imants Posted January 3, 2017 Share #761 Posted January 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) In short, I reckon film Ms will be around while there is high commonality of production across film and digital bodies, and the total M production capability is profitable. Which means don't expect a price cut Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 Hi imants, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
aristotle Posted January 3, 2017 Share #762 Posted January 3, 2017 I don't know. I'm still re-discovering my love affair with the M-rangefinder experience with my recent addition of a 262 with my old lenses. I happen to play guitar and have a couple of vintage Gibson Les Pauls. I'm all for having modern versions that remain true to the original experience, but I don't want a Les Paul with robotic automatic adjustable tuning and modern high output pickups. The body shape may remain similar, but the end result just isn't the same. Thicker frets that make bends easier, sure. I'm OK with finishes that don't check or fade like the originals did. But don't add a bunch of technology that just gets in the way of expressing creativity. Or if you do, fine....just please continue making modern (and arguably better) versions of the original experience also. After roughly a month of getting re-acquainted with the rangefinder, I'm back to zone focusing, exposing according to what my mind and experience tell me rather than what some little arrow in the window tells me, and composing according to what my mind sees rather than what some viewfinder sees. Are my images better now than they were with the D800? Not yet. But I'll bet they will be in 6 months. And even if they aren't, I'll probably like them better, and more will end up on my walls and the walls of friends. Gibson Custom Shop True Historic Les Pauls are actually as good or better than the originals in my opinion. They are a great (and affordable) alternative to the originals. But if I want a guitar that stays in tune, looks and feels great out of the box, and delivers the goods no-questions-asked, I'll use a PRS (and I do...) It's the equivalent of fantastic autofocus and perfect exposure anytime. Live at a gig, sure, I want that and usually choose that. But I always bring a Les Paul to gigs too and play it for the creativity that it affords. My 262 experience is as good or better than my experience with the M6 so far. I can choose to look at the screen, or not, after a shot... But the essence of the experience is the same. I have every expectation that whatever the M10 turns out to be, Leica will offer something for everybody....at least as long as the current generation still is upright and breathing.... Just as I like and play PRS, I'd likely end up getting a Leica with an EVF (or EVIL or whatever we're calling it) in an M-style body eventually just to make life easier. Or, maybe not since there will always be a Nikon body and lens combination for less money that delivers the goods. But either way, I can't see giving up manual focus, and intuitive exposure control, along with the compositional creativity that the M-rangefinders impose on the soul in the form of something that looks and feels like a modern equivalent of a film M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 3, 2017 Share #763 Posted January 3, 2017 But you wouldn't need to... just because it has an EVF doesn't mean autofocus or autoexposure... nor does it impact on composition in any way at all... You would still have all the same choices... Maybe people just don't understand what an EVF is...? Why do people confuse this??? Do they believe an SL (for a current example) can only be used with AF and automatic exposure....? Surely not...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 3, 2017 Share #764 Posted January 3, 2017 But don't add a bunch of technology that just gets in the way of expressing creativity. ... I can't see giving up manual focus, and intuitive exposure control, along with the compositional creativity that the M-rangefinders impose on the soul in the form of something that looks and feels like a modern equivalent of a film M. Absolutely. Less is more. My guess is that few M users will lament the removal of video, for example, in a future M. (Although some have already expressed the opposite view, I suspect they are in the minority.) If very intelligently and carefully implemented, though, sometimes more is more. That is difficult to achieve. Many other brands have a more slap-dash, marketing-driven approach to adding technology. They let the technology run riot, like an overgrown jungle of functions and features that can just end up getting in the way of creative control. I think this is one of the main design challenges of bringing any innovation to a great camera like the M: how to extend the system without disrupting its "sophisticated simplicity". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 3, 2017 Share #765 Posted January 3, 2017 Do they believe an SL (for a current example) can only be used with AF and automatic exposure....? Surely not...? Consider, too, the use of a Q with manual focus, aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Still simple, with full creative control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle Posted January 3, 2017 Share #766 Posted January 3, 2017 But you wouldn't need to... just because it has an EVF doesn't mean autofocus or autoexposure... nor does it impact on composition in any way at all... You would still have all the same choices... Maybe people just don't understand what an EVF is...? Why do people confuse this??? Do they believe an SL (for a current example) can only be used with AF and automatic exposure....? Surely not...? You're surely right. To me, EVF is associated with automation, lag, and probably a bunch of other things that are probably not accurate with today's technology. I'm certain that in low-light, I'd get more out of an EVF than I would squinting at an optical focus patch. And I certainly know that it has nothing to do with autofocus or exposure. The comment on focus and exposure had more to do with the intuitive way that current M's are designed and behave, and I somehow equate EVF with making things less intuitive. Wrong-minded probably, but in a strange way, it's the current limitations that represent creative opportunity to me. Regarding the SL, if I had one, I'd probably get the lens that goes with it, and end up shooting it like I do my Nikon. Not the fault of the SL. The fault is with me. I just like the idea of a digital M with an optical rangefinder only, limited controls and menus, and little else but continuously improved sensors. In any case, I suspect that as time goes on, there will be plenty of variants that will satisfy most in the long run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmen Posted January 3, 2017 Share #767 Posted January 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) The usual implementation of an EVF shows something close to the final image. The SL probably does it best. Just now, I looked through the Q and could clearly see it adjusting white balance as I moved from looking at an outdoor scene towards indoors. It's a very different philosophy; almost the exact opposite of the normal M approach. Looking at the scene as it is versus looking at the final image. (Not even considering how focusing is different.) Playing with an SL once, I found I took off my glasses, so I could have the best possible look at the image it was showing me. With the M I never take off my glasses; it's much more about observing the scene as it is. Does anyone here have both SL and M and find that you have a different way of looking and perceiving? Granted, even when using one camera but different lenses, there seems to be a big variation in seeing and approach possible. This video report made me chuckle: http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2016/09/24-90-zoom-vs-m-lenses-on-the-leica-sl-typ-601/ The reporter suddenly switches from making photos of people with M lenses to making photos of walls after mounting a big SL lens. Btw, I'm not arguing against the option of adding an EVF aid, but I'm wondering how it changes the act of making photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle Posted January 3, 2017 Share #768 Posted January 3, 2017 Btw, I'm not arguing against the option of adding an EVF aid, but I'm wondering how it changes the act of making photos. Couldn't have said it better. It's probably fantastic. After looking at the video that you linked to, the SL experience described is pretty much the antithesis of what floats my boat though. It was a well done video though, and articulates what I'm sure is a pretty popular point of view. As a side note, man that 24-90 is a beast. Seeing it being used in the flesh gives you a sense for just how big it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 3, 2017 Share #769 Posted January 3, 2017 Btw, I'm not arguing against the option of adding an EVF aid, but I'm wondering how it changes the act of making photos. I believe that it substantially changes approach. My way of working is very much rangefinder style for many (but far from all) subjects. I shoot them as I see them in my mind with appropriate post processing and found that using an evf simply doesn't work for me for a lot of subjects - it biases my approach and makes it harder to pre-conceive an end result - no doubt in time I could adapt but why do so when I have an excellent tool already? Evf does work for me in a studio/still life scenario but certainly not in hand-held rangefinder type shooting. Just as SLR/RF is very different so evf/RF are too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 3, 2017 Share #770 Posted January 3, 2017 Yes, using an EVF can change the way you work, but sometimes for the better. An EVF with a movable focus patch and back button AF+MF can remove much more of the camera from the process of taking pictures (and don't we praise the M because it just "gets out of the way"?). It takes guesswork and error out of focusing off-centre subjects, especially with wide-open lenses. With the SL, especially when taking photos of people, I am freed up to interact with them more. It is at least a fact in my case that I get a higher proportion of keepers from the SL than the M (though in some scenarios I am more likely to have the small discreet M with me than the SL). The OVF vs EVF debate is getting as polarised as the film vs digital one, with adherents on each side using their own practice to justify their views about what Leica ought to do. Of course, as one who is delighted with both my M and my SL, I am totally free from such bias Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #771 Posted January 3, 2017 Which means don't expect a price cut Were you expecting one ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #772 Posted January 3, 2017 We choose the OVF! ... We choose the OVF in this decade and choose the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ... ok, there may be some degree of plagiarism here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 3, 2017 Share #773 Posted January 3, 2017 Were you expecting one ? As the price of components drops one would hope for a drop in price .....but then again the price of copper dropped yet plumbers raised the cost of their materials Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbertnl Posted January 3, 2017 Share #774 Posted January 3, 2017 We choose the OVF! ... not because they are easy, but because they are hard; ... "... one small misalignment for a man, one giant focus shift for mankind!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #775 Posted January 3, 2017 beep ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted January 3, 2017 Share #776 Posted January 3, 2017 Regarding the SL, if I had one, I'd probably get the lens that goes with it, and end up shooting it like I do my Nikon. Not the fault of the SL. The fault is with me. I tried out an SL for a week and for the first half I used it only with the 24-70mm zoom. Even though the lens is very good, I did not enjoy the experience whatsoever and decided that this combination was not for me. Then I spent the next couple of days using the SL with the M adapter and my M lenses. I shot a few portraits with the SL using my 50Apo and I absolutely loved the combination. Now, I can see myself buying an SL body to use with my M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 3, 2017 Share #777 Posted January 3, 2017 But you wouldn't need to... just because it has an EVF doesn't mean autofocus or autoexposure... nor does it impact on composition in any way at all... You would still have all the same choices... Maybe people just don't understand what an EVF is...? Why do people confuse this??? Do they believe an SL (for a current example) can only be used with AF and automatic exposure....? Surely not...? They've never tried it or they've only used it in circumstances where it afforded them no clear advantage. I wonder how many people these days type away at their computer using line editors from the 1980's as opposed to a word processor. Outside of a few academics, how many use LaTeX or troff rather than any of the plethora of WYSIWYG publishing options that have been in place for a couple of decades now? EVF is the photographer's equivalent of the latter. If you never shoot in difficult light, high contrast situations, care about pixel precise framing, wish to control the amount of lens flare, worry if the selected aperture offers sufficient DoF, wish to understand the consequences of optical distortion from a wide lens if you tilt a couple of degrees, you likely think EVF is at best a novelty and at worst, is a hammer hell bent on the destruction of photographic discipline. Some perhaps are so skilled and experienced that none of these concerns ever represents a barrier to their success. But that isn't true for most. Even if you hate it, there is simply no denying that EVF can be a tremendously powerful educational tool. The effect of multiple adjustments can be seen, step by step, in the moment. For a kinesthetic learner like myself, the relatively primitive X-T1's EVF managed to teach, or at least solidify, more about how to effectively manipulate exposure after a month then had occurred in all the years preceding it. Those experiences translated into an easy time of it once I gambled on a move to an M. For those that bemoan the potential of instant gratification to blunt the imagination, I respectfully suggest that attitude itself lacks imagination. EVF affords the ability to conceive a set of approaches, experiment and get feedback in real time. Quite rapidly one expands one's personal repertoire of techniques and responses to various sets of conditions that might never have been realized otherwise, given once failure is recognized in the processing phase, most times, there is no going back to reshoot. Once the lessons taught in the field are absorbed, they pay dividends regardless of the viewfinder technology. Yes, some aspects of the shooting experience are dulled. Certainly, even the most modern of EVFs exhibits, occasionally infuriating, limitations or flaws. And shooting with M glass, given its lack of auto aperture, is likely to more frequently involve coping with these flaws. But every camera embraces a set of compromises to best serve its particular mission. A QM, could provide the lightest, most compact platform for M mount yet seen. It could open up the joys of simple, MF photography to a new generation of photographers interested in entering the M fold. It affords us all the opportunity to routinely utilize focal lengths we might previously have avoided. If the difficulties of an EVF based RF design are simply still too challenging to overcome, the production of a QM seems to my mind to offer the best alternative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 3, 2017 Share #778 Posted January 3, 2017 ..... every camera embraces a set of compromises to best serve its particular mission. Which is why an RF camera dos not need an evf. What could be more straightforward? Very few SLRs have ever featured a rangefinder (Alpa made one I think) because they don't need both. They are different tools. Just because you can fit something onto an existent piece of equipment doesn't mean that you should. Why is it that nobody is campaigning for a rangefinder to be fitted onto an SL or T/TL I wonder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 3, 2017 Share #779 Posted January 3, 2017 Which is why an RF camera dos not need an evf. What could be more straightforward? Very few SLRs have ever featured a rangefinder (Alpa made one I think) because they don't need both. They are different tools. Just because you can fit something onto an existent piece of equipment doesn't mean that you should. Why is it that nobody is campaigning for a rangefinder to be fitted onto an SL or T/TL I wonder? So don't fit one on yours. Why the desire to stop other people doing what they'd like to do? It won't affect you will it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 3, 2017 Share #780 Posted January 3, 2017 Why the desire to stop other people doing what they'd like to do? It won't affect you will it? Yes, I think that in the long term it certainly could. Try to make a camera all things to all men and you risk diminishing its uniqueness by allowing it to compete against other equipment which will eventually prove to be more effective in many ways (sorry M lens aficionados). Keep it as an iconic camera highly capable within its own niche and one which does not adopt irrelevant solutions and it will continue IMO to be appreciated and bought because it offers a truly alternative approach. Leica have already shown that they can make cameras capable of competing with other current offerings. Why the desire to mutate a perfectly good camera by fundamentally changing its emphasis. An evf means more to go wrong and more to go out of date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.