Paulus Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share #101 Posted February 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Optical and electronic can be easily melded. Several companies are making electro-optical binoculars for the military right now, which can penetrate fog, smoke, and sand to provide a crisp clear image. Technology is progressing at a rapid pace, and I fully expect Leica is working toward ways to incorporate it into their existing systems. I expect we will see a hybrid electro-optical digital rangefinder camera from them within a decade. I think that will be possible, but I said: " I cannot imagine to see a full electronic option there." meaning, that I don't believe Leica will choose for an M without the M...finder completely. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 Hi Paulus, 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!
pop Posted February 4, 2017 Share #102 Posted February 4, 2017 .... I think it would be a very clumsy focussing aid for an EVF and I can't see what it would improve. You would use the device exactly as you now use the rangefinder in the M. Hence, if one is clumsy, so is the other. A solid state rangefinder as outlined in the mentioned patent might have the following advantages: - Framelines fitting more closely what the lens sees, depending on focal length and distance - Variable magnification of the finder image so that you can see the whole image with wideangle lenses and still recognize details with a tele - Moveable focus patch - Adjustable diopter - Switchable between rangefinder modus and live view - Adjustable by user for poorly adjusted lenses - Compensating focus shift for each individual lens type. Whether it would be actually usable would depend on a number of technical parameters such as the resolution, the latency, the speed and the noise of the image produced by the device. Its main disadvantage would certainly be the fact that the display (either on back of the camera or in the finder) emits light, IMO. I'm not trying to sell the device to anyone. I'm merely describing its main properties as I deduce them from the patent draft mentioned above. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 4, 2017 Share #103 Posted February 4, 2017 I have waited since the M9 to get an upgrade from my M8 that fit my requirements...I hoped that a future M10 might do that.....and although this looks a beauty, it still doesn't have 30mp... and having used my D800E it is a must for landscape. Fujis latest fits the bill so well.....but I would prefer to use my Leica glass if poss. I defy you to show the difference between 24 and 30 MP in print. It is a marginal step up. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 4, 2017 Share #104 Posted February 4, 2017 I defy you to show the difference between 24 and 30 MP in print. It is a marginal step up. Never pick a fight with a pixel peeper. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 4, 2017 Share #105 Posted February 4, 2017 The context is very simple, I have a M only for the lenses and for the compact system, never for the RF The best camera for me today is my iPhone 7+ but I don't like the files You can use Leica lenses on other compact systems. And it would cost you a lot less. What were you hoping from the M10? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 4, 2017 Share #106 Posted February 4, 2017 You can use Leica lenses on other compact systems. And it would cost you a lot less. What were you hoping from the M10? No i dont want , a system should be complete and modern what I was hoping ? same -- > https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170118_1238-LeicaM10.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted February 4, 2017 Share #107 Posted February 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) No i dont want , a system should be complete and modern I'm curious - how old are you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted February 4, 2017 Share #108 Posted February 4, 2017 ..say 5 years - 11/11/2022. at 11:11am. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted February 4, 2017 Share #109 Posted February 4, 2017 Digital CL please. Truly pocketable without lens attached. Signficantly lighter. I will likely buy an M10 this year, so am likely to pass on the M11 if it retains essentially the same form and features with minor electronics upgrades. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 4, 2017 Share #110 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) You would use the device exactly as you now use the rangefinder in the M. Hence, if one is clumsy, so is the other. A solid state rangefinder as outlined in the mentioned patent might have the following advantages: - Framelines fitting more closely what the lens sees, depending on focal length and distance - Variable magnification of the finder image so that you can see the whole image with wideangle lenses and still recognize details with a tele - Moveable focus patchYou - Adjustable diopter - Switchable between rangefinder modus and live view - Adjustable by user for poorly adjusted lenses - Compensating focus shift for each individual lens type. Whether it would be actually usable would depend on a number of technical parameters such as the resolution, the latency, the speed and the noise of the image produced by the device. Its main disadvantage would certainly be the fact that the display (either on back of the camera or in the finder) emits light, IMO. I'm not trying to sell the device to anyone. I'm merely describing its main properties as I deduce them from the patent draft mentioned above. Well Pop, you missed one of the main properties. It is a screen and not an actual 3-D image. This means that you would most certainly not use it as you use an optical rangefinder. The screen is different from an image seen through glass in a lot of ways. First, the screen will have much more limited dynamic range. Second, any perception of 3-D will not be actual 3-D but only an illusion of 3-D--the image on the screen is 2-D. Both of these points will make a big difference. In brighter light the shadows will block up and you won't be able to see what you could see with an optical finder--or the highlights will blow and you can see nothing where there are highlights. Anyone who has bothered to compare an EVF to an optical finder knows when the light is brighter and there are also shadows you can just see more of the scene with an optical finder. That can be a huge advantage similar to seeing the action outside the frame lines. Also important is that when using a rangefinder patch for focus our eye can naturally use the patch to pick out focus without disturbing our perception of the scene. This is so natural with an optical finder it barely seems worth commenting. When using the rangefinder patch we will still see the scene in the same way. That won't be true with an EVF. Because the image is actually 2-D and our perception is only an illusion of 3-D, the range finder patch at least at times will play havoc with that illusion. This is particularly problematic because when looking through the finder we will only be using one eye and therefore have fewer cues to 3-D. The specific problem is related to figure/ground perception. Our illusion of 3-D is often based on perceiving some objects as standing out while others fade into the background when of course all are the same distance away in a 2-D scene. As we focus on the rangefinder patch it will become figure (what stands out) and that will play havoc with our 3-D illusion of the scene. Said simply, there is a basic incompatibility between the way human vision works and the proposed system. Note I am not saying that EVFs are bad. They do have many advantages and some of the advantages you mentioned (variable diopter, variable magnification, compensating for the lens including for focus shift) apply to any EVF system. And you missed another important advantage in that they can gain up under poor light and make it a lot easier to see. I also think that adding an additional camera that let's you view a wider image than what is captured by the sensor that is creating the captured image is a nice possible addition to an EVF camera. It would let you switch back and forth between viewing a wider scene and an image of the picture you will actually take. I just don't think that using a rangefinder patch for focus on an EVF is going to work well at all. I do think it will be clumsy and disorienting compared to the focussing aids that are already available for EVFs. Why would the rangefinder patch as an aid to what's in focus work better than actually seeing what's in focus? This of course isn't an option with an optical rangefinder and a big reason we need the rangefinder patch. The rangefinder patch makes sense as a focussing aid in an optical system, but as far as I can tell will just get in the way in a system based on an EVF. Edited February 4, 2017 by Steve Spencer 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DES Posted February 4, 2017 Share #111 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) Never pick a fight with a pixel peeper.] Ok...before you both get your handbags out......:0)) I never said that there was a big difference between 24mp and 30mp .....rather I have the M8. Which the astute will realise is 15mp So.......there IS a difference between that and 30mp...... so for me! ..... I am not going to fork out the kind of investment I heed to on a camera that does not matches what I am used to. Apparent....Pixel peeper... signing off.. Have a look at the new Fujifilm GFX 50S things are moving very fast. Edited February 4, 2017 by DES Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted February 4, 2017 Share #112 Posted February 4, 2017 I defy you to show the difference between 24 and 30 MP in print. It is a marginal step up. But not for post-processing Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 4, 2017 Share #113 Posted February 4, 2017 Well Pop, you missed .... 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted February 4, 2017 Share #114 Posted February 4, 2017 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. +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 4, 2017 Share #115 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) That last post is tongue-in-cheek, of course. I'd love to be able to see 28 mm framelines with eyeglasses on, if they can figure that out. For the love of God, man - be reasonable! What would I like to see? Hmmm, how about - A silent shutter mode (near silent) No video Return of the digital spirit level Sapphire rear screen from day one No red dot, top plate engraving like the M-P 240 Higher usable ISO capability (higher in terms of image quality) Higher megapixel count sensor (30-36mp range) contingent upon image quality I am not sure if we can count on a sensor any larger than 30 mp in the M11 though. A 36 or 40 mp sensor in the M11 might start to cannibalize S2 sales, unless there is an S3 is released with a new sensor in the 50 to 70 mp range. Is it too much to hope for to see the M11 with a 36mp sensor and the S3 with a 70 mp sensor? Nikon's D810 has 36 mp and Hasselblad has 50 and 100 mp medium format cameras. If they can do it, there's no reason why Leica can't do it (unless they decide not to). Edited February 4, 2017 by Carlos Danger Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 4, 2017 Share #116 Posted February 4, 2017 Never pick a fight with a pixel peeper.Lol 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted February 4, 2017 Share #117 Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) The Leica patent describing a solid state, digital rangefinder uses in addition to the lens and sensor of the camera two tiny cameras positioned where the two rangefinder windows in the M are. Think of the cameras built into phones. The on-board computer mixes the images from the two small cameras and shifts one to the left or right, depending on the distance set on the main lens. There are other systems that would let them move away from an optical rangefinder--namely an EVF that they already use in the SL and I can't see how this system would be cheaper than an EVF as an EVF is only one component of it. I can't see how it would be a useful focussing aid over the one's that are already used either. It seems it would be clumsy and its only advantage is that it would mimic the way an optical rangefinder works--but I have a lot of doubts it would really seem all that similar. So, I can't see it happening, but hey maybe I am wrong. Hello Steve, I was thinking more along the lines of what Philipp wrote, which I have quoted just above in this Post. Best Regards, Michael Edited February 4, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share #118 Posted February 4, 2017 The new camera should have a spare battery. I heard today that Sony delivers an extra battery in the package... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted February 4, 2017 Share #119 Posted February 4, 2017 Round sensor Square sensor And frame lines that can show the crop factor 3:2 or 1:1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted February 4, 2017 Share #120 Posted February 4, 2017 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. 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.