M10? - Sorry, no!

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But Leica HAVE beeen looking at this, hence to patent on that hybrid viewfinder/rangefinder. So they obviously understand that the M has to evolve.....

The patent applies to an EVF-only camera with a digital implementation of the RF. A hybrid viewfinder/rangefinder has never been mentioned, as far as I know. If I was in the market for an additional camera and if I had the small change to spare and if Leica was to produce an M with the digital RF as described in said patent application, I'd be sorely tempted to buy yet another camera.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[almoore]

Or maybe it is simple rudeness...

Possibly, but if that is the case I wouldn't be alone in that on this thread. 

 

Rather than produce an M mount EVF camera, I'd rather Leica devoted their resources to creating an entirely new, compact, autofocus camera system that retained an optical viewfinder. A new M for the digital age that isn't handicapped by trying to accommodate film-era design decisions. 

[pgk]

A new M for the digital age that isn't handicapped by trying to accommodate film-era design decisions. 

 

And forget the Holy Grail which is the backward compatibility for older lenses. Agree fully. Old lenses will work with adapters but are handicapped and always will be by their lack f data transfer. As anyone with a none coded lens will know when using it on a camera which needs its identity inputting via the menu, its a very less than ideal situation and one which is too easy to forget/get wrong - not good.

[jaapv]

You're being ironic - no?

[willeica]

The paradigm shift commenced with the introduction of digital and it is still in progress. This made the medium (digital sensor) increasingly important compared to the machinery (cameras and lenses). This will continue into the future. Any new investor in Leica AG will have to consider that.

 

The main distinguishing feature which Leica has compared to other brands is its line of rangefinder cameras. I have had the M10 since the end of May and I find it to be the best digital M yet by quite a margin. I have all of the other digital Ms and I have not used them since I got the M10 (my M9 is in Wetzlar for a sensor change for the past month or so). I continue to use my film Ms and LTMs as I did before.

 

The T, Q , SL and S are all fine cameras but they do not attract me. I tried them in store and at camera fairs, but did not find anything about them that would make me say 'this is a camera I would like to use'. I have the EVF for the M10 but I rarely use it except where a lens gives difficulty with the rangefinder which is rare enough.

 

When I need extra versatility with zooms and autofocus etc (eg at sports events or with rapidly changing subject matter) I use a Fujifilm X-Pro 2 with a range of Fujifilm lenses which combine reasonable size with excellent functionality and output. Up to a few years ago I would have used Nikon equipment for such purposes, but as I got older I found it too heavy to use. I looked at the Leica SL in the same context, but, for me, it suffers the same disadvantages as the Nikon system in terms of size and weight.

 

Stefan Daniel of Leica says that they looked at a combined OVF/EVF but could not get the quality they would like to offer to the market in such a combination. I suspect though that Leica will, however, offer a smaller lighter camera with a built in EVF and suitable interchangeable lenses to the market quite soon. I would certainly give such a camera a close comparison with the X-Pro 2. I will, however, always want to continue to use Leica rangefinder cameras so long as my eyesight permits.

 

William

[pgk]

You're being ironic - no?

 

Not really  . The M series will continue - as a traditional camera system it has advantages which exist in no other. But what I find daft is the idea that 'you can have your cake and eat it' with regard to using existing M lenses on a different and newer camera - you can't because they are compromised. New technology allows for new ideas and I'd say Leica are one of the most innovative companies in the camera industry today. Where things will eventually settle wil be interesting to find out but Leica need to innovate to survive - without being hamstrung. 

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And forget the Holy Grail which is the backward compatibility for older lenses. Agree fully. Old lenses will work with adapters but are handicapped and always will be by their lack f data transfer. As anyone with a none coded lens will know when using it on a camera which needs its identity inputting via the menu, its a very less than ideal situation and one which is too easy to forget/get wrong - not good.

 

Sorry pgk, but you are mixing up things:

 

Whether a lens is coded or not, does not make any difference, when you focus it. The focussing mechanism for Leitz and Leica lenses whith screw-mount or M-Mount and aspecially it's interaction  with measuring the distance or rangefinder devices has been unchanged since the introduction of the Leica II. Coding has no part in it.

 

Using a lens more than 80 years old on an M10 with EVF will "trigger" all functions of the EVF.  So of course you could have a EVF-only body and still use all those lenses. They work with the  old-fashioned mechanism for measuring the distance of a Leica II still maintained in a modern body of 2017 just as well as getting the right picture of your focus directly from the sensor like with any other modern lens or digital camera.

[Jeff S]

A hybrid viewfinder/rangefinder has never been mentioned, as far as I know.)

As noted already, Stefan Daniel said that this was attempted, but without success, with both finders being compromised. We don't know if that means the concept is dead; Leica has repeatedly defied technological challenges.... of course only when they see the market opportunity.

 

Jeff

[willeica]

And forget the Holy Grail which is the backward compatibility for older lenses. Agree fully. Old lenses will work with adapters but are handicapped and always will be by their lack f data transfer. As anyone with a none coded lens will know when using it on a camera which needs its identity inputting via the menu, its a very less than ideal situation and one which is too easy to forget/get wrong - not good.

 

Why do you need f number data when using old LTM lenses? Cameras like my many LTM models don't record any data when shooting on film. Why do I need f stop data when shooting with the same lens on digital?  You can use such lenses on A (Aperture Priority) or set the exposure manually with the M10. You can also use the EVF to get an approximation of exposure with such lenses or to overcome Rf issues, if they arise. As regards old M lenses there is one very important addition with the M10. The Dual Range 50mm Summicron (commonly called the 50DR) is capable of being used on the M10, but did not work on earlier digital Ms. It is absolutely superb at both close up and 'normal' distances on the M10. It is a real bonus to be able to use one of the finest 50mm lenses ever produced by Leica. For what it's worth, as a collector I never put 6 bit coding on old M lenses. I agree it is a bit of pain to keep remembering to change lens descriptions on the menu. With the M10 you get one additional feature in this regard. If you switch to a coded lens the camera automatically goes to the recognition for that lens. If you go back to a non coded lens it will go back to the last lens description manually entered. So if it is the same non coded lens you are still OK. In the 1980s when I was trying to improve my photography when shooting slides I used to write down lens and exposure details in a little notebook. I no longer feel the need to do this today as I can make exposure adjustments or crop afterwards in Lightroom etc. I am also a much more experience photographer than I was over 30 years ago.

 

William

[pgk]

Why do you need f number data when using old LTM lenses?

Typo - should say 'lack of data transfer'. And the point is that in-camera corrections cannot be made which will reduce image 'quality' in comparison to cameras which utilise extensive correction and apply this to images.

 

Sorry pgk, but you are mixing up things:

 

Whether a lens is coded or not, does not make any difference, when you focus it. The focussing mechanism for Leitz and Leica lenses whith screw-mount or M-Mount and aspecially it's interaction  with measuring the distance or rangefinder devices has been unchanged since the introduction of the Leica II. Coding has no part in it.

 

Using a lens more than 80 years old on an M10 with EVF will "trigger" all functions of the EVF.  So of course you could have a EVF-only body and still use all those lenses. They work with the  old-fashioned mechanism for measuring the distance of a Leica II still maintained in a modern body of 2017 just as well as getting the right picture of your focus directly from the sensor like with any other modern lens or digital camera.

 

See above.

 

An old lens which cannot transfer data about its settings is already at a disadvantage, in terms of image output, to one which the camera can communicate with and make adjustments for. As digital camera become more sophisticated, so will the data lenses transfer to the camera. Adjustments can be applied for a whole suite of parameters. But a 'dumb' lens cannot transfer significant data so will always be at a disadvantage. This has been discussed many times already. In the future optics/electronics/data will integrate to produce image files which are better than ever. Not taking advantage of this by being hamstrung by the needs of legacy lenses hampers design.

 

A simple scenario is that a lens increases focal length as it focusses closer. It may also have other parameters which shift - increased distortion, chroma, whatever which vary depending on distance and aperture. If the camera knows which lens is fitted (6- bit coding enables this) and both aperture being used and focussed distance, then corrections can be applied to optimise the resulting image. Dumb lenses can transmit no more that their identity although the aperture being used can be intelligently estimated so adjustments are either not possible or inexact. Some may be dealt with whilst processing the resulting file but the lens remains at a disadvantage.

[willeica]

Typo - should say 'lack of data transfer'. And the point is that in-camera corrections cannot be made which will reduce image 'quality' in comparison to cameras which utilise extensive correction and apply this to images.

 

 

See above.

 

An old lens which cannot transfer data about its settings is already at a disadvantage, in terms of image output, to one which the camera can communicate with and make adjustments for. As digital camera become more sophisticated, so will the data lenses transfer to the camera. Adjustments can be applied for a whole suite of parameters. But a 'dumb' lens cannot transfer significant data so will always be at a disadvantage. This has been discussed many times already. In the future optics/electronics/data will integrate to produce image files which are better than ever. Not taking advantage of this by being hamstrung by the needs of legacy lenses hampers design.

 

A simple scenario is that a lens increases focal length as it focusses closer. It may also have other parameters which shift - increased distortion, chroma, whatever which vary depending on distance and aperture. If the camera knows which lens is fitted (6- bit coding enables this) and both aperture being used and focussed distance, then corrections can be applied to optimise the resulting image. Dumb lenses can transmit no more that their identity although the aperture being used can be intelligently estimated so adjustments are either not possible or inexact. Some may be dealt with whilst processing the resulting file but the lens remains at a disadvantage.

 

The main correction applied with coding is for vignetting and red edge. I process my images to taste (mine) in Lightroom and adjustments to eliminate such factors take seconds. I find that I rarely have to make any such adjustments when using older lenses. I like to be in control when I am making images both at the taking stage and later at the processing stage. I am very pleased with what I get without the 'aid' of six bit coding. I do not feel that older lenses put me at a disadvantage. On the contrary many of them give a wonderful 'look' which is impossible to achieve with modern lenses without a lot of processing.

 

William

[UliWer]

 

...As digital camera become more sophisticated, so will the data lenses transfer to the camera. Adjustments can be applied for a whole suite of parameters. But a 'dumb' lens cannot transfer significant data so will always be at a disadvantage. This has been discussed many times already. In the future optics/electronics/data will integrate to produce image files which are better than ever. Not taking advantage of this by being hamstrung by the needs of legacy lenses hampers design.

 

A simple scenario is that a lens increases focal length as it focusses closer. It may also have other parameters which shift - increased distortion, chroma, whatever which vary depending on distance and aperture. If the camera knows which lens is fitted (6- bit coding enables this) and both aperture being used and focussed distance, then corrections can be applied to optimise the resulting image. ....

Well of course one could wish for all those adjustments, and perhaps there will be a future producer who wants to apply all those corrections not taking the necessary information from the sensor but from elsewhere in the lense, and of course one can get rid of the design of the M and can dump all lenses which don't transfer their information besides the light to the camera - but why on earth should one call all this an "M"?

[pgk]

..... but why on earth should one call all this an "M"?

 

You shouldn't - we've been here before.

[UliWer]

Oh sorry, I must have misunderstood that you fully agreed to the proposal of a new M for the digital age that isn't handicapped by trying to accommodate film-era design decisions and added your own demand to forget the Holy Grail which is the backward compatibility for older lenses.

 

Of course for a completely new system there is no handicap of old design decisions and no need of backward compatibility - because it is something completely different. 

[pgk]

Sorry, I misunderstood too. I assumed (always iffy) that the use of the description 'digital M' was referring to a new and different camera and not one literally called or described as an M camera - which it obviously wouldn't be! As I see it the base problem people have is that Leica have no new system which is small and light and has a set of small and light lenses - the attributes which most of us like in the M rangefinder.

[Steve Spencer]

But not on the SL, nor any other mirrorless camera Bill, that's what i was trying to say... If you like that feature you won't have in on an M w/o rangefinder if it has not an M mount as expected.

 

Actually the Sony E mount cameras do this with the Zeiss Loxia lenses as well by default. You can shut it off, but out of the box the react the same way.

[Bill Livingston]

Yes we have been here before... but yes, it should be an M because all we are doing is suggesting that we have a version with the accessory EVF built inside the body as a second version.

 

The difference between the two camps is very simple.

 

One camp is suggesting something that would appeal to new users and encourage new customers to Leica and maybe translate those new sales into future M sales, whether EVF or OVF hopefully giving the M a new lease with f life without actually changing anything all that much (we already have an EVF viewfinder for the M, it’s just inconvenient and up until the M10, not really good enough...

 

And then there is the other camp who want to keep the M in the fifties and still partially or fully resent the fact there is a digital M at all.

 

Let’s face it, what we are suggesting is a CONSIDERABLY smaller change than M6/M7 to M8... so why would it need to be a different camera?

 

But then I can imagine most of those people said the same thing then, too... that it isn’t an M.

 

It’s ridiculous, frankly. If these are the sort of protectionist, regressive conversations they have at Leica, they don’t deserve to succeed...

 

But I don’t believe that to be the case at all... maybe the fact that no one is commenting who would normally chime in here, like Jono for example, could be because they have better things to do - like testing a new camera

[Steve Spencer]

Yes we have been here before... but yes, it should be an M because all we are doing is suggesting that we have a version with the accessory EVF built inside the body as a second version.

 

The difference between the two camps is very simple.

 

One camp is suggesting something that would appeal to new users and encourage new customers to Leica and maybe translate those new sales into future M sales, whether EVF or OVF hopefully giving the M a new lease with f life without actually changing anything all that much (we already have an EVF viewfinder for the M, it’s just inconvenient and up until the M10, not really good enough...

 

And then there is the other camp who want to keep the M in the fifties and still partially or fully resent the fact there is a digital M at all.

 

Let’s face it, what we are suggesting is a CONSIDERABLY smaller change than M6/M7 to M8... so why would it need to be a different camera?

 

But then I can imagine most of those people said the same thing then, too... that it isn’t an M.

 

It’s ridiculous, frankly. If these are the sort of protectionist, regressive conversations they have at Leica, they don’t deserve to succeed...

 

But I don’t believe that to be the case at all... maybe the fact that no one is commenting who would normally chime in here, like Jono for example, could be because they have better things to do - like testing a new camera

 

I think you are mostly correct and I don't think anyone would have anything to complain about if there was a version with just a rangefinder. The problem with a built in rangefinder and EVF would be that the camera would be quite a bit bigger. I actually value the add on EVF and I will use it for some types of shooting. For example, I love shooting macro and the EVF is in my view a much better solution that goggles and I am very happy there is an EVF. I will also shoot my R 180 f/3.4 APO from time to time, which is a lens I think suits the M pretty well, but the EVF is a godsend for using that lens. I do think the M10 solution of a great rangefinder and a pretty good EVF is about perfect for the camera. You can use both well, but the rangefinder is emphasized. In my view, it is miles ahead of the Fuji XPro heavily compromised hybrid viewfinder. I think that viewfinder doesn't do the optical part well at all and the EVF really isn't that great either. From my perspective if you want a small camera that has both types of viewfinders you are better off making the one that you think is most important excellent and putting it in the camera and then adding an add on for the one that is less important. So, I think Leica got it right for the M10. Could the add on be better? Sure, but it is quite useable and I really like how good the OVF rangefinder is and I can more than live with the add on EVF, which is something I couldn't say about the M240.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Bill Livingston]

I completely agree Steve... which is why my suggestion is simply an additional body, exactly the same as my current digital M (well, an M10 or the next one) with an EVF

 

Then one type of customer could use the conventional OVF viewfinder, another customer type could use the EVF version, and some of us could use both... I would rather have my 35 or 50 summilux on the OVF body and a 21 or 90 on the EVF body and not have to carry a camera bag or faff around swapping lenses.

 

I may even be tempted to chop my 50 Lux in a try a Noctilux with the EVF Version..!

 

That’s why I want them to be identical other than the VF type... purely selfish reasons... my small brain couldn’t adapt to two different camera bodies... I would want all the controls in all the same places so I could continue with my muscle memory in operating them!

 

Plus of course, either version could be attractive to new Leica owners... which helps us all!

[UliWer]

It has been said before, that Leica worked on an EVF integrated in the M body. They stopped it at the beginning of the M10 design since they didn't have an EVF which fulfilled the demands of a surrogate for the OVF. One has to take into account that camera development has a certain road map - for sure they began to design the M10 when the M (Typ 240) first came to the market. At this time I think their assessment that there was no adaequate EVF was justified. May be in a year or two things are different, and we'll see a EVF-only companion for the M10 (M 10 - E??).

 

A completely different story is the demand for a new camera design - let's call it "N" - which maintains the limited size especially for the lenses but adds many features from autofocus to transmission of loads of information - which the present M-lenses cannot achieve now. I do not think this will work - or it will work only if you opt for a much smaller sensor. As long as you want to have a full format sensor, the first limitation you have to get rid off is the small exit pupil of the present M lenses. Having lenses with a large exit pupil which allow the light to hit the sensor without tweaks and angles makes the lenses big - not only in diameter but also in length. Zeiss is not silly building their huge lenses, and it is not just incapacity when the Leica SL lenses are so big, but  they are following optical demands. Then add all other feature for autofocus and so on.

 

Of course one may use a smaller sensor - though is there really still any space left on the market between all the Fujis, Olys, Panas etc? Those systems which offer a lot more features than the M are already there, and they are not bad at all. Why add another one which will be much more expensive only because wages in Portugal or Germany are much higher than in Malaysia, Vietnam or China? The sales of the T dropped by almost 75% in the second year after it was introduced. Perhaps it will recover a little bit as a TL or TL2 - but I have many doubts that it will ever deliver.