Jump to content

Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is one of those discussions which goes on and on and on and on and .......

 

However to simply state the compromise which an M10/evf would be its this:

 

The SL can take M lenses with an adapter and produces good results.

 

I am sure that an M10/evf could produce equally as good results with M lenses.

 

However the SL, TL & now CL can also take electronically integrated lenses too which an M10/evf would not be able to do.

 

The question is whether an M10/evf would be a viable option given this - and of course the fact that electronically integrated lenses can keep pace with future changes. An M10/evf on the other hand won't be able to do so. As regards electronic integration it is a dead end idea. IMO the M camera IS a rangefinder camera and for good reason. It is designed as such and an evf only version will always attract comparison with other, purpose built evf cameras. Perhaps ales might make it a viability but I for one would not be interested in such a camera and surely, as an existing M owner, I would be a targeted customer? From all the discussion in threads on this forum I know that I'm far from alone in my lack of interest. Which makes an M10/evf a niche within a niche - but as the Monochromes have show, niches can be viable - at a price that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those discussions which goes on and on and on and on and .......

 

However to simply state the compromise which an M10/evf would be its this:

 

The SL can take M lenses with an adapter and produces good results.

 

I am sure that an M10/evf could produce equally as good results with M lenses.

 

However the SL, TL & now CL can also take electronically integrated lenses too which an M10/evf would not be able to do.

 

The question is whether an M10/evf would be a viable option given this - and of course the fact that electronically integrated lenses can keep pace with future changes. An M10/evf on the other hand won't be able to do so. As regards electronic integration it is a dead end idea. IMO the M camera IS a rangefinder camera and for good reason. It is designed as such and an evf only version will always attract comparison with other, purpose built evf cameras. Perhaps ales might make it a viability but I for one would not be interested in such a camera and surely, as an existing M owner, I would be a targeted customer? From all the discussion in threads on this forum I know that I'm far from alone in my lack of interest. Which makes an M10/evf a niche within a niche - but as the Monochromes have show, niches can be viable - at a price that is.

 

In response to your concerns:

 

Yes, the SL can take M lenses with an adapter, but the M will take M lenses without an adapter. The M body is also smaller than the SL and the sensor within has been optimised for M lenses only. Unlike the SL, which will have been optimised for the new range of AF lenses.

 

I see no reason why an M/evf should produce results of lesser quality than an M/ovf. After all, it would be the same lens/sensor combination on each. Only the viewing and focusing arrangement has changed.

 

The comment about electronically integrated lenses, I feel, is a red herring. Why compare an M/evf with M lenses to the SL, T or CL, when the same argument is not used against the M/ovf with M lenses?

 

I agree that you are far from alone in your lack of interest in the M/ovf, but there are also many people on the forum who ARE interested. And there is never any compunction to buy what we don’t find attractive. So, those opposed can just ignore it – the M/ovf  will be there, as before, for them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The comment about electronically integrated lenses, I feel, is a red herring. Why compare an M/evf with M lenses to the SL, T or CL, when the same argument is not used against the M/ovf with M lenses?

The 'red herring' as you call it is the crux of the whole debate. The M/ovf is what it is - a superb rangefinder system. As soon as you bring in an M/evf it 'competes' against all other evf cameras and technically it won't/can't because it lacks electronic transfer of information from its lenses. However you try to view this, it does mean that an M/evf is fundamentally constricted from birth. Now be honest and ask yourself if Leica, known for 'imaging excellence', should really introduced a 'hobbled' camera as a niche product within a niche - what message does this give out? Wouldn't it simply be better to allow the M to continue as it is and continue to do what it does best - work as a wonderful rangefinder camera?

 

I am sure that an M/evf camera will be possible technically, if not now at some point in the future, but I do wonder if development of such a product is worthwhile commercially given its technical constraints.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure to follow you here. The M/EVF would be necessarily made for M users who are not interested in AF by definition. Exactly the same people as me or others who like, or dislike, rangefinders but would be happy to use their M lenses on a mirrorless camera w/o having to use a Sony, a big camera (SL), an APS-C camera (TL, CL) or a Visoflex for that. Also as i said above or elsewhere, the M/EVF would be the only solution to get auto image magnification (aka auto zoom) with M lenses on a mirrorless camera. I am surprised that nobody seems to be interested in this important (to me) feature on this good old forum.

Edited by lct
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure to follow you here. The M/EVF would be necessarily made for M users who are not interested in AF by definition. Exactly the same people as me or others who like, or dislike, rangefinders but would be happy to use their M lenses on a mirrorless camera w/o having to use a Sony, a big camera (SL), an APS-C camera (TL, CL) or a Visoflex for that. Also as i said above or elsewhere, the M/EVF would be the only solution to get auto image magnification (aka auto zoom) with M lenses on a mirrorless camera. I am surprised that nobody seems to be interested in this important (to me) feature on this good old forum.

 

Funny that - never do use auto-zoom (disturbs my sense of composition and it's perfectly easy to focus with just the EVF . . as long as you turn off focus peaking!).

But I can see that's a valid point for it having an M mount rather than an SL mount. 

 

I don't think that (as Paul suggested) it would necessarily be only a "niche within a niche" because I think there might be some people who would buy it who wouldn't buy a rangefinder (people who find rangefinder focusing difficult).

 

I've always been against the idea, because I couldn't see why you wouldn't have an SL mount . . but thinking harder I can see that would require a whole new firmware set (and probably sensor as well). Whereas simply bunging an EVF in would not. Trouble is, I doubt with the current M sensor it would be possible to have an EVF any better than that on the Visoflex . . . and would that be good enough?

 

all the best

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly the same people as me or others who like, or dislike, rangefinders but would be happy to use their M lenses on a mirrorless camera .....

 

Just how many M lens owners dislike using rangefinders do you suppose?( :D ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also as I said above or elsewhere, the M/EVF would be the only solution to get auto image magnification (aka auto zoom) with M lenses on a mirrorless camera. I am surprised that nobody seems to be interested in this important (to me) feature on this good old forum.

How could that work? It would perhaps need a sensor to detect rangefinder cam movement? I can see the usefulness/logic but really not sure of the sales potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How could that work? It would perhaps need a sensor to detect rangefinder cam movement? I can see the usefulness/logic but really not sure of the sales potential.

Hi There - same way it works on the M10 

 

PS never use it (makes me feel slightly sick!)

Edited by jonoslack
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There - same way it works on the M10 

 

PS never use it (makes me feel slightly sick!)

Same here (I stated earlier as well). I choose to focus first without zoom just by looking at full EVF image and possibly taking help from peaking. After that if further accuracy is needed (as in tele lens) then I hit the zoom button.

 

But in one case, auto-zoom is helpful. when I give my M to others to shoot my picture, I tell them that moving focus ring will zoom the image so that they can focus. Novice M users seem to understand that. But then again, many M users don't want to hand over their precious little camera to others. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's rather a lot Paul - mostly because they feel that their eyesight is failing. 

[resists wisecrack]

Or, like me, they may not like the ambiguity and inacuracies of the frame lines, together with the lens partially blocking the viewfinder?

But, the lenses are wonderful and only really sing when they are matched with an M sensor.

Other manufacturers bodies don't do it. The SL is too big and the TL / CL are cropped sensor.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

And how many M lens owners use Fuji, Sony mirrorless and also SL601? Probably more than true RF users. I became Leica user , including M cameras by trying SLR lenses on DSLR platform.

 

Well I use Sony myself and have an adapter to use M lenses which I have tried, but I quickly reverted to using them on the RF simply because I prefer using them on an RF platform. IF the Sony was the size of an M10 and had a evf built in would I use it with M lenses instead of the RF - I very much doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I use Sony myself and have an adapter to use M lenses which I have tried, but I quickly reverted to using them on the RF simply because I prefer using them on an RF platform. IF the Sony was the size of an M10 and had a evf built in would I use it with M lenses instead of the RF - I very much doubt it.

 

To each its own. My A7s mod is shorter than my M240 and i use it mostly with M lenses. So will i do with the CL if i order one but i'll still miss a compact FF mirrorless Leica for the best compact lenses in the world. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I would not be surprised if Leica offers a full frame L mount camera like CL, simply a M with EVF.and AF.

 

 

An EVF-based M is possible, but not AF.

 

Smaller, lighter, less expensive... a ML camera with M mount... 

 

This camera would find many photographers interested! 

Edited by rosuna
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? The technical aspects that make a mirrorless EVF camera do include AF and zooms. The M mount is not suitable for such a camera. The use of M lenses on EVF is covered by the SL, CL and TL through adapters.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

An EVF-based M is possible, but not AF.

Smaller, lighter, less expensive... a ML camera with M mount... 

This camera would find many photographers interested! 

 

Less expensive i doubt it ;) but count me in. Only the M mount do really justice to M lenses actually. The L mount is a good enough compromise but it shows often its limits at edges and corners. It is not because M lenses are designed for rangefinders that the M mount cannot be used on mirrorless bodies. The M mount is also the only way to get auto image magnification with M lenses and i don't see why mirrorless users could not get it as well. Now a full frame CL with M mount would affect sales of M bodies i suspect so i don't hold my breath.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no difference between the way the light strikes the sensor on an M mount camera or an L mount- M adapted one. Tzhe difference in corner performance is solely caused by microlens design and filter stack, which will be different for each sensor design. The resence of an adapter is not relevant.

 

I'm sure that a master pixel-peeper can see a "vast" difference between the corners of the M9, M240 and M10.

 

Yes, auto-magnification is an advantage of the native mount - the only one that I can see. Would that be worth the loss of the use of AF/oom/long  L lenses? I doubt it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a common error to assume that one's personal wish is an universal need - I often fall into that trap myself. :(

 

 

 

Or the reverse. Something I don't need or like is not an universal (or important) need/wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? The technical aspects that make a mirrorless EVF camera do include AF and zooms. The M mount is not suitable for such a camera. The use of M lenses on EVF is covered by the SL, CL and TL through adapters.

 

 

... or Sony cameras... 

 

... but I don't want a SL camera with M adapter, but a true M camera (= M mount), specifically designed with the M system in mind, so the body size and weight should the coordinated with M lenses, not heavy superlarge SL lenses. 

 

A system is a coherent combination of bodies and lenses. The SL cameras have to be large, because of the lenses. The ML camera may be as small as possible, because M lenses are really small. 

 

The key and inimitable flavor of the M system is the size/format ratio. It is unique. The rangefinder and the brass do not allow a full exploitation of that advantage. So a new body free of the tradition of the classical M bodies could be a little revolution: a supersmall 35mm system. With manual lenses, of course. No AF. For that you have/need the SL system. But the parameters of the SL and M system are very different, because AF is related to the size of the lenses and this to the size of the body, necessarily. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...