M10? - Sorry, no!

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

oh, ok Bill......perhaps once again I've jumped in and missed the point, it wouldn't be the first time!

So are you arguing for here something I guess like a Q but with interchangeable lenses?..........doesn't that sort of make it an SL?

[Bill Livingston]

Thank you Peter... but I also think that we, on this side of the discussion, are also far less clear than we need to be..

 

But no, not like an SL. Nor a Q... as I will try to explain.

 

The SL is the modern, mirrorless camera, a type of camera that seems to be taking over the market once occupied by SLR and now DSLR cameras. The SL has autofocus, video and is considerably larger than a traditional M camera... more in keeping, size wise at least, with the SLR and DSLR cameras most of us grew up with... but with today’s modern features which although not a requirement for everyone, are of considerable use to pro, sports and often, studio use... such as GPS, tethering, Wifi, etc.

 

Like you, I have no need for wifi or wired tethering, nor even GPS, although it’s useful to have that data in the exif files... However, all of that could be done as an option, by way of a battery grip, perfectly well if Leica could get their act together properly. Hell, they could even add extra SD card slots and make the whole thing much more user friendly.

 

In the meantime, us more ‘traditional’ M users could have a stripped down, non AF, non video M camera with a simple, very high quality EVF to use with our gorgeous M lenses - particularly wides in excess of 28mm or greater than, say 75mm, without daft (and often expensive) accessory finders.

 

Would that be an interchangeable lens Q?

 

Quite possibly. But if Leica decided to design a EVF M, then an interchangeable lens Q would not be in such high demand in some quarters. Leaving the current Q as an outstanding fixed lens camera at a lower price.

 

Surely Leica should be looking to consolidate the camera ranges they have and focus on simplicity and clarity in their product offer.

[jaapv]

I’m confused here Jaap... on a previous post you said that you would need the coupling in order to trigger the magnification... now you are saying it has a motion sensor? Which is it?

 

Obviously the EVF reads directly off the sensor, but surely the lens needs to tell the camera that it is being focussed in order to activate the magnification, you first said you need the coupling to do that... now you are saying it doesn’t? But then confuse me more by saying you would need a motion sensor on the helicoid? Wouldn’t that mean you would need a whole new range of M lenses?

 

I honestly think it is far simpler than that. I understood the camera was ‘told’ to magnify in the add on EVF, mechanically, by the simple action of turning the focussing ring. So why do anything different? If I have misunderstood all of your post, please tell me.

 

We are just moving the EVF from a carbuncle on top of the camera to inside the camera, where the OVF currently is...

 

That’s why it essential that there are two M versions... an EVF and an OVF... both using the same M lenses and both operating in exactly the same way.

The motion sensor is incorporated in the RF mechanism on the M 240 and the M10. So the movement of the helicoid as transferred to the RF is the agent that triggers the magnification. On an EVF M mount camera the RF mechanism would no longer be present, so there would need to be a  motion sensor and a mechanical coupling somewhere.

[adan]

Surely Leica should be looking to consolidate the camera ranges they have and focus on simplicity and clarity in their product offer.

 

Adding another camera to the line (M10 with a different viewfinder - "M-EV"?) is hardly "consolidating the camera ranges."

 

I get the feeling that if Leica produced 1000 different camera models, someone would whimper and whine that there was not a 1001st, with some little tweak to the feature set that suited them more perfectly.

 

As Stefan Daniel will tell you ad nauseam, the "M" stands for "Meßsucher" - "measuring finder" or "rangefinder." M is not about the "M" lens mount - it is all about the glass window and double-image used for viewing and focusing.

 

There will never be a Leica M camera (ancient history excepted) that does not contain the rangefinder.

 

There might - sometime in the future - be a "complete hybrid" finder (like Fuji X-Pro) with an LCD that 1) provides the framelines as a TV image superimposed on the OVF RF/VF view, 2) provides an internal EVF-only view via a switch and 3) doesn't mess up the optical RF light path precision beyond Leica's preferred tolerances. Even for us traditionalists, that would mean some improvements: only one frameline visible at any one time, as computer-drawn lines rather than mechanical slits, and thus adjustable digitally via reading the focal length from the 6-bit code (or menu selection); new focal lengths easily added (e.g. 105mm, 40mm) to the mechanical "standard 6"; frame size, not just parallax correction, changing with focus distance/lens extension.

 

But the RF will always be built-in - to an camera labelled "M".

______________

 

@jaap - purely from a technical standpoint, why could there not be a "feeler" (simple cam and motion sensor) in an EVF-only Leica, in the location of the current camera's RF roller-cam? I don't see that as a difficulty, compared with the fact that Leica knows what an "M" is, (OVF rangefinder) and won't change that.

[Bill Livingston]

The motion sensor is incorporated in the RF mechanism on the M 240 and the M10. So the movement of the helicoid as transferred to the RF is the agent that triggers the magnification. On an EVF M mount camera the RF mechanism would no longer be present, so there would need to be a  motion sensor and a mechanical coupling somewhere.

So in other words, that same mechanical coupling could be used to trigger the magnification, just as it does currently.

 

The focussing is activated by a mechanism in other words, and that in turn then sends a proportionate signal to facilitate the focussing.

 

In that case, what I said originally still stands. All you need do is couple the lens to the body via something very similar in the existing M cameras - a mechanical system in other words, and we are done. After all, it already works when you are using the add on EVF, so what is different?

[Bill Livingston]

I take your point Adan, and I have read those same comments from Stefan.

 

It still doesn’t get away from the fact that he may simply be digging the M camera into a position where it will eventually just disappear. Being THAT fixed in a view that really will not stand the test of time isn’t helpful and closes off his options. Besides, it’s not as if we would be getting rid of the ‘messucher’ , is it? It would still be part of the mix.

 

Did he/they refer to the M1 as a messucher, or consider it an M mount camera? Sorry to bring the point up, especially as you so graciously alluded to it in your post.

 

It’s not as if Leica haven’t been guilty of poor decision making in the past, either...

 

And although I agree that if we sent out everyone’s desire for a camera that would suit them, there would be thousands of different versions... I’m not suggesting that either.

 

Quite the reverse.

 

And from the comments on here and those I have had ‘in the real world’, I would expect the option of an EVF M to be very well received. They should do the work and see, that’s what a marketing department is for... it’s not just a one way street, what the market expects/demands is as much a function in product road maps as what the company wants to project... I suspect most people wouldn’t give a damn whether M stood for messucher or had evolved into simply referring to the mount.... I mean, after all, it’s the lenses that are king anyway.

 

I think an SL, a Q and an M (in OVF and EVF versions) is actually smaller than Leicas current offering... that’s three cameras and four versions. A far lower skew than currently.

 

And if the S is a success (which I doubt in terms of numbers sold) then maybe that could be a fourth camera... but I would need to be convinced if I was running the company...

 

As for the rest?

 

Not really Leica, so, as far as I am concerned, not really part of the discussion, although some considerable consolidation could be done there, too.

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The use of the term M, as misguided as it might be in this context, is purely as it pertains to the name of the mount.  I think we all get that Asti is not Champagne.  In some dimensions thats an important distinction to make.  In others, not so much.

 

Whatever you call it, lets leave that to the marketing department, there is an unknown number of customers that would like to see an EVF-based camera dedicated to the M ethic of simplicity that embraces M glass natively, not as an afterthought. Some might see it as a lower cost, less versatile but equally less finicky, backup body, others as an alternative to the compromise inherent in non-native mounting to existing mirrorless cameras, still others as a singular tool in it own right. I hold little hope that we'll see such a camera anytime soon, but there are sound reasons for some of us to desire it, tradition notwithstanding.

[pico]

I long thought that EVF was to accommodation Leica's aging consumer, but is it an attraction for younger consumers?  Who in the world with normal eyesight would want an EVF and optical rangefinder? One or the other could suffice. No? Enlighten me.

[jaapv]

I take your point Adan, and I have read those same comments from Stefan.

 

It still doesn’t get away from the fact that he may simply be digging the M camera into a position where it will eventually just disappear. Being THAT fixed in a view that really will not stand the test of time isn’t helpful and closes off his options. Besides, it’s not as if we would be getting rid of the ‘messucher’ , is it? It would still be part of the mix.

 

Did he/they refer to the M1 as a messucher, or consider it an M mount camera? Sorry to bring the point up, especially as you so graciously alluded to it in your post.

 

It’s not as if Leica haven’t been guilty of poor decision making in the past, either...

 

And although I agree that if we sent out everyone’s desire for a camera that would suit them, there would be thousands of different versions... I’m not suggesting that either.

 

Quite the reverse.

 

And from the comments on here and those I have had ‘in the real world’, I would expect the option of an EVF M to be very well received. They should do the work and see, that’s what a marketing department is for... it’s not just a one way street, what the market expects/demands is as much a function in product road maps as what the company wants to project... I suspect most people wouldn’t give a damn whether M stood for messucher or had evolved into simply referring to the mount.... I mean, after all, it’s the lenses that are king anyway.

 

I think an SL, a Q and an M (in OVF and EVF versions) is actually smaller than Leicas current offering... that’s three cameras and four versions. A far lower skew than currently.

 

And if the S is a success (which I doubt in terms of numbers sold) then maybe that could be a fourth camera... but I would need to be convinced if I was running the company...

 

As for the rest?

 

Not really Leica, so, as far as I am concerned, not really part of the discussion, although some considerable consolidation could be done there, too.

The M1 was not a rangefinder camera; it could be upgraded to an M2, which was

[lct]

[...] Who in the world with normal eyesight would want an EVF and optical rangefinder? One or the other could suffice. No? Enlighten me.

 

Same reason why SM and M Leica users have been using Visoflex housings for 60+ years: Versatility. Plus a new reason now, the fantastic ability to use M lenses in TTL mode if needed, instead of having to use M + R or Visoflex lenses for that. 

[Tailwagger]

I long thought that EVF was to accommodation Leica's aging consumer, but is it an attraction for younger consumers?  Who in the world with normal eyesight would want an EVF and optical rangefinder? One or the other could suffice. No? Enlighten me.

 

Well, I think some folks gravitate to EVF for its 100% rendering of the frame and its ability to preview exposure, among other things. I don't think those aspects have anything to do with age, unless you think that there's an influx of younger people into the mirrorless camp who never dealt with film, nor seriously with a DSLR and so feel more confident with a WYSIWYG viewfinder. 

 

But to the second question, I'd answer me.  I personally value EVF for the above aspects, along with the low light amplification for critical focus confirmation, etc. But I, of course, also value the speed in good light, clarity and ability to see beyond the frame of an RF.  To me these are complimentary technologies, each best suited to differing scenarios.  The M is the only camera to offer this flexibility which I see, admittedly a minority view,  as a core strength, not an mere accommodation. 

[ganzosrevenge]

Leica M's to me are for taking pictures, and VERY nice and reflective pictures of the photographer's world at that, without making an excess of noise.  If I could buy one, I'd wnat it no video - just stills - and maximize what I could to getting a film-like, high color gamut and range, shot as possible.

[Ozytripper]

 I wouldn't say no one notices me with my Leica, but many fewer do than when I'm shooting with my Nikon D4.

I totally agree. That's the reason I dumped my Canon 5D3 and moved to fuji (Xe1, Xt1, Xt2, Pro2 and now M10). But is this feature still unique to Leica M?

 

My point is, we the Leica M community have to move into modern times and not dwell in historical facts that are no longer relevant, this being the main reason why we are commonly branded as Fanboys and worse still Cult Camera fanatics.

 

Gone are the Leica USPs of the olden days:

-small and discrete (lots of smaller cameras available these days)

-quiet shutter (seriously in this day and age of silent shutters?)

-forces me to slow down (why does someone has to be forced?)

-basic camera functions (Fuji has everything you need in their knobs and dials too. I only use the aperture rings, ISO dial, Shutter speed dial and exposure compensation dial. Have no idea what is in their menu)

 

When people ask why I use Leica I simply say I like it and I like their lenses. No poetry. No long lost advantages quoted to justify my choice. I actually get more nods than sarcastic remarks

[Ozytripper]

I long thought that EVF was to accommodation Leica's aging consumer, but is it an attraction for younger consumers?  Who in the world with normal eyesight would want an EVF and optical rangefinder? One or the other could suffice. No? Enlighten me.

EVF is used not just for Aging users, but those who wear glasses and cannot see the 28m frame lines, a single replacement for multiple optical add on viewfinders, longer lenses and the Noctilux which many users have problem in focusing. 

 

Who would want both EVF and Optical Rangefinder? Just check out the popularity of the Fuji Xpro1 and Xpro2 - which has both optical and EVF (i know - it is not a Rangefinder). 

 

I am an organizer in 2 photography meetup groups. Invariably both young and Older members are curious (and some drool) about my M10 and I usually give them a go at it. Quite a few are disappointed that the focusing is more difficult than what they are used to. A built in EVF will certainly expand Leica's current user base.

I have also assisted quite a few aspiring Leica owners to buy their first Leica lenses to use on their Fuji/Sony etc etc cameras to let them experience Manual Focusing in a camera body they are familiar with so hopefully the progression to a Leica camera when they are more comfortable or when in a better financial situation  

 

We need new users to keep sales at Leica so that our beloved M will survive long term

[almoore]

oh boy, is it just me or is it that everyone is now asking to complicate a camera system that has thrived on it's basic simplicity pretty much ever since it's conception? Well maybe not "everyone", but certainly quite a few in this thread it seems.

It's very strange, isn't it? Leica finally creates a digital M with the tactile qualities and refinement of a film M and the response is to bemoan the fact it has an optical viewfinder and rangefinder focusing.

 

It's almost as if people were buying Ms despite, rather than because of, their elegance and simplicity.

[Ozytripper]

It's very strange, isn't it? Leica finally creates a digital M with the tactile qualities and refinement of a film M and the response is to bemoan the fact it has an optical viewfinder and rangefinder focusing.

 

It's almost as if people were buying Ms despite, rather than because of, their elegance and simplicity.

Hmmmmm....

The M8 series sold well

The M9 series sold well

The M240 series sold well

The M10 is selling well

so perhaps there are more "photographer" consumers out there than the purist

Photographers who use the camera to take photos and who are not really bothered by 4mm or video even if they don't use it.

I wonder if the MD 262 is the slowest selling model in the whole lineup? (the purest Leica M digital camera to date?)

 

Just surprise me that there is so much angst when someone asks for a built in EVF with options of:

-built in hybrid or (just don't use it if one prefers just OVF)

-a new model with just EVF (does not effect those who buys the OVF only model)

 

and the justifications of objections?

-not in Leica's model strategy (really? Leica tried and failed up to now. Not necessarily impossible or not possible for the future))

-not possible technologically? (Leica has pulled a couple of not possible products to date digital M8 and FF M9)

 

Why embrace some new technology and not others? Stick to film Ms instead of adopting digital M - can be purer than that

Why accept an M with

-LCD and Live View?

-auto white balance?

-Histogram?

-Monochrome simulation?

-Exposure compensation?

Every other innovation is Ok but a built in EVF - don't go there???? Weird

 

Perhaps there should be no menu at all in an M. Maybe even a special SD card that needs changing after every 36 shots?

Different SD cards for different lighting conditions (Daylight, Tungsten, Led, Kodachrome, Astai, Provia etc etc and ISO specific too)

Full M rangefinder experience

 

I did get carried away - sorry

[almoore]

Just surprise me that there is so much angst when someone asks for a built in EVF with options of:

-built in hybrid or (just don't use it if one prefers just OVF)...and the justifications of objections?

 

The objections are coming from the people who aren't enamoured with the fundamental concept of the M.

 

If optical viewfinders and rangefinders aren't to your taste, why the interest in the M? 

[Ozytripper]

The objections are coming from the people who aren't enamoured with the fundamental concept of the M.

 

If optical viewfinders and rangefinders aren't to your taste, why the interest in the M? 

This is probably the weirdest discussion I have ever had in my life?

 

If you read (or have read) the discussion so far - NO ONE is objecting to OVF or Rangefinders. We ALL LOVE IT

 

What some of us has pointed out is that there are some weaknesses in a Rangefinder by itself. Some prominent reviewers have admitted that their keeper rate is not as high as they would like. Of course there are very experience M users amongst us who can get 100% keepers or shoot long telephotos on an M without problems. Or maybe even blindfolded.

I am not amongst those and I suspect most M users are not in that category.

 

So an EVF is usefull in those situations - for framing or for better focusing.

 

a built in EVF is just less hassles than an add on EVF

 

Such a simple fact seems harder to understand than Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

 

So tell me - how do you use/focus your Noctilux, 16mm, 135mm lenses? or you don't have them and don't care about those who have them and want to use them?

Or you are totally proficient with the the Rangefinder and really don't give a hoot to those who are less proficient?

 

Leica also made an R to M adapter for R lenses to be used on Ms

How do one focus a 280, 400, 560 or 800mm on a M without EVF

 

If there exist an add on EVF then why so much angst to having it built into the camera? Just buy the model that does not have the EVF and let other users be happy with the model with the EVF

 

Let me summarize - The EVF is to complement the OVF (Rangefinder) to address some weaknesses of the Rangefinder. Not to replace it. 

[almoore]

So tell me - how do you use/focus your Noctilux, 16mm, 135mm lenses? or you don't have them and don't care about those who have them and want to use them?

Or you are totally proficient with the the Rangefinder and really don't give a hoot to those who are less proficient?...How do one focus a 280, 400, 560 or 800mm on a M without EVF

 

That's a reasonable summation of my position. I use a 28mm Elmarit and 35 and 50mm Summicrons that I can focus effortlessly with an M. I don't need anything longer or wider, but if I did I'd use a more appropriate camera.

 

It's absurd that you're citing the difficulty of focusing an 800mm lens on an M as a shortcoming. It's not the camera for you.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[cp995]

...

It's absurd that you're citing the difficulty of focusing an 800mm lens on an M as a shortcoming. It's not the camera for you.

 

Yes you're absolutely right!

UWW is no problem due to zone focussing.

I think beyond 90mm the RF is not the best solution.

But R-lens ownes can of course use their stuff with Liveview via dsiplay or external EVF.

Or switch to Leica SL.

 

I don't see any problem in the actual product strategy of Leica.

"Das Wesentliche" (= M10) is a clear separator between M and SL; clearer than before.

I really like it a lot!