jmahto Posted July 10, 2017 Share #101 Posted July 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, they did build specific Visoflex lenses in the past, so why not now? Did Leica have SLR camera as well at that time? Serious question since I don't know the history. If there was only one platform then it made sense. Now there is SL platform.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 10, 2017 Posted July 10, 2017 Hi jmahto, Take a look here M10 the game changer?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted July 10, 2017 Share #102 Posted July 10, 2017 Well, they did build specific Visoflex lenses in the past, so why not now? I wondered about this when the M(240) was announced - why not make longer and wider lenses than the optical viewfinder allowed for. Many here said that Leica would never release an M lens which was not reverse compatible wit the M3 etc. The exception to that is the new macro adapter, but generally Leica does seem to want to stick to the limitations (if you call them that) of the coupled rangefinder for the M system. I suspect the M10 gives a very clear picture of that strategic decision - no video, everything stripped back to the essentials of photography - ISO, focus, aperture and shutter speed. Nothing extra added. That message, if correct, is that if you want more than what the traditional M system has to offer, you go to an L mount offering. While not to everyone's taste, they are very good. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 11, 2017 Share #103 Posted July 11, 2017 Did Leica have SLR camera as well at that time? Serious question since I don't know the history. If there was only one platform then it made sense. Now there is SL platform.... Leitz/Leica-M Visoflex was actually still in production up through 1983 (!). Leicaflex SLR (R-system) introduced in 1964. So nearly 20 years of overlap. Although that was partly due to an "installed base" of Leica cameras in science labs and hospitals, that used the Visoflex for macro close-ups, or on Leitz microscopes. Leica even made "blind" cameras (MD/MDa) with no built-in RF/VF at all, strictly for lab/technical use with lab equipment or a Visoflex (a rangefinder is an expensive waste, if you never use it!) https://cdn.globalauctionplatform.com/4a6615be-7ba0-45cd-9e88-a73600b3d6a2/abedd959-589c-4b8d-e2cb-5280d9077cda/540x360.jpg https://p1.liveauctioneers.com/427/95133/48527343_1_x.jpg?version=1477065679 In 1979-82 I worked in a hospital photo lab that still used an MDa/Visoflex/65mm Macro-Elmar for copy-stand photography of X-ray films, instruments, reseach graphs, etc. The Visoflex idea dates back as far as the 1930s and screw-mount cameras, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted July 11, 2017 Share #104 Posted July 11, 2017 I don't have the time to read through several pages of posts so forgive me if others have already expressed these opinions. Game changer? Well I'd call the M10 the perfection of the art form. The M10 is the camera the M8/M9/M240 should have been. But Leica needed the last decade to acquire the skills necessary to build this camera. And Leica needed to rebuild their customer base and reestablish their reputation as a viable manufacturer of quality cameras. And Leica needed NOT to go bankrupt in the process. We need to give Leica credit for sticking with the M body form. And we need to give Leica credit for listening to what their customers wanted in a M camera. So, thanks Leica for delivering the best M camera to date. Is the M10 perfect? 36 MP would have been nice but I'm learning to live with 24. Other than those missing MPs, I'm as happy with my M10 as I was with my first M2R and the M4 I carried with me for 35 years. I didn't think any camera could replace my M9 but frankly I would have a hard time going back. I've only had my M10 for about 6 weeks but I have not yet hit any limits with this camera. It is fast, accurate and the files are stunning. Colors seem to be accurate and the dynamic range/contrast is very pleasant. Best of all, I love the smooth snick of the shutter. True, it is a different sound than the soft whisper of a cloth shutter and that is okay. This shutter is reassuring to listen to when working yet quiet enough to go unnoticed in anything but the most silent rooms. I know it is one of those small things but finally my camera sounds like a Leica once more. I ordered an EVF with the camera but have only used it once or twice. The new frame lines make it unnecessary for my normal 35 - 90 lenses. Even with my new 75 mm, I just don't find the EVF essential. But I expect I'll use it when I get a macro setup or a 300 mm lens. Sure the EVF/live view adds to the capabilities of the camera but the M10 is perfect for 99% of what I normally shoot right out of the box. The M10 has changed my game in the sense that I no longer need a DSLR, MFDSLR or 4x5. This one little camera is all I carry or need (other than my Monochrom). And I've already started saving for the Monochrom version of the M10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted July 11, 2017 Share #105 Posted July 11, 2017 Leitz/Leica-M Visoflex was actually still in production up through 1983 (!). Leicaflex SLR (R-system) introduced in 1964. So nearly 20 years of overlap. Although that was partly due to an "installed base" of Leica cameras in science labs and hospitals, that used the Visoflex for macro close-ups, or on Leitz microscopes. Leica even made "blind" cameras (MD/MDa) with no built-in RF/VF at all, strictly for lab/technical use with lab equipment or a Visoflex (a rangefinder is an expensive waste, if you never use it!) https://cdn.globalauctionplatform.com/4a6615be-7ba0-45cd-9e88-a73600b3d6a2/abedd959-589c-4b8d-e2cb-5280d9077cda/540x360.jpg https://p1.liveauctioneers.com/427/95133/48527343_1_x.jpg?version=1477065679 In 1979-82 I worked in a hospital photo lab that still used an MDa/Visoflex/65mm Macro-Elmar for copy-stand photography of X-ray films, instruments, reseach graphs, etc. The Visoflex idea dates back as far as the 1930s and screw-mount cameras, of course. Thank you for the history lesson. It means there is a hope that Leica may not continue to restrict M only to one customer base. Of course management is not the same therefore we can't be sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 11, 2017 Share #106 Posted July 11, 2017 Management has decided to step back with its "Das Wesentliche" philosophy. I would not hold my breath... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 11, 2017 Share #107 Posted July 11, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Did Leica have SLR camera as well at that time? Serious question since I don't know the history. If there was only one platform then it made sense. Now there is SL platform.... You must have heard of the Leicaflexes and Leica R cameras, from 1964 onwards, if only from the dedicated section of this forum. The Visoflex overlapped the production span by 20 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozytripper Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share #108 Posted July 12, 2017 These days 2 quotes seems be be used regularly by diehards to restrict the potential of the M's development and to shut dissidents up. They are: "Das Wesentliche" and its a "Rangefinder". Let's examine them logically What exactly is Das Wesentliche? ( yea yea yea "back to essentials" and "focus on the photograph") but what does it mean SPECIFICALLY in camera and lens development? "Its a Rangefinder" - is there a Charter in the Leica Head Office (or it only exists in the diehards' minds) that says a Leica Rangefinder can only have lenses in the 35-135mm range? or 35mm to 90mm? Can anyone define it SPECIFICALLY? A bit of Leica Lens history (may not be 100% correct - feel free to correct me on any errors) Between 1926 and 1932 Leica lenses available were: 50mm elmar - 1926 35mm F3.5 - 1930 90mm F4 - 1931 135mm F4.5 - 1931 105mm F6.3 - 1932 The M3 Rangefinder was launched in 1954 and lenses added in the next few years were: 28mm F5.6 - 1955 21mm - 1958 28-35-50 F4 - 1998 18mm F3.8 - 2009 16-18-21 F4 - 2008 So if we combine Das Wesentliche and Its a Rangefinder how far back do we go? -Many have said 35mm to 90mm (the 105mm & 135mm already eisted before the M3 -Back to 1954 at the time of the M3 launch? 35mm to 135mm? Oh but diehards and street photographers need 28mm so why not include it? Well since 1958 is so close to 1955 let's include the 21mm as well (people always makes a reason to justify their needs and to discount other people's needs) So when Das Wesentliche and Rangefinder is combined then Leica should at its minimum discard: 18mm 16-18-21mm and possibly the 21mm and the 28mm (depends how Das Wesentliche and how Rangefinder is defined ) In fact I often hear Rangefinder users asking for Leica lenses wider than 18mm (why hasn't anyone said 'never amazes me that someone buys an M and immediately asks for more wide angle lenses?) No one seems to complain when Leica extended the wide-angle lens range (because it was possible; and easier to manufacture the goggles and for photographers to use) but complain about extensions at the longer end. Why? Because they cannot use it properly? (small percentage of keepers? - means an ego dent?) It is now possible to use these longer lenses with an attached Goggle albeit an electronic one - (this is what progress is) Go figure...... I am lost Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 12, 2017 Share #109 Posted July 12, 2017 ... used regularly by diehards to (...) shut dissidents up. Go figure...... I am lost Your premise is wrong. Many users and proponents of the Leica M system point out that the M system is a rangefinder, because a camera which is focused by means of a rangefinder has some technical properties which make it excel in certain circumstances while in other circumstances it will not do so. Those circumstances have nothing to do at all with history. A rangefinder is an expensive part of a camera. Lenses to be used with a rangefinder are expensive as well. Therefore, using the camera outside the range where it performs best or even adequately is not attractive, neither in terms of cost nor in terms of use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 12, 2017 Share #110 Posted July 12, 2017 The rangefinder/viewfinder in the Leica M is only effective/usable for focal lengths from 28 (24) mm to 135 mm. for technical reasons. That has nothing to do with history. The concept of the M cameras is built around the rangefinder system. That there is a present-day auxiliary EVF has very little to do with the basic gestalt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozytripper Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share #111 Posted July 13, 2017 The rangefinder/viewfinder in the Leica M is only effective/usable for focal lengths from 28 (24) mm to 135 mm. for technical reasons. That has nothing to do with history. The concept of the M cameras is built around the rangefinder system. That there is a present-day auxiliary EVF has very little to do with the basic gestalt. Thank you Jaap for summing up my argument so eloquently, Quote " The M is only effective/usable for focal length from 28 (24)mm to 135mm for technical reasons" - so why do M users accept 21mm, 18mm and 16mm lenses but balk at the possibility of 200mm or longer? (actually I have trouble with the 28mm framelines so I use the evf for that and wider lenses) That my friends is my point - not the history. Read my last few paragraphs again. Leica - give me my 200mm (and more?) or in the true spirit of Das Wesentliche drop all lenses wider than 28mm and let the M series be restricted to 28-135mm - the effective/useable range I rest my case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozytripper Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share #112 Posted July 13, 2017 Sorry - one more point Cost has never been a deterrent to Leica to come up with new lenses and users to buy those lenses. So let's not go there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 13, 2017 Share #113 Posted July 13, 2017 Thank you Jaap for summing up my argument so eloquently, Quote " The M is only effective/usable for focal length from 28 (24)mm to 135mm for technical reasons" - so why do M users accept 21mm, 18mm and 16mm lenses but balk at the possibility of 200mm or longer? Because shorter focal lengths are easy to focus-frame using an auxiliary optical viewfinder in conjunction with the rangefinder and longer focal lengths are not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 13, 2017 Share #114 Posted July 13, 2017 Ozytripper - go to this web page of mine, and note the top magazine issue "Occupy Denver." http://www.coloradoseen.com/2012/ (Speaking of "dissidents.... ) That cover photograph was taken with an M9 and 21mm lens and the accessory viewfinder. (As were many of the other pictures in that issue - e.g. fist-fight on pp. 50-51). It won First Place for "Magazine Cover" in the National Press Photographers Assoc. contest: https://nppa.org/node/61334 ....beating out such little-known magazines as Sports Illustrated. So using a 21mm with external optical finder is clearly an effective way to take photographs. I'm not sure what your beef still is. As I posted on the previous page, there are ways Leica could give you effectively longer lenses (at least out to 270mm), and still keep in touch with their roots. Not to mention the thousands of R lenses that are still out there, and will work on an M10 with the EVF. I'm not sure I'd go that route myself - I've learned to make a 135 do the job of a 180/200, and it is a lot lighter to carry around. Remember the old phrase from Robert Capa: "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough." He didn't say "get a longer lens" - because part of what will be better about your pictures will be getting more intimate with your subjects. Not standing far back with a 200mm lens has certainly improved my pictures - and it is why I've suddenly started winning awards late in life. As someone who took in camera repairs at a shop for a few years recently, I can tell you it is no fun when IBIS breaks down. Suddenly your sensor is a quarter-inch low (no longer centered) and ALL your pictures are miscomposed (let alone no stabilization). A built-in EVF is going to add at least a cubic inch to the volume of an M10 (after Leica just got it slimmed down!) So no benefit over the accessory EVF already available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted July 13, 2017 Share #115 Posted July 13, 2017 No one claims that you cannot take great pictures with a M and a lens wider than 21 mm. But using two viewfinders for one photo certainly isn't very elegant or efficient. Actually, on the M9, I usually skip focussing my 21 and just use the external viewfinder. The EVF changes this, both on the short and the long side. With the EVF we have a nice alternative to the rangefinder, for short lenses, long lenses, but also for a lot of existing lenses which were difficult to focus with the rangefinder (like the noctilux). I totally don't get, why people are fighting the idea that based on that, Leica adds a very few selected lenses which expand the use possibilities of the great camera the M10 is. I certainly wouldn't want a 600/4 lens for a M, but something like a 200/4 could be very compact, if designed like the 135/4 and would enrich the M system a lot. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted July 13, 2017 Share #116 Posted July 13, 2017 No one claims that you cannot take great pictures with a M and a lens wider than 21 mm. But using two viewfinders for one photo certainly isn't very elegant or efficient. Actually, on the M9, I usually skip focussing my 21 and just use the external viewfinder. The EVF changes this, both on the short and the long side. With the EVF we have a nice alternative to the rangefinder, for short lenses, long lenses, but also for a lot of existing lenses which were difficult to focus with the rangefinder (like the noctilux). I totally don't get, why people are fighting the idea that based on that, Leica adds a very few selected lenses which expand the use possibilities of the great camera the M10 is. I certainly wouldn't want a 600/4 lens for a M, but something like a 200/4 could be very compact, if designed like the 135/4 and would enrich the M system a lot. Peter But we already have plenty 180 APO 3.4 R that can be used with M10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 13, 2017 Share #117 Posted July 13, 2017 No one claims that you cannot take great pictures with a M and a lens wider than 21 mm. But using two viewfinders for one photo certainly isn't very elegant or efficient. Actually, on the M9, I usually skip focussing my 21 and just use the external viewfinder. The EVF changes this, both on the short and the long side. With the EVF we have a nice alternative to the rangefinder, for short lenses, long lenses, but also for a lot of existing lenses which were difficult to focus with the rangefinder (like the noctilux). I totally don't get, why people are fighting the idea that based on that, Leica adds a very few selected lenses which expand the use possibilities of the great camera the M10 is. I certainly wouldn't want a 600/4 lens for a M, but something like a 200/4 could be very compact, if designed like the 135/4 and would enrich the M system a lot. Peter Nobody is fighting it, just explaining that there is not much sense in Leica sinking R&D funds in it - although they have surprised us pundits before Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozytripper Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share #118 Posted July 13, 2017 No one claims that you cannot take great pictures with a M and a lens wider than 21 mm. But using two viewfinders for one photo certainly isn't very elegant or efficient. Actually, on the M9, I usually skip focussing my 21 and just use the external viewfinder. The EVF changes this, both on the short and the long side. With the EVF we have a nice alternative to the rangefinder, for short lenses, long lenses, but also for a lot of existing lenses which were difficult to focus with the rangefinder (like the noctilux). I totally don't get, why people are fighting the idea that based on that, Leica adds a very few selected lenses which expand the use possibilities of the great camera the M10 is. I certainly wouldn't want a 600/4 lens for a M, but something like a 200/4 could be very compact, if designed like the 135/4 and would enrich the M system a lot. Peter Adan, I have no BEEF. I am already happily using my 16mm and 28mm lenses on my EVF, with OVF i use my 35mm -135mm lenses Ph summarizes my sentiments perfectly. (thank you) The EVF now allows us to use super wide angle lenses as well as longer lenses without issues so I say give us some longer lenses Not everyone wants to buy 10, 20 or 30 years old R lenses or 3rd party lenses, If you already have them great, use them on the M But as I have already sold them all i don't want to buy then used. I'd rather have smaller and brand new M lenses Many posters have echoed the same sentiments -we don't want 2 systems -we don't want an SL to complement our M -we don't want old lenses -we don't want to carry 2 bodies I am just surprised at how people are so against the idea JAAP, isn't it up to Leica to decide if it s worthwhile to develop such lenses? Instead of members speaking for them? I think the R system was a good historical lesson for Leica - now it is the SL system History tend to repeat itself - time will tell Better stick to the M system and extend the range Best Leica sellers at the moment? M and Q Will be interesting to see the ratio of SL sales in comparison to M and Q sales In my humble opinion for SL system to succeed Leica will need to launch a Q sized body that can take SL lenses and start introducing some smaller sized lenses. I would buy one immediately (oops just started another controversial topic - which i really don't want to get into) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozytripper Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share #119 Posted July 13, 2017 I also won't tell those who own multiple goggles, adapters and other paraphernalia to drop them and use an EVF. If they are happy to carry all these accessories and take joy in using them - I am happy for them But don't tell us who want to use the EVF with wider lenses or to want longer lenses or zoom to adhere to the old methods The bonds have been broken embrace it. Enjoy using the M OVF for 28-135, 35-90 or 35-135 - whatever one is capable of and enjoy the EVF for the ranges that one finds difficulty in using on OVF And if one refuses to embrace the EVF then just use the OVF for whatever lenses you want to use and be happy too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozytripper Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share #120 Posted July 13, 2017 Robert Capa says "if your photos aren't good enough you aren't close enough" A member in our group totally embraces this concept and also the cliche "I zoom with my feet" We went to a Wetland Park to shoot birds. Unfortunately he could not walk on water and could not zoom with his feet up trees. While we all shooting and getting keepers our single member had a good walk around the park. So I have to say that the above saying and cliche has its place in some situations but not all situations. Horses for courses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.