Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And the the RF M isn't? 

 

No, because it offers a unique interface, which an EVF 'M' does not. The RF M too, is curtailed by its 'dumb' lenses, but at the same time its a very competent performer within its limitations. An EVF 'M' would not be because it would be compared with other cameras offering a great deal more for a lot less. Sony A7/A7II/A7III/A9 are EVF cameras able to take M lenses - with degrees of problems its true - and they cost a fraction of what a potential EVF 'M' would be likely to. I use A7IIs ('though whenever I can I prefer to use RF Ms) and I've used M lenses on them - these work to varying extents and are really not nearly as bad as many seem to think in real photographic output terms. Using even the cheaper of Sony's 'intelligent' lenses and its obvious that these are remarkably competent performers for their cost. Why try to get the 'M' system to compete on unfair terms. Accept it for what it is and use Leica's more competitive offerings if you need an EVF.

[djs]

No, because it offers a unique interface, which an EVF 'M' does not. The RF M too, is curtailed by its 'dumb' lenses, but at the same time its a very competent performer within its limitations. An EVF 'M' would not be because it would be compared with other cameras offering a great deal more for a lot less. Sony A7/A7II/A7III/A9 are EVF cameras able to take M lenses - with degrees of problems its true - and they cost a fraction of what a potential EVF 'M' would be likely to. I use A7IIs ('though whenever I can I prefer to use RF Ms) and I've used M lenses on them - these work to varying extents and are really not nearly as bad as many seem to think in real photographic output terms. Using even the cheaper of Sony's 'intelligent' lenses and its obvious that these are remarkably competent performers for their cost. Why try to get the 'M' system to compete on unfair terms. Accept it for what it is and use Leica's more competitive offerings if you need an EVF.

 

I also use an A7rll, but find that M lenses of 50mm or wider are not good at the edges. The Leica 75/f2 is superb on the Sony.

I use the Zeiss Loxia lenses (MF) on the Sony and they are easily up there with Leica lenses on an M body. Problem is that there are very few lenses in the range. But, being manual focus they are also very small.

 

But my main dislike of the Sony is the lack of conventional manual controls. Call me old fashioned.

[lct]

No, because it offers a unique interface, which an EVF 'M' does not. The RF M too, is curtailed by its 'dumb' lenses, but at the same time its a very competent performer within its limitations. An EVF 'M' would not be because it would be compared with other cameras offering a great deal more for a lot less. Sony A7/A7II/A7III/A9 are EVF cameras able to take M lenses - with degrees of problems its true - and they cost a fraction of what a potential EVF 'M' would be likely to. [...]

 

Aside from modded ones, no Sony camera can be compared to M bodies as far as M wides are concerned. Sony user speaking. The only competitor for the "ML" would be the M actually. People preferring rangefinders would have the latter and those preferring mirrorless the former. Best of both worlds. The market would be the same for both but would be wider than the current one due to mirrorless users attracted by Leica. A good way for Leica to sell more of its "dumb" lenses which happen to be the best compact lenses in the world. 

[Einst_Stein]

How M can stay as it was depends on how good EVF can be. It's just a matter of time for a EVF to beat OVF and that time is yesterday.  I am one of the witness. I have been absolutely no accepting any "un-real" view-finders. Only OVF is real. All EVF were not. I was assimilated by the mirrorless even before Leica SL, but Leica SL is the first one makes me put the period on this issue. 

 

For anyone insists on OVF, I doubt there is anything missing on M9 or M10. and M10 is also a M mount body with EVF.  So for those fans, Leica already answered their needs. What in front of Leica is something beyond M10.

 

Something that none of SL, M10, and CL has answered. It must equip with the best viewfinder among all EVF and OVF, fully adaptable to all genuine Leica lenses, (yes, M + R + TL + SL) and looks like and feel like an M on hand.

 

I can't think of anything other than ML: a M- or CL-like body, Full frame, EVF, L mount.

 

And this happens to be the easiest quesiton. 

[Jdphoto]

I think the CL EVF is really good. Better than the Q, but when shooting outdoors in bright high noon sun, any EVF will require a deep viewfinder cup to block stray light. Acclimating to variable light sources with any EVF can be a bit frustrating at times and the option of a hybrid OVF would be nice for new cameras.

[jaapv]

In my experience an OVF can need an eyecup as well from time to time.

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People care much about OVF or EVF are split into three caregory, those who prefer OVF, or EVF, or want both. I dont think EVF can completely replace OVF, neither the other way, but I also dont think a hybrid XVF could be better than either one. XVF could be a OVF with overlaid LCD to display the manual, but the major EVF advantages such as focus peaking or exposure peaking would be compromised.

 

So, people would be very happy with OVF and stays with M10, or very happy with EVF and go with CL or SL or ML.

[jkcampbell2]

I did not say that M lenses should become AF, they obviously are not. I said that an M lens EVF camera may well sell to a number of M lens affectionadoes, but that Leica will want to have more customers than those. However, virtually nobody else will be prepared to pay a Leica price for a mirrorless camera lacking the most basic features -like AF- that all other cameras are offering. Just image quality and small size and nothing else won't sell for an EVF camera. Sony (Zeiss), Fuji and others sell small, affordable, high quality fully featured small EVILs at a lower prices or will do so soon. Even an ML will need to offer a native AF lens collection apart from accepting M lenses - having to do so in the M mount is near-impossible.

And senseless as the CL and SL already work well with M glass and adapter. The only concession is a flick of a wheel for magnification. Who is going to pay thousands for that?

As for camera size, I'm sure that the SL is going to shrink in the future. And the CL would bloat with a full-frame sensor.

Come to think of it: an adapter with motion sensor is the obvious solution.

I cannot imagine that there would have been any CLs sold if it had been manual only and lacking zoom lenses.

 

I see where you are coming from JAAP but I have a different perspective. The Leica M experience, at least to me, is more than just an optical viewfinder and rangefinder focusing. The image quality, straight forward and minimal controls, size and handling, the quality feel, Leica lens, and yes, the Leica brand all add up to the Leica experience. I do love the rangefinder OVF but for me it’s only really optimal for 28mm through maybe, 75mm focal lengths. I would truly love to see a viewfinder that “fills the frame” with what ever focal length I’m using. Granted, you lose the “frame within a window”, but this is a feature I would be willing to sacrifice. An EVF M would also open up the M system to manual focused zoom lenses and longer focal lengths plus viewfinder brightness amplification for low light shooting.

 

I certainly don’t see an EVF M camera replacing the OVF version, but as a complement to my existing M10. This would be “my” ideal second camera. I also don’t see the SL or CL as good alternatives for using M lens. Moving to a large body with a different interface isn’t really solving the problem while the CL/TL isn’t full frame. The differences between them and an M camera is a bit more than “flick of a wheel for magnification”.

 

So “Who is going to pay thousands for that?”. I agree, I’m not sure there is enough market for a super expensive EVF M camera but it seems a lot of people are trying to find a Leica EVF solution for using M lens and Leica is a niche manufacturer. Who else would build a digital camera with out any LCD display? Cheer! jc

 

[jaapv]

I would have agreed about the sensor size a few weeks ago  - but since getting the CL I see it as a near irrelevancy. It is very hard to see any quality difference to Leica's FF sensors, and the size is obviously even better than an M10 camera - and certainly the weight.

 

As it is now, the SL itself is not that much more bulky than the M240 series ( the M10 is obviously a different story), the lenses are the culprits. A next SL may well shrink quite a bit. Where would that leave the ML?

I think the Leica M would be far more versatile if they managed to offer a satisfactory auxiliary EVF, it would go a long way to make the EVF-M fans happy, and would carry far less commercial risk than a separate camera.

[Peter_S]

Why would they want to do that? They already have a full frame L mount camera, the SL. You are asking, effectively, for a smaller full frame L mount camera, yes? Have you looked at any of the SL lenses? Not much point in shrinking the SL if you are going to be shooting with the 24-90 or the 90-280. Even the 50SL is a huge lens. A smaller camera would not really have any advantages with the larger SL lenses.

 

Seriously, if you want compact, L mount that’s what the CL and TL2 are for. Want full frame L mount? That’s exactly what the SL is for. Want to use M lenses on a full frame body? You’ve already got a choice of the M or the SL.

Well, there are several small M-lenses that would nicely go with a full-frame (35 format, that is) CL. Sure, you loose AF, but then there are many positive experiences with the SL using M glass. I use a VM Heliar 3.5/50mm, but on an M9 - a smaller body would be sweet. I used the T, liked the form, but ultimately I missed full frame. For the big glass, there is the SL.

 

 

 

[jkcampbell2]

I would have agreed about the sensor size a few weeks ago  - but since getting the CL I see it as a near irrelevancy. It is very hard to see any qualitydifference to Leica's FF sensors, and the size is obviously even better yjan an M camera - and certainly the weight.

 

As it is now, the SL itself is not that much more bulky than the M240 series ( the M10 is obviously a different story), the lenses are the culprits. A next SL may well shrink quite a bit. Where would that leave the ML?

I think the Leica M would be far more versatile if they managed to offer a satisfactory auxiliary EVF, it would go a long way to make the EVF-M fans happy, and would carry far less commercial risk than a separate camera.

 

I'm not to excited about having a large blob on top of my M but I agree, a better accessory EVF would be a great compromise to a full EVF camera for now. I've never used a Leica SL but everyone seems to rave about the focusing ease of the high resolution EVF. Focus zoom is great for some situations but an EVF needs to have enough resolution to made the subject snap into focus. This is something I find my Sony A7 will not do and focus peaking is pretty much worthless.   Cheers, jc

[thighslapper]

 A next SL may well shrink quite a bit. Where would that leave the ML?

I think the Leica M would be far more versatile if they managed to offer a satisfactory auxiliary EVF, it would go a long way to make the EVF-M fans happy, and would carry far less commercial risk than a separate camera.

 I am sure it will be more streamlined and curvaceous which will make it look and feel smaller, even if the difference in dimensions is minimal. Leica already have admitted it was a bit 'brutalist' so that implies they will soften it a fair bit. 

 

Electronics always seem to get smaller, so even allowing for possible IBIS there is probably room for manoeuvre ..... but having a big, quality EVF still takes up space and you need a reasonable grip for the big lenses, so there is a limit to how far you can go. 

 

The M add on EVF has always been a 'what can we get away with' accessory ..... partly limited by the M's processing power. I suspect it will remain an option rather than a valued selling point.

 

In the 272 posts so far I have still to read any convincing argument for the FF CL, EVF M or any other mix and match variation to fulfil the wish list of those wanting alternatives. 

 

If you don't like the bread the baker bakes, you can try asking him to change the recipe, but don't be surprised if he says no as he has to sell the stuff and knows what most customers want. Better to try another baker, or just put more jam on it and learn to like it...... 

Edited April 12, 2018 by thighslapper

[Guest VVJ]

In the 272 posts so far I have still to read any convincing argument for the FF CL, EVF M or any other mix and match variation to fulfil the wish list of those wanting alternatives. 

 

Exactly my thoughts... And on top of that why is this being discussed in the CL forum and not in the M forum.  Would it not be more relevant there?

[Einst_Stein]

It is here because it is voewed as a full frame CL.

 

It could make sense to be in M forum if you see it as a M with EVF and/or L mount, but I thing among M fans, emotionally M has a strong personality that it is M mount and OVF. An M does not even need to be full frame. —feel free to put M8 in M familiy, but if you put M8 in CL or TL family, many M fans will feel insulted.

[Jdphoto]

I decided to primarily shoot film because of the ridiculous planned obsolescence of digital cameras. By adding more features that relate to perceived value and necessity, they forget about the pure simplicity of a box with a lens. Film allows one to consider the composition with a better understanding of the fundamentals of photography without distraction. Obviously, the CL is a digital camera, but it shoots like a Leica M imo, especially when using M lenses. I've owned the Q, and can M9, and think the CL is really the best of each one. A perfect mate for film.

[Einst_Stein]

No, because it offers a unique interface, which an EVF 'M' does not. The RF M too, is curtailed by its 'dumb' lenses, but at the same time its a very competent performer within its limitations. An EVF 'M' would not be because it would be compared with other cameras offering a great deal more for a lot less. Sony A7/A7II/A7III/A9 are EVF cameras able to take M lenses - with degrees of problems its true - and they cost a fraction of what a potential EVF 'M' would be likely to. I use A7IIs ('though whenever I can I prefer to use RF Ms) and I've used M lenses on them - these work to varying extents and are really not nearly as bad as many seem to think in real photographic output terms. Using even the cheaper of Sony's 'intelligent' lenses and its obvious that these are remarkably competent performers for their cost. Why try to get the 'M' system to compete on unfair terms. Accept it for what it is and use Leica's more competitive offerings if you need an EVF.

Sony does not produce the Leica due to its color. Even so in BW. It is in its gene, not post processible.

Whether it is better or worse than Leica is subjective.

 

Since we are discussing the subtle difference between different flavor or Leica camera body, Sony or Fujifilm are totally irrelevant and are in different world. That could be a different interesting topic though.

[Einst_Stein]

I decided to primarily shoot film because of the ridiculous planned obsolescence of digital cameras. By adding more features that relate to perceived value and necessity, they forget about the pure simplicity of a box with a lens. Film allows one to consider the composition with a better understanding of the fundamentals of photography without distraction. Obviously, the CL is a digital camera, but it shoots like a Leica M imo, especially when using M lenses. I've owned the Q, and can M9, and think the CL is really the best of each one. A perfect mate for film.

I like film. I particularly miss the silky tonal of Kodak Verochrome in PMK and Agfa 25 in Rodinal, stand development. Alas they are all discontinued. Fujifilm discontinued all 120 BW, the choice are less and less. Fortunatly Ilford and Kodak still keep lots of popular BnW films. Shooting color film has more problem in development. But printing C41 has never been my preference anyway.

 

For convenience, the digital simply outweight all the pros of film. I feel guilty.

[Jdphoto]

 

 

I like film. I particularly miss the silky tonal of Kodak Verochrome in PMK and Agfa 25 in Rodinal, stand development. Alas they are all discontinued. Fujifilm discontinued all 120 BW, the choice are less and less. Fortunatly Ilford and Kodak still keep lots of popular BnW films. Shooting color film has more problem in development. But printing C41 has never been my preference anyway.

For convenience, the digital simply outweight all the pros of film. I feel guilty.

Kodak Portra 400 or Fuji X100H are incredible! Overexposing by a few stops never bothers these films. Most photo shops develop film too. Digital is certainly more convenient, but imo, not as satisfying. Don't feel guilty, just find a cheap 35mm camera and shoot a roll   

[Einst_Stein]

Kodak Portra 400 or Fuji X100H are incredible! Overexposing by a few stops never bothers these films. Most photo shops develop film too. Digital is certainly more convenient, but imo, not as satisfying. Don't feel guilty, just find a cheap 35mm camera and shoot a roll

 

Actually MF cameras are cheap enough compared to digital camera. Fujifilm GX680 and Hasselblad Flexbody or Arc body are examples. Or, simply Hasselblad 500CM. Film in 35mm is less attractive, but that is just me.

 

I would stay with Leica digital and forget about the film.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[eraydinc]

What do you think my ML prototype? [emoji4]

 

 

 

Tapatalk kullanarak iPad aracılığıyla gönderildi