Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 4, 2017 Share #941 Posted January 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why should I? I'm utterly outdated myself.i know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 Hi Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Distagon Posted January 4, 2017 Share #942 Posted January 4, 2017 I agree. It's only relatively recently I came to realise that the performance of an EVF depended on a complexity of factors. I'm sure a new M will have a processor in advance of the M and TL, and possibly the SL as well. I suspect it will have a Maestro II series processor similar to the SL, which manages a very handy refresh rate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 4, 2017 Share #943 Posted January 4, 2017 Correct. If the masses are expecting a new M with a rangefinder then they are going to be disappointed........ If you're saying what I think you're saying, I'll be ordering my next Leica M on 18 January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 4, 2017 Share #944 Posted January 4, 2017 there going to be disappointed then Having recently been gifted one of these comrade, it seems unlikely that I will ever find any Leica disappointing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted January 4, 2017 Share #945 Posted January 4, 2017 Fuji managed to get a lot of things right............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 4, 2017 Share #946 Posted January 4, 2017 No more new cameras in the Williams household............I'm cool with what I've got Bill If the M10 speck is what I've been told it is I'll have one shipped to my B2B and have him hand carry it to me in Nigeria in time for my safari........... exciting Well, that lasted all of 4 days. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 4, 2017 Share #947 Posted January 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fuji managed to get a lot of things right............. Indeed. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266426-leica-m-10/?do=findComment&comment=3179062'>More sharing options...
pico Posted January 4, 2017 Share #948 Posted January 4, 2017 Except that the Fuji is not really 6x9cm. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 4, 2017 Share #949 Posted January 4, 2017 Except that the Fuji is not really 6x9cm. . That's true of a lot of MF film systems. But still a lot bigger than digital systems these days that purport to be MF. Even so, I'm anxious to test the GFX, even if a mere 43.8 x 32.9 mm. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #950 Posted January 4, 2017 I'm sympathetic to that idea, but am bothered that any camera not optimised for M lenses would not perform as well with them. In particular, all mount adapters introduce alignment errors, and image edges can be soft or hued without optimal micro-lensing for the M glass. For me, there's not much point in being invested in M glass if the sensor can't deliver the results of which the glass is capable. So I like the concept, agree that there is a strong argument for Leica to use the L mount, but I wouldn't buy it. Go back and re-read this thread. The problem with M lenses is that they are 'dumb' lenses which cannot communicate with the camera except to tell it what they are (if coded). This means that regardless of whether adapters are used or a native M mount, M lenses can only be 'optimised' to a limited extent. Lenses for an L mount can be fully 'intelligent' and relay lens data including focal length, aperture used and distance focussed on. Why would a manufacturer limit a camera to a bayonet (M) that cannot communicate with lenses when a newer bayonet can accommodate both intelligent lenses or 'dumb' ones using an adapter. You are mistaking optical excellence for ability to deliver image 'quality'. In the future its about integrated software and optical design - you may not like this but it is the way manufacturers will have to go to keep lenses to viable prices. FWIW and as far as I can ascertain, the prime requirement of 'lenses designed for digital' is the ability to produce an extremely flat image which is projected onto the sensor as perpendicularly as possible (a very simplified way of putting it). This appears to produce distortions which are easier to correct in software than optically. Unfortunately M lenses don't do this, or its mostly the latest that can, so they may well be eclipsed by lenses that do/will. And sensor micro-lenses are always a compromise too. And FWIW a well built adapter really shouldn't introduce alignment errors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 4, 2017 Share #951 Posted January 4, 2017 You are mistaking optical excellence for ability to deliver image 'quality'. In the future its about integrated software and optical design - you may not like this but it is the way manufacturers will have to go to keep lenses to viable prices. It's a sorry state of affairs but I am afraid I think you are right about this. The Fuji lenses which everybody raves about do produce pretty good images but only after being heavily corrected. The M lenses however on the X-Pro2 with an adapter produce great images without software correction. Yet another example of how digital is taking over from reality and true craft is being lost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 4, 2017 Share #952 Posted January 4, 2017 Why would a manufacturer limit a camera to a bayonet (M) that cannot communicate with lenses when a newer bayonet can accommodate both intelligent lenses or 'dumb' ones using an adapter. Perhaps because, after six decades and counting, Leica is not only continuing to produce and sell lenses based on this dumb mount, but continues to introduce new designs based on it as well. That would seem incentive enough to provide bodies that are designed to support it natively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 4, 2017 Share #953 Posted January 4, 2017 I'd have to ask the question of myself, would I be interested in a Leica EVF based camera that is not 'optimised' for M lenses. I've already dismissed other cameras because the M lenses don't perform as well as they do when mounted on an M body. Clearly my answer then would likely be unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 4, 2017 Share #954 Posted January 4, 2017 That's true of a lot of MF film systems. But still a lot bigger than digital systems these days that purport to be MF. So very true! I am an MF chauvinist. The only 6x9cm I respect is the original Plaubel Veriwide, and of course my own 6x9 + 3cm, AKA 47mm Super Angulon f/5.6 over 4X5 inch and any universal adapters to smaller formats. This is the steel successor to my very early wooden version show here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 4, 2017 Share #955 Posted January 4, 2017 The M (and SL, for that matter) sensors are optimised for the challenges of M lenses. They are the only full frame sensors which effectively do this, in my experience. Communication by the lenses to the camera (other than the coding for such in camera corrections as may be built into the foirmware) is surely not that critical. What other optimisation is needed? One of the criticisms of the SL system (criticism which I don't really accept) is that the SL lenses are not as optically corrected as the M lenses, relying instead on software correction. The point of this discussion has been largely developments in the M camera to maintain its position in the Leica line-up, and the extent to which the camera can be developed further. I'm not sure how the M lenses being "dumb", though as optically perfect as Lecia can make them, fits into this. Surely the issue is no more than making the most of the lenses we have. Increasing communicaiton between lens and camera is the subject for another system. While I agree with Jono wholeheartedly, putting an L mount into an M form factor crosses the Rubicon for me. Sure, it's logical, but it opens up an M form factor camera to things which you touch upon which are a long way from the M ethos - "intelligent" lenses, far greater in camera corrections and a whole slew of automation which is well beyond the mechanical and manual simplicity of the M system. An M camera with a built in EVF liberates the camera from the constraints of the optical viewfinder (at a cost too high for many, it has to be acknowledged - they will stay with the core OVF models), but the fundamental functionality of aperture on the lens barrel, manual focus, aperture priority should, in my view, remain. I'm sure Leica understands this, as the release of the M(262) models shows. If such a camera has an L mount, the only reason for doing this is to enable the use of SL and TL. That means AF and a whole lot of other things that have nothing to do with the M system. It's really nothing more than a smaller SL. The M mount and sensor already exist; all such a new camera would require is the removal of the optical focusing and framing aid (the coupled rangefinder) in favour of an EVF. An L mount would be an entirely different kettle of fish. It would effectively become an SL in a smaller body - why would Leica do that? You can already very successfully mount M lenses on the SL; why make what is just a smaller version? It seems to me that the size of the SL and its lenses wasn't an accident nor was it an overlooked consequence of the specification for the camera. It is a coherent system, and its size, shape and weight (and those of its lenses) will have been carefully considered. While conceptually, putting an L mount on an EVF M camera body superficially makes sense, I think it would be a very odd thing to do. I don't see the point in doing that at all. As for making the TL full frame, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". What's driving this concept for me (and I have been raising this issue for some years now) is maximising the use of the M lenses in a coherently developed M body - the optical viewfinder has limits which the M lenses do not. Yes, they are "dumb"; they do not communicate with the camera, except through the coding and rangefinder coupling. But, their optical performance is better than that. My view is that the current M design has reached its peak. Adding a second (or third, if you accept Steve's point about using the LCD) viewfinder is historic, but it is a compromise - the SL does this so much better. I agree with Peter's concerns that this will, long term, sideline the traditional M system. An EVF version, to my mind, will not. Consider this - a buyer has the option of an APS-C AF camera (in the very groovy TL package), a full frame AF system (in the large, and for many too heavy SL system), or the compact manual M system with 60 years of lenses to choose from in 8 different variants. That last one has the benefit of an optical coupled rangefinder, but to get the most out of the lenses (macro, framing, focus magnification etc), you need to add a clip-on EVF. For many that is fine, but I think Leica sells itself short. Having an M camera where you don't need to add an external viewfinder to accurately check framing, exposure, focus and to have a movable patch, resolves the deficiencies that have been in the system since 1954. It's one thing to say that an EVF based camera with an M mount is no longer an M camera (which looks like sophistry to me); it is quite another to make it an L mount - that opens the door to something else altogether. As always, it's not a case of what can technically be added, but what Lieca choses to leave out that makes the difference. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 4, 2017 Share #956 Posted January 4, 2017 Can we still bring up image magnification by turning M lenses' focus rings with an L mount? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 4, 2017 Share #957 Posted January 4, 2017 [...] FWIW and as far as I can ascertain, the prime requirement of 'lenses designed for digital' is the ability to produce an extremely flat image which is projected onto the sensor as perpendicularly as possible [...] That defines the design some of the later Voigtlander lenses, in particular their fast lenses and their 10mm M-mount lens which is the result of uncompromising genius. There has never been such a lens before. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 4, 2017 Share #958 Posted January 4, 2017 But an EVF M camera will of course mean that one will not be able to see around the framelines when planning/composing one's photograph, one of the great advantages of the optical RF system. That doesn't mean that I couldn't find use for an M-lens compatible EVF camera that was more compact than the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 4, 2017 Share #959 Posted January 4, 2017 But an EVF M camera will of course mean that one will not be able to see around the framelines when planning/composing one's photograph, one of the great advantages of the optical RF system. That doesn't mean that I couldn't find use for an M-lens compatible EVF camera that was more compact than the SL. An offset, to the left EVF would allow you to compose with both eyes open. It was one of the things that made the M3 w/50mm lens so useful. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted January 5, 2017 Share #960 Posted January 5, 2017 But an EVF M camera will of course mean that one will not be able to see around the framelines when planning/composing one's photograph, one of the great advantages of the optical RF system. That doesn't mean that I couldn't find use for an M-lens compatible EVF camera that was more compact than the SL. If that's what you want, you can do it with an EVF. Just trim a few mm off the picture in Photoshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.