Bill Livingston Posted January 4, 2017 Share #921 Posted January 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) At last some sense in the discussion . I would add that making an M shaped body with an EVF instead of a rangefinder with an M mount would have no advantages and a host of disadvantages. I have no problem at all with Jono's suggestion. I simply see an M camera with EVF as being a dead end for a whole host of disadvantageous technical reasons. The OVF RF camera on the other hand can continue to occupy it niche as it has for a very long time already. What's difficult to understand about this? Or should Leica really waste time and money to develop a pointless product? An M shaped body with an L mount on the other hand would be a very interesting possibility indeed. It would even be possible to offer one with an M mount permanently installed should anyone be daft enough to want this. I remember being asked if a multi-power manual and TT underwater flash unit could be supplied in manual only configuration. When I queried the manufacturer they said it could - they would simply lock out the TTL switch setting . Jono had also made that same suggestion, as had others, several pages back in the debate. You must have missed it. You also may have missed the point that I had also said, although not needing AF or IS or one or two other things such a mount would give, it would be a solution that I would buy immediately. It's the SL level of built in sensor/EVF solution I wanted in an M type body. Any means of getting there is fine by me. As long as the new camera looked like an M and had the same haptics, it would be fine... and probably be a camera a lot of people would buy... new customers and old. As an addition the Leicas camera portfolio, I can't see how anyone could object... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 Hi Bill Livingston, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 4, 2017 Share #922 Posted January 4, 2017 I don't think anyone expects an EVF only M camera.there going to be disappointed then Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #923 Posted January 4, 2017 Jono had also made that same suggestion, as had others, several pages back in the debate. You must have missed it. I did point out that a full-frame T has the right body shape/feel but others didn't like the 'M adapter' idea..... I've followed most of the debate but it would be easy to miss some of it (actually I wouldn't miss a fair bit of it) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #924 Posted January 4, 2017 How can there be disappointment when it's stated that nobody expects it ? Sent from my M12 using TimeWarp Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 4, 2017 Share #925 Posted January 4, 2017 How can there be disappointment when it's stated that nobody expects it ? Sent from my M12 using TimeWarp exactly that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 4, 2017 Share #926 Posted January 4, 2017 there going to be disappointed then Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Not at all, relief, at least with my bank manager. If I had been interested in an EVF camera I would have bought one of the excellent offerings on the market before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 4, 2017 Share #927 Posted January 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not at all, relief, at least with my bank manager. jaaapv you can always trade in your old out dated stuff and move with the times :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted January 4, 2017 Share #928 Posted January 4, 2017 We already have an EVF in the 240 - the back screen. Don't need 2! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #929 Posted January 4, 2017 exactly that oh right, ok, see what you mean now :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #930 Posted January 4, 2017 ..... you can always trade in your old out dated stuff and move with the times :) As light relief. Cameras do get smaller, unfortunately there can be casualties. Behind the 2009 M9 is a 1994 1.5 MPixel Kodak DCS420. And the snap of the two was taken on a 2004 Kodak DCS ProN. Some businesses get it right, unfortunately others don't. Food for thought. 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=3178911'>More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 4, 2017 Share #931 Posted January 4, 2017 We already have an EVF in the 240 - the back screen. Don't need 2!Ok... I'll bite... I usually do I think you are missing the point... I'm just not sure if you are doing so 'tongue in cheek', or whether you actually believe using an electronic viewfinder is the same as using the rear screen... Have you ever used an SL with M lenses? Imagine that in an M shaped body as an option... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 4, 2017 Share #932 Posted January 4, 2017 Ok... I'll bite... I usually do Have you ever used an SL with M lenses? Imagine that in an M shaped body as an option... Niw were cooking by gas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 4, 2017 Share #933 Posted January 4, 2017 Now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 4, 2017 Share #934 Posted January 4, 2017 I see some folks are expecting a CCD sensor. Am I correct in thinking that live view is still not possible with CCD but only with CMOS? I have to admit I could see no downside of CMOS, when I moved from the M9 to M240, once the AWB and colour corrections/profiles had been tweaked with FW updates and software/profile improvements on both Lightroom and Capture One. Having become used to the SL's "retina resolution" EVF, if the new M only uses the existing (two plus year old) EVF off the T, with half the pixels and slower refresh rate, I think I would give this M a miss. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 4, 2017 Share #935 Posted January 4, 2017 The EVF for the T is pretty good, if I recall correctly. But, it's big and easily slid off the camera; on an M body it would be very bulky in the bag; and the camera would need a new processor which would eliminate the black out (killed the camera for me). The SL is so good, I won't be tempted. I dislike having two viewfinders on one camera - it seems inelegant to me. I like the ovf on the M, despite its flaws. Adding bits to it spoils it for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 4, 2017 Share #936 Posted January 4, 2017 I agree (as you know). I would rather have an SL quality EVF built in to an alternative M body... although many people are happy with the add on EVF. (No reason why Leica couldn't do both) I suspect that the M10 is an uprated sensor allowing a better add on EVF...(although Neil seems to believe different). Thats not something that I would buy to add to my existing M system... On the other hand, it would be very cool if Neil was right! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #937 Posted January 4, 2017 The EVF for the T is pretty good, if I recall correctly. The SL is so good ..... I had a T - sorry but not impressed by the EVF at all, and the camera whilst pleasant enough to use was not for me. I've handled an SL and to date it has had the only EVF that I felt was genuinely usable. If I had to use an EVF it would have to be at least as good as the SL if not better. Put the SL EVF into a body similar to a T (where the OVF of the M RF is) and the camera would have real potential. Some way to go though I suspect in terms of viable technology and power. I would be surprised if Leica are not considering this as a future option. But who knows (and if they do they certainly aren't telling). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #938 Posted January 4, 2017 I had a T - sorry but not impressed by the EVF at all, and the camera whilst pleasant enough to use was not for me. I've handled an SL and to date it has had the only EVF that I felt was genuinely usable. If I had to use an EVF it would have to be at least as good as the SL if not better. Put the SL EVF into a body similar to a T (where the OVF of the M RF is) and the camera would have real potential. Some way to go though I suspect in terms of viable technology and power. I would be surprised if Leica are not considering this as a future option. But who knows (and if they do they certainly aren't telling). M11 and later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 4, 2017 Share #939 Posted January 4, 2017 I'd certainly like to see a camera in an M shaped body (and with similar controls and layout) with an EVF instead of a rangefinder - fantastic idea BUT It would be completely crazy not to give it an L mount, so that it had the possibility of using the SL and TL lenses as well as the M lenses - using the L mount would have no disadvantages and a host of advantages. . . . and if so, I'd contend that such a camera wouldn't sensibly be part of the M system - and ought to have a different name! I'm sympathetic to that idea, but am bothered that any camera not optimised for M lenses would not perform as well with them.In particular, all mount adapters introduce alignment errors, and image edges can be soft or hued without optimal micro-lensing for the M glass. For me, there's not much point in being invested in M glass if the sensor can't deliver the results of which the glass is capable. So I like the concept, agree that there is a strong argument for Leica to use the L mount, but I wouldn't buy it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 4, 2017 Share #940 Posted January 4, 2017 jaaapv you can always trade in your old out dated stuff and move with the times :) Why should I? I'm utterly outdated myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.