Peter H Posted December 18, 2016 Share #421 Posted December 18, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Come on Peter, can't you see I was very gently pulling his leg? Yes of course Edward, but I replied because from experience these things tend to get picked up and misinterpreted and come back to bite us. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 Hi Peter H, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
edwardkaraa Posted December 18, 2016 Share #422 Posted December 18, 2016 I'm sure he did - as was Siangue - My legs are pretty long these days Hence the "very gentle" pull 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 18, 2016 Share #423 Posted December 18, 2016 On my M240 I use EVF only A Q with interchangeable lenses would not be for M users, but many users including myself want small and perfect M lenses, I want to keep using my 50 APO or 28 summilux No problem. A TL sized FF camera with a 6-bit reading adapter would do everything that 'most' (ok some or a few) people want. My point was that an dedicated M camera would be pointless. I still think that even this route is fraught with pitfalls by the MPixel race though. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 18, 2016 Share #424 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) No problem. A TL sized FF camera with a 6-bit reading adapter would do everything that 'most' (ok some or a few) people want. Nobody want adapters and a Sony camera with M lenses Edited December 18, 2016 by siangue Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 18, 2016 Share #425 Posted December 18, 2016 Nobody want adapters and a Sony camera with M lenses Well, the SL to T adapter is small and perfectly formed - you really don't notice it, and the 6 bit coding is passed through seamlessly, so it's really not very different from shooting on an M mount (and you have the lens corrections which you would never have on a Sony . . . . I think a QL is a grand idea (ie a Q with an SL mount). What's more, Leica might even make it (I know nothing other than thinking it's a great idea). However, the chance of them making an EVF based camera with an M mount is vanishingly small (why would they do that?). 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindstrom Posted December 18, 2016 Share #426 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) But there in lies the problem. I don't see any chance of Leica building another camera, besides the M, that uses M-mount. Any other camera would always be using adapter of some sort. Like someone else said ealier, it's all about the wolf and the henhouse. Smaller SL, feasible, not necessarily likely. Full frame TL could be the answer.. it wouldn't immediately kill current TL or make it obsolete and yet would be very different from SL/M/Q. It wouldn't need new mount or lens lineup and could utilize mostly excisting parts (Q sensor in TL body). As far as what comes to Jonos testing, it's pretty much 100% he will part of it. And it's similarly, or even more so, certain that no matter how hard we pull his legs limbs - no nuggets of information will fall out. He's been through the mill a couple of times too many for us to be able to yank information out of him in advance. Tough as nails in these matters I'm afraid. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro Edited December 18, 2016 by jlindstrom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 18, 2016 Share #427 Posted December 18, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) If the specs on Leicarumours are correct, Then we only know that we've lost video and gained an ISO dial and a thinner body . . . . But both of these really beg the real questions: How is the buffer? What's the processing speed like? How good is Live View? What have they done with the menus / options etc.? What's the high ISO like? What's the colour like? And I'd add: the quality of the RF viewing and focusing experience (this was better on the M240, but maybe not yet fully optimized); and the quality of the EVF (detachable?) viewing. The M240 EVF was meh, so my camera remains limited to 28-90 focal lengths using RF (which is fine with me....anything else is gravy). Seeing and focusing on the subject remains paramount for me.....then the rest, all of which (and more....dynamic range, weather sealing, reliability, etc) factor into my assessment. Meanwhile the M240 is the best digital M RF camera I've used. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 18, 2016 Share #428 Posted December 18, 2016 Nobody want adapters and a Sony camera with M lenses Well, quite a few are using them already. I've used a T with M lenses. From MPOV such adaption is always a compromise and one which I personally didn't care for - others may well disagree, and if they are happy to use M lenses manually focussed and with no linkage between aperture and camera (stop down shooting) then so be it. It isn't how I want to operate. But ask yourself this: what advantage does an M mount evf camera offer over a TL mount one with an adapter? Other than form factor? There is no technical difference because there is no further information to relay other than 6-bit coding which is catered for. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 18, 2016 Share #429 Posted December 18, 2016 Well, quite a few are using them already. I've used a T with M lenses. From MPOV such adaption is always a compromise and one which I personally didn't care for - others may well disagree, and if they are happy to use M lenses manually focussed and with no linkage between aperture and camera (stop down shooting) then so be it. It isn't how I want to operate. snip . . But there's no linkage between the Aperture and the Camera with an M camera either - and never has been - there really is no functional difference between an M mount and an SL mount with the adapter which reads the 6 bit coding 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 18, 2016 Share #430 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) Well, quite a few are using them already. There is no other choice Edited December 18, 2016 by siangue Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 18, 2016 Share #431 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) . . But there's no linkage between the Aperture and the Camera with an M camera either - and never has been - there really is no functional difference between an M mount and an SL mount with the adapter which reads the 6 bit coding Absolutely my point. The M camera doesn't need one. Using M lenses on a RF is a completely different way of working. You are not looking through a stopped down lens secondhand through an evf - this just didn't work for me. Look, I can see the logic of backward and even sideways compatibility - this makes good sense as an interim stage of development but as I've repeatedly stated, at the end of the day using an M lens on a digital body is a compromise. My wife has a Sony A6000 which kicks out surprisingly good files. It uses a lot of lens correction and so on. And its pretty cheap at the moment. Add in a truly excellent lens, highly precise data rich adjustment of the image file from a similar camera a few generations further on and the images available will undubtedly be extremely good - and better from more expensive models. Are we really expecting M lenses on evf cameras from Leica which produce files which cannot provide data rich adjustment to compete? I certainly don't. Leica will be able to compete with its new cameras but not with the M nor with M lenses, optically superb as they are. And just as importantly, on an evf camera the capture stage when using M lenses won't compete either. The dRF from Leica will though because its a niche product with an extraordinary and unique history and which will still appeal to a few people (hopefully enough to keep it going for a long time to come). I wonder how many photographers will still buy a Nikon dSLR because of the Nikon F? Probably none. The Leia rangefinder is unique and it will sell because of this if it is retained in production as a camera which does what it is capable of very well. Not because it can compete in an ever advancing digital market place because I very much doubt it can. I hope to continue to use Leica rangefinders until I am the problem and I can't anymore. That's because I like using them not because I expect them to be as good as or better than any other camera on the market. Edited December 18, 2016 by pgk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 18, 2016 Share #432 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) I would expect Leica's future developments to be firmly with the L mount cameras - the TL and SL. I seem to recall some one saying that a Q in other focal lengths isn't going to happen. A QL would be very interesting. As for the L to M adapter, it's great - you hardly notice it, the codes go through, and the camera corrects for M lenses. Photographically, there's no advantage using an M camera with your M lenses over an SL. The only reason I use my M cameras is the size, simplicity and the rangefinder (despite its limitations); oh, and the fabulous Monochrom and the beautiful M60 ... Edit - Paul, we've been here before; you can focus wide open and stop down with the SL if you want to, but it really isn't necessary. Edited December 18, 2016 by IkarusJohn 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 18, 2016 Share #433 Posted December 18, 2016 . Edit - Paul, we've been here before; you can focus wide open and stop down with the SL if you want to, but it really isn't necessary. Thanks John - of course THAT's the problems - except, as you say, it isn't a problem - so little is it a problem that I'd completely forgotten about it whilst using M lenses and an EVF - of course it would be a problem with an SLR where the viewfinder would get dimmer, and it's a bit of an issue with the M240 EVF (because it's poor in poor light), but it's no issue with the T, or the SL - just focus at any aperture you choose to use. . . . . One might even consider it a bonus as you can see what you're actually going to get 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted December 18, 2016 Share #434 Posted December 18, 2016 Photographically, there's no advantage using an M camera with your M lenses over an SL. Hmmm. Between 28 and 75 I would always prefer the M with M lenses. The RF is faster, framing is easier and speed of working is greater for me. Wider or longer the SL clearly had advantagea but I still didn't enjoy the EVF in bright light or against strong light sources. I know that others really like the SL but the combination of size, awkward shape, weight and EVF don't make it an M alternative for me. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 18, 2016 Share #435 Posted December 18, 2016 Hi Jono What is the code name for the new little M10 - Barney? Rick-Iwantone 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 18, 2016 Share #436 Posted December 18, 2016 I do, actually. I'm using the meter less and less. The EVF is so good, I'm judging exposure from what I see in the viewfinder, rather than assessing where I want to meter and using exposure compensation in the traditional way. It's liberating. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 18, 2016 Share #437 Posted December 18, 2016 Hmmm. Between 28 and 75 I would always prefer the M with M lenses. The RF is faster, framing is easier and speed of working is greater for me. Wider or longer the SL clearly had advantagea but I still didn't enjoy the EVF in bright light or against strong light sources. I know that others really like the SL but the combination of size, awkward shape, weight and EVF don't make it an M alternative for me. Each to his own. I like the M cameras betwee 28 and 75 as well, but the framing is less accurate, and setting exposure not as flexible. Focusing on the M is fine, provided your subject is in the middle of the frame. The size of the M will always appeal. Not that I dislike holding the SL, the M is always nice in the hands. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 18, 2016 Share #438 Posted December 18, 2016 This new little Barney is so small that Jono has probably been sneaking around with it in his coat pocket for the last year! Rick-Iwantone 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 18, 2016 Share #439 Posted December 18, 2016 ..... but I still didn't enjoy the EVF in bright light or against strong light sources. A very fair comment. I often do shoot against strong light which may well influence my thinking. I also find that if I focus at an aperture other than the one I want to take the shot at, I forget to change it - did this too often with R lenses on Canon dSLRs too. My incompetence I know, but equally I know I'm not alone in doing this. M lenses on a T or SL probably suit slow and methodical shooters but that's not why I use an M - I want to focus, compose, shoot. More often than not its the first shot that works best and if I fluff the first shot there is all too often no second chance/better result. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 18, 2016 Share #440 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) Hmmm. Between 28 and 75 I would always prefer the M with M lenses. The RF is faster, framing is easier and speed of working is greater for me. Wider or longer the SL clearly had advantagea but I still didn't enjoy the EVF in bright light or against strong light sources. I know that others really like the SL but the combination of size, awkward shape, weight and EVF don't make it an M alternative for me. My highlight. Well...... Yes, framing is easier for some things, taking account of stuff out of the frame, whether you want to bring it into the frame, or whether it might move there of its own accord. But there's a lot to be said for WYSIWYG as well. With the SL I crop and trim far less, partly because of the zoom, but also because I don't have to make allowances for the poor accuracy of the M framelines. (I doubt that they could easily be made better, but that doesn't hide the fact that they're inaccurate). I like both the EVF and OVF - I'm fortunate I can have both, even if they are on separate bodies. (I don't count the M EVF - too slow and loud except for macro). Edited December 18, 2016 by LocalHero1953 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.