lct Posted April 10, 2018 Share #221 Â Posted April 10, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. [...] Â I beg to disagree. The EVF is a more accurate aiming and focusing device than any rangefinder thanks to image magnification. Been there i own most Leica RFs including 0.91x (M3) and 0.85x (M6J) already. It is not possible to nail focus as accurately with a rangefinder as with an EVF with image magnification. The rangefinder is a faster focusing device for sure, and one that i like much obviously, but the compromise is the rangefinder as far as FoV and focus accuracy, not the EVF. Now who cares really? People using RF, mirrorless or both RF and mirrorless cameras have the same rights to use their M lenses in their full capacity IMHO. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 Hi lct, Take a look here Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted April 10, 2018 Share #222 Â Posted April 10, 2018 Please stay within reality. Where do all the perfectly focused Noctilux photographs come from since the introduction of the first lens? It takes some more skill, that is true. If I am unskilled at riding a bicycle and habitually fall off, does that give me a "right" to demand that the Tour de France admit tricycles? Â If you find a rangefinder difficult, practice, practice, practice... Or buy some other camera that fits your particular need, as you have done. Or hope that Leica comes out with a camera that suits you. The use of the word "right" is totally weird. Nobody has a "right" to a product. A manufacturer may or may not produce an article, but the customer can only ask, not demand. If you think you have a right, you start a class action. Â We'll see whether Leica finds this request commercially attractive. I think not, but I've been wrong before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djs Posted April 10, 2018 Share #223  Posted April 10, 2018 A rangefinder will tell you when the lens SHOULD be in focus. An EVF will show you when the lens IS in focus, precisely.  I suspect the skill required to properly focus a Noctilux with a rangefinder, is more likely a combination of knowing the errors of the particular system, and luck! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 10, 2018 Share #224 Â Posted April 10, 2018 Yes to the knowing the errors of the system, but mostly knowing the errors by the photographer, as the rangefinder is calibrated so well that the tolerance is minimal. Luck does not come into it. Skill does. Â Leica does indicate the limitations of the system, hence the advice to stop the Apo-Telyt down one stop (not needed on the M10, and some of us managed quite well on all M bodies), and the bringing out of different viewfinder M6-s, however the improvements of both the M240 and even more M10 have brought all native M lenses well within tolerance. Â BTW, my Avatar is perfectly in focus and was shot on a Tele-Elmar 135 on an M8, notoriously difficult to focus precisely. My hit rate on that session was well over 80%. An EVF would certainly have done worse, as I would not have seen the birds coming and thus would have been unable to pre-focus-and-correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 10, 2018 Share #225  Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) I beg to disagree. The EVF is a more accurate aiming and focusing device than any rangefinder thanks to image magnification. Been there i own most Leica RFs including 0.91x (M3) and 0.85x (M6J) already. It is not possible to nail focus as accurately with a rangefinder as with an EVF with image magnification. The rangefinder is a faster focusing device for sure, and one that i like much obviously, but the compromise is the rangefinder as far as FoV and focus accuracy, not the EVF. Now who cares really? People using RF, mirrorless or both RF and mirrorless cameras have the same rights to use their M lenses in their full capacity IMHO.   And... EVF frames any lens, from 12mm to 135mm or more...  ... & zooms like the (small) 16-21mm lens... Edited April 10, 2018 by rosuna Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 10, 2018 Share #226  Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) The future of the M system is EVIL... and a rangefinder model as a complement for nostalgics with good sight... Edited April 10, 2018 by rosuna Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 10, 2018 Share #227  Posted April 10, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) And... EVF frames any lens, from 12mm to 135mm or more...  ... & zooms like the (small) 16-21mm lens... Indeed, and instead of the accessory viewfinders the M10 has the Visoflex 20. So what is the problem? The only thing Leica has to do is to provide the M11 with a high-grade EVF accessory, maybe better looking too. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELAN Posted April 10, 2018 Share #228  Posted April 10, 2018 Leica should make an M10-E, an M10 with an SL quality EVF instead of the OVF. That's it, everything else is exactly the same as the M10. But Leica doesn't make such a camera because they can't technically make it.  Leica probably know that an M10-E will sell well, and sell more M lenses, and make some long-time M users happy, especially those who can no longer focus accurately with the OVF. It may even bring new customers to the M line.  The M10-E will coexist nicely with the M10 and the analog Ms, and all the other M variants. Some people, myself included, who have purchased more than one M variant may purchase an M10-E in addition to their M10 (or M10M). Leica can't lose on this. Unfortunately, they can't make it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 10, 2018 Share #229  Posted April 10, 2018 Indeed, and instead of the accessory viewfinders the M10 has the Visoflex 20. So what is the problem? The only thing Leica has to do is to provide the M11 with a high-grade EVF accessory, maybe better looking too.   Too big, too heavy, too expensive (if the production cost explains the price...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 10, 2018 Share #230  Posted April 10, 2018 That's it, everything else is exactly the same as the M10.   No. The ML should be like the CL. Lighter, smaller. A new design adapted to the new viewfinder. The form and shape of the M10 es determined by the rangefinder/viewfinder... and the old rolls of film... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 10, 2018 Share #231  Posted April 10, 2018 Too big, too heavy, too expensive (if the production cost explains the price...). Heavy? How much does it weigh then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 10, 2018 Share #232  Posted April 10, 2018 No. The ML should be like the CL. Lighter, smaller. A new design adapted to the new viewfinder. The form and shape of the M10 es determined by the rangefinder/viewfinder... and the old rolls of film... The only reason the CL can be smaller is because it is APS-C. An EVF would make only a marginal difference. The main bulk of the M10 is made up by the sensor assembly, electronics and battery in contains. At most one would have the top plate a few mm lower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 10, 2018 Share #233  Posted April 10, 2018 Heavy? How much does it weigh then?   I mean the current M camera plus EVF...  The M camera is heavy with or without EVF attached. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 10, 2018 Share #234  Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) The only reason the CL can be smaller is because it is APS-C. An EVF would make only a marginal difference. The main bulk of the M10 is made up by the sensor assembly, electronics and battery in contains. At most one would have the top plate a few mm lower.  The APS-C is a reason, despite the L mount being wider than M mount. The ML would be a bit larger than the current CL. The main bulk of the M10 is the rangefinder/viewfinder system, and yes, you can get a few mm lower. Replacing brass with magnesium alloy for the top cover would save weight too. Edited April 10, 2018 by rosuna Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 10, 2018 Share #235 Â Posted April 10, 2018 Yes, that has been a source of wonder for me too, that they stuck with brass. I was really surprised that the M8 did not use carbon fiber. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted April 10, 2018 Share #236  Posted April 10, 2018 The future of the M system is EVIL... and a rangefinder model as a complement for nostalgics with good sight...  I honestly think that the future of the M is as an M Rangefinder Camera not as an EVF Camera. The logic which is being ignored is that an M EVF has a,fabulous asset, but one which hobbles it - 'dumb' lenses. Like myself the reason many people still use the MRF is because it is a rangefinder. Do people seriously think that an EVF camera with an M mount which can only take manual focus lenses and can only work in manual or aperture priority, and which has extremely limited information exchange between lens and body is a financially viable money maker for Leica? Why compete against the likes of Sony by compromising the most successful camera system in history? Seriously? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted April 10, 2018 Share #237 Â Posted April 10, 2018 Yes, that has been a source of wonder for me too, that they stuck with brass. I was really surprised that the M8 did not use carbon fiber. Whilst carbon fibre is an excellent material for some application where its strength and rigidity are well applied, I don't think that its a particularly suitable one to make camera bodies out of. You might as well use fibreglass. There are some very hard and good looking finishes to aluminium (eloxal for example) which are better suited. Magnesium, titanium, stainless steel would (have) all be fine too. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 10, 2018 Share #238  Posted April 10, 2018 Do people seriously think that an EVF camera with an M mount which can only take manual focus lenses and can only work in manual or aperture priority, and which has extremely limited information exchange between lens and body is a financially viable money maker for Leica?   Yes. It would be a "different" kind of system.  Why compete against the likes of Sony by compromising the most successful camera system in history?   There is no competition here. Those are strongly differentiated systems. The SL system is the competition of Sony's, and despite the difference in prices the SL is alive.  The real danger for Leica is in offering weakly differentiated systems (and cameras).   In opinion of many people here, the real competition would be between the ML camera and the SL camera, but we have explained why this is not a real menace either. Very different systems too.  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELAN Posted April 10, 2018 Share #239  Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) No. The ML should be like the CL. Lighter, smaller. A new design adapted to the new viewfinder.  Well, you and I envision different cameras. I see a pure M that has an EVF instead of the OVF, or preferably a hybrid, if that was possible. It would look and feel just like my M10 and MP. Edited April 10, 2018 by ELAN Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 10, 2018 Share #240  Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) Good lord ...... is this thread still staggering along ........  You all seem to have forgotten the Q ....... Leica could have stuck an M or a L mount on it and created what some of you want ....... and may still do, but the fact they made the CL and chose APS-C as a format tends to make me think the Q was a ‘one off’ and that M is going to stay RF and L will remain AF, with any crossover through adapters only.  Leica exist by following an unconventional product path ...... and what may seem sensible and logical to us may not feature in their future plans at all ...... I’m more inclined to expect the unexpected .... Edited April 10, 2018 by thighslapper 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now