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

[analog-digital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Mr.Prime:

if they can make a full frame CL we don’t also need an M with EVF.

The CL IS full frame 😇

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

7 hours ago, lct said:

I'm afraid not since the focus patch would remain at the centre of the frame, unless Leica can manage to implement a moving focus point, which would imply an hybrid viewfinder i suspect

And don't forget that the M lenses have a manual aperture meaning that any EVF would have to cope with both low light levels on the sensor and depth of field which will probably make precise point of focus determination difficult. By no means impossible, but not exactly a refined system. Why produce a clumsy, clunky camera when there are two systems already available - the M line up and the SL via adapter, which work well at what they do? I see nothing that an M-EVF camera can offer that the SL does not other than form factor (M sized). And form factor starts to look very expensive given the SL's ability to use AF, etc. and its inevitably awkward drawbacks. Perhaps Leica WILL build such a camera but it would need to be very well priced to make me want to buy one, and I doubt that it will be that cheap.

[IkarusJohn]

“Clumsy” and “Clunky” - very true!

If you look at the switch from CCD to CMOS, Leica was able to include live view, an external EVF, video and all sorts of things. Why? Because they could, rather than because it was a good idea, or because it made the M better or was well implemented. 

At that point, Leica could have developed M mount zooms and lenses wider than 18mm or longer than 135mm. They didn’t. Instead, the M10 ditched video and was far more in line with the traditional M camera. And it is fabulous. 

Would an EVF version add to that?  While I don’t agree with many of the reasons here for not making one (I have total faith in Leica’s ability to put a perfectly good EVF in an M body - they managed with the CL), I do agree with Jaap that the real issue is - would it sell enough to cover the development cost?  There’s certainly a gap (those who struggle with focusing, focus shift and those who want a full-frame CL/smaller SL/better EVF implementation for M lenses)  

With the Monochrom, the initial offering was expected to be to a small market sector. With the M-D and M10-D, Leica tested the waters with the M60, and the response was muted. But, that was more a reaction to the special edition, I suspect. In both cases, the production versions seem to have been very successful. 

So, how would such a camera break cover; how would Leica test the waters?  Unless it was a very special version (carbon fibre or unobtainium, no baseplate, no LCD, enhanced WiFi, no SD card, internet capable and God knows what, with limited edition matching 35 & 75 Noctiluxes, presented with a beautiful black paint or mirror finish) costing a fortune ... I’m not sure how Leica would test the water. 

I guess they could just release an M10-E ...

[lct]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

And don't forget that the M lenses have a manual aperture meaning that any EVF would have to cope with both low light levels on the sensor and depth of field which will probably make precise point of focus determination difficult.

I do this all the time with both my digital CL and Kolari modded Sony A7s mod. No problem at all.

[pgk]

31 minutes ago, lct said:

I do this all the time with both my digital CL and Kolari modded Sony A7s mod. No problem at all.

I focus lots of old (and very old) lenses on my Sony A7IIs but, they are always easier/more accurate to focus wide open and then stop down so it may not be a problem until that is, it is a problem. Neither focussing stopped down nor focussing then stopping down are an ideal solution. Its clumsy.

FWIW I agree that even so it might sell, the question really being whether it would sell well enough to be worthwhile.

Edited February 9, 2020 by pgk

[lct]

31 minutes ago, pgk said:

I focus lots of old (and very old) lenses on my Sony A7IIs but, they are always easier/more accurate to focus wide open and then stop down so it may not be a problem until that is, it is a problem. Neither focussing stopped down nor focussing then stopping down are an ideal solution. Its clumsy.

Not for me. Focusing wide open takes too long and is not accurate when i have to recompose. This one was focused stop down at f/11. (Digital CL, adapted Tessar 35/3.5, Macro-Adapter-M, handheld)

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!

 

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using M lenses on the SL & TL2 I never focus wide open and stop down.  The aperture simulation with the EVF (also on the M10-D) really makes the old SLR approach of focus wide open then stop down for exposure superfluous for me.  It also avoids focus shift issues on some older lenses.

[lucerne]

5 hours ago, analog-digital said:

The CL IS full frame 😇

I’m afraid that you would be disappointed.   It’s definitely not full frame.

 

[lct]

1 minute ago, lucerne said:

I’m afraid that you would be disappointed.   It’s definitely not full frame.

The CL is full frame, the digital CL is not .

[lucerne]

1 minute ago, lct said:

The CL is full frame, the digital CL is not .

Surely we are talking solely digital on this part of the forum.   Seems like we would need to qualify all our discussions with a statement.  Digital or film.  

[evikne]

Some people also claim that all digital sensors are full frame. Because the image always fills the entire frame, regardless of size. 😉

[lucerne]

18 minutes ago, evikne said:

Some people also claim that all digital sensors are full frame. Because the image always fills the entire frame, regardless of size. 😉

Who would they be.   Have you an example?

It’s a physical fact.  There’s more than a subtle difference between full frame and APS-c.      It’s got nothing to do with filling the frame.  The effective focal length of the lenses is subject to a factor based on the reduced sensor size relative to a full frame sensor.   

Edited February 9, 2020 by lucerne

[lct]

If all half frame are full frame and all full frame are not half frame, spot the mistake

[jankap]

Formerly FF (full frame) was called Kleinbild (small picture). This all is marketing. The first camera of my wife had the picture format 90 x 60mm. The Leica format was small compared with this. The message was: be proud of your Kleinbild camera, it can produce large prints too.

[lct]

16 minutes ago, jankap said:

Formerly FF (full frame) was called Kleinbild (small picture).

"Miniature format" as one said in the UK or USA.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, lucerne said:

Who would they be.   Have you an example?

It’s a physical fact.  There’s more than a subtle difference between full frame and APS-c.      It’s got nothing to do with filling the frame.  The effective focal length of the lenses is subject to a factor based on the reduced sensor size relative to a full frame sensor.   

Not really the effective focal length. The focal length is a fixed , lens specific value. You mean the angle of view.

[mike3996]

The sensor or its size doesn't make the image; the lens does. It just so happens that usually lenses that get to cover a larger image circle tend to do better because a larger image circle is more forgiving and more tolerant to errors and whatnot. Leica squeezes everything out of an image circle, no matter how small.

[pgk]

12 hours ago, lct said:

Not for me. Focusing wide open takes too long and is not accurate when i have to recompose. This one was focused stop down at f/11. (Digital CL, adapted Tessar 35/3.5, Macro-Adapter-M, handheld)

Well, your experience is different to mine. I find that the Sony is too hit and miss much of the time so I have to use magnified view with the lens wide open, then stop down and take the photo. It depends what you are doing of course, and the lighting levels and contrast and so on. Things tend to work ok when conditions are good but not when they are less than good - my experience anyway. I would expect that buyers of an expensive M-EVF camera would want it to work well in most conditions and I come back to my original point which is that it will probably be a costly exercise in form factor. It will all come down to predicted sales and potential profit.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mike3996]

A Leica M without rangefinder is not an M. M11 that doesn't have an optical rangefinder is not an M.

I do welcome an idea about SL-mini that had the form factor of Leica M and either L or M mount... But an M it is not.

[jaapv]

10 hours ago, jankap said:

Formerly FF (full frame) was called Kleinbild (small picture). This all is marketing. The first camera of my wife had the picture format 90 x 60mm. The Leica format was small compared with this. The message was: be proud of your Kleinbild camera, it can produce large prints too.

The definition of full frame is that the print size is the same as the negative (sensor) size. So everybody using a 24x36 camera is supposed to print passport portrait  size if he wishes to claim full-frame.  The only Leica full-frame camera is the Sofort.