Sell M to get M10?

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Jaap. 

 

Now all I need is a fine-toothed saw to remove the grip (I'm sure a bit of Sugru will fill the hole) and we're nearly there.

 

 

In all seriousness, the SL with M lenses would have been the better camera for the job, or at least that part of it that needed an EVF.

 

But an M with a removable SL-style EVF would have been even better because I could have just slipped the EVF off for the great handling and viewfinder benefits of a more traditional M for the other parts of the job.

 

Come on Leica, give us what we really want, please.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mdg1371]

I did one project with my M that wouldn't have been possible for me without the EVF and I would have needed to use a different camera. Among other things it involved extreme close-ups of a potter working on a new process which I couldn't have made on my M without the EVF, unless I used a traditional Visoflex. I needed consistency between these near-macro shots and the rest of the series, so using the same one camera was Important.

But the slowness of the EVF made it impossible to get some of the shots I wanted. Timing when working with a fast-moving subject in low light is crucially important of course, and even more so when critical moments are both unpredictable and unrepeatable.

So having an EVF was a huge advantage to me and enabled me to make some photos Would otherwise have missed. Having a better EVF would certainly have improved the outcome though.

So yes, whilst a better EVF wouldn't make me a better photographer, it would improve certain aspects of my photography, which is one of the things a new, improved camera ought to be able to do isn't it?

Absolutely! The 3 second pause between shots when using the EVF, and the inability to use the EVF to magnify an off center focus point are significant impediments to an ideal experience, and DO limit my ability to get some shots.

 

I love my M240, but fix those issues with the EVF, with a size reduction and better sensor as bonuses? I'm all in.

[Tailwagger]

Does anyone seriously believe that his photographs will improve by a marginally smaller camera with a nicer EVF? ............Yea those that believe and the newbies

 

The former no, the latter, yes.  Seeing what you shoot isn't a luxury. Not that I'm lining up to buy one, but a jump from a noisy, laggy 1.2 mp to a cleaner, better in low light 3.7 MP might not be universally useful, but it would certainly pay dividends in more than one circumstance. 

[Peter H]

OK, let's get down to basics.

 

If there is any camera that we should expect to make the way you view the world it's prime feature it is the M. Above everything else, above size, above ultimate image quality, above all else, I expect an M to give me the best viewing experience I can get in a useable camera.

 

Realistically you have to have the virtues of both an OVF and an EVF to make sure you have the best view of the world in all photographically viable circumstances. If either is less than the best realistically available, the camera's prime purpose is compromised. This is especially the case since Leica provides the best OVF and the best EVF around, but at the moment in different cameras.

 

There is an opportunity to genuinely put the M at the very forefront of the visual connection between photographer and subject. Nothing to do with nostalgia. Nothing to do with techno-geekery. Everything to do with a basic and crucial photographic imperative: seeing the world as clearly as possible at all times.

 

The M could be unrivalled in this most important quality and secure a unique advantage over all competitors. I sincerely hope that Leica recognises this and acts on it.

[pgk]

I did one project with my M that wouldn't have been possible for me without the EVF and I would have needed to use a different camera. Among other things it involved extreme close-ups of a potter working on a new process which I couldn't have made on my M without the EVF, unless I used a traditional Visoflex. I needed consistency between these near-macro shots and the rest of the series, so using the same one camera was Important.

 

Were you using a Leica M lens within its range-finding limits (ie as normally placed on the camera)? If not then my reaction is 'wrong camera for the job'. If you were then the rangefinder should have worked. The quest for the camera which is all things to all men (and women) is one which will never end I'm afraid. FWIW there are shots where I would like to use my Leicas and indeed could - for some of the shoot - but reality kicks in and I use my Canons. Would I use Leicas if they had a better evf and were smaller? I think not.

[lct]

[...] I sincerely hope that Leica recognises this and acts on it.

 

+1 but i suspect Leica will adopt a conservative attitude with proven instead of cutting edge solutions as often. Remember the M240 unable to feed its EVF at more than 30fps while less expensive competitors could do it at 60fps. Next move or lack thereof could be the "M10" using the current Visoflex 020 while competitors will offer EVFs with similar or better performances than those of the SL601 as expected. I will be proved wrong hopefully and i remain open minded anyway but i don't hold my breath.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Were you using a Leica M lens within its range-finding limits (ie as normally placed on the camera)? If not then my reaction is 'wrong camera for the job'. If you were then the rangefinder should have worked. The quest for the camera which is all things to all men (and women) is one which will never end I'm afraid. [...]

 

Sure but some M lenses are made to work at 0.5m or even 0.4m minimum focus distance. The fact that the rangefinder does not work below 0.7m would not be an excuse for the EVF to be useless on closeups.

[Peter H]

Were you using a Leica M lens within its range-finding limits (ie as normally placed on the camera)? If not then my reaction is 'wrong camera for the job'. If you were then the rangefinder should have worked. The quest for the camera which is all things to all men (and women) is one which will never end I'm afraid. FWIW there are shots where I would like to use my Leicas and indeed could - for some of the shoot - but reality kicks in and I use my Canons. Would I use Leicas if they had a better evf and were smaller? I think not.

 

 

For that part of the job I was using my Macro-Elmarit R 60mm. 

 

I'm not asking for a camera that will be all things to everyone. For example it will never compete with a Nikon D5 for sports or a Phase One or Hasselblad 100mp for commercials, but for my style of photography and for many others who are prepared to buy an M, with its well-recognised limitations in return for its peerless strengths, the addition of a top-notch EVF of SL quality is, in my opinion, a coherent request for a logical next step.

[Jeff S]

 while competitors will offer EVFs with similar or better performances than those of the SL601 as expected. 

 

I'm surprised this hasn't happened already.  The newly announced MF darlings....X1D and GFX... appear to still incorporate lesser versions, which I think is a missed opportunity, despite initial customer enthusiasm.

 

Jeff

[keithlaban.co.uk]

The M could be unrivalled in this most important quality and secure a unique advantage over all competitors. I sincerely hope that Leica recognises this and acts on it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrLk4vdY28Q

[chris_tribble]

Next move or lack thereof could be the "M10" using the current Visoflex 020 while competitors will offer EVFs with similar or better performances than those of the SL601 as expected. I will be proved wrong hopefully and i remain open minded anyway but i don't hold my breath.

I think this is likely to be the reality.  Not sure if it's good or bad.  IF the performance of the Visoflex 020 is comparable to its functionality on the T then it could be a sufficient solution for the occasions when we need to stick the ugly thing on the M body in order to do a specific job.  Now if you WANT to have a big body with a beautiful EVF you know where you need to look. If you want a primarily RF camera with exceptional 24MP IQ, and which is has an add on EVF that is sufficiently good for other (rarer) tasks, the M10 may what you (and I) are looking for...

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I think this is likely to be the reality.  Not sure if it's good or bad.  IF the performance of the Visoflex 020 is comparable to its functionality on the T then it could be a sufficient solution for the occasions when we need to stick the ugly thing on the M body in order to do a specific job.  Now if you WANT to have a big body with a beautiful EVF you know where you need to look. If you want a primarily RF camera with exceptional 24MP IQ, and which is has an add on EVF that is sufficiently good for other (rarer) tasks, the M10 may what you (and I) are looking for...

 

But will it be enough? Will I want to spend thousands of GBP for the addition of an already outdated and outperformed EVF. I very much doubt it.

 

Particularly galling as it is Leica who is currently leading the field. 

[Peter H]

I'm surprised this hasn't happened already.  The newly announced MF darlings....X1D and GFX... appear to still incorporate lesser versions, which I think is a missed opportunity, despite initial customer enthusiasm.

 

Jeff

 

 

 

Fuji, I believe, are trying to keep the price down (well beneath the X1D's) and are probably, and quite reasonably, content to use the excellent EVF from the XT2. It's a popular feature with Fuji users.

 

Hasselblad explained that the size of the viewfinder housing needed for a superior EVF (I believe it's the same as the Fuji one) would have made the camera unacceptably large. Small size was the priority in this decision. 

 

Unlike the M, I don't see the viewfinder as the decisive feature in these cameras. Others may, of course.

[pgk]

For that part of the job I was using my Macro-Elmarit R 60mm.

 

Lovely lens - I use mine on my Canons .

[Peter H]

Lovely lens - I use mine on my Canons .

 

 

It is indeed.

 

I sometimes use it on my Fuji X Pro2. Mainly for its vastly superior EVF, but it works well with the sensor too.

[ECohen]

I had considered replacing my S2 with a Nikon 810 and still might go that route if Leica puts an outrageous price on the new M10. I'd still keep my M9 and Monocrom though. However, I may follow Pico's lead and get a second M9 for those occasions when one is in the shop.

 

I'm not sure why but I never bonded with the M240. Too many bumps and buttons I guess. Same was true for the SL. I like a tool that fits my hand and is instinctive to operate. I'm hoping the M10 fills that bill.

 

I doubt the next model M10 will be have enough changes or advances to bond any differently form todays M240......it hasn't been out that long.

 

Maybe the M11 or 12,  5 or 6 years from now, we will have had significant changes to technology for a smaller camera, more advance sensor, better firmware and processing.

 

Today's Ms are not much different from other the digital Leica Ms, they change in small increments with the days technology.

 

If leica wants to make a big change  they will create a new model......An M is an M

with an old fashion rangefinder and manual controls where you can find them easily

 

That's the M market...isn't it?

 

What will and M look like in 20 years? What will photography look like in 20 years.......I wont get to see it

I am happly well bonded with my M .....even with the couple of things I wish were different.

 

17 years with a Digital Nikon I still haven't bonded with that poorly designed beast!

 

Lets raise our glasses to the M of today!!!!!

[Jeff S]

 

Unlike the M, I don't see the viewfinder as the decisive feature in these cameras. Others may, of course.

 

The M RF is in a class of its own; the more relevant comparison is the more modern tech EVF-based SL.

 

For me, seeing and focusing on the subject is always paramount, regardless of camera.  YMMV.

 

BTW, we'll see if the detachable GFX EVF is ultimately upgradeable....that would be an interesting move.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

The M RF is in a class of its own; the more relevant comparison is the more modern tech EVF-based SL.

 

For me, seeing and focusing on the subject is always paramount, regardless of camera. YMMV.

 

BTW, we'll see if the detachable GFX EVF is ultimately upgradeable....that would be an interesting move.

 

Jeff

 

 

My mileage doesn't vary. It is precisely because seeing is so important that I would like Leica to give us the best viewfinder arrangement they are capable of without sacrificing the other qualities of the M cameras that we value. And that means the best OVF and EVF.

 

I believe the M would then be a superior camera to the SL for almost all manual focussing applications except perhaps very long lenses, which have never been an M's natural companion.

 

The comparison with other cameras with quite different viewfinders and sensors and lenses is more complex and for another thread.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

It is indeed.

 

I sometimes use it on my Fuji X Pro2. Mainly for its vastly superior EVF, but it works well with the sensor too.

 

For another thread, apparently.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

For another thread, apparently.

 

Jeff

 

 

 

I think you missed the point I was trying to make Jeff.

 

Seeing is always tremendously important, which is precisely why I'd like Leica to take the opportunity to make the M the best-equipped camera available in terms of its viewfinder.

 

But there comes a point when other factors rival the viewfinder for primacy in a camera, which is why we don't all use M cameras for all purposes, even though hardly anything that we often use  (not even the SL) rivals the clarity of the M's viewfinder. What I was trying to avoid was a discussion of the other relative qualities of a range of cameras beyond the M. But it was because I was aware of my previous digressions that I made the point about continuing that type of conversation in another thread. There's no need to prolong it by pulling up previous posts is there?