Joshua Lowe Posted January 1, 2017 Share #681 Posted January 1, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't play games with moving goalposts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 Hi Joshua Lowe, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
imants Posted January 1, 2017 Share #682 Posted January 1, 2017 I personally would like a digital m rangefinder only ".......restrictive yea but just to have something different the reality is let it evolve into whatever suits Leica ps thank god the goalpost move there is nothing more boring than goal posts that are non events Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 1, 2017 Share #683 Posted January 1, 2017 Only to overcome the inherent limitations of the rangefinder. Name one that hasn't. Bill, I agree with most of what you've been saying. But I'd like to emphasise that whilst a good EVF is attractive because it overcomes the limitations of the rangefinder, a a good rangefinder also overcomes the limitations of an EVF. That is because neither is perfect. And that is the simple (non-confusing) rationale behind having a camera with the ability to use both. One day this may change but that day is too far off to affect the nature of the next M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 1, 2017 Share #684 Posted January 1, 2017 Bill, I agree with most of what you've been saying. But I'd like to emphasise that whilst a good EVF is attractive because it overcomes the limitations of the rangefinder, a a good rangefinder also overcomes the limitations of an EVF. That is because neither is perfect. And that is the simple (non-confusing) rationale behind having a camera with the ability to use both. One day this may change but that day is too far off to affect the nature of the next M. And I agree with you completely. That is why I would keep my M-P 240 for all its advantages and add an M with a built in EVF of the SL standard as soon as that becomes available. No moving goalposts. No conflict of views. Jan 18 will possibly see a new M with the ability to use an updated auxiliary EVF, possibly to the standard of the SL's built in one. We shall see. It will be interesting, but it certainly won't get me rushing out to buy one... I personally don't need a replacement M... but I would like an additional M if it offered something different. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough, or perhaps I am writing too much in order to be clear and the message is being lost as a result. I don't want to lose the optical rangefinder from the M range. But I would like to see an electronic viewfinder version to run alongside it. I doubt I will ever get what I want, but you never know... it's pretty clear from the comments on this thread that I am not alone. What I do know is that Jan 18 will come and go and nothing will have changed for many of us... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted January 1, 2017 Share #685 Posted January 1, 2017 I suspect their lens design capacity has also taken a step forward as well to allow them to deal with AF, OIS and digital corrections, but it is not clear exactly how they've done it. Panasonic I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 1, 2017 Share #686 Posted January 1, 2017 They say themselves "as long as there is demand"... But in the end the question is, of course, what constitutes demand? One a day or one a decade? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 1, 2017 Share #687 Posted January 1, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Panasonic I think. Perhaps. But when Panasonic starts selling lenses like the Apo50 and the Summilux SL it would look more credible! I agree they have bought some technology from Panasonic, but there's more to it than that, or Panasonic would be doing more than just getting Leica's name on some of its own lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 1, 2017 Share #688 Posted January 1, 2017 Panasonic I think. Not sure - I think Leica has the leading technology in this field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 1, 2017 Share #689 Posted January 1, 2017 Which would not be a problem, as other camera systems would replace it. As evidenced by the continued production of Leica's real icon, the film M. Digital Ms are just an electronic derivate of the icon and thus dispensable should the situation arise. It is more than likely that Leica feel it will build the digital M as long as there is an economic rationale to do so - which is something different from their stated policy for the film M - "we will build them as long as there is demand". That seems a bit sad, as though Leica is a mausoleum to film M cameras. I did not say that, Bill. I said that they probably have different criteria for the viability of the film models as opposed to the digital ones. Plus a stronger motivation to continue to offer their heritage model. If only because digital cameras require extensive R&D every few years, whereas film cameras are a fully developed product. They only need to sell one once in a while to keep the line going, nor are they dependent on the fickleness of digital parts supply companies. I don't think any commercial enterpise could continue to exist by conducting industrial production as a charitable exercise, or as an exercise in heritage worship. Leica is not a charitable Non-Government Organisation, nor is it a department of UNESCO. It is a commercial enterprise whose directors have a fiduciary responsibility. Having said that, the film Leicas do represent a mature, perfected and fully amortised design. The profitability of the film M depends only on the marginal unit cost, the fixed costs of maintaining tooling and expertise, and the capital cost of holding a slow-selling inventory. Only a smaller number of film Ms would need to be sold to keep that production capability viable. In contrast, digital Ms - like digital cameras everywhere - are still in active development and their lifecycle economics are different. Each model needs to pay for its development costs over a shorter lifecycle. In a sense, that's intrinsic to digital, for which improved sensor technology can't be purchased by the roll. That does not mean that film Ms are a heritage to which the business must hold fast at all costs: such a policy would be a company-killer, and Leica has had a near-death experience before. Talk of producing film Ms so long as there is demand is a great marketing statement, playing right into the heritage brand cache of the film Ms. But it still just marketing. Demand is a function of price point, so the statement really means the Leica will continue to sell film Ms provided they turn a profit at the given price point: but that is true of any product that is not sold as part of a loss-leading strategy. It also does not mean the digital - patently the future of most photography - are a mere expendible option. The truth is that each must survive on their own commercial merits if Leica is to survive on its own merits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 1, 2017 Share #690 Posted January 1, 2017 That too, but it depends on the size of your Donkey. Interesting euphemism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 1, 2017 Share #691 Posted January 1, 2017 How few film M's would they need to sell per year to decide there was no longer 'sufficient demand'? Alfred Schopf said in a 2014 interview that Leica sold about 1000 film cameras a year, about 60% to Japan...... http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/leica-hails-new-beginning-in-historic-wetzlar-ceo-interview-part-two-5899 Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 1, 2017 Share #692 Posted January 1, 2017 That seems a bit sad, as though Leica is a mausoleum to film M cameras. I don't think any commercial enterpise could continue to exist by conducting industrial production as a charitable exercise, or as an exercise in heritage worship. Leica is not a charitable Non-Government Organisation, nor is it a department of UNESCO. It is a commercial enterprise whose directors have a fiduciary responsibility. Having said that, the film Leicas do represent a mature, perfected and fully amortised design. The profitability of the film M depends only on the marginal unit cost, the fixed costs of maintaining tooling and expertise, and the capital cost of holding a slow-selling inventory. Only a smaller number of film Ms would need to be sold to keep that production capability viable. In contrast, digital Ms - like digital cameras everywhere - are still in active development and their lifecycle economics are different. Each model needs to pay for its development costs over a shorter lifecycle. In a sense, that's intrinsic to digital, for which improved sensor technology can't be purchased by the roll. That does not mean that film Ms are a heritage to which the business must hold fast at all costs: such a policy would be a company-killer, and Leica has had a near-death experience before. Talk of producing film Ms so long as there is demand is a great marketing statement, playing right into the heritage brand cache of the film Ms. But it still just marketing. Demand is a function of price point, so the statement really means the Leica will continue to sell film Ms provided they turn a profit at the given price point: but that is true of any product that is not sold as part of a loss-leading strategy. It also does not mean the digital - patently the future of most photography - are a mere expendible option. The truth is that each must survive on their own commercial merits if Leica is to survive on its own merits. Agree, however the film M cameras represent an immaterial company image value as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 1, 2017 Share #693 Posted January 1, 2017 The M has utilized multiple viewfinders for decades, doesn't seem confused at all.True, at least the first point - "confused" is a matter of opinion. In the context I was using it, adding viewfinders at any stage (M or Leica III), is less than optimal. The camera has a viewfinder, but you have to add another viewfinder to the hotshoe to approximate framing? Those who may feel this is a perfect solution are being less than honest with themselves. Granted, the ideal focal lengths for most photography are in the 28-90 range where an additional vf is unnecessary; but the M is particularly good wider. To add an optical viewfinder to my M cameras to get a vague idea of framing is ... yes, confused. The point many seem reluctant to acknowledge is the great strength of the M system is its lenses. The optical viewfinder, for all its strengths, has significant constraints which would be overcome by the option of an EVF body in M form, with M mount. Such an option would not stop Leica from producing film, OVF, Monochrom or any other M variant. I'm happy with confused. PS - one point which has not been mentioned in some time is that in days of yore, we bought cameras and built systems around thise cameras. With digital, it's the other way round. The cameras are adjuncts to the lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 1, 2017 Share #694 Posted January 1, 2017 I take Leica at face value They will continue to manufacture film Ms whilst there is a demand Nothing complicated about that The same is true of all their other ranges Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted January 1, 2017 Share #695 Posted January 1, 2017 Perhaps. But when Panasonic starts selling lenses like the Apo50 and the Summilux SL it would look more credible! I agree they have bought some technology from Panasonic, but there's more to it than that, or Panasonic would be doing more than just getting Leica's name on some of its own lenses. The 24-90 and 90-280 where made with some help from Panasonic. I am not so sure about the SL 50/1,4. Maybe that's why the AF is slower on the Summilux. [emoji6] More seriously, I think it is only slower because of the weight of the lenses that have to moved inside the 50/1,4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 1, 2017 Share #696 Posted January 1, 2017 Yep, it's been a downward spiral since the late 1800's. Jeff That's not the point that my admittedly hastily worded post on new Years Eve was alluding to...but I think my original statement is clear enough if people care to read it properly and think. Sure, on a mundane level, who doesn't want the process of taking photos to be easier - but it comes at the expense of something far more interesting, and on a much deeper level... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle Posted January 1, 2017 Share #697 Posted January 1, 2017 I'm actually shocked at the current number of options that Leica offers... Just with regards to cameras that take M lenses... - A digital M with live view - A digital M with a display but no live view - A digital M with no display at all - A digital monochrome M - An mirror-less EV full frame camera with autofocus that also takes M lenses My 262 meets my own personal needs, but I certainly see why it wouldn't meet many (or most) other's needs. I just wanted a digital M6, plain and simple. I opted for the 262 over the M-D because I trust myself not to let the screen distract from the experience, and the screen was free. But it's hard to imagine that Leica will just go and drop the digital M experience, rangefinder and all. No clue if the M10 will have a rangefinder. Regardless, I sort of doubt that they drop digital rangefinders altogether. Even if the M10 doesn't have a rangefinder, if it sports a sensor with better low-light performance, or maybe more resolution, or whatever, I bet that will make its way into some future digital rangefinder in the future. - Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 1, 2017 Share #698 Posted January 1, 2017 True, at least the first point - "confused" is a matter of opinion. In the context I was using it, adding viewfinders at any stage (M or Leica III), is less than optimal. The camera has a viewfinder, but you have to add another viewfinder to the hotshoe to approximate framing? Those who may feel this is a perfect solution are being less than honest with themselves. Granted, the ideal focal lengths for most photography are in the 28-90 range where an additional vf is unnecessary; but the M is particularly good wider. To add an optical viewfinder to my M cameras to get a vague idea of framing is ... yes, confused. The point many seem reluctant to acknowledge is the great strength of the M system is its lenses. The optical viewfinder, for all its strengths, has significant constraints which would be overcome by the option of an EVF body in M form, with M mount. Such an option would not stop Leica from producing film, OVF, Monochrom or any other M variant. I'm happy with confused. PS - one point which has not been mentioned in some time is that in days of yore, we bought cameras and built systems around thise cameras. With digital, it's the other way round. The cameras are adjuncts to the lenses. Confused is actually a state of mind . Well, I didn't originally like using a 21mm viewfinder on top of my camera, but ..... I've not only got used to it , I actually rather like it, partly I suppose because you can keep both eyes open and see around it and figure what's going on. I have a recent shot which was taken on the 21SEM and which was only possible because I saw the moving elements which made it work starting to coalesce outside the frame with my other eye and shot two frames as I predicted they would actually do so - the first was of course, the shot. The great strength of the M system is its wonderful lenses. The Achilles' Heel of the M system is its dumb lenses. An insoluble problem I'm afraid. The viewfinder has the same constraints as it has had for decades and yet we've continued to use it. Confused? Today cameras and lenses are interlinked; neither is built around the other; they are mutually conversant with each other. As is the M but in a very different manual, mechanical way. More confusion. But suggesting modifying an iconic design when there are potentially better solutions becoming available confuses me no end. Happy New Year - it will no doubt be an interesting one . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 2, 2017 Share #699 Posted January 2, 2017 Well, I didn't originally like using a 21mm viewfinder on top of my camera, but ..... I've not only got used to it , I actually rather like it, partly I suppose because you can keep both eyes open and see around it and figure what's going on. I don't see how this is an advantage of a bolt-on optical viewfinder. Does anyone close one eye to look at Live View? Is there any reason why one couldn't also keep both eyes open to use a bolt-on EVF like the Visoflex Typ 020, or even the Leica Q's built-in EVF? The only problem I could foresee would be using an EVF at night or in very high contrast scenes, those being known weaknesses of current EVF technology with its limited exposure range compared to the human visual system. I've always thought the bolt-on optical viewfinders an extraordinarily clunky solution. They are expensive. They are just another tunnel viewfinder, giving only an approximation of what the sensor will actually see through the lens. With the exception of the Frankenfinder, they cater for only one focal length, two if the user guess-timates. They are yet another item to carry and lose. They completely defeat the technical innovation of the combined viewfinder-rangefinder, taking one back to a 1930s solution with separate focusing and composition interfaces. I take your point about growing to enjoy the use, but they really are a clunky solution to work around the inherent limitations of the viewfinder-rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 2, 2017 Share #700 Posted January 2, 2017 OVFs are just optical. Nothing to do with mini TV sets like EVFs. Real vs virtual, matter of tastes as usual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.