Leica M 10

[Distagon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem is that the technology does not exist.

 

That's why we have engineers. 

[Distagon]

As I understand it a lot of work went into the concept of a hybrid with a proper mechanical rangefinder and as far as I remember it there were two main problems

1. that it was impossible to get the EVF there without compromising the OVF

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.

 

Thanks very much for this.  It's really valuable to have this sort of insight into the decision-making.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Peter H]

Yes, Leica patented that concept in 2015.

(But perhaps your question was rhetorical!)

 

 

Which is why there was some reason to hope that the next M might have been a OVF/rangefinder/EVF hybrid.

 

I still hope for one.

 

Until then the X-Pro 2 is the closest we have, and it is excellent and I believe still far too easily dismissed and under-rated. But as you suggest, while it has  both OVF and EVF which perform wonderfully together, the rangefinder element is an electronic simulation and I find it's far better to use either its very capable autofocus, or very easy and accurate manual focus by means of magnification and/or focus peaking, as with the SL. Using these focussing methods through an OVF is a joy, and using autofocus whilst being able to see outside the frame-lines (which are more controllable than the M's)  is a revelation.

 

It sounds complicated but it's the opposite, and combines many of the best elements of the M and SL, which ought to be Leica's game.

[jpattison]

 

It sounds complicated but it's the opposite, and combines many of the best elements of the M and SL, which ought to be Leica's game.

 

 

Then we would have only one camera... the ML.

I don't want this; an M and an SL is the ideal kit, especially if you have R glass and still use R cameras. I have an SL2 by the way...

 

John

[Peter H]

Then we would have only one camera... the ML.

I don't want this; an M and an SL is the ideal kit, especially if you have R glass and still use R cameras. I have an SL2 by the way...

 

John

I don't want an SL.

 

So we're all different, as we keep agreeing.

 

Leica seem to have made a success of delivering M cameras that appeal to specific tastes such as the monochroms and screenless variants without undermining the core M camera. I'd like an M without having to buy an SL or similar. One that doesn't take anything away from anyone else. That's all.

[Tailwagger]

It's exactly because it's fairly rarely that I need an EVF,  but when I do it's very helpful, that a small clip-on one is a good solution for me.

 

While I generally concur, it has occurred to me that the downside is the lack of forward or backward compatibility.  An M10 would be a second body for me after the 240, its a little annoying that an add on is not truly independent of the body in the same way an optical finder is.    

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fundamentalists however, would hate the idea of an EVF M... just is case it 'depurifies' the M concept and tempts people away from the one true faith...

 

Blasphemy!  This is revisionist fundamentalism. M8, 9, 10, 37, matters not.  Digital of any kind is the devil's work.   

[Tailwagger]

As I understand it a lot of work went into the concept of a hybrid with a proper mechanical rangefinder and as far as I remember it there were two main problems

1. that it was impossible to get the EVF there without compromising the OVF

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.

 

The implication being that spending a huge amount on R&D for something which was going to compromise the Rangefinder and produce a result not as good as the Fuji wasn't a grand idea!

 

 

Thanks for this helpful explanation Jono.

 

Theoretically, then, it might be possible to have a hybrid viewfinder in a Q or SL-based body. There may not be the demand, and there may be any number of technical and economic drawbacks, but it's interesting to ponder on the possibility.

 

Conversely, number 1 above  does not seem to preclude a pure EVF based rangefinder.  Perhaps with the same technical and economic concerns.  But I'd certainly be interested, implementation details depending of course, in having a OVF RF body and a complimentary EVF RF one.  Doesn't bother me that the latter isn't a hybrid.   

[fursan]

I do not understand why rangefinder lovers, would even want an EVF. Hybrid or otherwise.

Are they ( the rangefinder users ) missing something?

[pop]

I do not understand why rangefinder lovers, would even want an EVF. Hybrid or otherwise.

Are they ( the rangefinder users ) missing something?

There is no shoe for every occasion. Why should there be a camera or even a finder?

 

My preferred mode of taking photographs is with the M and its RF. Failing that, I still prefer using the M with its glorious lenses but with an EVF. But for the cost of the interface I would also like using the M for tethered shooting. I have even been known to use the rear display for taking a photograph.

[Tailwagger]

I do not understand why rangefinder lovers, would even want an EVF. Hybrid or otherwise.

Are they ( the rangefinder users ) missing something?

 

To my mind having the ability to see beyond the frame of capture is as valid in a EVF context as it is in an optical one.

[fursan]

Oh, but there is.

 

I use my Nikon for everything. Quite liberating actually.

[Peter H]

I do not understand why rangefinder lovers, would even want an EVF. Hybrid or otherwise.

Are they ( the rangefinder users ) missing something?

 

 

I don't understand why it's hard to understand why some people might like both.

 

They are different ways of seeing the world. That is something that interests me, and one reason why I'm a photographer.

[pico]

I do not understand why rangefinder lovers, would even want an EVF. Hybrid or otherwise.

Are they ( the rangefinder users ) missing something?

 

Speaking only for myself, the optical viewfinder has become more difficult over the

years. In my case, over fifty years of M use. We cannot reverse age.

 

So obviously some of us have grown weary of the optical viewfinder and welcomed an alternative,

and now with improved viewfinder I might change my mind. I'm not quite ready

to buy an M10 until I can try one. If it is terrific, I'll get two of them.

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by pico

[fursan]

Peter.

Of course, I can see why people would like to use both systems.

I like to use what gets the job done for me; or gives me pleasure.

 

It is only that a lot of users in this thread are bemoaning the lack of evf, while others want no part of it.

I use multiple systems myself inc. Leica M.

 

pico.

 

A very considered and appreciated response.

 

Best regards to both of you.

[Bill Livingston]

I simply don't understand why people want to take away the rangefinder from those of us who truly like shooting with one - fortunately I trust Leica not to do this. . .  

 

 

 

I don't know anyone who wants to take the rangefinder away from the M... Has anyone actually said that?

 

I like shooting with an OVF too... but I don't see why having an alternative EVF M body as a choice for some new customers, or for those of us who would like a second body in their system where they could gain benefit where they see it would help. It wouldn't appeal to every M user, just as the MM and 246 don't appeal to everyone... But we have many users on here who have both an M9 and an MM or a 240 and a 246... 

 

I personally would prefer an EVF M to a hybrid, I would think each would compromise the other and I don't see the point... but I DO understand why for some people that would be a possible solution. If Leica looked into that far enough to have gone to documenting it, they too have considered it seriously... but considering is wise, going ahead with the idea is a different matter altogether.

 

An M with a L mount?

 

As IkarusJohn pointed out, you then start to think about AF and we are back in the whole circular argument again... along with the 'I can use an SL for that...' But what if you wanted the same body, with controls in the same place and using all the same accessories, battery and so on.. so that in use you can forget which camera you have and just get on and take pictures rather than mentally have to readjust to the changed haptics

 

The only option is an M type body that allows that, is the M body shape... and I personally wouldn't want to use an M body with AF lenses... imagine the new L mount 50 1.4 on an M..? Or either of the two zooms?  They would look ridiculous... So what then? Yet another new range of lenses... there are too many already.

 

So why not let the decades of wonderful Leica glass be used on a digital Leica M and the user chooses whether he wants an OVF or an EVF (or both), at the point of purchase...?

 

As I have said before, I would love an M with the same or better EVF of the SL in the current body, to use with my M lenses alongside my existing M. Those of you who have used your Noctilux or 75 Summilux with an SL, how much easier was it to use than on your M? What are your results like compared with your M OVF? Did you hit focus more or less often? Do those (expensive) lenses get more or less use?

 

If there was no difference, why worry, you have no need of one. But if there WAS a difference, would you have bought an EVF M rather than the SL if the choice was there at the time...?

 

Or did you buy the SL for AF...? 

 

Or did you buy it because it was the only game in town that was capable of zoom, close up, and other SLR type attributes because, and in the end, you are not really a rangefinder person... but love Leica?

 

Or did you buy it because you loved the way it worked and could see the benefit of a 24-90 zoom and AF as a single lens solution for travel/holidays? 

 

All equally valid reasons.

 

Many have both an M and an SL. What I am proposing is exactly the same... except I would choose two M bodies as I'm not too interested in lumping about the SL, especially on travel and holidays... much as love the camera.

 

I love the way the M handles, but I would love the option to use the SL type EVF built into the M body in order to use my current and future M system lenses. Thats doesn't sound all that radical to me... 

 

An EVF M body, and lets go an extra step, with a small, manual focus 24-90 M sized and quality lens, would make a fabulous travel/reportage camera. I don't care if corrections are in the digital domain or analogue... although optical (analogue) would mean a VERY expensive and probably prohibitively large lens as a result... So fine, make it digitally corrected. Not everyone needs to buy it. Certainly not the 'fundamentalists ( )The Q does that well for a 28mm 1.7 and its pretty small. Who really cares about how it is corrected if it meets its desired target audience.

 

Maybe what I want is an M camera, with Leica M4 appearance and build, with M4 haptics, in a digital camera, with OVF and EVF options, that accepts all the M lenses from the past, that I can buy once and just keep...

 

The M10 takes care of the OVF half of this. All I would like now is the EVF half... the M10E, to go along with the 'almost certain to follow', M10P and the M10M and perhaps even an M10D

 

Thats four or five neat M10 series cameras covering pretty much everyones needs. How many 240 variants did we eventually end up with... (not including the Kravitz and the Safari...)? 

 

Not much to ask, is it?

Edited January 20, 2017 by Bill Livingston

[Guest )-(]

FWIW I would use the EVF with my R lenses, i prefer them for dedicated landscape scenarios, or macro.

 

That's about it though, I like the bright line optical viewfinder accessory for 21mm.

 

It just makes a single digital body possible without compromising the camera as an M body imo. I thought the M240 would be this but found the EVF next to useless, finding myself just scale focussing rather than use it.

 

If the rangefinder experience isn't satisfying anymore, I'd suggest avoiding the worlds most expensive digital rangefinder camera.

[Bill Livingston]

Clearly, people still don't understand that it is perfectly possible to have BOTH.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm so confused by the views on here and who would like what, maybe a poll would be useful? We could also make it totally anonymous and add age groups into it. Then present the results as a total and with individual age groups... it might be very interesting to see what the outcome would be on a poll of Leica forum users. 

[IkarusJohn]

I doubt it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Simple. Do we prefer two bodies or one body and one visoflex in the same bag?