gel with it in use at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 31, 2016 Share #635 Posted December 31, 2016 My partner and I are travelling through the Nort Island (Te Ika a Maui) by motorbike. I have my M60 with 35 FLE, M-A and 75 Summilux in the tank bag. It's lovely using the M cameras again, after using the SL for most of the year. There is an underlying concern in this thread that an EVF version of the M camera (same form factor, same mount, no coupling, no OVF) would in some way kill off the M. Somehow, I doubt that very much. But I do see the benefit of being able to move the focal and metering point, accurate framing, magnificationand exposure simulation using an M camera. Yes, there's the SL, but that's a different beast altogether. Jono has a good point on making it an L mount, and providing an adapter, but the temptation would be too great to make it an AF camera - effectively a small SL or a QL, or a full frame TL. That would not be the same thing. Peter's hope for an SL quality sensor and SL quality EVF is probably the best to hope for. I still find any camera relying on two viewfinders confused. Long term I don't see the M being the camera Peter hopes for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 31, 2016 Share #636 Posted December 31, 2016 Another good post Sounds like a great trip IJ and a very good choice of cameras. Two bodies, two different focal lengths, same haptics... Makes it a real system... and you even have a digital and a film camera in the same body type. That's what I was talking about... I don't want an L mount because I don't want an AF camera and you are right, it would make an AF too tempting and much too dissimilar from an M in my view. I would want the SL quality sensor which would allow the SL quality EVF, but with an M mount... otherwise it would be a mess of a camera, rather than a proper M. I want a proper M... with an EVF I'm going to be using my M-P on my road trip this coming week with my new 35FLE... I just wish I had a second body for my 90... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 31, 2016 Share #637 Posted December 31, 2016 ................Long term I don't see the M being the camera Peter hopes for. Neither do I! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 31, 2016 Share #638 Posted December 31, 2016 I still find any camera relying on two viewfinders confused. Long term I don't see the M being the camera Peter hopes for. Neither do I. I find a camera relying on two viewfinders confused too... especially as one of them is exceptionally expensive to manufacture and yet redundant when the other is fitted. Far better in my opinion (and maybe less expensive to produce?) to have a second body EVF M option... or as a first M for those who find rangefinders either too difficult to focus on a wider range of lenses or who are irritated or put off, often unnecessarily, by focus shift, the need for lens/body calibration or even rangefinder adjustment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 31, 2016 Share #639 Posted December 31, 2016 But what's wrong with an M-sized body with an L-mount? As with the SL, you can use M lenses exceptionally well. Those who wish to can just forget about AF and treat it like an M with an EVF. The only downside is having to use the M-L adapter; the upsides are that you have access to a growing range of new lenses with AF and IS, as well as all the M lenses. OTOH, stick to the M-mount and you are cut off from those. As I've said before, I don't get emotionally involved with my cameras (they can't fondle me back), so I'll accept whatever Leica produce without getting upset by it. I'm just puzzled why there is antipathy to the idea of an L-mount small camera, and preference for an M-mount camera with EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted December 31, 2016 Share #640 Posted December 31, 2016 I couldn't disagree more. For me, the RF is the defining ingredient of the system. The other elements you list are available from other systems. The non-TTL optical view is pretty much the only reason I still use a Leica and, without it, I dare say I'd move elsewhere. Horse for courses, as Jeff is fond of saying. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I'm sympathetic to that point of view, but obviously we disagree.Where else can you get a Full Frame camera system with the M system form factor and quality? I'm not referring to just a body, but an entire camera system. People will claim that the Sony a7 series are small, but by the time you put a decent native lens on them, not so much so. People will claim that you can mount M lenses to any MILC body, but there is always a quality compromise. There is a reason why sensor engineers struggled to offer a digital M, which required mount-specific microlensing. A native M mount camera is materially different to any adapted solution. Finally, no other manufacturer uses a simplified, manual concept of operations. They are all competing by releasing 300 'features' on their cameras, which most people won't be able to use creatively. The rangefinder is just a focussing tool, and a limited one at that. The M system would still be quite unique if it had no rangefinder, but offered more a flexible and accurate solution that is true to the M's sophisticated simplicity. I recognise your point. I do find the rangefinder charming to use. It's just not the reason why I or many others chose the M system. I'm sure Leica recognises this bifurcation of opinion amongst their customers, and has no doubt thought long and hard about the path forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.