Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So where are we? Apparently the idea is for Leica to produce an evf only 'M' camera using manual focus lenses in M mount. Assuming the technical challenges can all be overcome and this is possible, so how many people are going to fork out £6k for such a camera body (because if we can be certain of anything from Leica its that it ain't gonna be cheap, and there's no way it will be cheaper than the M10)?

Edited April 8, 2018 by pgk

[lct]

So where are we? Apparently the idea is for Leica to produce an evf only 'M' camera using manual focus lenses in M mount. Assuming the technical challenges can all be overcome and this is possible, so how many people are going to fork out £6k for such a camera body (because if we can be certain of anything from Leica its that it ain't gonna be cheap, and there's no way it will be cheaper than the M10)?

 

All lovers of M lenses not (or not only) interested in rangefinders. Count me in. 

[pgk]

That's 1 so far then .

[jankap]

So where are we? Apparently the idea is for Leica to produce an evf only 'M' camera using manual focus lenses in M mount. Assuming the technical challenges can all be overcome and this is possible, so how many people are going to fork out £6k for such a camera body (because if we can be certain of anything from Leica its that it ain't gonna be cheap, and there's no way it will be cheaper than the M10)?

 

The rangefinder mechanism is not a simple feature, so not cheap. Here is saving possible.

On the other hand the mechanical construction, that Leica offers, is something to keep.

Jan

[eraydinc]

CL with M lenses is 24 mp.

CL with TL lenses is 24 mp.

CL with SL lenses is 24 mp.

CL with R lenses is 24 mp

 

SL with TL lenses is 10 mp. (dızzzttttt)

 

Overal megapixel more important than sensor size

[thighslapper]

So where are we? Apparently the idea is for Leica to produce an evf only 'M' camera using manual focus lenses in M mount. Assuming the technical challenges can all be overcome and this is possible, so how many people are going to fork out £6k for such a camera body (because if we can be certain of anything from Leica its that it ain't gonna be cheap, and there's no way it will be cheaper than the M10)?

 

I'm sure Leica could strip out the optics+mechanicals and stick an EVF of CL quality in the current M but the question for them would be how many would they sell and would it recover the re-tooling and development costs.

 

The fact that Leica has stuck with an average quality add-on EVF for the M gives you an indication that this format is unlikely to evolve much apart from sensor and speed developments. 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And as a thought, an M with an EVF offers yet another electronic component assembly to go wrong or get broken.

[rosuna]

 

The fact that Leica has stuck with an average quality add-on EVF for the M gives you an indication that this format is unlikely to evolve much apart from sensor and speed developments. 

 

 

No, I don't think that is an indication.

[LocalHero1953]

So there are three options:

A. M, as now, M-mount, rangefinder

B. M-EVIL: M-mount, EVF, no AF

C. M-sized L: L-mount, EVF, AF.

 

Will/should Leica make them all? Two of them? Which ones?

IMO they might make two, but they would only pick those that maximise sales i.e. those that are distinct (punters might buy both) rather than overlapping (buying one or the other. That means they would be more likely to make A and C, not A and B.

Edited April 8, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[rosuna]

So there are three options:

A. M, as now, M-mount, rangefinder

B. M-EVIL: M-mount, EVF, no AF

C. M-sized L: L-mount, EVF, AF.

 

Will/should Leica make them all? Two of them? Which ones?

 

 

 

A already exists. The models change with a cycle of 4 years. 

 

B is a possibility. Similar to the CL but FF, smaller and lighter than the current M10. 

 

C may be attractive for M users but I see too many compromises: a small body is not suitable for SL lenses, M lenses need an expensive adapter, etc. 

 

For me, A + B, the two suited to the M lenses, is the optimal approach for M users. 

 

The SL system (or subsystem) follows different criteria (AF, big lenses, etc.). The next SL has to be different ("more elegant" Dr. Kauffman says) but the grip, size and mass depends on the SL lenses, not M lenses.

[LocalHero1953]

A already exists. The models change with a cycle of 4 years. 

 

B is a possibility. Similar to the CL but FF, smaller and lighter than the current M10. 

 

C may be attractive for M users but I see too many compromises: a small body is not suitable for SL lenses, M lenses need an expensive adapter, etc. 

 

For me, A + B, the two suited to the M lenses, is the optimal approach for M users. 

 

The SL system (or subsystem) follows different criteria (AF, big lenses, etc.). The next SL has to be different ("more elegant" Dr. Kauffman says) but the grip, size and mass depends on the SL lenses, not M lenses.

?? It's not similar to the CL: it would have a M-mount.

 

It is C that is similar to the CL with FF. Yes, it requires an adapter for M lenses, but once fitted and left on, it's the same as B, but with the added attraction of using L-mount lenses if you wish. I suspect the smaller L primes would not be as imbalanced on such a body as the big zooms or the Summilux-L 50.

[lct]

So where are we? Apparently the idea is for Leica to produce an evf only 'M' camera using manual focus lenses in M mount. [...]

All lovers of M lenses not (or not only) interested in rangefinders. Count me in. 

That's 1 so far then .

 

If only one remains, I will be that one .

Edited April 8, 2018 by lct

[ropo54]

Why not do it?  

I presume Leica makes most of its money selling lenses, so on the theory that grabbing a larger market for camera bodies will result in more lenses sold and more profit, why not do it?  

[djs]

If only one remains, I will be that one .

I'll raise that to two. That's a 100% increase! 

[djs]

Why not do it?  

I presume Leica makes most of its money selling lenses, so on the theory that grabbing a larger market for camera bodies will result in more lenses sold and more profit, why not do it?  

Exactly.

 

Look at the wonderful range of M lenses, which is still being expanded.

 

Why not open another selling door for them?

[jankap]

Exactly. Look in the FM-Forum. Leica is well not perhaps a hype, but mentioned and used often.

No questions about bad copies or such.

Jan

[David Millstein]

In a perfect world, we would have an M size camera with M size interchangeable lenses and autofocus. But the world isn't perfect and the technological and financial issues involved in providing such a camera might be insurmountable for a company as small as Leica. I shoot with the M, the CL and the Q, so I have all the bases covered. Still, wouldn't it be sweet to have just one camera to do all those things? 

[lct]

Question is not to have a jack-of-all-trades camera but a camera respecting M lenses with no compromise or at least no more compromise than with film. For now only rangefinders can do that. People preferring mirrorless cameras, or using both, have all rights to like M lenses the same way as RF users. 

[jaapv]

EVF IS the compromise - it cannot compete with a RF type optical viewfinder. No way around it - a EVIL mirrorless for M lenses will always be about convenience, nothing else.

 

I would like to see the charter stating photographer's rights to various types of cameras and lenses. :lol:

See your lawyer to enforce your wishes.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ropo54]

An interchangeable lens Q without auto focus. I think it would be a success.