Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

[Jdphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

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. 

Fuji has done a decent job of using a hybrid EVF/OVF in it's X100f series. I had one and loved the the option of both.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[djs]

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?

 

I don't understand why the "dumb lense" theory is applied to an EVF equipped body, but not an OVF equipped one.

The whole point of an EVF equipped M would be to take advantage of the superb, relatively small, M lenses. As we know, they are small because they are manual focus.  Also, OVF M photographers seem happy with manual or aperture priority modes, why should EVF M photographers have different expectations simply because the viewfinder is different?

[jaapv]

Because an EVF offers far more advanced options than an OVF does - if the lens is compatible.

[djs]

Because an EVF offers far more advanced options than an OVF does - if the lens is compatible.

 

 

But the whole point is to be able to use the M lenses, which we know are not compatible. Sometimes less is more!

Anyone who wants more need not apply. Sony will provide many, many options for those who want them. (Too many options for some!)

[jaapv]

Yes, but Leica will want to sell a few more cameras than they can to an undefined percentage of M users. An expensive non-AF mirrorless is hardly likely to appeal to anybody but a hard core M lens fanatic.

[lct]

Yes, but Leica will want to sell a few more cameras than they can to an undefined percentage of M users. An expensive non-AF mirrorless is hardly likely to appeal to anybody but a hard core M lens fanatic.

 

Not sure to follow your reasoning here. M lens users are not looking for AF by definition. M lenses are by nature MF lenses needing MF bodies. If each M lens user is a fanatic, then Leica needs more fanatics to buy its M lenses obviously. For that, Leica has to attract not only "hard core RF fanatics" to borrow your expression but also younger (or elder?) mirrorless users whose are not interested in rangefinders or like using their M lenses on both RF and mirrorless cameras.  

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

[rosuna]

Not sure to follow your reasoning here. M lens users are not looking for AF by definition. M lenses are by nature MF lenses needing MF bodies. If each M lens user is a fanatic, then Leica needs more fanatics to buy its M lenses obviously. For that, Leica has to attract not only "hard core RF fanatics" to borrow your expression but also younger (or elder?) mirrorless users whose are not interested in rangefinders or like using their M lenses on both RF and mirrorless cameras.  

 

 

There is a flourishing industry of manual focus lenses for mirrorless (and reflex) bodies: Zeiss, Voitländer, etc. So the potential market for a ML camera seems to be wider than the current user base of rangefinder lovers.

[rosuna]

Even an ML will need to offer a native AF lens collection apart from accepting M lenses.

 

 

No. Why?

 

 

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?

 

 

The SL is not a camera made for M lenses. The adapter allows the use of M lenses, but is is an adaptation. Who buys a SL for M lenses?

 

 

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.

 

 

I seriously doubt that. CL with FF sensor and reduced SL are the same. That camera would be made for SL lenses, not M lenses. It has to be big, because SL lenses are enormous. 

 

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

 

 

 

You already have a zoom M lens, the 16-21mm, but you cannot use it as a zoom lens except with the EVF attached. The ML would allow for more mini M zoom lenses (a revival of the 35-50, etc.).

 

[jaapv]

At introduction, Leica stated emphatically that the microlens design of the SL was for M lenses AND SL lenses. So yes, it was specifically designed for the use of M lenses as well.

 

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.nl/2016/01/the-future-of-sensor-technology-at-leica.html

[rosuna]

At introduction, Leica stated emphatically that the microlens design of the SL was for M lenses AND SL lenses. So yes, it was specifically designed for the use of M lenses as well.

 

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.nl/2016/01/the-future-of-sensor-technology-at-leica.html

 

 

We know that. My reasoning is different, as you also know already. The SL is a camera made for SL lenses (size, mass, ergonomics). 

Edited April 11, 2018 by rosuna

[Jdphoto]

 

I just compared two images between the Leica Q and Leica CL w/23mm f/2 on the same subject. A very unscientific test as the Q is a DNG and the CL is a JPG. However, i'm looking at overall resolution, micro contrast, etc, and the CL is excellent with no real advantage to the Q. DNG comparisons are next.

[lct]

I don't see what AF and SL have to do with the "ML" we're discussing about here. The only way to get AF with M lenses is to purchase a Sony body and a Techart adapter so far. But this is not the point here is it? And what does the bulky SL have to do with compact cameras? I feel confused but perhaps my ageing brain is the culprit...

[jaapv]

The point is that if you want to sell an EVF mirrorless camera it must have AF and features. An M lens only ML would not have that, so it would not sell.

[djs]

The point is that if you want to sell an EVF mirrorless camera it must have AF and features. An M lens only ML would not have that, so it would not sell.

 

Who would have thought a monochrome only camera would sell. 

[jaapv]

I didn't Yet I bought the first one in the shop

[pgk]

I don't understand why the "dumb lense" theory is applied to an EVF equipped body, but not an OVF equipped one.

The whole point of an EVF equipped M would be to take advantage of the superb, relatively small, M lenses. As we know, they are small because they are manual focus.  Also, OVF M photographers seem happy with manual or aperture priority modes, why should EVF M photographers have different expectations simply because the viewfinder is different?

 

I'm sure that the forum's search function would reveal that the reasoning has been stated many times before, however. Modern electronic cameras rely on data transfer between camera and lens in order to optimise the raw files that they produce, and take advantage of integrated lens design and software adjustment. This enables corrections to be applied and can produce exceptionally good results. Its a part of most current systems (dSLR, EVF/'compact/etc.) including those from Leica. With of course the exception of the M system which utilises lenses which rely entirely on their optical excellence to produce great image files. The fundamental problem is that in the future it may well not be possible to produce comparable image 'quality' with other EVF systems as they progress and with which an EVF 'M' would inevitably be compared, as its fundamental differentiator (the RF) would no longer exist.

 

So the dumb lenses are both an asset in that they offer pure optical excellence, and an impediment in that this has to compete against integrated optical/software optimised lens design (and make no mistake this is going to produce exceptionally good images - whether we are impressed by such technology or not). Producing an EVF 'M' which is handicapped in so many ways (MF, optical 'quality' only, no RF to differentiate its uniqueness, etc.) is aiming at a very, very limited market indeed.

[djs]

I'm sure that the forum's search function would reveal that the reasoning has been stated many times before, however. Modern electronic cameras rely on data transfer between camera and lens in order to optimise the raw files that they produce, and take advantage of integrated lens design and software adjustment. This enables corrections to be applied and can produce exceptionally good results. Its a part of most current systems (dSLR, EVF/'compact/etc.) including those from Leica. With of course the exception of the M system which utilises lenses which rely entirely on their optical excellence to produce great image files. The fundamental problem is that in the future it may well not be possible to produce comparable image 'quality' with other EVF systems as they progress and with which an EVF 'M' would inevitably be compared, as its fundamental differentiator (the RF) would no longer exist.

 

So the dumb lenses are both an asset in that they offer pure optical excellence, and an impediment in that this has to compete against integrated optical/software optimised lens design (and make no mistake this is going to produce exceptionally good images - whether we are impressed by such technology or not). Producing an EVF 'M' which is handicapped in so many ways (MF, optical 'quality' only, no RF to differentiate its uniqueness, etc.) is aiming at a very, very limited market indeed.

 

These lenses will produce images of equal quality, regardless of the viewfinder employed. So if they are good enough for a RF camera why not an EVF camera?

 

If there is real concern that the image files can't compete with the manipulated files of other manufacturers EVF based cameras, then that also spells the end of the OVF/RF M, assuming you are only judging the final output from the camera. The fact that a rangefinder was used rather than an EVF will make no difference to the final image file. Only the user experience will vary.

 

Also, I can't recall anyone suggesting that an EVF M should replace the OVF M. Why can't they compliment each other? Along with all the other flavours of the M which are available.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pgk]

Why can't they compliment each other? Along with all the other flavours of the M which are available.

 

If Leica can develop an EVF 'M' (except it can't be an 'M' because there is no rangefinder so its an M mount EVF camera to be precise) and make it profitable then I suppose that they might. But don't you see that its a 'dead end' camera with nowhere to go?

[djs]

But don't you see that its a 'dead end' camera with nowhere to go?

 

And the the RF M isn't?