lct Posted November 14, 2016 Share #101 Posted November 14, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Or that the test has been done with that lens... Summarit 35/2.5? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 14, 2016 Posted November 14, 2016 Hi lct, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted November 14, 2016 Share #102 Posted November 14, 2016 M10's flange (top) looks slightly thicker than M240's here. 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! 1 Quote 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=3148825'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 14, 2016 Share #103 Posted November 14, 2016 Or that the test has been done with that lens... Summarit 35/2.5? Indeed... if they have to provide a test camera to FCC lab or similar... why providing it with a Noctilux or Summicron apo ? The flange pic isn't convincing me completely.... maybe there has been some savvy PP work on the image... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 14, 2016 Share #104 Posted November 14, 2016 Yes, but nothing like the rumoured 3.8 mm, more like 0.5-1.0 mm. The rest must come from the back, if the rumour is correct. The only way that could be done is by leaving out the LCD assembly and recessing the buttons. However, it might be purely cosmetic by leaving the thumbrest off, which would gain a considerable amount against the "official" depth of the M240, although nothing against the real thickness. I consider the latter a bit more likely. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted November 14, 2016 Share #105 Posted November 14, 2016 Perhaps someone who knows their way around this test lab's site can see if the M typ 240 was also described as medium format. When you submit a camera to them can it be a prototype (e.g. New electronics in a cobbled together old case)? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted November 14, 2016 Share #106 Posted November 14, 2016 Since we know these comments will happen. Let me be the first to say "I prefer the colour from my M240 over the M10". I think the M240 has more bite/look/certain something... I think the new camera is too thin/fat... I think Leica has missed an oppertunity... I'll wait for the M11... :lol: 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted November 14, 2016 Share #107 Posted November 14, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) You're completely crazy. You have to use a custom triple illuminant profile in Lightroom. And try not holding your camera with oven gloves. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 14, 2016 Share #108 Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) Perhaps someone who knows their way around this test lab's site can see if the M typ 240 was also described as medium format. When you submit a camera to them can it be a prototype (e.g. New electronics in a cobbled together old case)? It's a bit confusing : the present filing at NCC speaks of "Medium Format Digital SLR Camera" (!) , and if you search into the FCC site, you find easily a previous filing from Leica (2014) which is clearly related to the S (007) , and it describes it simply as "Digital Camera"... Anyway the famous photo of the "M10" with heavy distortion is inside the report... for whatt is Worth... From the documents you can browse (for the S) it looks that you have to provide all the electronics components... and indeed one could make some gymnick, as you say, to cobble up electronics into a "symbolic" body... but given that all the test is about electronics emissions (as far as I understand...) it looks strange to me that the global packaging of the device does not regard the testing... Lot of documents look (of course) not accesible... but all this story, let me say, is someway unclear... Edited November 14, 2016 by luigi bertolotti 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vec Posted November 14, 2016 Share #109 Posted November 14, 2016 When doing things like the antenna testing for the transmission tests you really do something very close to a production shell, otherwise your tests aren't going to be very representative of the final product. Yes, these filings are trying to show the bare minimum publically. But no, this isn't some random internet Photoshop guy trying to pass something off. When you're dealing with a regulatory agency like this, trying to pull a fast one is frowned upon. The label on the bottom of the camera is obviously a mockup pasted onto a photograph to show how the certification would look when it's granted. (You wind up with a chicken and egg problem with you can't take a real picture of a certified product for certification before it's certified) 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 14, 2016 Share #110 Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) A funny (exciting ? ) excerpt from the test report (made by a certified German Lab) Does short-term confidentiality apply to this application?: Yes If so, specify the short-term confidentiality release date (MM/DD/YYYY format): 05/11/2017 Note: If no date is supplied, the release date will be set to 45 calendar days past the date of grant. Edited November 14, 2016 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 14, 2016 Share #111 Posted November 14, 2016 The fact that it is shown with a Summarit on suggests to me that Leica is not pitching this camera as top-of-the-line. It's a shame that your logic is correct, but I believe it is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted November 14, 2016 Share #112 Posted November 14, 2016 It's a shame that your logic is correct, but I believe it is. It's a test camera submitted for electronics testing. That lens says absolutely nothing about whether the camera will be pitched as top of the line. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 14, 2016 Share #113 Posted November 14, 2016 Leica - was well aware that these images would go viral. Do you really think that this was accidental? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 14, 2016 Share #114 Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) When doing things like the antenna testing for the transmission tests you really do something very close to a production shell, otherwise your tests aren't going to be very representative of the final product. Yes, these filings are trying to show the bare minimum publically. But no, this isn't some random internet Photoshop guy trying to pass something off. ... Hum... years ago I had some experiences with certified labs... and, take note, this is a German Lab... serious by definition But, when you have to (or decide to...) PUBLISH a report (105 pages) in which all the RELEVANT data about the certification are completely and extensively documented and signed... is it really SO important that the only (rough) picture of the finished product is the right and definitive one ? Is it somewhere declared in the doc that the tested item IS the one depicted ? I have read part of those 105 pages ... of course not with great attention, but haven't seen such a declaration ; and, apart this, let's not forget that this is a PUBLISHED item, on a public site not extempt from usual intrusions (after a bit of surfing into, some ads like "Buy a medium format camera" quickly appeared on my browser, duly integrated decently in the FCC report pages) ; I mean : the pdf report is (99%) the original and correct one... the embedded photos maybe something less than 99%... (and.. after reading Jaap's post... the pattern could even be well planned and executed in full agreement with Leica...) Edited November 14, 2016 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 14, 2016 Share #115 Posted November 14, 2016 The fact that it is shown with a Summarit on suggests to me that Leica is not pitching this camera as top-of-the-line. It's a shame that your logic is correct, but I believe it is. So why would Leica present a non-top-of-the-line camera in the M line? Something less than an M-E is hard to imagine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted November 14, 2016 Share #116 Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) So why would Leica present a non-top-of-the-line camera in the M line? Something less than an M-E is hard to imagine. Exactly. Leica - was well aware that these images would go viral. Do you really think that this was accidental? They are just images of a test camera submitted for electronics testing. A Summarit lens is a perfect choice for that purpose. It's not some early statement about the quality or price of the camera. Nor is it a prediction of some future marketing pitch. Edited November 14, 2016 by zlatkob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 14, 2016 Share #117 Posted November 14, 2016 Too obvious to be wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted November 14, 2016 Share #118 Posted November 14, 2016 Exactly. They are just images of a test camera submitted for electronics testing. A Summarit lens is a perfect choice for that purpose. It's not some early statement about the quality or price of the camera. Nor is it a prediction of some future marketing pitch. I agree. I have some experience of these type approval applications as I once ran a body equivalent to the FCC in a smaller country. The lens is irrelevant to the electronic side of things which would be the only significant issue in a type approval application. Most sensible manufacturers would put on a cheap but serviceable lens for testing and demonstration purposes. William 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted November 14, 2016 Share #119 Posted November 14, 2016 The best evidence that this is for real is the fact that Mr Slack and Mr Husmann are completely silent 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 14, 2016 Share #120 Posted November 14, 2016 The best evidence that this is for real is the fact that Mr Slack and Mr Husmann are completely silent It may be for real without being quite what we think it is. 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.