Whenever the new M arrives, who's going to buy one?

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As you probably know, the range finder does have any influence on the final image. It is there to support the photographer adjusting his lens to the proper distance. If the same photographer intents taking another image, it is conceivable that the rangefinder is ill suited for the stated purpose. The photographer therefore needs another means of adjusting the lens to the proper distance, or to acquire proper framing. That's where live view can be useful, as can, of course, a number of other types of supporting technology.

 

Your glib statement above denies all that and impies that there can only be one MO for using a camera. This is clearly wrong.

[cirke]

Please define serious photographer ? 

Someone who works maybe ? 

 

I need wifi (actually I use a wifi sd card) , and I want GPS

[epand56]

Not me.

[Peter H]

...............

 

I really hope they stick with the "retro" line for the M and use some other camera (SL ?) for all the gizmo geeks. Or they can just buy a Sony.

 

 

 

Ian, I think you've set up a false opposition here.

 

One of the reasons I have used M cameras for over thirty years is exactly because I am not a "gizmo geek". I love manual focus cameras and the simplicity and directness of the controls of an M, which make it the most rapid camera to use in most of the photographic situations that interest me. On top of which its lenses are magnificent little things.

 

Nevertheless I want it to be an exercise in modernity, not nostalgia. I want it to be a contemporary and up-to-date alternative to the Sony approach to usability. I have no interest in a Sony-type camera so I need Leica to be the alternative, offering all the real benefits to photography that new technology has to offer in a camera that embodies the simple principles of photography in a way that an M camera has always done best.

[Martin B]

Digital sensors do have issues with M lenses, particularly short ones. Remember the magenta sides and corners and the Italian Flag? Most of those issues are now resolved in-camera, most of the time, but they still lurk there, possibly making it difficult to use sensors with a signifcantly higher resolution.

 

This issue was well seen when adapting M lenses on higher res Sony Exmor full frame sensors - and it is not so much the sensor which makes the issue. It is mainly the sensor glass thickness which leads to this issue! Leica uses a very thin sensor glass on top of the sensor which is optimized for the M lenses. Sony mirrorless FF cameras (A7 series) on the other hand use much thicker sensor glass which is optimized for the FE lenses. Kolarivision offers to modify those cameras and replace this thicker sensor glass with thinner one so that M lenses can be used in the same fashion as on M cameras. Then the issues with corner vignetting and corner unsharpness are gone. So yes, you can use a high MP FF sensor in combination with M lenses if the refraction through the sensor glass cover is optimized for these lenses. 

[CYBORA]

I am not sure what Leica will provide us as new cameras , some people want the next M to be clean and pure and some want it to have modern tech.

 

The problem is that there is not a real COMPACT camera alternative of the M that has the modern technology. Today you can have the SL to have a body having a modern technology or the M to have some ancient technology compared to 2016's cameras.

 

If technologically possible, Leica would provide us a compact Q like body ( it may have hybrid VF to make the M lovers also happy ) having latest tech to make the geeks happy and a pure M to make M lovers happy. Unfortunately, we only have the bulky SL for the modern tech.

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem is that there is not a real COMPACT camera alternative of the M that has the modern technology. Today you can have the SL to have a body having a modern technology or the M to have some ancient technology compared to 2016's cameras.

 

No there is nothing actually,  and it's the only reason why I keep a M

[Martin B]

wrong post sorry 

 

Saw it, was a good one!

[lct]

Siangue meant that "there is not a real compact camera alternative..." at Leica's i guess. This problem should be fixed soon according to my crystal ball.

[ramarren]

I love my low resolution dinosaur toy cameras. 

 

 

 

 

A velociraptor would be OK

 

 

Stockholm Syndrome

 

 

Let he who is without choice-supportive bias cast the first stone!

 

 

I still love my 2003 Olympus E-1 with all of its five megapixels. 

[Tailwagger]

I await reality with interest, but unless there's a revolution involved, I'll more likely than not stay on the sidelines.  Really depends on the details, given I'm quite happy with my M.  

[ramarren]

...

Keep the M simple, clean, pure.

 

 

I'm happy with the M-D typ 262. Other cameras can do other things, but this is the perfect M for me. 

[pgk]

 

If technologically possible, Leica would provide us a compact Q like body ( it may have hybrid VF to make the M lovers also happy ) having latest tech to make the geeks happy and a pure M to make M lovers happy. Unfortunately, we only have the bulky SL for the modern tech.

 

 

Leica uses a very thin sensor glass on top of the sensor which is optimized for the M lenses. Sony mirrorless FF cameras (A7 series) on the other hand use much thicker sensor glass which is optimized for the FE lenses. Kolarivision offers to modify those cameras and replace this thicker sensor glass with thinner one so that M lenses can be used in the same fashion as on M cameras. Then the issues with corner vignetting and corner unsharpness are gone. So yes, you can use a high MP FF sensor in combination with M lenses if the refraction through the sensor glass cover is optimized for these lenses. 

 

Sony use a lot of in-camera processing based on the known parameters of their lenses together with their actual settings for each image. If, its a big if, you really want to extract every nuance of information from a sensor and lens combination, then the more information you can provide to the camera from the lens the better - potentially; the obvious, such as which lens (as Leica provide) is in use, but also data such as aperture in use (actual rather estimated), and focus distance - which cannot be provided (unless that is that the mechanical rangefinder cam could be used to provide this - difficult but theoretically possible). Whilst it does not bother me, the quest for more MPixels eventually will have to address this problem if the Leica M is to compete against cameras with more information to process.

 

 

And FWIW just try adjusting a less than perfect exposure from an M camera using a very wide lens and corner casts may well appear. More data availability means that there is the potential eventually for better correction based on adjustments applied too. Trying to make M cameras work 'better' in order to compete against fully data transferring cameras is potentially fraught with difficulties. They already work very well but as I've stated before, trying to improve a system designed without the need for data transfer from lens to camera is an achilles' heel .....

 

What may well be needed is a new camera which, as CYBORA says uses latest tech in an M sized body. But such a camera would not be an M and perhaps even more importantly would need new, small lenses featuring data transfer. 

[cirke]

Siangue meant that "there is not a real compact camera alternative..." at Leica's i guess. This problem should be fixed soon according to my crystal ball.

I hope , there is a market for M lenses  and a small camera , a QM

[Martin B]

 

 

 

 

Sony use a lot of in-camera processing based on the known parameters of their lenses together with their actual settings for each image. If, its a big if, you really want to extract every nuance of information from a sensor and lens combination, then the more information you can provide to the camera from the lens the better - potentially; the obvious, such as which lens (as Leica provide) is in use, but also data such as aperture in use (actual rather estimated), and focus distance - which cannot be provided (unless that is that the mechanical rangefinder cam could be used to provide this - difficult but theoretically possible). Whilst it does not bother me, the quest for more MPixels eventually will have to address this problem if the Leica M is to compete against cameras with more information to process.

 

 

And FWIW just try adjusting a less than perfect exposure from an M camera using a very wide lens and corner casts may well appear. More data availability means that there is the potential eventually for better correction based on adjustments applied too. Trying to make M cameras work 'better' in order to compete against fully data transferring cameras is potentially fraught with difficulties. They already work very well but as I've stated before, trying to improve a system designed without the need for data transfer from lens to camera is an achilles' heel .....

 

What may well be needed is a new camera which, as CYBORA says uses latest tech in an M sized body. But such a camera would not be an M and perhaps even more importantly would need new, small lenses featuring data transfer. 

 

 

I am not using any in-camera processing for the RAW files taken with my A7R and a bunch of M lenses. It is not needed - only when I shoot ultrawide, I need to apply a post processing plugin (Adobe Flat Field DNG) to remove a bit of color cast in the corners. There is zero problem to use a higher MP FF sensor with more DR and the same M lenses. I am getting tired of hearing the excuses why M cameras should be left with a - sorry to say this now, but IMO it is true - outdated sensor. Technically there is no reason for it. I still don't understand why a Leica M series camera with modern sensor technology can't be a M camera anymore....it has zero to do with moving away from a simple design which is often mixed up here as "excuse" to stick to the old digital technology. 

[pico]

I can tell with a casual browsing whether I have images worth processing. This shrinks my collection to about 5% or less of the total.

 

I use no in-camera settings for the lenses. It works perfectly. Look, if you are using in-camera settings  to save images 'en mass' based upon the camera's processing, it is entirely inefficient, a time-waster. You might save time by accepting high-rez jpeg.

 

Why anyone would believe Leica or any other brand could improve your original capture is beyond me.

.

[tsleica]

I hope the new M completely blows the M240 out of the water..then the 240 prices will fall doooowwwwnnnn...and I will finally..buy one..!

[pgk]

I am not using any in-camera processing for the RAW files taken with my A7R and a bunch of M lenses. It is not needed - only when I shoot ultrawide, I need to apply a post processing plugin (Adobe Flat Field DNG) to remove a bit of color cast in the corners. There is zero problem to use a higher MP FF sensor with more DR and the same M lenses. I am getting tired of hearing the excuses why M cameras should be left with a - sorry to say this now, but IMO it is true - outdated sensor. Technically there is no reason for it. I still don't understand why a Leica M series camera with modern sensor technology can't be a M camera anymore....it has zero to do with moving away from a simple design which is often mixed up here as "excuse" to stick to the old digital technology. 

 

If you are correct I should like an explanation of why Leica did not simply produce an autofocus version of the 50/1.4M lens to use on the SL? Instead they have built a large, heavy, complex design featuring internal focussing. Given the clamour for smaller lenses I don't see the logic in building a new design from the ground up if the existing design could be reutilised. There has to be a very good reason.

[jaapv]

Calculator discussion moved to Barnack's Bar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Aliturk]

Not really, but it doesn't change the argument - good sized pixels on a larger sensor will always beat smaller ones on a smaller sensor. Moving up in MP is best done by using a larger sensor.

I'm not saying that Leica will be able to avoid marketing pressure in upping the MP count, but from a photographic quality point of view it would make little sense.

I certainly agree with that.  The Nikon D700 produced and still produces the most beautiful images from an FF sensor with 'only' 12MP.  I regret selling mine, although Leica is my main camera. it's nice to use different ones from time to time. I stil have my M9 and there are no short comings with regard to image quality from having fewer MPs that the 240, which I also have.