M 11 will be around in less than 4 years. The speculations and facts.

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for studying my summary so carefully.

 

I agree that the proposed rangefinder might be difficult to focus on anything within the shadow or highlight parts of the scene. I summarily covered that under the proviso that the usability depended on the resolution of the device, the resolution in the Z axis, in this case. However, the same drawback applies to all EVFs.

 

I also agree that showing more than what's projected on the sensor is possible with the device and that it's an advantage. This is implied by framelines and the variable magnification. There would be no need for framelines if the rangefinder showed only what the sensor sees.

 

I can't quite follow your argument on the device not being 3D. It, like the opto-mechanical rangefinder in the M camera (or in the LTM Leicas before that), works by triangulation using two images projected by two imaging devices (lenses). Like the traditional rangefinder, it has but one ocular and the photographer uses but one eye when measuring the distance. Both present a 2D view. The sense of depths within the scene is produced in the brain by evaluation of the color contrast and by objects partially covering other objects, among others. That information is present in both devices.

 

The fact that the optical device presents a virtual 3D image may or may not be important; I couldn't tell without comparing the two.

 

My eyesight is not very good and can not be fully corrected with glasses. I find that I can easily focus by observing the contours of two overlaid images in a rangefinder patch while I can discern with difficulty only whether it is actually sharp in the EFV, and I have to enlarge the image in the viewfinder or use focus peaking, both of which have their own drawbacks.

 

It all depends on the execution of the concept. With an EVF like the EVF-2 for the M it would be utterly hateful; the EVF built into the SL might be another story. 

 

Hello Pop,

 

I think what you are not getting is that when you look through an optical viewfinder you are looking at a 3-D world. What you are perceiving is actually 3-D and there are many cues to 3-D as you look at it because it is really 3-D. You lose a few because you are only using one eye, but for almost everyone it is easy to perceive the image as a 3-D scene. In contrast to viewing the actual world, viewing an image on an EVF, like would be used in a digital rangefinder, would be very different. To start the image you are viewing is a screen and not the real world and therefore it is a 2-D image and not a 3-D image. Not surprisingly, then when you view this screen many more of the cues to perceiving it as 3-D are missing.  Still most of the time most of us perceive an EVF as having at least some 3-D qualities and often as being pretty 3-D even though it is 2-D in reality. Now one of the most important cues to seeing the 2-D image of the EVF as 3-D is what is seeing some parts of the image stand out in relation to the background.  This figure ground perception is actually an illusion and is fairly well understood, and what I am saying is that if you project a rangefinder patch onto the EVF and focus on it this figure ground illusion is likely in many instances to be ruined and the image will seem a lot less 3-D. This doesn't happen in on optical finder because what you are looking at is an actual 3-D object and not an illusion of 3-D. There are so many cues to 3-D perception in looking at a real 3-D object that focussing on the rangefinder patch doesn't disturb 3-D perception in the slightest. In contrast, I am arguing that this will often be different in a digital rangefinder. Because the object you are viewing (i.e., the EVF) is actually 2-D, and the 3-D perception is only an illusion, focussing on the rangefinder patch is likely to break the illusion in a number of circumstances and you will lose the perception of a 3-D image. I think this will be cludgy and make such a digital rangefinder feel very different from an optical rangefinder. 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Steve Spencer

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

There is no dispute about digital rangefinders being different from optical ones. We might disagree on the importance of that difference, though. When I take photographs, I frequently change between the two, even though I prefer using the optical one.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Pop,

 

I think what you are not getting is that when you look through an optical viewfinder you are looking at a 3-D world. What you are perceiving is actually 3-D and there are many cues to 3-D as you look at it because it is really 3-D. You lose a few because you are only using one eye, but for almost everyone it is easy to perceive the image as a 3-D scene. In contrast to viewing the actual world, viewing an image on an EVF, like would be used in a digital rangefinder, would be very different. To start the image you are viewing is a screen and not the real world and therefore it is a 2-D image and not a 3-D image. Not surprisingly, then when you view this screen many more of the cues to perceiving it as 3-D are missing.  Still most of the time most of us perceive an EVF as having at least some 3-D qualities and often as being pretty 3-D even though it is 2-D in reality. Now one of the most important cues to seeing the 2-D image of the EVF as 3-D is what is seeing some parts of the image stand out in relation to the background.  This figure ground perception is actually an illusion and is fairly well understood, and what I am saying is that if you project a rangefinder patch onto the EVF and focus on it this figure ground illusion is likely in many instances to be ruined and the image will seem a lot less 3-D. This doesn't happen in on optical finder because what you are looking at is an actual 3-D object and not an illusion of 3-D. There are so many cues to 3-D perception in looking at a real 3-D object that focussing on the rangefinder patch doesn't disturb 3-D perception in the slightest. In contrast, I am arguing that this will often be different in a digital rangefinder. Because the object you are viewing (i.e., the EVF) is actually 2-D, and the 3-D perception is only an illusion, focussing on the rangefinder patch is likely to break the illusion in a number of circumstances and you will lose the perception of a 3-D image. I think this will be cludgy and make such a digital rangefinder feel very different from an optical rangefinder. 

 

Hello Steve,

 

I don't think that "illusion" is the correct term.

 

Also: What do you mean when you say "break the perception"?

 

And what is the data (beyond speculation) that leads you to write that?

 

What exactly is "cludgy" and what is the basis for your using that term?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Steve Spencer]

Hello Steve,

 

I don't think that "illusion" is the correct term.

 

Also: What do you mean when you say "break the perception"?

 

And what is the data (beyond speculation) that leads you to write that?

 

What exactly is "cludgy" and what is the basis for your using that term?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Hi Michael,

 

I do think illusion is the right word. When you look at a 2-D object like an EVF or a photograph and perceive it as a 3-D object that is an optical illusion. You see something (depth in the image) that is not there. When we perceive depth (i.e., 3-D) in the world it isn't an illusion because the world is of course 3-D. What I mean by break the perception is that the illusion of 3-D when looking at an EVF won't hold up--it will look 2-D--so there will be a "break" in the illusion of 3-D when viewing the EVF. What I mean by cludgy is just a way of saying it will look odd and it will interfere with using the device. For example, if there is a half second lag between pressing the shutter and when the shutter actually fires I would call that cludgy. In the same way, I am pretty sure that an optical rangefinder as described in the patent would be cludgy in that you would have the illusion of 3-D, then the rangefinder would disturb that perception of 3-D making it awkward and less than smooth in operation. I say that perception of 3-D will be disturbed in this way based on some pretty well established principles of visual perception. If you want to learn more about that, then google is your friend. Look for Gestalt principles in optical perception; and figure ground perception; and cues to 3-D perception and you should be able to find the basics.

[Paulus]

When three D light hits the retina, which is, I thought, a rather 2 dimensional ' sensor '. The only thing which provides 3 D is the second retina, which stands a little further in the other eye and create an image in our brain, which gives us a three D experience. It is for me difficult to imagine that three D can be perceived with one eye, because of the above. 

The reason we have the three D illusion with one eye is because we are used to it and we think it's three D , until the bad caught ball hits your face and you know it was not reality. 

 

The only way IMHO  to see three D is as it is , when we keep two eyes open and have a 1,0 viewfinder. So lets ask for a 1,0 viewfinder, or at least a 0,90

[Leicaiste]

I just like the M, for a lot of reasons.

 

I like the rangefinder, I like Manual focus, I like the physical shutter, aperture and iso dials, I like that it is tiny and that it's lenses are compact but remarkable, I don't want to focus with a stopped down lens, I don't want to use an EVF in a dark studio. SL lenses are enormous. The M is a joy to use, I find the SL completely uninspiring. I think the M Lenses on the SL look stupid.

Many M lenses looks great and are easier to focus on the SL IMO.

 

The 21/1,4-24/1,4-28/1,4-50/1-50/0,95-75/1,4 and 90/2 come to my mind.

 

Which for me make them much more inspiring on the SL.

 

What I don't understand is the lack of diopter correction in this redesigned M10's RF viewfinder and the optional outdated EVF.

 

The RF viewfinder ocular could have been made bigger at the back of the camera without changing the handling.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Leicaiste

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When three D light hits the retina, which is, I thought, a rather 2 dimensional ' sensor '. The only thing which provides 3 D is the second retina, which stands a little further in the other eye and create an image in our brain, which gives us a three D experience. It is for me difficult to imagine that three D can be perceived with one eye, because of the above. 

The reason we have the three D illusion with one eye is because we are used to it and we think it's three D , until the bad caught ball hits your face and you know it was not reality. 

 

The only way IMHO  to see three D is as it is , when we keep two eyes open and have a 1,0 viewfinder. So lets ask for a 1,0 viewfinder, or at least a 0,90

 

No, the discrepancy in what the two eyes see is only one cue amongst many to 3-D perception. We have a pretty complex processor that has many redundant programs to capture 3-D, which perhaps isn't two surprising because knowing how far away a predator is, is a pretty important thing. So, people who have been studying visual perception have for a long time have demonstrated that there are many cues to seeing things in 3-D, some are even present in a 2-D image, but many are only present in an actual 3-D scene.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hi Michael,

 

I do think illusion is the right word. When you look at a 2-D object like an EVF or a photograph and perceive it as a 3-D object that is an optical illusion. You see something (depth in the image) that is not there. When we perceive depth (i.e., 3-D) in the world it isn't an illusion because the world is of course 3-D. What I mean by break the perception is that the illusion of 3-D when looking at an EVF won't hold up--it will look 2-D--so there will be a "break" in the illusion of 3-D when viewing the EVF. What I mean by cludgy is just a way of saying it will look odd and it will interfere with using the device. For example, if there is a half second lag between pressing the shutter and when the shutter actually fires I would call that cludgy. In the same way, I am pretty sure that an optical rangefinder as described in the patent would be cludgy in that you would have the illusion of 3-D, then the rangefinder would disturb that perception of 3-D making it awkward and less than smooth in operation. I say that perception of 3-D will be disturbed in this way based on some pretty well established principles of visual perception. If you want to learn more about that, then google is your friend. Look for Gestalt principles in optical perception; and figure ground perception; and cues to 3-D perception and you should be able to find the basics.

 

Hello Steve,

 

I think that "illusion" is an inappropriate term when discussing focusing screens because the definition of an "illusion", when it is created by a person,  is: A misrepresentation with an INTENT to deceive.        

 

A focused lens creates an in focus 2 dimensional image of 1 of the image planes which is at a right angle to the axis of a lens which is capturing a 3 dimensional scene. The screen captures this in focus image.

 

This 2 dimensional image is a representation of what will be seen on the print or transparency. There is no attempt to deceive here.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael   

Edited February 8, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht

[Steve Spencer]

Hello Steve,

 

I think that "illusion" is an inappropriate term when discussing focusing screens because the definition of an "illusion", when it is created by a person,  is: A misrepresentation with an INTENT to deceive.        

 

A focused lens creates an in focus 2 dimensional image of 1 of the image planes which is at a right angle to the axis of a lens which is capturing a 3 dimensional scene. The screen captures this in focus image.

 

This 2 dimensional image is a representation of what will be seen on the print or transparency. There is no attempt to deceive here.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael   

 

Hi Michael,

 

I agree that there is no attempt to deceive, but I disagree that the definition of an illusion includes the intent to deceive. I was referring to an optical illusion. There are many optical illusions and none of them have anything to do with the intent to deceive. Instead they reflect the way our minds work. And our minds see three dimensions in two dimensional images and that is an illusion and it is an illusion that can be shattered by introducing a focus patch into the 2 dimensional image. I think I have been clear about why people's perceptions of 3D in a 2D EVF will make an digital rangefinder an awkward device.

[Paulus]

Another akwardice I noticed with the SL was, it's inability to move the viewfinder fast from one spot to the another. The view distorts a fraction of a second. With " normal eyes " viewfinder, you can spin as fast as you want. 

[Tmuussoni]

I agree very much on the sentiment, but I think 30-36 MP is more likely to be the Goldilocks FF 35mm in my opinion. As Sony and Canon went from 24 to 36 MP and 24 to 30 MP respectively, they not only got more resolution but they increased the IQ (with better dynamic range) and the high ISO ability (less noise at high ISO), and the colour depth if anything increased slightly. Across sensor sizes pixels that are about 5 microns seems to be a sweet spot and that is in that 30-36 MP range. It is also in this range that diffraction starts to naturally suppress moire so a bit higher MP sensor would have that advantage too.

 

Stop with the pixel envy. I've got an MM v.1 @ 18MP. I have never found it lacking nor would my life be better with a 42 MP a7. Just big-ass files needing more storage and a better computer. 24MP is a sweet-spot; improve dynamic range, advance high-ISO performance without compromising low-ISO color performance. 

 

In my opinion there is no such thing as a sweet spot. It's an internet myth blown way out of proportions. Sensors evolve all the time. Sony A7r II already demonstrated this with BSI sensor architecture: Better High ISO and Dynamic range than Leica SL despite having 18 MP more resolution. A7r II is BSI sensor is based on 5th generation Exmor R BSI sensor. It will be interesting what the upcoming Sony A9 will bring us. Rumors say it will be 70MP and most likely 6th generation Exmor RS BSI technology. My guess it will do just as fine as Leica M10  regarding high ISO/dynamic range despite trumping it with much more MP. My point is: BSI sensors are awesome and bring some real advantages to the table.  Now the real question is this: will Leica evolve and get access to BSI sensor architecture with M11? It would get some real nice benefits for Leica. Less need for software color correction (vignetting, color shading), more higher performance lenses, more resolution. Or perhaps there is already something more interesting in 4 years. Time will tell. I certainly would love to see M11 with 40-50+ MP BSI sensor, or more, and see how well Apo-50 would perform on M11. A dream combo.

 

Disclaimer: I use M 240 and I do love it. But I just want Leica to not fall too much behind with sensor technology as it is the heart and brain of any digital camera system. It makes no difference that it's a rangefinder camera. To me that is irrelevant.

 

P.S. If you can afford 6500 € Leica M10, I'm sure you can also afford an additional 100 € hard drive for new hard drive for additional storage. Your computer will handle them just the same.

 

[Steve Spencer]

In my opinion there is no such thing as a sweet spot. It's an internet myth blown way out of proportions. Sensors evolve all the time. Sony A7r II already demonstrated this with BSI sensor architecture: Better High ISO and Dynamic range than Leica SL despite having 18 MP more resolution. A7r II is BSI sensor is based on 5th generation Exmor R BSI sensor. It will be interesting what the upcoming Sony A9 will bring us. Rumors say it will be 70MP and most likely 6th generation Exmor RS BSI technology. My guess it will do just as fine as Leica M10  regarding high ISO/dynamic range despite trumping it with much more MP. My point is: BSI sensors are awesome and bring some real advantages to the table.  Now the real question is this: will Leica evolve and get access to BSI sensor architecture with M11? It would get some real nice benefits for Leica. Less need for software color correction (vignetting, color shading), more higher performance lenses, more resolution. Or perhaps there is already something more interesting in 4 years. Time will tell. I certainly would love to see M11 with 40-50+ MP BSI sensor, or more, and see how well Apo-50 would perform on M11. A dream combo.

 

Disclaimer: I use M 240 and I do love it. But I just want Leica to not fall too much behind with sensor technology as it is the heart and brain of any digital camera system. It makes no difference that it's a rangefinder camera. To me that is irrelevant.

 

P.S. If you can afford 6500 € Leica M10, I'm sure you can also afford an additional 100 € hard drive for new hard drive for additional storage. Your computer will handle them just the same.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. More resolution is an advantage, but I think it has diminishing returns, and other problems can create a sweet spot. I am not basing this perspective on an internet myth either. I was influenced by this article: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/

It is a bit old at this point, but I still think it makes good points. New technology can help in many respects and increase dynamic range, reduce noise and improve colour, but all these new advances don't necessarily mean that you increase resolution without penalties that overwhelm the diminishing returns. A technology like BSI, which I think is a nice advance, could easily improve performance at 24 MP, 36 MP, 42MP, 70 MP, and 140MP and increase the performance equally at each resolution. The sweet spot could still be at 36 MP, but the sensor with 36 MP and BSI would be better than the sensor with 36 MP and no BSI. It could also be true that a 36 MP BSI sensor would have a bit better dynamic range and colour than a 42MP BSI sensor. Keep in mind the 42MP BSI is just a tiny bit over the proposed sweet spot for FF 35mm, and at least one reason that Sony picked 42MP was for it facility for video and shooting  Super 35 format. I have the a7rII and it is a great sensor. I too hope that Leica will bring newer technology including BSI and lower base ISO to their cameras. Another new technology is the Aptina coversion that improves high ISO in the A7rII (if you haven't notice the A7rII at 640 ISO is about as clean as at 200 ISO and this advantage continues at higher ISOs, because of this new technology). I hope Leica can incorporate that new technology too. I am all for the inclusion of any sensor improvement, but I think that is a separate issue from just how many MP will work best for the camera.

[IkarusJohn]

What's not to like about the M10? I seriously doubt that Leica can improve on this camera, within the constraints of the optica-mechanical coupled rangefinder and traditional M body. Seriously, this camera can surely only get incremental improvements.

 

- More MP? I don't really care about MP, provided it is useable without a tripod and worrying about blur and smearing (step up D800e and A7R). I'm not even remotely let down by 24MP.

 

- Video? No thanks. There are other, better, cheaper options.

 

- EVF? I hate having to add a second viewfinder. It spoils the simplicity of the camera and they're a pain (catch on the bag, dropped, broken, lost) - two viewfinders? Piss off! But ... even for diehard optical viewfinder users (Messucher means rangefinder), there are benefits in what an EVF offers.

 

- Tethering? Nah, a poor fit for what is a compact camera. M lenses mount perfectly on the SL, and it is so much better at this stuff.

 

I think the M10 is about as far as the traditional film body can go in a digital form.

 

But if we remove the constraint of the film body, what do I want in an M camera?

 

(1) An M mount - I understand Jono and Michael saying the M mount is too limited, but it's fine for M lenses, and I do want a camera that just takes M lenses, because I want it to be manual; aperture on the lens barrel, manual focus, shutter & ISO dials on the body. I don't want the additional options the L mount brings (primarily AF) because I want this to be for M lenses.

 

(2) Movable focus and metering patch.

 

(3) Accurate framing - I would actually like to keep an optical viewfinder, rather than an EVF, but I'm not sure how this would be done. Single framelines, for the mounted lens. I do like the idea of the viewfinder zooming slightly, so you get a margin around the framelines, without having to add a magnifier to see the smaller framelines.

 

(4) Focus magnification or other focus confirmation. I quite liked split image and fresnel ring focussing screeens on my Nikons ...

 

(5) Standard charging - please stop issuing a new battery and charger with every model. With USB chargers, I take a couple of Apple chargers, and I can then charge everything. It's so wasteful and unnecessary to change the battery every time! I thought Germans cared about the environment. Not Leica, apparently.

 

(6) Standardise the body - I don't mind what shape is adopted; Leica is actually pretty good at this sort of thing. Please, get over the baseplate; it's pointless. But set the dimensions, so people don't need to buy a new halfcase every time.

 

(7) Allow for future electronic compatibility - this is an expensive camera. It breaks my heart to think that such beautfully made cameras are let down be poorly specified electronics. Leica is big enough now to get what it need, in dimensions to fit a standardised body. There is no technical reason Leica cannot require all electronics suppliers to manufacture sensors, processors and other gubbins to fit a standard body. That would enable some level of backwards compatibility. Leica prides itself on the camera taking any historic lenses, it would be good if the owners of M11 cameras could be confident that future sensor upgrades could be fitted to their cameras. Yes, it could be expensive, but no it is not technially impossible - we've been through this before.

 

There we go. Oh, and make it bigger (okay, kidding - I don't mind).

[jonoslack]

Now the real question is this: will Leica evolve and get access to BSI sensor architecture with M11? It would get some real nice benefits for Leica. Less need for software color correction (vignetting, color shading),

Hmmm - if that's the case, why is it that the A7rii still doesn't perform well with many M lenses. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wasn't aware that the excellent new Sony sensors had come anywhere near solving those problems (even with the Kolari mods)

[HenriL]

I like geotagging my photos. On the M240, the GPS unit is in the hand grip. Which I prefer if it is not built into the camera body. On the M10 GPS is in the Visoflex electronic viewfinder; which I do not like to use.

[jonoslack]

(1) An M mount - I understand Jono and Michael saying the M mount is too limited, but it's fine for M lenses,

Oh! Hang on. I said that with respect to the development of a hypothetical QL camera (cracking idea I reckon). Not for future M cameras (which must, absolutely be based around a rangefinder).

 

Just that if you're going to produce an EVF based camera then it would be silly not to use the SL mount (and all it offers)

[Tmuussoni]

Hmmm - if that's the case, why is it that the A7rii still doesn't perform well with many M lenses. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wasn't aware that the excellent new Sony sensors had come anywhere near solving those problems (even with the Kolari mods)

It's quite simple: Sony bodies are designed with thicker filter stack in front of the sensor. Sony is something like 1.6 mm, while Leica bodies are designed with something like 0.5mmm (M8) to 0.9mm (M 240). And when you introduce unnecessary objects in the optical pathway the performance naturally suffers. In addition Leica micro lenses are configured differently than the Sony ones. Anyway, this is not the point. This has nothing to do with this performance of the Sony sensor, it is truly exceptional sensor. I consider it a better sensor than the Leica one, yes. My point is I just see some great potential if Leica someday decides to opt for BSI sensors as well (M11).  BSI sensors gather light more efficiently from broader angle than traditional sensors. This means less vignetting, less color shading, less pink corners, perhaps it would even eliminate the need for 6 Bit coding. So the old rules about pixel pitch, and megapixel sweet spot, do not really apply in the same way as few years before. What is even more interesting is there is evidence that A7r II actually had less vignetting and color shading than M 240 with lens corrections turned off. And I find it truly fascinating. Obviously the smearing is still there, but it's for a different reason.

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

Oh! Hang on. I said that with respect to the development of a hypothetical QL camera (cracking idea I reckon). Not for future M cameras (which must, absolutely be based around a rangefinder).

Just that if you're going to produce an EVF based camera then it would be silly not to use the SL mount (and all it offers)

You started well, then went backwards

 

I know I have advocated for an EVF based camera many times in the past (you will recall our discussion about the SL), but that's not because I love the EVF. I love the plain and clear view of the M OVF, but hate its shortcomings inherent in a 1953 design (fixed patch, inaccurate framing, loss in accuracy as focal length increases etc), I love a good SLR viewfinder (the S is amazing), but don't want a mirror box and the lenses and everything that goes with that, and good as the EVF in the SL is, an optical viewfinder is just better. The SL EVF is good enough, but ...

 

The problem I have with the L mount on such a camera is your last bit "it would be silly not to use the L mount (and all it offers)". It's the "all it offers" bit that I don't like. It's reminiscent of the M(240) when it was released, and part of the underlying reason I wouldn't buy it, but I would buy the M10. I want the limitations of the M lenses, but not the limitations of the coupled rangefinder - I see the lens limitations as a benefit (hard to justify, I know), and I see no benefit in focus and recompose, vague frame lines, hit and miss focussing longer than 50mm, calibration going out and having to add a second viewfinder.

 

The L mount brings the possibility of AF, using TL (cropped), SL (huge) & S lenses (along with other manufacturers), video and all sorts of electronic wizardry irrelevant to using M lenses. It would be a small SL, and would not have the clarity of purpose of the M camera. That is one of the reasons why I thumb my nose at those who keep saying - if it ain't a coupled rangefinder, it isn't an M camera - who cares what it's called?

 

The point I make so badly it seems is that there is a place for an M camera beyond the limitations inherent in the current, state of the art, but still flawed, optical view finder. Call it what you like, but I would like it to be dedicated to M lenses, and therefore limited by the M mount - why? There are 60 years of M mount lenses out there, and more LTM mount. We don't need the platform to also work with L mount lenses.

 

Without such a camera, we are limited to the crf mechanism, and a clip-on EVF. This seems a very big missed opportunity to me. Part of that equation will obviously be that the M10 (or an upgrade to it) will always be available. Pop is right - Leica has been very explicit about that. I don't think Leica needs a small SL - it already has the TL.

 

Cheers

John

Edited February 9, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Steve Spencer]

Hmmm - if that's the case, why is it that the A7rii still doesn't perform well with many M lenses. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wasn't aware that the excellent new Sony sensors had come anywhere near solving those problems (even with the Kolari mods)

 

To expand on what Tmuussoni said, there isn't one problem but two different and separable problems with M lenses on the Sony A7rII. One is the color cast in the corners and the edges, and the other is field curvature and smearing. With the BSI sensor in the Sony A7rII, the color cast problem is basically solved, but the field curvature and/or smearing in the corners and edges is not solved at all. So, you are right the Sony A7rII still doesn't work well with a bunch of Leica M lenses, but that doesn't mean that a BSI sensor for an M11 isn't possibly a good thing. It does look like the sensor in the M10 is also better with the color cast issue, but a BSI sensor for the M11 might be even better. BSI sensor also can help with less noise at high ISO, which would be a good thing. I am not suggesting just plunking the sensor for the A7rII in an M11, but some of the technology that sensor uses (like BSI) might be good additions for the new sensor that gets developed for the M11. For a Leica M camera any sensor would need to have thinner cover glass than a Sony camera and any sensor for a Leica M camera should have micro lenses developed for M lenses, but in addition if a sensor could add other new technologies like BSI it could be a good thing.

[Tailwagger]

The L mount brings the possibility of AF, using TL (cropped), SL (huge) & S lenses (along with other manufacturers), video and all sorts of electronic wizardry irrelevant to using M lenses. It would be a small SL, and would not have the clarity of purpose of the M camera...

 

The point I make so badly it seems is that there is a place for an M camera beyond the limitations inherent in the current, state of the art, but still flawed, optical view finder. Call it what you like, but I would like it to be dedicated to M lenses, and therefore limited by the M mount - why? There are 60 years of M mount lenses out there, and more LTM mount. We don't need the platform to also work with L mount lenses.

 

While I respect where Jono and the QLs are coming from, I do not come to Leica for versatility, I come for excellence.  To echo your sentiments, the notion of a Swiss army knife strikes me more as Sony's mission than Leica's.  The M system doesn't do everything well, and to great degree, thats the point.  Embracing Stoicism elevates both its sense of purpose as well as its usefulness for the like minded.  The decades upon decades of glass, the continued production of the M10 itself, virtually demand the production of an alternate body aimed squarely at conquering the challenges posed by RF coupled M optics in the context of a modern EVF body. But if the solution fails to be executed in as pure and as minimalist a way as is carried off by the traditional M system, it will be a failure, both spiritually and historically. Adding de facto support for AF and all its accoutrements crosses a sacred line, AFAIC.