wlaidlaw Posted January 5, 2017 Share #981 Posted January 5, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) A Luddite would be closer to a person who pulled the EVF off other peoples' M cameras and then smashed them with a hammer because he disapproved of them. In history the Luddites were a loose grouping of pretty disorganised hand spinners and hand weavers, mainly in the north of England, who realised that the power (mostly water at the time) driven and semi automated carding and spinning machinery, both the early type Arkwright Spinning Jenny but more significantly, the far superior, Crompton's Spinning Mule plus power looms, required a fraction of the labour force to operate them. For example one person could operate up to 4 power looms with Jacquard automatic warp frames, producing cloth at around 10 times the yardage per power loom of the hand loom and a more consistent product as well. So effectively that one operative replaced 40 hand weavers. The Luddites were not anti progress so much as they were frightened of losing their jobs, which pre-workhouse, meant starvation for them and their families. In reality, the textile business, once power machinery had been introduced in the UK, expanded at such an enormous rate between 1780 and 1900, that labour shortages were more of a problem for much of the period rather, than unemployment. My family was in the textile business in Scotland from 1830 to 1964 and I have always been interested in its history. The only locations where hand weaving remained significant, was in places like the Outer Hebrides, where it was a secondary occupation, mainly by the women, to crofting/small scale farming. The picture below is of a painting done in the late 1940's of a carding machine at the main family factory, although the machinery itself dated back to the late 19th century. It would not have been markedly different, other than being somewhat wider, to the water powered machinery of 100 years earlier. The Crompton Spinning Mules are out of sight, behind the worker in the picture. You can still see the big flywheels, which until 1938, when mains electricity arrived in the village, allowing individual electric motors, would have been belt driven from overhead shafting. This shafting was in turn, driven by an 80 horsepower single horizontal cylinder Shanks diesel engine of around 15 litres displacement. Wilson 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=3179596'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
willeica Posted January 5, 2017 Share #982 Posted January 5, 2017 I would agree, you don't need to cram an SL into an M mount body, and I fear it would be just as bulky and heavy with only the mount being the difference. Leica already has an SL and you can use M lenses on it with an adapter. I still have my CL which I bought when it was first announced. I agree with everything you say about the wonderful attributes of it. When the Q came out, my thoughts were 'what a lovely little camera, and wouldn't it be even better to have one with an M mount?' It certainly feels to be a quality piece, even better than the CL, which was certainly not as well put together as the M cameras. To fully exploit your M lenses, such a camera needs to be full frame. That is where cameras such as the Fuji XE-2 and Sony non-full frame models just don't cut it. Jono has argued that a Q type camera with an L mount, using an M adapter which already exists would be the way forward. I agree. Who else would be in the market for such a camera? I think quite a lot of you. As far as the M camera, keep it as an OVF camera. After all, that is what the M is all about. Always has been, always will be. Also remember that trying to make or believe that the M camera can be all things to all people was Leica's problem from long ago. Back in the M3 days, thinking that the Visoflex solved the problem of the M not being an SLR. They pushed the Visoflex system for years, but delayed coming out with a true SLR as the Japanese had done. This was certainly to their detriment in not coming up with the obvious solution and when they did bring an SLR to market, it was over priced and obsolete the day it was introduced. As has been pointed out, Leica currently has quite a few choices as far as the numerous models it has for each system. The interchangeable Q would most likely kill off the T and TL camera line, but would it really be missed? I think a digital CL could certainly be priced even lower than a Q with lens, and it would nicely fill a niche. The other 'problem' Leica has is the dual nature of the company itself. Is it a camera company or a lens company? The simple answer is of course it is both. It seems at times that the company is conflicted to decide who they are. Is the point to sell cameras or to sell lenses? Hence the argument that the CL stole sales from the M5. Really? Or was the M5 a dog (even though it was a fine camera) but was perhaps a bridge too far with the CL only replacing sales that the M5 lost from its lack of market appeal? Years ago, on a dealer trip to Wetzlar, the Leica people asked how they could improve sales. Mind you, this was back in the R5 days. My answer was to offer their best lenses, such as the 100/2.8 APO, in Nikon mount. They looked at me like I had a third eye in my forehead. But why not? They certainly could have sold thousands and added greatly to the bottom line at the time. I say lets start a petition for Leica to make an interchangeable Q camera with L an M mount adapter. And keep the M an OVF. Thanks Bill. A Q with interchangeable lenses and the option of AF or MF would undoubtedly sell, but it would inevitably eat into the sales of the M. Despite the pleas here for OVF only, EVF will continue to improve and we have all accepted electronic screens and everyone posting on this forum must use one to make their posts or view online photos. I would like to see the OVF continue, but at a reasonable price. If an OVF only M became a minority sell, the unit price would have to rise to cover reduced sales. Leica is, I believe, going to announce a separate improved EVF with the next M and I will certainly order one with the camera. An EVF can have a myriad of uses. My last use of one was to focus a 1931 uncoupled 135mm Elmar on my M240. I might also be interested in a Q with interchangeable lenses, but I would like to keep a working modern OVF in my line up, as well as all of those older OVFs in my vintage collection. William Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 5, 2017 Share #983 Posted January 5, 2017 There appears to be a ludditism amongst some and an expectation that traditional optical excellence should produce 'better' images than digitally adjusted ones. Wake up! It isn't so regardless of what you may think. Whereas I can understand and fully accept the inherent limitations of the OVF and hence understand and accept the demand for a state-ot-the-art EVF for the M, in cannot comprehend two things in this statement: 1/ I very well understand that in any lens there is a certain amount of correction for all sorts of aberrations. However I don't see how a mediocre lens which needs to be corrected by software can be better than an excellent optically corrected lens. Surely, whether on a bad, mediocre or excellent lens, if you add software correction, this is an extra layer of manipulation. And is no longer manipulating light, it is manipulating recorded pixels. At best there is some form of interpretation and interpolation going on. One big difference with a well designed lens is that does not need to be linked to a specific firmware which contains the correction algorithms. I can use my M lenses on the X-Pro 2 and get IMO pretty good images. I'm pretty sure that the opposite would not be true. 2/ Is it really necessary to resort to insults ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 5, 2017 Share #984 Posted January 5, 2017 I say lets start a petition for Leica to make an interchangeable Q camera with L an M mount adapter. And keep the M an OVF. They do, its called an SL What happened when Fuji built an interchangeable X100 ? the X-Pro1 What happened when Sony built an interchangeable RX1 ? the A7 See a pattern ? The interchangeable versions are always bigger as the lens is not allowed to "hang around" behind the mount as well as many other mount and tolerance issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 5, 2017 Share #985 Posted January 5, 2017 They do, its called an SL the best leica camera I have ever owned........ it's pretty sexy too [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 5, 2017 Share #986 Posted January 5, 2017 Whereas I can understand and fully accept the inherent limitations of the OVF and hence understand and accept the demand for a state-ot-the-art EVF for the M, in cannot comprehend two things in this statement: 1/ I very well understand that in any lens there is a certain amount of correction for all sorts of aberrations. However I don't see how a mediocre lens which needs to be corrected by software can be better than an excellent optically corrected lens. Surely, whether on a bad, mediocre or excellent lens, if you add software correction, this is an extra layer of manipulation. And is no longer manipulating light, it is manipulating recorded pixels. At best there is some form of interpretation and interpolation going on. One big difference with a well designed lens is that does not need to be linked to a specific firmware which contains the correction algorithms. I can use my M lenses on the X-Pro 2 and get IMO pretty good images. I'm pretty sure that the opposite would not be true. 2/ Is it really necessary to resort to insults ? Lens correction is about shifting aberrations to minimize them. The lens designer has a limited number of freedoms to do so. Integrating digital corrections as a design parameter will allow him one more degree of freedom. Thus he can shift certain aberrations (mainly distortion)into the digital part and correct other aberrations more effectively in the optical component of the design than he could if he would be limited by purely optical calculations.. So a hybrid optical-digital lens is not a lens with a mediocre optical design saved by the computer, but it is a lens that is optimized more effectively optically by shifting some aberrations into digital correction, where they can be corrected just as well or better, resulting in a better lens overall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 5, 2017 Share #987 Posted January 5, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for the very clear explanation Jaap ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 5, 2017 Share #988 Posted January 5, 2017 A Luddite would be closer to a person who pulled the EVF off other peoples' M cameras and then smashed them with a hammer because he disapproved of them. Or perhaps insisted on a compromised design because modern alternatives are merely disapproved of (ie the M mount is essential instead of an L mount + adapter because the M mount is sacrosanct - actually adapters are not a compromise if well built). And if you think that I disapprove of EVFs you are wrong, although only the SL has one which is decent and I don't want to use them myself. I do disapprove of meddling with the iconic M rangefinder design because their are far better possibilities which will allow M lenses to be used. Meddling with the OVF design risks its future viability because it changes a design which has proven itself viable for a very long time. Whereas I can understand and fully accept the inherent limitations of the OVF and hence understand and accept the demand for a state-ot-the-art EVF for the M, in cannot comprehend two things in this statement: 1/ I very well understand ..... 2/ Is it really necessary to resort to insults ? 1. What jaapv said (thanks jaapv) 2. Insult not intended - but I do wonder if people read and digest what's written. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted January 5, 2017 Share #989 Posted January 5, 2017 They do, its called an SL What happened when Fuji built an interchangeable X100 ? the X-Pro1 What happened when Sony built an interchangeable RX1 ? the A7 See a pattern ? The interchangeable versions are always bigger as the lens is not allowed to "hang around" behind the mount as well as many other mount and tolerance issues. Yes I do see your point, but I have no interest in an SL. Too bulky, too heavy and too expensive. I would still use my M for most of my work. I would be looking for a full frame replacement for my XE-2, hence my concept of a digital CL. The Q is almost there. Great sensor and processor, EVF and form factor. Add an interchangeable mount and you are there. Not everyone wants and SL and not everyone wants a full M camera. I think there is a market for this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 5, 2017 Share #990 Posted January 5, 2017 They do, its called an SL Not really - the SL is a large camera, and what seems to bear wanted is a small camera with an EVF - I agree with Bill - a QL is the obvious answer - it wouldn't be as fast and furious as the SL, and would really be designed for M lenses (and also be a backup for an SL) Whilst I don't really object to sn M with an EVF (I just don't think it should be called an M) I would have thought it was a mistake not to make something smaller - a QL is obvious, small and perfectly formed - M adapter allows M lenses and L mount allows everything else . . . What's not to like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted January 5, 2017 Share #991 Posted January 5, 2017 Not really - the SL is a large camera, and what seems to bear wanted is a small camera with an EVF - I agree with Bill - a QL is the obvious answer - it wouldn't be as fast and furious as the SL, and would really be designed for M lenses (and also be a backup for an SL) Whilst I don't really object to sn M with an EVF (I just don't think it should be called an M) I would have thought it was a mistake not to make something smaller - a QL is obvious, small and perfectly formed - M adapter allows M lenses and L mount allows everything else . . . What's not to like? Are we talking about large AF TL lenses or smaller, manual focus TL lenses? My concern with the TL mount is that the lenses will be large and obtrusive (as opposed to small, unobtrusive M lenses). One of the plus points of the M system is its small, non-threatening (to the subject) size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 5, 2017 Share #992 Posted January 5, 2017 Could some kind soul enlighten me as to the lenses and adapters that are compatible with an L mount - excluding of course the obvious SL lenses? TIA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 5, 2017 Share #993 Posted January 5, 2017 .......................... I say lets start a petition for Leica to make an interchangeable Q camera with L an M mount adapter. And keep the M an OVF. Provided that Leica assure us that the next M will also be capable of accepting a detachable up-to-scratch EVF, I'll sign the petition for an interchangeable-lens Q as you describe it. Otherwise, it would force me into a position of having to have two different cameras in order to enjoy the two types of viewfinder that I like to be able to use, and that would be a great shame for me and would quite possibly drive me away from Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 5, 2017 Share #994 Posted January 5, 2017 I do not want two different camera bodies as part of a working system either. I don't particularly want an add on EVF (although it should be available as not everyone wants a second body - as long as it performs) as it still means two different ways of working and the clip on EVF just gets in the way. I would want my M bodies identical. And to maximise the quality of my existing manual M lenses. I can't see me buying an SL zoom due too the size and it is stepping away from what i want an M to be... and I wouldn't be buying any of the T lenses either. Any future M lens for an L mount will need to be bigger anyway... so why cause so much disturbance and confusion? Keep the M as an M, with its own lenses and just have an EVF version. EVF does NOT mean big zooms and full automation. Otherwise why have an SL in the range? Although I see the benefit of an SL mount... I really just want an M mount with a built in SL EVF... that way it works EXACTLY as it does currently with the M-P and my Leica EVF... but far after, much much neater and its still an 'M'... I don't really want a midway camera... because it will probably be a compromise on both applications. Then I can keep my OVF M-P as a pure rangefinder and upgrade as and when Leica make improvements to the OVF M... and have the EVF M alongside it and improve that as and when too. And it also means I have a body I can use if/when the other one is being serviced etc. My OVF M-P stays with my 35FLE and Lux 50 Asph... and my EVF M, gets used with a 21SEM and my Elmarit 90. I can then take two cameras out with e, with two different lenses on, that sit the camera body they are on and no lens changes in the field... and probably no need to carry a bag with me most of the time either. But I doubt that will happen... there are 50 pages as to why... because we can't seem to come to any real consensus... close... but not quite. I can see a camera between the M and the Q... the proposed QL with an SL mount.... but if Leica could consolidate their ranges properly, we could end up with a replacement for the Q, the T and the X-Vario with one camera and an additional M with an EVF... So along with the SL, we have something for everyone and no-one ends up getting upset (assuming they can set aside their own prejudices and accept that not everyone is the same). Leica keep making a pure OVF M to please the purists (including me) and there is an EVF model for wides and telephoto's which new customers or those who now find the rangefinder difficult). Minimum models, maximum flexibility. Purist solution. What's not to like...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 5, 2017 Share #995 Posted January 5, 2017 If you read my post the use of the term was about those who see the traditional use of optical excellence as being 'better' than the use of optical/software integration. The problem is technical. There is little information exchange and non of it active. As I've said before M lenses are both an incredible asset to the M rangefinder and a limitation to its progress forward. Modifying the M rangefinder away from being purely a rangefinder has technical limitations which will need to be overcome. On the other hand an M shaped EVF body with an L mount has far fewer. I don't think that a manufacturer should utilise its resources to overcome M mount issues when a simple solution exists already - L mount and M adapter. Why limit a camera to an M mount? To explain: a Luddite is a metaphor used to describe a person who resists technological advance.No one in this thread, that I have read, has claimed that excellent optics are better than excellent optic-software codesign. The latter is an augmentation of the former. What I have stated is that there are limits to software correction of optical distortion: the distortion must be well characterised, there must be little variance of characteristic distortion from lens to lens, and the software can only recover measured signal above the floor of spatial sampling, colour sampling (Bayer), thermal and reading noise. It's physics and software engineers still have to obey it. You can't use software to make a magically superb image out of Coke bottle lenses. The information has to be recoverable from the measured signal. Optics still matter. Even for the L mount. That aside, we are having two different conversations. You seem to be arguing about the mount that Leica ought to choose on a future EVF camera, based on optic-software integration for the L mount. Yes, I have already twice written that Leica have a strong reason to make that choice. (That's three times now.) I, on the other hand, like many others, own a bagful of excellent M lenses. I am also very mindful of the fact that my M lenses pack their optical performance into a very small form factor. The L mount's Full Frame lenses, in contrast, are very large and very heavy. (TL lenses not offering the image circle for Full Frame.) There is not yet any substitute for M lens size-performance available natively in the L mount. If there was, I would be there. It is not unreasonable for someone who is already in the M mount, or who simply wants Full Frame in a small form factor, to prefer a native M camera. If there are enough people in that circumstance, there is a commercial case for Leica to offer that product: a digital M, likely to be announced in two weeks. Whether it has an EVF or not is then a separate argument, unrelated to choice of mount. That is a very clear, rational reason "why M", restated. Quite contrary to your unreasonable comparison to a Luddite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 5, 2017 Share #996 Posted January 5, 2017 To explain: a Luddite is a metaphor used to describe a person who resists technological advance. ..... You seem to be arguing about the mount that Leica ought to choose on a future EVF camera, based on optic-software integration for the L mount. ..... The L mount's Full Frame lenses, in contrast, are very large and very heavy. (TL lenses not offering the image circle for Full Frame.) There is not yet any substitute for M lens size-performance available natively in the L mount. If there was, I would be there. It is not unreasonable for someone who is already in the M mount, or who simply wants Full Frame in a small form factor, to prefer a native M camera. If there are enough people in that circumstance, there is a commercial case for Leica to offer that product: a digital M, likely to be announced in two weeks. Whether it has an EVF or not is then a separate argument, unrelated to choice of mount. That is a very clear, rational reason "why M", restated. Quite contrary to your unreasonable comparison to a Luddite. OK. I'll suggest a scenario which I can see potentially happening, perhaps maybe, who knows? Say, sometime before too long, Leica do release some small L mount MF/AF f/2 or f/2.8 or even slower lenses which are optically very good but also use software correction and that these produce extremely good image files, comparable or better than the files from M lenses. They also build an M sized EVF camera in L mount which integrates with these lenses and has an M adapter too - best of both worlds. Where would this leave an M only EVF camera? Being wedded to the M mount as a native option is potentially limiting, and wastes R&D. Of course I suppose Leica might build an M only EVF camera in order to ensure that the SL remains top dog ...... we will all have to wait and see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted January 5, 2017 Share #997 Posted January 5, 2017 Not really - the SL is a large camera, and what seems to bear wanted is a small camera with an EVF - I agree with Bill - a QL is the obvious answer - it wouldn't be as fast and furious as the SL, and would really be designed for M lenses (and also be a backup for an SL) Whilst I don't really object to sn M with an EVF (I just don't think it should be called an M) I would have thought it was a mistake not to make something smaller - a QL is obvious, small and perfectly formed - M adapter allows M lenses and L mount allows everything else . . . What's not to like? Exactly. The idea a EVF M body must be the size of the SL is preposterous. The SL is a beautiful camera. Useless to me because of it's size. M9 and A7.mod are really too big too, but I can just manage. What I would like and I KNOW would be a hit is to take that technical savvy which went into to the SL and turn to this: 21st century Barnack. A ergonomic technical body for the M, small as any iPhone will tell you it can be (nex-5 could be FF), with no allegiance to tradition, only to practical function as a "mountain" camera like the Barnack. Of course the camera must be a certain thickness right at the mount, but the rest of the body can be thinned and thickened for function. The LCD can tilt. The EVF can pop up, or be in the body. Even a optical RF with M240 base could go in a much smaller body, if all engineering stops were pulled out. The M lens line is state of the art, aside from AF and CF. Both of those options are possible already on the Sony bodies, so why not on any Leica? Maybe the L mount would give room for this in the form of a special adapter. Let the camera be ugly, if it is light, small, tough, and versatile. Such a body would put M back in the bags of many a war corespondent. In fact the M to L AF adapter would also let him use the small back on many other lenses. The E-mount is 18mm and the L is 19mm, so there is certainly space. I don't suggest this because I'm a big fan of AF, but most of the world is. Look at how the A7 has "saved" sony. It is carrying the company right now. In 2011 when I told my friends at FM Sony should make a FF Nex, they fell over laughing. Niche camera, they cried. Who would buy it? Make the camera above in addition to the great traditional options, like M10, and Leica would have more business than they can imagine. Of course most here don't care so much, we are already "converted". But there is nothing stopping Leica from getting a much bigger market footprint, except vision. And a few old men guarding their lawns with hoses, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted January 5, 2017 Share #998 Posted January 5, 2017 I don't understand the difference between these hypothetical cameras. What is the difference between: A Q with exchangeable L mount lenses A SL with the body shape and size of an M A M with an L mount As far as I can make out, what we are banging on about is made from pieces of the M and the SL. What exactly does the Q bring to the mix? Surely the fixed lens puts it furthest from the goal than the others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 5, 2017 Share #999 Posted January 5, 2017 Well, not to put too fine a point on it, the Q is a point-and-shoot, albeit a fine one, and does not fit into this list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 5, 2017 Share #1000 Posted January 5, 2017 I can already see the forum posts after this EVF M with an M mount is produced: - why can't my M record the aperture in EXIF like the QL can? - why did Leica think it was a good idea to omit the movable focus patch* that they put in the QL? - Leica prides itself on working with all its lenses...and they made this one too fat to work with its own L lenses??? Yes, well - anyone opening a book on the likelihood of such a body being made?. * Of course there's a focus patch - there's always one on the M isn't there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.