pico Posted January 13, 2019 Share #741 Posted January 13, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 hour ago, Jeff S said: An excerpt from Puts.... “The finder is very clear and the bright (white) lines of the frames are well lit. The illumination is by LED's but the frame lines are projected by physical masks. An electronic option would be possible.” I look forward to Puts' patent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 13, 2019 Posted January 13, 2019 Hi pico, Take a look here M 11 will be around in less than 4 years. The speculations and facts.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted January 13, 2019 Share #742 Posted January 13, 2019 14 hours ago, lct said: +1 Well, whatever we want, think wise, expect, or not, Leica will decide. And they have a knack of doing the unexpected. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 13, 2019 Share #743 Posted January 13, 2019 19 minutes ago, jaapv said: Well, whatever we want, think wise, expect, or not, Leica will decide. And they have a knack of doing the unexpected. Unexpected by you you mean? I agree then Just kidding 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 13, 2019 Share #744 Posted January 13, 2019 50 minutes ago, jaapv said: And they have a knack of doing the unexpected. That's good, because I don't expect a 50% cut in prices!! 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2019 Share #745 Posted January 13, 2019 16 minutes ago, ianman said: That's good, because I don't expect a 50% cut in prices!! https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/293207-divided-by-a-common-language/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2019 Share #746 Posted January 13, 2019 8 hours ago, Jeff S said: For those wanting electronic frame lines rather than ones based on the current mechanical masks, Erwin Puts suggests this is doable, at least on an M10 -D. I assume he means this for any digital M, but maybe the screenless versions offer more space (?)... An excerpt from Puts.... “The finder is very clear and the bright (white) lines of the frames are well lit. The illumination is by LED's but the frame lines are projected by physical masks. An electronic option would be possible.” http://photo.imx.nl//blog/files/7bba82fb3a22e9f7e02bbf9124c24cbd-123.html Jeff Electronic option for the frame lines or for the entire viewfinder? Puts is a bit unclear here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 13, 2019 Share #747 Posted January 13, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know that Erwin Puts has the same expert knowledge of camera engineering that he has of optical design and lenses. I take his otherwise-unsupported comment as about as useful as "a trip to Jupiter would be possible." Sure - but when, at what cost, and how compatably with already-existing engineering components? The thing to remember about replacing the frameline masks (as oppose to the whole viewfinder) with something completely electronic is that - the frameline masks require a honking great hole through the center to allow the "second" rangefinder image to pass to the eyepiece. Can't use a standard LCD - no frontlighting inside the camera. Can't use a backlit-LCD: they require a contiguous illumination panel (no holes allowed). Could use an OLED (Apple just filed a patent for a "penetrated OLED") - except Apple's patent describes pinholes between pixels (for microphone input and speaker output), not a honking great hole. One could use an LCD/OLED out of the RF light-path, with semi-silvered mirrors to reflect it into the viewfinder. But at that point one essentially has the hybrid viewfinder (minus a live-view signal from the sensor) - which Leica said didn't fit into the M10 body, and I've read elsewhere also degraded the RF precision and clarity (extra semi-silvered mirrors at angles in the light-path). That leaves a circuit board with a pattern of "strip" LEDs mounted. More or less like the CB that already holds the meter-readout digit and symbol LEDs - scaled up to "mask" size. Easy to cut a hole in that. Virtually no benefit operationally over the existing frames, however (except getting to claim "they're all-electronic, now!" Whoopee! 😴 ). And you still need some kind of linkage (mostly mechanical) to shift the lines for parallax-correction when focusing Gutting the whole RF and just putting in a Q-sized EVF is easier - and I'm sure preferable for the "electron-heads" anyway. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 13, 2019 Share #748 Posted January 13, 2019 20 minutes ago, adan said: I don't know that Erwin Puts has the same expert knowledge of camera engineering that he has of optical design and lenses. I take his otherwise-unsupported comment as about as useful as "a trip to Jupiter would be possible." Sure - but when, at what cost, and how compatably with already-existing engineering components? The thing to remember about replacing the frameline masks (as oppose to the whole viewfinder) with something completely electronic is that - the frameline masks require a honking great hole through the center to allow the "second" rangefinder image to pass to the eyepiece. Can't use a standard LCD - no frontlighting inside the camera. Can't use a backlit-LCD: they require a contiguous illumination panel (no holes allowed). Could use an OLED (Apple just filed a patent for a "penetrated OLED") - except Apple's patent describes pinholes between pixels (for microphone input and speaker output), not a honking great hole. One could use an LCD/OLED out of the RF light-path, with semi-silvered mirrors to reflect it into the viewfinder. But at that point one essentially has the hybrid viewfinder (minus a live-view signal from the sensor) - which Leica said didn't fit into the M10 body, and I've read elsewhere also degraded the RF precision and clarity (extra semi-silvered mirrors at angles in the light-path). That leaves a circuit board with a pattern of "strip" LEDs mounted. More or less like the CB that already holds the meter-readout digit and symbol LEDs - scaled up to "mask" size. Easy to cut a hole in that. Virtually no benefit operationally over the existing frames, however (except getting to claim "they're all-electronic, now!" Whoopee! 😴 ). And you still need some kind of linkage (mostly mechanical) to shift the lines for parallax-correction when focusing Gutting the whole RF and just putting in a Q-sized EVF is easier - and I'm sure preferable for the "electron-heads" anyway. That’s why I wrote that maybe his comment was specific to the screenless M10-D, which was the subject of his article. But, yes, Puts is the only person I’ve known to express any optimism for replacing the mechanical masks, and did so without clarifying the difficulty, cost, etc. I take it the same way I take his other recent Leica camera critiques not specific to lens designs... thought provoking but sometimes more personal bias than fact. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 18, 2019 Share #749 Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) L mount cameras and M mount cameras are different beasts... The design of the body depends on the lenses of the system. 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! Edited January 18, 2019 by rosuna 2 2 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/268919-m-11-will-be-around-in-less-than-4-years-the-speculations-and-facts/?do=findComment&comment=3667194'>More sharing options...
lct Posted January 19, 2019 Share #750 Posted January 19, 2019 9 hours ago, rosuna said: L mount cameras and M mount cameras are different beasts... The design of the body depends on the lenses of the system. 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! What goes well without saying, goes even better when you show it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 19, 2019 Share #751 Posted January 19, 2019 My God - I have Hasselblad lenses smaller than that! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterGA Posted January 19, 2019 Share #752 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, adan said: My God - I have Hasselblad lenses smaller than that! and in my experience as a Hasselblad V and HCD shooter in film and digital for decades ...not one of them is remotely in the same class as the SL 50 Summilux - just one of the reasons I ditched it all and have never looked back - same for Zeiss "Milvus" and Otus 55/1.4 - once the Summilux was released it just blew them all away. 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! Edited January 19, 2019 by PeterGA 1 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/268919-m-11-will-be-around-in-less-than-4-years-the-speculations-and-facts/?do=findComment&comment=3667374'>More sharing options...
adan Posted January 19, 2019 Share #753 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) Yes - well, I use Hassys for something other than raw image quality these days. 6x6 viewing, film tonality, and those authentic < < notches in the black borders (I never crop from square). But I hear ya! The only ones that have really satisfied me (even with my limited goals) are the 38 Biogon, 50 Distagon, 120 S-Planar f/5.6, and 150 Sonnar. (All C versions) Edited January 19, 2019 by adan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterGA Posted January 19, 2019 Share #754 Posted January 19, 2019 In their day - they were fantastic pieces of kit - and still are but it just became harder and harder to get the slide or colour film developed properly and I got lazier and lazier souping up my own B&W - still the primary reason to make a photograph whenever it was made remains in prints or on file ...my favourite combo was the 'fat pixel 16 megapixel back' on the 200F with the fabulous 110 FE of course the 30 CFE was pretty special too.... 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 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/268919-m-11-will-be-around-in-less-than-4-years-the-speculations-and-facts/?do=findComment&comment=3667411'>More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 21, 2019 Share #755 Posted January 21, 2019 On 1/19/2019 at 6:37 AM, PeterGA said: and in my experience as a Hasselblad V and HCD shooter in film and digital for decades ...not one of them is remotely in the same class as the SL 50 Summilux - just one of the reasons I ditched it all and have never looked back - same for Zeiss "Milvus" and Otus 55/1.4 - once the Summilux was released it just blew them all away I am sure SL lenses are superb. Total size of the lens is one of the most important constraints for image quality, and these lenses are huge... My point is this: a good L mount camera with L-M adapter is not a good solution for using M lenses with EVF... and a good M mount camera designed for M lenses would not be a good body design for using SL lenses on it. Body and lenses are interconnected and a good system needs a balance between the lens and the body. Personally, I don't need, like or want a large system combined with a small format (in my opinion, large sizes it is justified in medium format cameras, because the larger format brings new possibilities). The difficult and unresolved problem is to achieve a small system and really good image quality (large format). It is even more difficult with AF lenses. ... but Leica already has this solved... ... the M system. 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 21, 2019 Share #756 Posted January 21, 2019 4 hours ago, rosuna said: My point is this: a good L mount camera with L-M adapter is not a good solution for using M lenses with EVF... and a good M mount camera designed for M lenses would not be a good body design for using SL lenses on it. Body and lenses are interconnected and a good system needs a balance between the lens and the body. Hmmm, I'm not sure that I agree with the first paragraph. I think that it would be quite possible to make a good L mount camera which was geared towards use with M mount lenses (possibly with a more elaborate adapter which could detect focus movement). . . . but could use SL and TL lenses as well. Whether Leica choose to do it is quite another matter. Best 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwesi Posted January 22, 2019 Share #757 Posted January 22, 2019 12 hours ago, rosuna said: I am sure SL lenses are superb. Total size of the lens is one of the most important constraints for image quality, and these lenses are huge... My point is this: a good L mount camera with L-M adapter is not a good solution for using M lenses with EVF... and a good M mount camera designed for M lenses would not be a good body design for using SL lenses on it. Body and lenses are interconnected and a good system needs a balance between the lens and the body. Personally, I don't need, like or want a large system combined with a small format (in my opinion, large sizes it is justified in medium format cameras, because the larger format brings new possibilities). The difficult and unresolved problem is to achieve a small system and really good image quality (large format). It is even more difficult with AF lenses. ... but Leica already has this solved... ... the M system. I couldn't agree more. Leicarumors just posted avery interesting comparison between an M10 a Sony A7 and a Phase One. The best part is when the 75/1.25 is mounted on the latest phase One with jaw dropping results. Really makes you hope the M11 finally breaks away from the 24mp choke hold . Link below https://leicarumors.com/2019/01/20/mega-shootout-best-of-the-best-sony-leica-and-phase-one-comparison.aspx/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted January 22, 2019 Share #758 Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Kwesi said: Really makes you hope the M11 finally breaks away from the 24mp choke hold . I agree. Would be nice to see a 30mp sensor on the M11 and the Q2. Leica lenses deserve a little extra resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted January 22, 2019 Share #759 Posted January 22, 2019 The difference between 24 and 30 MPx is negligible and 24 MPx are plenty. In certain situations larger pixels are better. How about two versions of the SL2, one with ‘only’ 24 MPx and no AA/OLPF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKW Posted January 22, 2019 Share #760 Posted January 22, 2019 13 hours ago, jonoslack said: Hmmm, I'm not sure that I agree with the first paragraph. I think that it would be quite possible to make a good L mount camera which was geared towards use with M mount lenses (possibly with a more elaborate adapter which could detect focus movement). . . . but could use SL and TL lenses as well. Whether Leica choose to do it is quite another matter. Best I agree with you 100%. L-mount is the way to go! Arto 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now