Jump to content
Einst_Stein

Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

Recommended Posts

I can imagine Leica Go Fund Me, with customers responding Go Fu** You.

 

Jeff

 

Some might, others might see it as an opportunity, a new "a la carte", where the order is confirmed once there is critical mass. Kickstarter shows the way to new business models, in this spirit I'd say: Kick Leica 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't need no EVF based M!

 

 

...I interpret this as an intensified negative, not a double negative. - Strictly speaking, I don't need no Leica, - none. But I have one or two because I want one, I take the liberty to assume that this is the case with most Leica owners. - Btw, great review on the CL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I know what I'd like . . . 

a new EVF which was as good as the one on the SL, with no black-out and a fantastic refresh rate.

Just for those Long Lens / Noctilux moments.

 

Don't need no EVF based M!

Okay, I’ll bite. Why would anyone want an EVF based M? Particularly when M means messucher?

 

As an M user, I love the form factor, I love the lenses, I love the elegance and simplicity of the user interface. Picking up an M camera with one of the special lenses is a delightful experience.

 

The parallel mechanical focusing, separated from what hits the sensor is not so appealing. Adding the Visoflex spoils the elegance of the experience. An M10, with an EVF at least as good as the 020 if not the SL (too big to fit, apparently), would do away with the muddle of framelines, would eliminate focus shift, would give accurate framing, could give magnified focusing and exposure simulation, and would help using wides and longer lenses (and adapted R lenses).

 

What would you lose? Seeing around the framelines, a plane glass view, rather than a TV, the frameline lever. Seriously, what else? The odd thing is, once the R&D cost is recovered, installing an EVF would be cheaper and more reliable than the complex optical EVF. Yet, it’s sacrilege ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... so many M users seem to want an EVF camera.

So do I. But then—I have it. I'm having it for 4.5 years now; it's called the Leica M (Typ 240) ... recently replaced by M10. And the best point is: The rangefinder isn't replaced but complemented by the EVF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many would have been interested in a B&W M camera, or one without an LCD screen. Even after these cameras were released, many here (me included, when the Monochrom was first released) said “dumb idea, it will never sell”. And yet ...

 

I seem to recall that the M system remains Leica’s biggest seller. Expanding that market (as Leica have done with the variants) seems pretty successful.

 

The attraction is the M lenses, and the M system, and all it entails. Adding an L mount makes such a camera something else entirely. It becomes AF and it will have all the additional features which you don’t have or want on an M (see M(240) for feature bloat).

The Monochrom was just an M9 with the Bayer filter replaced by a clear one (the same, mutatis mutandis, for the MM2) R & D and retooling costs: virtually nil...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your point is?

 

An EVF based M10 would have pretty much everything the standard camera, with the rangefinder removed. More complicated that “just removing the CFA and entirely new firmware? Probably. But it would still be an M10 in every respect. Same body, same dials, same controls, large the same processor and sensor; the front might look a bit odd without ythe windows ...

 

Anyway, this is all rather pointless, as despite the demand, Leica is unlikely to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your point is?

 

An EVF based M10 would have pretty much everything the standard camera, with the rangefinder removed. More complicated that “just removing the CFA and entirely new firmware? Probably. But it would still be an M10 in every respect. Same body, same dials, same controls, large the same processor and sensor; the front might look a bit odd without ythe windows ...

 

Anyway, this is all rather pointless, as despite the demand, Leica is unlikely to make it.

I think it would be a great camera....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your point is?

 

An EVF based M10 would have pretty much everything the standard camera, with the rangefinder removed. More complicated that “just removing the CFA and entirely new firmware? Probably. But it would still be an M10 in every respect. Same body, same dials, same controls, large the same processor and sensor; the front might look a bit odd without ythe windows ...

 

Anyway, this is all rather pointless, as despite the demand, Leica is unlikely to make it.

My point is that the needed complete redesign would be an expensive R&D operation. Leica is far less likely to take a gamble with a high investment, as opposed to the relatively low expenditure for the MM. Of which part was probably carried by sensor maker, as the monochrome version of the M9 sensor was in the catalog from the beginning..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that the needed complete redesign would be an expensive R&D operation. Leica is far less likely to take a gamble with a high investment, as opposed to the relatively low expenditure for the MM. Of which part was probably carried by sensor maker, as the monochrome version of the M9 sensor was in the catalog from the beginning..

Actually, I don’t agree. Sounds wise, but doesn’t stand scrutiny. Just because the Monochrom might be cheaper and easier to develop (which I’m not entirely convinced about), doesn’t mean Leica wouldn’t make a more expensive version. If the Monochrom was so cheap and easy to develop, they’ve made a whacking profit - it’s the most expensive M variant ...

 

I also don’t agree on the “needed complete redesign” as it would be purely the topdeck. Leica already has the know-how to fit a high quality EVF to a full frame sensor (SL, Q and clip-on for the M(240) series and M10). So, actually the redesign would involve removing the optical mechanical parts and installing the EVF.

 

The irony is, we’d probably end up with a prism like lump ... not so attractive!

Edited by IkarusJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at CL, it seems to be based on Vario with a lens mount and small EVF shoehorned. An incremental R&D cost. Now look at Q with FF sensor and EVF. Lesser incremental R&D cost will go into attaching L/M mount and converting it into EVF only M. Therefore I don't think R&D is holding Leica back. It could be very much fear of cannibalizing M/SL sales.

 

Jobs once said, "If You Don't Cannibalize Yourself, Someone Else Will." But in case of hypothetical EVF only M, no other manufacturing is threatening. Therefore Leica bosses can sit patiently and shuffle through market research pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very good points. Leica likely views the M with a rangefinder as a cashcow that requires minimal investment and that isn’t threatened. This allows them to invest slowly (unfortunately) in the L mount system which is the future. The only way this will change is if more and more people start to buy the a7r or the X-Pro (less likely now) to use with M mount lenses. Commercially, there is really no good reason why they shouldn’t at least offer an M with a hybrid viewfinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like complacency to me.

 

If a camera based on the M10, with an EVF, takes one sale away from an M10, there actually isn’t a loss. But offering two cameras to one buyer? Well, that’s good for the buyer ... bad thing? Only if you’re petrified by what might or might not happen, and you’re stuck.

Edited by IkarusJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like complacency to me.

 

If a camera based on the M10, with an EVF, takes one sale away from an M10, there actually isn’t a loss. But offering two cameras to one buyer? Well, that’s good for the buyer ... bad thing? Only if you’re petrified by what might or might not happen, and you’re stuck.

What if EVF only M has lower margin than RF M (most probably that is the case because it will be cheaper). No one is arguing whether it is good for buyer (it is). What we don't know is whether it is good for the manufacturer. Edited by jmahto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I’ll bite. Why would anyone want an EVF based M? Particularly when M means messucher?

 

As an M user, I love the form factor, I love the lenses, I love the elegance and simplicity of the user interface. Picking up an M camera with one of the special lenses is a delightful experience.

 

The parallel mechanical focusing, separated from what hits the sensor is not so appealing. Adding the Visoflex spoils the elegance of the experience. An M10, with an EVF at least as good as the 020 if not the SL (too big to fit, apparently), would do away with the muddle of framelines, would eliminate focus shift, would give accurate framing, could give magnified focusing and exposure simulation, and would help using wides and longer lenses (and adapted R lenses).

 

What would you lose? Seeing around the framelines, a plane glass view, rather than a TV, the frameline lever. Seriously, what else? The odd thing is, once the R&D cost is recovered, installing an EVF would be cheaper and more reliable than the complex optical EVF. Yet, it’s sacrilege ...

I would think so, too, if I was thinking "camera" in the singular. 

 

However, there are situations where the optomechanical rangefinder is not so useful. I would like to own a second body with an adequate electronic viewfinder, preferably useable both on and off camera, for all those situations where either the optomechanical rangefinder does not work well enough or taking a photograph with the camera close to the eye is not an option. 

 

This might greatly enhance the useability of much of the equipment I already have and still let me use the optomechanical rangefinder in all situations where I prefer it over other tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M system, and the majority of our investment, is in the lenses. One camera, two, then one, maybe three ... it’s all about the lenses. That’s the system we’ve bought into. An optical rf and an evf, or maybe an M-D and a Monochrom, it really doesn’t matter, you buy three or four M lenses, your ‘re in.

 

Messucher means rangefinder? No, it means fabulous lenses.

Edited by IkarusJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shooting a family group watching a movie in our basement recently by the light reflected from the movie screen.  Couldn't see the rangefinder patch or read the lens distance scale.  Shooting by guesswork at ISO 3200 and f/1.4@1/15 sec and then raising the exposure by two stops in post processing I got a few nice frames...  That's where an EVF would have paid off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post deleted ....

 

I can't be bothered to argue about this subject .... so much is illogical and daft ....

Edited by thighslapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M system, and the majority of our investment, is in the lenses. One camera, two, then one, maybe three ... it’s all about the lenses. That’s the system we’ve bought into. An optical rf and an evf, or maybe an M-D and a Monochrom, it really doesn’t matter, you buy three or four M lenses, your ‘re in.

 

Messucher means rangefinder? No, it means fabulous lenses.

Agree. Mabulous Menses ...

 

It is interesting that Leica did use acronyms back then. SL for Single Lens reflex (the R returned in the R system; R(eflex) meant as opposition to M(esssucher)), the CL for Compact Leica etc. Nowadays they just echo history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. Mabulous Menses ...

 

It is interesting that Leica did use acronyms back then. SL for Single Lens reflex (the R returned in the R system; R(eflex) meant as opposition to M(esssucher)), the CL for Compact Leica etc. Nowadays they just echo history.

No no no CL is for clooney LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×