Lax Jought Posted February 3, 2017 Share #61 Posted February 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can totally imagine some time in the future when technology advances far enough where an increase of MP in a FF sensor surpasses today's current MF dimensions. Until then, imagine what they can do if they only stuck with 24MP and improved ISO and IQ, and of course moire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Hi Lax Jought, 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!
Sean ASA Posted February 3, 2017 Share #62 Posted February 3, 2017 Discrete video, built in evf, optional .85, MD style back (evf used for settings), no red dot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastevere Posted February 3, 2017 Share #63 Posted February 3, 2017 Will we see a monochrome M10 before an M11? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 3, 2017 Share #64 Posted February 3, 2017 Hybrid Electronic RF or nothing for me, I want a modern M for M lenses not that M10 thing Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted February 3, 2017 Share #65 Posted February 3, 2017 Will we see a monochrome M10 before an M11? We hope! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 3, 2017 Share #66 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Hybrid Electronic RF or nothing for me, I want a modern M for M lenses not that M10 thing Isn't an electronic rangefinder an oxymoron? To me being analog (i.e., optical) is part of the definition of a rangefinder. I am fine with an EVF, I even like them quite a bit, but it isn't a rangefinder. I also think it would be cool if Leica built a smaller camera than the SL that had a built in EVF, but I hope they still make a real rangefinder based camera with a real optical path. Edited February 3, 2017 by Steve Spencer Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2017 Share #67 Posted February 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Isn't an electronic rangefinder an oxymoron? To me being analog (i.e., optical) is part of the definition of a rangefinder. I am fine with an EVF, I even like them quite a bit, but it isn't a rangefinder. I also think it would be cool if Leica built a smaller camera than the SL that had a built in EVF, but I hope they still make a real rangefinder based camera with a real optical path. Have you heard of the Konost camera? It's vaporware currently, but is supposed to come out later this year. They have supposedly developed a digital (rather than optical) rangefinder mechanism. Meaning that instead of using the prisms and mirrors of a mechanical rangefinder, it instead uses a secondary image sensor in an all-digital system. The point being that we often constrain our thinking to what has always been, when instead we should be open to the possibilities that technological innovation can bring. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted February 3, 2017 Share #68 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) In 4 years, we will definitely not see a M11 fully integrated onto a GoPro platform equipped with a wireless finder and Snapchat enabled. In the meantime "quod et beatus est". Edited February 3, 2017 by rramesh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 3, 2017 Share #69 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Have you heard of the Konost camera? It's vaporware currently, but is supposed to come out later this year. They have supposedly developed a digital (rather than optical) rangefinder mechanism. Meaning that instead of using the prisms and mirrors of a mechanical rangefinder, it instead uses a secondary image sensor in an all-digital system. The point being that we often constrain our thinking to what has always been, when instead we should be open to the possibilities that technological innovation can bring. Yes, I have heard of Konost camera and I saw some of their early plans. It seemed to me what they are calling on "digital rangefinder," is merely an EVF. It is a nice concept, but in my view it is not a digital rangefinder. I am not even sure what a digital rangefinder would be and how it would work. Would you put a camera pointing out from your camera and then feed that to an EVF? That seems like an odd redundancy. What would be the rangefinder patch? Why would you even try to make a digital rangefinder? As I said above the whole concept of a digital rangefinder seems to be an anachronism and that being optical rather than digital seems to part of the definition of a rangefinder. Edited February 3, 2017 by Steve Spencer Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share #70 Posted February 3, 2017 Have you heard of the Konost camera? It's vaporware currently, but is supposed to come out later this year. They have supposedly developed a digital (rather than optical) rangefinder mechanism. Meaning that instead of using the prisms and mirrors of a mechanical rangefinder, it instead uses a secondary image sensor in an all-digital system. The point being that we often constrain our thinking to what has always been, when instead we should be open to the possibilities that technological innovation can bring. Maybe we like, what has always been? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share #71 Posted February 3, 2017 Will we see a monochrome M10 before an M11? I don't know if there is time enough to put it between the M 10 and 11. IF The development last 3 years I suppose. The current M 10 should be an addition to the Monochrome program. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 3, 2017 Share #72 Posted February 3, 2017 I also think it would be cool if Leica built a smaller camera than the SL that had a built in EVF, but I hope they still make a real rangefinder based camera with a real optical path. Same for me, a M-like with EVF and they can keep a RF line beside one thousand years I shall never buy it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2017 Share #73 Posted February 3, 2017 Yes, I have heard of Konost camera and I saw some of their early plans. It seemed to me what they are calling on "digital rangefinder," is merely an EVF. It is a nice concept, but in my view it is not a digital rangefinder. I am not even sure what a digital rangefinder would be and how it would work. Would you put a camera pointing out from your camera and then feed that to an EVF? That seems like an odd redundancy. What would be the rangefinder patch? Why would you even try to make a digital rangefinder? As I said above the whole concept of a digital rangefinder seems to be an anachronism and that being optical rather than digital seems to part of the definition of a rangefinder. As I understand their concept, the rangefinder is a true digital mechanism. It uses an evf, but the rangefinder patch uses another electronic sensor rather than a purely optical one. Thus, as you focus you are aligning two electronic images rather than two optical images. I foresee a lot of potential advantages to this approach which could make focusing with difficult lenses or in poor lighting much easier as well as allow for easier calibration (or maybe obviate the need for calibration entirely!). All while maintaining the classic feel and utility of rangefinder focusing. Of course, it's all speculation until they can prove the concept is viable. But it does appear to be a great way to meld old and new technology to create a useful upgrade to a classic mechanism. It's not hard to see the potential advantages of such a mechanism. Focusing a noctilux on someone's eyes in dim light could be made an easy, quick, and accurate task. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2017 Share #74 Posted February 3, 2017 Maybe we like, what has always been? And it is for people with this mindset that Leica still makes film cameras. Nothing wrong with that. But now we have a digital M. And to think that technological innovation will cease with the M10 is absurd. The question is how will Leica continue to innovate while still retaining the qualities that most of us love about the M system. I think evolving the rangefinder mechanism from optical to electronic is an obvious path forward, and I would be surprised if they weren't considering it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 3, 2017 Share #75 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) As I understand their concept, the rangefinder is a true digital mechanism. It uses an evf, but the rangefinder patch uses another electronic sensor rather than a purely optical one. Thus, as you focus you are aligning two electronic images rather than two optical images. I foresee a lot of potential advantages to this approach which could make focusing with difficult lenses or in poor lighting much easier as well as allow for easier calibration (or maybe obviate the need for calibration entirely!). All while maintaining the classic feel and utility of rangefinder focusing. Of course, it's all speculation until they can prove the concept is viable. But it does appear to be a great way to meld old and new technology to create a useful upgrade to a classic mechanism. It's not hard to see the potential advantages of such a mechanism. Focusing a noctilux on someone's eyes in dim light could be made an easy, quick, and accurate task. I still don't get this at all. Presumably the EVF is from the sensor. If it is from the sensor, then we have already lost an important aspect of rangefinder focussing -- being able to see outside the frame lines. If it is not from the sensor, where does this image come from? Now we have a second (or third electronic sensor if the EVF doesn't come from the sensor) that somehow simulates a rangefinder patch? But how does that sensor align and connect this virtual rangefinder patch interface with manual focus on the lens? That seems to require some sort of analog to digital converter that I need to know a lot more about how that works before this makes any sense whatsoever. So you now have at least two sensors (three if you don't lose site outside the frame lines) and then a new sort of interface between the mechanical lens and the virtual rangefinder is needed, all for what purpose? To simulate a mechanical system that works very well? I am sorry, but this whole idea is non-sensical to me. If you want digital, then an EVF with the digital focus aids makes sense. If you want a rangefinder, then the optical/mechanical system makes sense, but I can't see the point of trying to emulate the optical/mechanical rangefinder with an even more complicated digital system. Edited February 3, 2017 by Steve Spencer Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2017 Share #76 Posted February 3, 2017 I still don't get this at all.Unfortunately, I can't help you to understand it better because I don't know the details of their technology and they haven't shared much information publicly. It will be interesting to see what they come up with and how well it works. But unlike you, I suppose, I do see the potential benefits of such a system if they can get it to work. I also see the evf limitation of not being able to see outside the frame lines as a disadvantage that will turn some people off. Don't know if there is a way around that or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share #77 Posted February 3, 2017 And it is for people with this mindset that Leica still makes film cameras. Nothing wrong with that. But now we have a digital M. And to think that technological innovation will cease with the M10 is absurd. The question is how will Leica continue to innovate while still retaining the qualities that most of us love about the M system. I think evolving the rangefinder mechanism from optical to electronic is an obvious path forward, and I would be surprised if they weren't considering it. And it is for people with this mindset that Leica still makes film cameras. Nothing wrong with that. But now we have a digital M. And to think that technological innovation will cease with the M10 is absurd. The question is how will Leica continue to innovate while still retaining the qualities that most of us love about the M system. I think evolving the rangefinder mechanism from optical to electronic is an obvious path forward, and I would be surprised if they weren't considering it. IMHO the " Optical " will always be important, for me and for Leica , no , very important. Let's look at the binoculars. I cannot imagine to see a full electronic option there. For me it's alway a question how close I am to the subject and until now, the electronic option is not near enough for me. To much interference between the subject and my eye. It's the reason I choose for a rangefinder. The day I cannot see the difference anymore between the looking-glas from a rangefinder optical system and an electronic system I will be convinced, but until that day I 'm very happy with my optical viewfinder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stef63 Posted February 3, 2017 Share #78 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Hello Everybody, How about an, effectively, current film MP body with a removable & upgradable & interchangeable digital sensor which comes complete with the necessary accompanying electronics. Best Regards, Michael Sorry to say but this is not going to happen and a bad idea overall. Intel tried it decennia ago with the upgradable 386 and 486 cpu boards. Who ever upgraded it's cpu? The current Leica M10 has improvements on so much area's versus it's predecessor that limiting the technological progress to the digital sensor and main board only makes no sense. From a technological standpoint I do not believe in "upgradability" of products. It makes no sense if a car manufacturer would offer the possibility to make the current car upgradable for a future engine. An advanced technological product is the sum of all it's components. And progress is going to happen or will have impact in all area's of the product. Why limiting this to the sensor and main board for a camera? Edited February 3, 2017 by Stef63 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted February 3, 2017 Share #79 Posted February 3, 2017 Sorry to say but this is not going to happen and a bad idea overall. Intel tried it decennia ago with the upgradable 386 and 486 cpu boards. Who ever upgraded it's cpu? The current Leica M10 has improvements on so much area's versus it's predecessor that limiting the technological progress to the digital sensor and main board only makes no sense. From a technological standpoint I do not believe in "upgradability" of products. It makes no sense if a car manufacturer would offer the possibility to make the current car upgradable for a future engine. An advanced technological product is the sum of all it's components. And progress is going to happen or will have impact in all area's of the product. Why limiting this to the sensor and main board for a camera? Hello Stefan, Upgradeability of components within a system is 1 of the ways in which things are developed so that there is NOT the necessity to go back to "square one" with those aspects of what is being utilized that do not need to be replaced. Examples of this in photography are: Interchangeable lenses on Leitz cameras in the 1930's Interchangeable behind the lens meters in Nikons in the 1970's And: Interchangeable digital backs for Hasselblad 500's that can be switched back & forth with film backs for those who would like to do that & which can be upgraded to a more developed version of digital back as improvements come about. This same perspective of upgradeability of certain components without necessitating the replacement of the entire system is something that is common throughout many areas of manufacture & has been since the beginning of manufacturing Worldwide. Did I mention interchangeable tires & interchangeable shock absorbers for automobiles? Best Regards, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stef63 Posted February 3, 2017 Share #80 Posted February 3, 2017 Michael, Interchangeability is not the same as upgradability. The examples you give (tires, chock absorbers, lenses etc) are interchangable items with diffent characteristics. Upgradability is something different. It is producing a platform with today technology that opens up for future improvements by replacing components in the future not with other characteristics but with improved characteristics. I strongly believe this is valid for software, history has proved that for hardware it was never a great succes especially in high end digital products. Improvement works best on ALL aspects of the product. Just my opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.