Distagon Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2441 Posted January 21, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) If the rangefinder experience isn't satisfying anymore, I'd suggest avoiding the worlds most expensive digital rangefinder camera. Am I correct in thinking it's the only digital rangefinder in production at the moment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 Hi Distagon, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest )-( Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2442 Posted January 21, 2017 There are the other M options but you're right in that maybe it's a little misleading given the lack of alternatives. Still AUD$9500 is a a substantial amount, the average income in NSW is $80,132 and I think that's gross not net. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2443 Posted January 21, 2017 I do not understand why rangefinder lovers, would even want an EVF. Hybrid or otherwise. Are they ( the rangefinder users ) missing something? simple...because there are certain lenses that cant be used without an EVF...specifically for me macro lenses. So its just the opposite...we are gaining something. I shoot with the rangefinder 80% of the time, but when I want to shoot with a macro lens, the EVF is a great option. Not to mention in certain situations, and EVF is a tool that aids the rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2444 Posted January 21, 2017 simple...because there are certain lenses that cant be used without an EVF...specifically for me macro lenses. So its just the opposite...we are gaining something. I shoot with the rangefinder 80% of the time, but when I want to shoot with a macro lens, the EVF is a great option. Not to mention in certain situations, and EVF is a tool that aids the rangefinder. So obvious. Nothing has changed since the fifties, except that we can have small visoflexes now. Fast visoflex is another story... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2445 Posted January 21, 2017 Still AUD$9500 is a a substantial amount, the average income in NSW is $80,132 and I think that's gross not net. Yep, the price tag really hurts. Addictive drugs like the M ought to have some heavy government regulation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2446 Posted January 21, 2017 This. Jono, thanks for contributing this nugget. It's the best explanation I've seen yet for why a hybrid OVF/EVF couldn't be done for the camera. I don't even think the Fuji implementation is that good. The hybrid is undoubtedly cool and I'm a huge fan of Fuji in general, but the OVF in the X-Pro bodies can be quite inaccurate (to the extent that I found myself using EVF most of the time). And that's with native Fuji glass that transmits lens info. I can just imagine the debacle that would ensue if Leica gave us a hybrid EVF/OVF worse than that. Yikes. I find that the OVF in the current Fuji X-Pro2 is pretty accurate. I also think that their OVF/EVF implementation is brilliant insofar as you always have both at the flip of a switch, and don't need to buy or carry an extra device. There is also a minimal blackout time when using the EVF. The big compromise, however, is that Fuji's viewfinder is much smaller than Leica's M viewfinder, and is now comparatively even smaller with the new M10's enlarged viewfinder. In particular, the view when using the Fuji 23mm (35mm equivalent) lens is about half as big (my estimate) as the view when using a 35mm lens on a Leica M10. So I understand why Leica would not want to go that route. The smaller viewfinder is OK on the Fuji, but would not be an acceptable compromise on the much more costly (and tradition-bound) Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2447 Posted January 21, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm so confused by the views on here and who would like what... As I think we tend to agree on a lot of things, permit me for a moment to risk potentially confusing you further. I'm definitely interested in the M10 and the path it presents. It seems overall to be a more focused and thoughtful design then the previous generation. I do tend to shoot a lot in conditions that would benefit from more DR, the better OVF is appealing as are the improvements in color rendition, halving the base iso, EVF at least a half notch up on my current 240. There is a much to like. OTOH, the change in UI, buying a second EVF, alteration to battery size and capacity, make it feel more like something I'd replace my 240 with rather than compliment it. So while I covet those positives, its by no means a slam dunk. Now if it turns out that the M10, and its inevitable variants, represents Leica's only native platform for M glass, then ultimately, I'm. And if that is the singular, one and only path forward, I honestly don't find that a deeply upsetting prospect. I love the hell out of my current M despite more than a few serious limitations. In the end, it draws like no other digital camera I've ever owned and that means so much more to me than any change to the shooting experience ever could. But if that's not the only path, as long as its a native, no damn adapter, M glass only need apply, then I'm pretty flexible. CL sized, EVF only. Sounds great. EVF-based rangefinder that can switch over to a direct sensor view? Even better. The impossible unicorn hybrid? Best dream of all. I'd be happy to have any of them along side, not replacing, my traditional M, as I think their strengths would compliment each other and improve the useful range of the system in ways that refinements brought to the M10 have not. It is after all, the M system. I see these more modern alternatives to the existing formula for camera bodies as strengthening the system's overall reach and capabilities, not diminishing or diluting them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2448 Posted January 21, 2017 Nope... you may have thought you were taking a risk, but not at all. I am with you on each of these points. Less convinced by a hybrid possibly, but that depends on the execution, not the principle, so if and when one appears, then is the time to judge... My preference for this body type would be direct sensor view (as in the SL) as it would be very different and yet complement the M10... anything else would compete with the M10 in my view and feel a bit of a compromise... but thats just me. Like you, I see the M as a system. That could mean specific bodies for specific applications. Thats why the MM and 246 are there... for M9 or 240 users who only want B&W and appreciate the benefit a dedicated camera can give while retaining the body style and accessories. When the MM was asked for or released, why didnt people worry about whether Leica would discontinue colour digital cameras...? Same thing with EVF and OVF M bodies. Specific body for a specific application/user preference. Some will want one, some will want the other, and some will want both. Just like with the MM and MM2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2449 Posted January 21, 2017 My M10 just arrived and I have to say, the build quality is outstanding. Leica has really succeeded in making the best digital M ever. It looks like they have addressed every single issue I had with the M240. In my case, I want to see how the M10 color rendition is — I started a thread on this, M10 color rendition compared to M9-M240-SL cameras, but it's early days. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2450 Posted January 21, 2017 Simple. Do we prefer two bodies or one body and one visoflex in the same bag? Two bodies. A partial overlap is possible. The M10 accepts the Visoflex. But EVF as primary (only) viewfinder, high quality video (not a mere possibility, but the center of the concept), a different form factor... it means a different camera. The classic (OVF and rangefinder) and the electronic (EVF) M cameras are aimed at different users. One person could buy both of course, but most people would choose one of them. The EVF based M camera shouldn't be a SL plus adapter. The M mount is one reason, but a different reason is the small overall size of the M system. This is they key competitive advantage of the system. Therefore, any M camera has to be small, very small, and as light as possible. The large lenses of the SL require a heavy and large body. That large body may be used with M lenses, but the combo doesn't make much sense. The point is if this is profitable or not for Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2451 Posted January 21, 2017 The M10 pull is strong! I have 3 M9's and I am likely at this point to drop one and pick up an M10 to see how I can use it. The samples I'm starting to see come through are really very good and I think a small notch up from the SL. I can actually really do with the faster frame rate and better buffer too, this has a major influence on my decision. To me it's funny - 5fps seems far less to do with the decisive moment and what the M is about! Dropping important functionality that people have relied on and built a system around, that already exists in the M8, M9 and M240 and then picking up to 5fps and wifi instead is very strange and quite annoying. I also am upgrading medium format at the moment and I think this gives me good reason to go ahead with that now and maybe wait for the M10-P which will possibly going to have different functions, and I really hope access to hard tether, or to see if they develop the M240. But I have a predicament because the M10 does not do what I need it to do in one small but seriously major area: hard tether. I have never had much interest in the M240, but obviously I do now given it's usb and part of me feels I have to vote with my wallet for that. But then it's not giving me much more I need at this point ie. 5fps and such better buffer. Part of me wonders if the change in naming protocol has been by design all along and what we see now is a digital M7. What is going to happen next is exciting but I'm certainly worried that nothing wil happen in so much as developing functionality I need. The temptation is still strong and I may just go with the M10, it will always have a place in my tool box even if limited and may therefore be the last M I will buy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2452 Posted January 21, 2017 Now that Jono has explained why the M can't work well with a Hybrid (thanks Jono) I it makes sense and I agree - I don't want it. I wish Leica would communicate more of this sort of detail to its users! I see the EVF particularly useful in on two specific areas. Finder blockage, especially with the Noctilux, 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron when shooting portraits and such in portrait position. This is a no-brainer for me. Also for wide angle use. I never went with the M240 for the EVF alone, as I consider it a bonus not a necessity. I can focus perfectly well with the OVF. But I would certainly like having the option to use it if its there. Too bad about the excessive black out, I can't help but feel it's a deliberate limit to get you to buy the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2453 Posted January 21, 2017 2. that any sort of overlay (like the Fuji has) relies very strongly on accurate focusing distance analysis together with aperture etc which the lens sends to the camera . . . . . but M lenses can't send this information meaning that it would be impossible to get things like focus confirmation to work well. On the last point, the focusing distance input from a rangefinder lens is at least as good as CDAF, and while the aperture guess in an M is just a wild guess, I don't see where the aperture comes into use in an OVF. I miss two things from the Fuji hybrid that would fit naturally with the M10's OVF mode of operation -- a frame size that accurately reflects the focus distance, shrinking as you focus closer, and a horizon level (the one in the SL is beautiful, the one in the Fuji less so). If the Leica solution is a mechanical frame line. electronically illuminated, and not a projection, then I guess we are indeed stuck. I can live with it, in return for what appears to be a genuine 3 year's worth of sensor upgrade. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mujk Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2454 Posted January 21, 2017 Yes, Leica patented that concept in 2015. (But perhaps your question was rhetorical!) No, I actually missed that. But it's good that Leica holds the patent, so maybe one day we will see an M built in this way. Otherwise it might be time for Leica to make another branch in the M tree, one branch for the OVF M and one for the EVF M. But, coming from an M9 like me, the M10 really seems like a very nice upgrade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 21, 2017 Share #2455 Posted January 21, 2017 No, I actually missed that. But it's good that Leica holds the patent, so maybe one day we will see an M built in this way. It is clear that Leica have moved on with the advent of the L and Q along with a foray into smartphones whatever happens to the M line will be in small increments as seen with the M10. This will continue to frustrate the M owners unless they opt for the two camera system option many have already. Just enjoy what you have ps patents run a fine line and Leica don't own the idea so all is open to other manufacturers but most don't see it as worthwhile to date Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 22, 2017 Share #2456 Posted January 22, 2017 Too bad about the excessive black out, I can't help but feel it's a deliberate limit to get you to buy the SL. Yes, when I first heard that this was still a characteristic of the M's EVF, I thought it might be due to the M's mechanical shutter operating cycle or some such. Now, I realise that the SL has an electronic shutter for very fast (< 1/8000) exposures, but at lower shutter speeds (> 1/8000) is still uses a mechanical shutter to avoid "rolling shutter" effects. Which begs the question: if the SL can implement a superb EVF with trivial blackout using a mechanical shutter, similar sensor and the same processor series, why can't the newer M10 offer the same, trivial blackout? Perhaps there is a good reason but it would be nice to know the answer. It would ever be nicer if there was a firmware fix in the pipeline, which I understand was they way the SL's electronic shutter was deployed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 22, 2017 Share #2457 Posted January 22, 2017 BTW, The SL shutter allows electronic shutter for 1/8000 to 1/16000 exposure times. The SL is designed to be a 'Live View, all the time' system with 11fps still capture and 4K video capture capability. This implies far more optimization and far far faster sensor to system IO throughput than what the M10 is designed for. The SL works with internal interfaces where video/data bus lengths are all optimized for speed and responsiveness. It has enough buffer space to capture up to 33 RAW+JPEG frames at the 11fps rate ...! The M10 is a rangefinder camera with that very expensive opto-mechanical range- and view-finder assembly taking priority in the camera design and manufacturing cost picture. The EVF is an addition to handle edge case needs, not the primary system, so the camera is simply not optimized for the kind of video performance that the SL is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 22, 2017 Share #2458 Posted January 22, 2017 [...] The M10 is a rangefinder camera with that very expensive opto-mechanical range- and view-finder assembly taking priority in the camera design and manufacturing cost picture. The EVF is an addition to handle edge case needs, not the primary system, so the camera is simply not optimized for the kind of video performance that the SL is. So one second blackout time after each shot is normal on a Leica M camera if i understand well. Is this what you mean? If so, the M240 will be definitely my last digital M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted January 22, 2017 Share #2459 Posted January 22, 2017 It is clear that Leica have moved on with the advent of the L and Q along with a foray into smartphones whatever happens to the M line will be in small increments as seen with the M10. This will continue to frustrate the M owners unless they opt for the two camera system option many have already. Just enjoy what you have ps patents run a fine line and Leica don't own the idea so all is open to other manufacturers but most don't see it as worthwhile to date I think it may depend on how many Ms are sold. The line will stay alive as long as people keep buying them. Does anyone here know what fraction of Leica's sales are of the M system? Is more M stuff sold than L stuff? As well, advancements in electronics may drive newer models as has happened with DSLRs. Sensors, CPUs etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 22, 2017 Share #2460 Posted January 22, 2017 I think that's it's great that the M suvives but it will not be Leica's no1. The m10 looks great......... the rangefinder mob are happy others are disappointed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.