ianman Posted January 2, 2017 Share #721 Posted January 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) As you well know I was responding to your comment: I think people need to let go of the fact the M is a 'rangefinder'... Maybe you should calm down, and check the meaning of smilies. I'm not even going to bother replying to your other insults. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 Hi ianman, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted January 2, 2017 Share #722 Posted January 2, 2017 Rangefinders are not necessarily optical. Laser rangefinders are rangefinders as well. Electronic rangefinders are rangefinders also. All measure the distance outside the lens. The same way as RF cameras allow to compose outside the lens. A different way of seing the world. Not better, not worse, just different. Just the opposite than TTL cameras. Nothing new since the first SLR cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #723 Posted January 2, 2017 Sorry, Bill, as I posted, Messsucher does not mean " Rangefinder". It is perfectly possible to make a Messsucher with for instance a laser distance meter. The Barnacks did not have a Messsucher, they had a separate rangefinder. Except the IIIg Thanks Jaap. First, can you comment on my understanding of the history here... because I went back and checked from various sources and it keeps coming back to confirming my original understanding. The first Leica with a built in rangefinder was the Leica II in 1932... and the first M, the Leica M3, was launched in 1954... I make that 22 years. I am quite capable of being proved wrong here though... but it would seem to contradict all my research again just now which I undertook when I first read your post 720... I understand the M3 was the first 'rangefinder with an integrated viewfinder'... which you gave as a translation of Messsucher in a previous post... just as you said it could refer to a laser distance meter in this post, which contradicts the fact that it means the M has to be an optical rangefinder... its all just semantics in the end. The fact is, it can pretty much mean anything you want it to, because you are right... it is not a precise word. But 'rangefinder' isn't actually that precise in English. I use a 'laser rangefinder' pretty much daily to measure distance between loudspeakers and room boundaries... In fact anything that measure distance without having to actually go to the subject point and take an actual physical measurement can be considered a rangefinder. So, if it is such a vague term anyway, why is everyone so defensive and insisting that it is a very specific in the case of the M series? It's nonsense. But this is still a sidetrack to the main discussion... what is the new M10 and what do we actually want Leica to do with the M range in order to extend its life and to generate now customers whilst at the same time, keeping faith with the older and more conservative users? I would like an addition to the range. Thats it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #724 Posted January 2, 2017 As you well know I was responding to your comment: Maybe you should calm down, and check the meaning of smilies. I'm not even going to bother replying to your other insults. I also understand the meaning of sarcasm... and there were no insults... Oh.. yes, and to make this response appear palatable... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmen Posted January 2, 2017 Share #725 Posted January 2, 2017 How do you (as in anyone) know what combination of technologies makes for the most effective photography for you? The M to which after two years I'm still feeling very new to is brilliant: it makes both the act of photographing more enjoyable and leads to photos I'm positively surprised to see. I would not have predicted it, but less accurate framing, seeing from slightly besides the lens, not even seeing the full frame on my 21mm, not seeing depth of focus, are all not an omission. With that in mind I'm wondering if not a very different electronic future would be more beneficial. The mentioned possibility of an electronic view and range finder could offer something much more akin to the current finder: show an image not better illuminated than the surrounding light, without white balance applied, with some extra vision around what the lens will capture, with overlapping images for focusing, but electronic and zooming the entire view, e.g., from 0.50 to 0.90 or beyond. Could that provide for a similarly exciting experience? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 2, 2017 Share #726 Posted January 2, 2017 In terms of camera development, how can it possibly matter why the camera was called "M" years ago? If we were to discover it stood for "Marilyn", would that change what we want to see in the next M? And why is there opposition to a version of the M with an inbuilt EVF if enough people would like one? I would prefer a better detachable EVF than a built-in one, so that I can have two cameras in one, but it would be good for Leica if people who want everything that the M-line offers except for the rangefinder/viewfinder were also able to stick with the same system wouldn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2, 2017 Share #727 Posted January 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks Jaap. First, can you comment on my understanding of the history here... because I went back and checked from various sources and it keeps coming back to confirming my original understanding. The first Leica with a built in rangefinder was the Leica II in 1932... and the first M, the Leica M3, was launched in 1954... I make that 22 years. I am quite capable of being proved wrong here though... but it would seem to contradict all my research again just now which I undertook when I first read your post 720... I understand the M3 was the first 'rangefinder with an integrated viewfinder'... which you gave as a translation of Messsucher in a previous post... just as you said it could refer to a laser distance meter in this post, which contradicts the fact that it means the M has to be an optical rangefinder... its all just semantics in the end. The fact is, it can pretty much mean anything you want it to, because you are right... it is not a precise word. But 'rangefinder' isn't actually that precise in English. I use a 'laser rangefinder' pretty much daily to measure distance between loudspeakers and room boundaries... In fact anything that measure distance without having to actually go to the subject point and take an actual physical measurement can be considered a rangefinder. So, if it is such a vague term anyway, why is everyone so defensive and insisting that it is a very specific in the case of the M series? It's nonsense. But this is still a sidetrack to the main discussion... what is the new M10 and what do we actually want Leica to do with the M range in order to extend its life and to generate now customers whilst at the same time, keeping faith with the older and more conservative users? I would like an addition to the range. Thats it. Messsucher is quite precise, like most things in German. The Leica II was not a Messsucherkamera. It was a Kamera mit Entfernungsmesser. And nobody claims the distance meter needs to be optical. It just needs to be integrated into an optical viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 2, 2017 Share #728 Posted January 2, 2017 You just like TTL cameras. Nothing to be ashamed of but the M w/o Visoflex is perhaps not for you. Did you try Fuji cameras? Yes, I for one do like TTL, being able to see what the sensor sees and craft a photograph accordingly. I'm sure many of us shoot with an M system but quietly also have a DSLR for a little, dirty TTL work on the side when the viewfinder-rangefinder just doesn't cut the mustard. That does not mean I can't love my M bodies and lenses. Why else would any of us be here? My appreciation for the M system does not mean I have to like the photographic limitations inherent in the viewfinder-rangefinder, or like the clunky work-arounds for those limitations. The M with Visoflex does answer many of those limitations. The Visoflex makes the M a much more flexible photographic system, or at least will once they offer a decent one. That's why Leica sells them. So, yes, I agree that liking the obvious advantages of TTL is nothing to be ashamed of. (Indeed, it seems a bit bizarre and cultish even to suggest that a photographer might be ashamed of such a thing.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #729 Posted January 2, 2017 Thank you Peter. A sensible post. I suspect we will at some point get a much better EVF to replace the one we both currently use. I would not be able to use it on my M-P though, so I would have to sell a perfectly good camera to use it if I stayed with one camera in my M system... as would you. I would still like a second body at some point anyway... so I would be buying a new camera and a new EVF to use on it. Which is of course why I'd personally rather see it integrated... And as we have both been saying, there are a number of people out there who want the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 2, 2017 Share #730 Posted January 2, 2017 [...] My appreciation for the M system does not mean I have to like the photographic limitations inherent in the viewfinder-rangefinder, or like the clunky work-arounds for those limitations. The M with Visoflex does answer many of those limitations. The Visoflex makes the M a much more flexible photographic system, or at least will once they offer a decent one. That's why Leica sells them. So, yes, I agree that liking the obvious advantages of TTL is nothing to be ashamed of. (Indeed, it is a bit bizarre and cultish even to suggest that a photographer might be ashamed of such a thing.) Well i won't bother you any more but what you call limitations are just the features of the rangefinder. Seing the world outside the lens, outside the sensor. What's a sensor? Those features are just what makes the M an M. Remove them and it becomes a TTL camera as others. Thanks no thanks i have heard this since the seventies. Ah! the Nikon F! That was a camera! . I used Canon SLRs then but i used Leica Ms as well. RF and TTL. Different beasts, different ways of seing the world. Nothing new under the sun . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #731 Posted January 2, 2017 Messsucher is quite precise, like most things in German. The Leica II was not a Messsucherkamera. It was a Kamera mit Entfernungsmesser. And nobody claims the distance meter needs to be optical. It just needs to be integrated into an optical viewfinder. Thank you for explaining that, Jaapv. So Messsucher doesn't actually mean rangefinder, it means an optical rangefinder integrated into the viewfinder? Ok. So that makes the M3 from 1954 the first 'Messsucher'? I accept that clarification of the term "messsucher'. And the second point, that the distance meter doesn't need to be optical, so you would consider a hybrid digital rangefinder (as per Leica's rumoured patent applications http://leicarumors.com/2015/10/14/leicas-patents-for-optoelectronic-rangefinder.aspx/ ) would still be considered an M? But not a non-optical viewfinder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #732 Posted January 2, 2017 Well i won't bother you any more but what you call limitations are just the features of the rangefinder. Seing the world outside the lens, outside the sensor. What's a sensor? Those features are just what makes the M an M. Remove them and it becomes a TTL camera as others. Thanks no thanks i have heard this since the seventies. Ah! the Nikon F! That was a camera! . I used Canon SLRs then but i used Leica Ms as well. RF and TTL. Different beasts, different ways of seing the world. Nothing new under the sun . I agree with you LCT. I would like both, so I can have the advantages of both. If I could have them with the same form and haptics, so much the better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted January 2, 2017 Share #733 Posted January 2, 2017 I'm pretty lost in this thread (and am no Leica historian) so apologize if it's been brought up already. The Leica M1 had no rangefinder device of any kind, and the Leica MD/MDa had no viewfinder at all. It seems Leica has been flexible about what M means since the 1950s. I would certainly consider a smaller, lighter, cheaper M-mount camera with integrated EVF and no OVF. Even if Leica makes such a camera, I can't imagine Leica would stop making a traditional OVF M in the foreseeable future. IMO, anyone claiming that Leica isn't dedicated to the M is mistaken. It is the system that makes their largest, most reliable and fiercely loyal customer base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #734 Posted January 2, 2017 I know... and I completely agree But every time anyone brings up these same or similar points, certain members disappear, wait until the dust settles and the thread has moved on, and then, rather than accept the reality of the point being made, come out with the same argument all over again, hoping the rest of us have forgotten. I'm not surprised you are lost... so am I!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 2, 2017 Share #735 Posted January 2, 2017 The pain of samsara Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 2, 2017 Share #736 Posted January 2, 2017 I'm pretty lost in this thread (and am no Leica historian) so apologize if it's been brought up already. The Leica M1 had no rangefinder device of any kind, and the Leica MD/MDa had no viewfinder at all. It seems Leica has been flexible about what M means since the 1950s. I would certainly consider a smaller, lighter, cheaper M-mount camera with integrated EVF and no OVF. Even if Leica makes such a camera, I can't imagine Leica would stop making a traditional OVF M in the foreseeable future. IMO, anyone claiming that Leica isn't dedicated to the M is mistaken. It is the system that makes their largest, most reliable and fiercely loyal customer base. Therefore my old suggestion was an "M"-body for which you could choose you preferred finder design "á-la-carte". If there even was no big price diffence for a version with EVF from the version with OVF, Leica could test the acceptance by looking at the sales numbers. Perhaps the OVF-design would be reduced to a niche in some years - so this would be a "democratic" decision for the other concept. If I had the choice I wouldn't be sure which way to take. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #737 Posted January 2, 2017 The pain of samsara For once it seems we can agree.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #738 Posted January 2, 2017 Therefore my old suggestion was an "M"-body for which you could choose you preferred finder design "á-la-carte". If there even was no big price diffence for a version with EVF from the version with OVF, Leica could test the acceptance by looking at the sales numbers. Perhaps the OVF-design would be reduced to a niche in some years - so this would be a "democratic" decision for the other concept. If I had the choice I wouldn't be sure which way to take. A reasonable suggestion. I would choose both, as there are advantages in each. I suspect many of us would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 2, 2017 Share #739 Posted January 2, 2017 For once it seems we can agree.. Well I don't really think you are grasping what my position is, I would disagree that we disagree on much at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #740 Posted January 2, 2017 Clearly not... I thought you believed that I wanted the M to change from an OVF to an EVF... it seemed to me to be what you were saying in a post a couple of pages back. Where in reality, I WANT the M to stay as an OVF/Rangefinder/Messsucher for all the reasons you (and I) have already stated. But I would also like an M body with the EVF and sensor from the SL as an option - just as there are monochrome options and screenless options currently. I would certainly buy one to use alongside my M-P 240... So, if in reality we are very much closer in our respective positions than I thought, my apologies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.