ianman Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1141 Posted January 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...a good M240... I did not know there was such a thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Hi ianman, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lucerne Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1142 Posted January 10, 2017 I did not know there was such a thing These are on EBAY US. Many will not post to Europe, and postage and customs duty has to be added. Beware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1143 Posted January 10, 2017 I'm in the market for an interchangeable lens camera within the next month or so (definitely for the Spring). I was using my X100t at the weekend and was very impressed with the EVF (not the quality, but being able to see what the camera will capture). Shooting RAW + b&w JPEG I was able to see the subject in b&w, the effect of any change of the compensation dial settings to the photograph before its taking, and even to zoom into the photograph to check focus at the press of a dial (I didn't know that I could do that till I pressed the dial by accident!). When I bought the camera I expected to use the OVF almost exclusively but this has turned out not to be the case. With regard to the M10 I'm beginning to hope that the camera has a (state of the art) EVF with an M mount. This will allow older M lenses to be used on the camera as well as newer lenses that are not hindered by a rangefinder system. This thread has made me realise that I have been putting up (for years) with the small M viewfinder that only allows me to see 35mm and 50mm framelines, when wearing spectacles, in order to get a small camera body with excellent lenses. I've had a Visoflex on a T camera, and I will never use an add-on viewfinder again. Even if the new digital M manages to finally get the form factor of the film M, it may be too little too late for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1144 Posted January 10, 2017 There is an essential difference between two groups of users: Those who want to see the world through the viewfinder and those who want to see the image in the viewfinder. Basically that is the division between Leica M (and other rangefinder cameras) users and TTL viewfinder users. If you are in the latter group an EVF camera will obviously be the better choice for you. However, that is not the target customer group for a Leica M. It is not just a matter of viewing quality, the most important difference is the fact that an optical viewfinder has all components in focus demanding visualisation of the image by the photographer, whereas an EVF (Or SLR) will already be in the stage that the lens has been separating the focus plane, presenting the image as it will be taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1145 Posted January 10, 2017 Very well put. However, it seems as there a lot of people who wants the Leica M not because of its characteristics and capabilities, but because it is "the" Leica.... There is an essential difference between two groups of users: Those who want to see the world through the viewfinder and those who want to see the image in the viewfinder. Basically that is the division between Leica M (and other rangefinder cameras) users and TTL viewfinder users. If you are in the latter group an EVF camera will obviously be the better choice for you. However, that is not the target customer group for a Leica M. It is not just a matter of viewing quality, the most important difference is the fact that an optical viewfinder has all components in focus demanding visualisation of the image by the photographer, whereas an EVF (Or SLR) will already be in the stage that the lens has been separating the focus plane, presenting the image as it will be taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1146 Posted January 10, 2017 Or there are a lot of people loving M lenses in the first place. Some of them prefer rangefinders but others would be perfectly happy with an EVIL designed for M lenses. As long as they don't call it an M i don't mind at all but would Leica be interested in such an EVIL w/o choosing an L mount for it, this is the question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oronet commander Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1147 Posted January 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very well put. However, it seems as there a lot of people who wants the Leica M not because of its characteristics and capabilities, but because it is "the" Leica.... I don't agree. A lot of people just wants the size and quality of M-lenses regardless of OVF/EVF. No need to go for "the Leica" cliché. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1148 Posted January 10, 2017 Or there are a lot of people loving M lenses in the first place. Some of them prefer rangefinders but others would be perfectly happy with an EVIL designed for M lenses. As long as they don't call it an M i don't mind at all but would Leica be interested in such an EVIL w/o choosing an L mount for it, this is the question. Why, out of interest, would it trouble you if it were called an M? Is it out of a sense of historical propriety? My feeling is that, as with virtually all words, "M" has changed its meaning over time and now denotes the whole system. If anything it is not so much the viewfinder as the lenses that distinguish the M system from others, but that's just a matter of personal opinion. But really, is the name that important that it should influence the nature of the camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CYBORA Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1149 Posted January 10, 2017 I would like to see electronic shutter up to 1/16000 , the accuracy of the exposure metering and auto white balance capabilities of the SL in the next M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1150 Posted January 10, 2017 In that scenario the road that Leica has chosen by optimizing the SL as well as possible for M lenses appears to be a wise one - now the only thing to do is to shrink the SL and make it a bit of an M lookalike. Or, maybe, even better, an R4 lookalike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1151 Posted January 10, 2017 I hope, at least, that Leica makes a chrome base grip for the chrome body this time around. I think the black grip on the silver body makes it look cheap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1152 Posted January 10, 2017 In that scenario the road that Leica has chosen by optimizing the SL as well as possible for M lenses appears to be a wise one - now the only thing to do is to shrink the SL and make it a bit of an M lookalike. Or, maybe, even better, an R4 lookalike. QM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anickpick Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1153 Posted January 10, 2017 To me, the real juwels are the M lenses. And to me, the OVF of the M is a joyful experience. My most used lenses on the M are the 28 Lux and the 50 Lux (where the OVF of the M shines). I thought that might be different with the SL, but it is not really. I do hope for four things for the coming Ms: - most importantly: Do not dismiss the rangefinder OVF - a better EVF (no time lags, blackouts) in the next M for the occasional use of very wide and longer M lenses - a better sensor (dynamic range and high ISO) - option for electronic shutter (I do not like to use nd filters when shooting fast lenses wide open in bright daylight) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1154 Posted January 10, 2017 QM Which would, obviously, eat into M sales by attracting the M users Typ II. As long as the RF-M remains avalaible for the M usersTyp I, I see no objection. Leica would be happy - they would sell more cameras overall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1155 Posted January 10, 2017 Why, out of interest, would it trouble you if it were called an M? Is it out of a sense of historical propriety? My feeling is that, as with virtually all words, "M" has changed its meaning over time and now denotes the whole system. If anything it is not so much the viewfinder as the lenses that distinguish the M system from others, but that's just a matter of personal opinion. But really, is the name that important that it should influence the nature of the camera? It would trouble me if the rangefinder would die and a good way to kill it is to give its name to sans rangefinder cameras. Why on earth should Leica be giving the same name to rangefinders and sans rangefinder cameras? Let alone if the latters have not an M mount. Why not calling a compact mirrorless camera CSL or QL or anything else than M? There are 19 (?) letters other than M in the alphabet aren't they. I sense a desire of killing the father in this recurrent question . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1156 Posted January 10, 2017 It would trouble me if the rangefinder would die and a good way to kill it is to give its name to sans rangefinder cameras. Why on earth should Leica be giving the same name to rangefinders and sans rangefinder cameras? Let alone if the latters have not an M mount. Why not calling a compact mirrorless camera CSL or QL or anything else than M? There are 19 (?) letters other than M in the alphabet aren't they. I sense a desire of killing the father in this recurrent question . I was thinking it would still have an M mount. Rather like a car can have have diesel, petrol or other engines but is identified by the body, I thought it might actually help the M to have variants that enable people to choose the features that they personally consider most essential to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1157 Posted January 10, 2017 It would trouble me if the rangefinder would die and a good way to kill it is to give its name to sans rangefinder cameras. Agreed... Only a week to go! Much as I find the idea of a QL interesting, I have the strong feeling that my next M will be an M, that it will have a rangefinder based focusing system and that any electronic VF will be an add on. I'm happy with this. I get the style of framing and shooting that I love for core FLs from 28-75 and I have the option of some extra help with long lenses and accurate framing with 21 and wider. As the vast majority of my work with the M is shared between 28/35/50 what's not to like? And, as I'm sure is the case for many of us here, if we feel a need for a different tool for different purposes (medium format / AF / zooms etc) we just use another system! I want the M to remain an M, not because I'm a fan boy or for reasons of nostalgia, but because I take better pictures with manually focused prime lenses and with a camera that I can carry anywhere without being inhibited by weight or bulk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1158 Posted January 10, 2017 Agreed... Only a week to go! Much as I find the idea of a QL interesting, I have the strong feeling that my next M will be an M, that it will have a rangefinder based focusing system and that any electronic VF will be an add on. I'm happy with this. I get the style of framing and shooting that I love for core FLs from 28-75 and I have the option of some extra help with long lenses and accurate framing with 21 and wider. As the vast majority of my work with the M is shared between 28/35/50 what's not to like? And, as I'm sure is the case for many of us here, if we feel a need for a different tool for different purposes (medium format / AF / zooms etc) we just use another system! I want the M to remain an M, not because I'm a fan boy or for reasons of nostalgia, but because I take better pictures with manually focused prime lenses and with a camera that I can carry anywhere without being inhibited by weight or bulk. Yes, this is what I want too, for the same reasons. But I'd be quite happy for there to be an EVF version of the same M for those who'd like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1159 Posted January 10, 2017 Stole this one from a Facebook account 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=3183145'>More sharing options...
Hey You Posted January 10, 2017 Share #1160 Posted January 10, 2017 Doesn't appear to be slimmer . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.