Leica M 10

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An interesting point. No offense to the goggles and for the record I far prefer the way old school optics draw, but I'd hate to constrain what is possible as a result of having been forced to extend functional backward compatibility to RF optics provided by such lenses.  If you can mount them that should be more than enough... even if they obscure and render the RF unusable and one is forced to use EVF.   Supporting them more fully in the context of the M-D strikes me both as sufficient and more appropriate.

I don't think it's a good idea to introduce a new camera within an existing system which by design excludes some lenses; yes, the digital ones also fail to support some lenses, but I don't think this could have been helped. I still remember how the 135mm Elmarit suddenly became much better to use with the improved RF of the M vs. the M9.

 

On the other hand, you can increase the acuity of a digital rangefinder vs. the opto-mechanical one by simply zooming for longer focal lengths, provided the lenses and/or sensors of the RF cameras are up to the task.

[Advertisement]

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

[Lord Lucan]

Brand new M to be announced on 18th. Our man Dr Rhodes says so.

[Jeff S]

Brand new M to be announced on 18th. Our man Dr Rhodes says so.

 

Covered 3 weeks ago on Rumors site and discussed here....  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266426-leica-m-10/?p=3162871

 

Jeff

[Distagon]

The 69.25mm RF's mechanical base length could be shorter and retain the same accuracy with higher magnification but why doing so in a not so compact body like the M? Could be interesting in a digital CL though.

 

Yes, 69.25 mm.  Thanks for the pick-up.

[pgk]

The 69.25mm RF's mechanical base length could be shorter and retain the same accuracy with higher magnification but why doing so in a not so compact body like the M? Could be interesting in a digital CL though.

 

A shorter rangefinder base would not be as accurate unless all other tolerances were tight enough to be able to cope with it. The CL, as far as I am aware, won't focus longer faster lenses well (do correct me if I'm wrong but the CL 90mm is an f/4 lens) and is not recommended for them - this is potentially even more of an issue on a short optical rangefinder based digital camera. I can't see it being in Leica's interest to change the rangefinder base nor introduce a camera with a shorter one.

[lct]

RF accuracy depends on RF base length and magnification. Hence the difference between mechanical base length and effective base length (EBL) as you know. For example, the effective base length of the M240 is 47.09 mm (69.25mm mechanical base length x 0.68 magnification) vs 63.02mm for the M3 (69.25 x 0.91). I don't remember the CL's data but it's EBL is certainly too short to fit faster lenses than 90/4. 

[Kyros Moutsouris]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And many people think the best way to manually focus an M lens is on an SL body.

 

We live in interesting times, and we have be warned!

...and the rest of us does it on T

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo]

And many people think the best way to manually focus an M lens is on an SL body.

 

We live in interesting times, and we have be warned!

 

The SL is up to now the only EVF-body which supports range-finder lenses by design. It incoperates an extra exposure meter for aperture-estimation and supports lens correction. And the superb viewfinder enabels quick and accurate manual focus. I' believe an autofocus adapter from a third party vendor is coming soon. No need to hazard the consequences of smeared purpel edges in pictures by the other brand

[Peter H]

The SL is up to now the only EVF-body which supports range-finder lenses by design. It incoperates an extra exposure meter for aperture-estimation and supports lens correction. And the superb viewfinder enabels quick and accurate manual focus. I' believe an autofocus adapter from a third party vendor is coming soon. No need to hazard the consequences of smeared purpel edges in pictures by the other brand

 

 

All of this is exactly the point I've been trying to make about the M10.

 

There's something wrong, in my opinion, when for many people the best camera for M lenses is no longer an M. 

[jaapv]

Why is there something wrong? Not all people (and, in fact I suspect only a minority) prefer the SL for M lens use. Freedom of choice is surely a good thing?

[Peter H]

Why is there something wrong? Not all people (and, in fact I suspect only a minority) prefer the SL for M lens use. Freedom of choice is surely a good thing?

 

 

Yes, agreed.

 

But when Leica themselves are capable of making a camera that is in some respects better with M lenses than the M itself, I'd like to see them do everything they can to bring the M up to the same standard.

 

If that's not possible, OK, that shows us the limitations of the M and then we can each make our choices. But at the moment the M hasn't been brought up to date so we aren't in a position to know whether we've reached the limits of its capabilities, but I suspect we haven't. So that's what I mean by something being wrong. Perhaps I could use a more generous word than "wrong", but it would mean the same thing. I'd like to see the M brought up to date.

[LocalHero1953]

All of this is exactly the point I've been trying to make about the M10.

 

There's something wrong, in my opinion, when for many people the best camera for M lenses is no longer an M. 

I don't understand how you would rather have it. If those people are right, then I suspect the only solution is for the M to be permanently fitted with an EVF; after all, the most accurate way to focus a lens is to examine the image it creates - which is what an EVF does. Are you arguing for such an integrated EVF, or a hybrid (hardly the simple M system) or what?

 

(Of course, the "best" way to focus a lens for photography should take account of more than just accuracy: speed, ease of use, ease of focusing on different elements, integration with other camera functions etc)

[lct]

[...] I'd like to see the M brought up to date.

 

If up to date means the same EVF as the SL601 we will see this when pigs can fly i'm afraid. 

[jaapv]

Yes, agreed.

 

But when Leica themselves are capable of making a camera that is in some respects better with M lenses than the M itself, I'd like to see them do everything they can to bring the M up to the same standard.

 

If that's not possible, OK, that shows us the limitations of the M and then we can each make our choices. But at the moment the M hasn't been brought up to date so we aren't in a position to know whether we've reached the limits of its capabilities, but I suspect we haven't. So that's what I mean by something being wrong. Perhaps I could use a more generous word than "wrong", but it would mean the same thing. I'd like to see the M brought up to date.

Ease of use for some people does not necessarily equate better.

[Peter H]

I don't understand how you would rather have it. If those people are right, then I suspect the only solution is for the M to be permanently fitted with an EVF; after all, the most accurate way to focus a lens is to examine the image it creates - which is what an EVF does. Are you arguing for such an integrated EVF, or a hybrid (hardly the simple M system) or what?

 

(Of course, the "best" way to focus a lens for photography should take account of more than just accuracy: speed, ease of use, ease of focusing on different elements, integration with other camera functions etc)

 

 

I'd like a detachable EVF of the same standard as the SL's. I understand that it may not be possible. I have said ad nauseam that giving the M a top-class detachable EVF alongside its peerless optical viewfinder/rangefinder, together with giving them the the same sensor would make the two cameras parallel in terms of excellence.

 

One would be the optimum agile and capable manual focus camera, the other would be the optimum versatile platform for an incredible range of lenses including the wonderful new SL lenses.

 

At the moment it feels to me that people's nostalgic impulses are encouraging Leica to relegate the M to a smaller and less photographically advanced niche than it needs to occupy.

[Bill Livingston]

Ease of use for some people does not necessarily equate better.

Possibly not, but I see exactly what Peter is getting at.

 

Whether or not it would make me change from my M-P 240 for whatever new model is around the corner, is doubtful, I am really happy with my existing M, but it would probably attract new customers to Leica and make life a lot easier for many of the existing owners who struggle on occasions.

 

Not everyone wants a specific camera for a specific purpose... particularly when that secondary use is only on rare occasions. My M is perfect for 90% of the photography I do... but I can't really hand it to someone to use without a long and convoluted lesson... at which point whoever is the recipient of all this additional information says 'why do you bother?' Or hands it back to me shaking their head in bemusement. There are other limitations too, but, frankly, they don't get in the way of the sort of photography I do so they are of little consequence to me. If they were, I would have bought a different camera in the first place.

 

I completely accept that an M is a niche camera and isn't suited to all needs, but making it a little more flexible and easier to use by updating it in a way that doesn't compromise its main purpose surely would increase the potential customer base?

 

I still think an EVF model and a traditional OVF model is the way forward. I'm not bothered about AF, but I would quite like a EVF of the standard in the SL with all the benefits it would bring in using wider or longer lenses easily without adding to the complexity.

 

I would buy a second EVF body to complement my current M-P 240 and use it with either my Summilux 50 Asph and Elmarit 90... or particularly, the SEM 21 I have promised myself at some point in the not too distant future. My M-P 240 could then have the Summilux 35 FLE permanently attached and I would have exactly the system I need and I would find both cameras enjoyable and flexible enough for all my photographic needs.

 

Potential new customers to the M would have a choice of either body to go with the best lenses available... upgrading bodies as funds allow and the improvements justify.

 

I don't really understand why anyone would argue against that...? Would you want to maintain the 'purist' approach even if it means less future M users? As long as the 'purist' body remains available, I don't see how even the most conservative M user could object...

[lct]

Why ordering an SL if one can get a fast M with the same EVF for less? This won't happen as long as the SL stagnates at 24MP i suspect.

[jonoslack]

 

But when Leica themselves are capable of making a camera that is in some respects better with M lenses than the M itself, I'd like to see them do everything they can to bring the M up to the same standard.

 

 

 

Hmm

well, if it's only better in 'some respects' (I agree with this) then perhaps there isn't a standard to bring the M up to (or should the M be better in 'all respects')

For most purposes I'd still much rather use M lenses on an M (and that includes focusing - I think the rangefinder is simply better (but it takes more and frequent practice).

 

I reckon they both have their place, but it's not often that I use the SL with M lenses personally. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

RF accuracy depends on RF base length and magnification. Hence the difference between mechanical base length and effective base length (EBL) as you know. For example, the effective base length of the M240 is 47.09 mm (69.25mm mechanical base length x 0.68 magnification) vs 63.02mm for the M3 (69.25 x 0.91). I don't remember the CL's data but it's EBL is certainly too short to fit faster lenses than 90/4. 

 

RF also depends on mechanical tolerance which has to be within specified limits. Boost the magnification and you shift the tolerance requirement which has to be tighter. Its a trade off. Given that M lenses will have a tolerance, changing the rangefinder has to operate so that this is not pushed outside the new limits which are created. I suspect that what exists now cannot be shifted so we are stuck with the lenses/apertures that we have regardless of rangefinder specifications.

[Bill Livingston]

I agree with Jono. (well, assuming I understand what he is saying!)

 

I don't see why an M version with some of the capabilities of the SL (an EVF of a similar quality) is a problem... it just gives Leicas potential customers a choice... and the SL has many other advantages (even if you don't consider AF an advantage!).

 

There is room for some overlap in technology and Leica will still sell a camera body... (does it really matter which one?), possibly to someone who wouldn't have considered one before... and it would give the impression that the company was moving forward and not just pandering to the 'old guard'... particularly if that 'old guard' still had all their options intact too.