Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!

 

The M with EVF would need work at the electronics level, if you want an EVF with more resolution, higher refresh rate and lower latency than the 020 Visoflex, which is needed if the EVF is the primary viewfinder. I imagine this camera as the CL, but full frame and M mount. It would be smaller (the viewfinder and rangefinder out), lighter (magnesium and aluminium, not brass) and cheaper than the M10. 

 

Messucher means rangefinder? No, it means fabulous lenses.

 

 

The M system provides the smaller 35mm system out there. Small lenses is the key. And the reason for that is they are manual focus lenses. Therefore, offering a smaller, lighter, cheaper M camera you expand, reinforce, the system. This camera (lets call it ML) may be a complement for current M users, and an entry option for new M users. They would be attracted by the price and the unique features of the system (M system), mostly by the unique combination of format (35mm) and small overall size (body and lenses). A kit with this ML and a Summarit 35mm or 50mm lens would be very tempting for many aficionados. 

[jmahto]

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.

This is why M10 and M240 have optional EVF. If you are not carrying it then simply switch on LV and focus. If you don't want to draw attention then simply focus by feeling the position of focusing tab. Bracket focus to cover for errors.

Edited November 25, 2017 by jmahto

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

A modern camera system is expected to be, not in the order of importance, fast focus, friendly for most eyesight and light condition, comfortable to shoot and carry, flexible in variable subject, and excellent image rendering, ..., in both color and BW.

 

The best existing answers in the universe are M10 and CL. They can be complement to each other. CL is lake of the FF in M10 while M10 lack of anything else in CL.M10 also has one annoying disadvantage, the drifting OVF, known as the infinite matching issue.

 

With the modern EVF technology, almost all if not all old concerns on EVF are resolved, for example, the retarded reaction and the washed view under the sun. The extra benefits of focus asistance and BW view are invaluable. An M10 with EVF helps a lot. It also helps to use any R mount zoom lens. But all these can be done with L mount too. There was no harm to change to L mount, regardless whether AF is needed or whether the bulky SL lenses are accepted?

 

An M form factored camera with EVF and L mount can do anything an M10 can do and better, with the exception to the fast faded amount if people who insist to stick to OVF.

[IkarusJohn]

I can see why such a camera would be L mount, but that would then bring AF with it, along with large lenses, video ... it would cease to be an M camera, and it would sit in an odd place between the CL and SL. It would lose its clarity of purpose.

 

Think of it this way, the M10 is a fabulous camera. Is that because it’s thinner? How would it be if it had greater functionality (easily incorporated)? A large part of its appeal is because unnecessary things (in Leica’s opinion) have been excluded.

 

Whether such a camera could be made from other materials (carbon fibre or cnc’d from titanium) is intriguing - ditching the rather pointless bottom plate could be a step too far for some. That opens an entirely different question - with no viewfinder windows, the aesthetics would need to be reconsidered from scratch. Leica has shown it can be brave with the TL ...

 

All very interesting, but it won’t happen.

[thighslapper]

I can see why such a camera would be L mount, but that would then bring AF with it, along with large lenses, video ... it would cease to be an M camera, and it would sit in an odd place between the CL and SL. It would lose its clarity of purpose.

 

Think of it this way, the M10 is a fabulous camera. Is that because it’s thinner? How would it be if it had greater functionality (easily incorporated)? A large part of its appeal is because unnecessary things (in Leica’s opinion) have been excluded.

 

Whether such a camera could be made from other materials (carbon fibre or cnc’d from titanium) is intriguing - ditching the rather pointless bottom plate could be a step too far for some. That opens an entirely different question - with no viewfinder windows, the aesthetics would need to be reconsidered from scratch. Leica has shown it can be brave with the TL ...

 

All very interesting, but it won’t happen.

 .... agreed .... which is why I couldn't be bothered to argue about this. 

 

Thanks for saving me the effort 

[rosuna]

I can see why such a camera would be L mount, but that would then bring AF with it, along with large lenses, video ... it would cease to be an M camera, and it would sit in an odd place between the CL and SL. It would lose its clarity of purpose.

 

 

 

There is a clear reason: L mount would not attract L users, because the camera would be too small for the giant SL lenses AND M users would see the camera as belonging to an alien system to which you can adapt your M lenses. 

 

The camera should be designed with M users and M lenses in mind. 

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just realized a problem with L mount in hypothetical EVF only M. With stacked adapters, infinity focus by simply turning M focus ring to infinity won't be possible. To me this is not good. Now I simply turn 90macro elmarit M to infinity stop and shoot tack sharp landscape. When I mount the same lens on Nex, I have to be extra careful to focus on infinity.

[SonomaBear]

My Q is my most used camera due to image quality, true photographer’s interface, and perfect size. If a Q were built with M mount, I’d buy it!

Note: I usually shoot manual focus and I insist on ape rather selection on the lens. But my eyes no longer tolerate rangefinders! Can’t use the M10 and did not like the bulk and interface of the SL.

Maybe the QL should be a QM — but marketing wants autofocus and that means L mount with M adapter for me.

[Einst_Stein]

Read Leica web site, it is clear that Leica realizes EVF is essential to survive. It is OVF to be optional, not EVF.

 

The question left is which mount is essential for Leica's future, M or L. If you think it is M, you need to get out of sand. Look around, enjoy the brave New world. It is a no worry solution, all the M legend and legacy will continue with L mount.

 

The M mount lens are old soldiers that will never die. But L mount is the only real future.

 

Get used to it.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Einst_Stein

[IkarusJohn]

I don’t understand this, Jayant. The L-M adapter sets the register distance the same as a M mount. There’s no difficulty with inifinity using an M lens on an L mount, with the Leica adapter.

[IkarusJohn]

Read Leica web site, it is clear that Leica realizes EVF is essential to survive. It is OVF to be optional, not EVF.

The question left is which mount is essential for Leica's future, M or L. If you think it is M, you need to get out of sand. Look around, enjoy the brave New world. It is a no worry solution, all the M legend and legacy will continue with L mount.

The M mount lens are old soldiers that will never die. But L mount is the only real future.

Get used to it.

I’m sure this is the reality.

[jaapv]

Adapters are, for technical reasons, usually designed to focus slightly beyond infinity.

On the M-mount: It is an ancient mount and its small diameter is restrictive, both for lens design and for modern technical features. But Leica is committed to retro-compatability, so they will never drop it. But new developments do require mounts like the L.

[IkarusJohn]

Adapters are, for technical reasons, usually designed to focus slightly beyond infinity...

I’ve never noticed that. Does the L-M mount? And is it noticeable (bearing in mind depth of field)? Of course, you don’t have that adapter - I’ll check on the SL with the 28 Summilux.

Edited November 25, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[jmahto]

I’ve never noticed that. Does the L-M mount? And is it noticeable (bearing in mind depth of field)? Of course, you don’t have that adapter - I’ll check on the SL with the 28 Summilux.

You may not notice it with wide lens. Try a 90mm wide open. Even on M (without any adapters), infinity focusing is iffy on 135mm wide open at infinity stop (it may go beyond).

 

I understand the reasoning for long lens and live with the fact that I have to focus carefully, but for a wide angle lens, I take for granted that my infinity stop means infinity. I have to be extra careful when I switch from M240 to Nex-6 (and in future maybe CL).

Edited November 25, 2017 by jmahto

[Einst_Stein]

There is a clear reason: L mount would not attract L users, because the camera would be too small for the giant SL lenses AND M users would see the camera as belonging to an alien system to which you can adapt your M lenses. 

 

The camera should be designed with M users and M lenses in mind. 

Too bad, you have to change your habit. Not to change the camera's future.

[jaapv]

I don't think Leica's future will be determined by Internet forum musings...

[jaapv]

I’ve never noticed that. Does the L-M mount? And is it noticeable (bearing in mind depth of field)? Of course, you don’t have that adapter - I’ll check on the SL with the 28 Summilux.

I wouldn't know for that specific adapter, it was a general remark.

[mjh]

The proposed camera is a M camera (M mount) with EVF. This would expand the M system.

An M mount camera that is not an M (i.e. a rangefinder) doesn’t make any sense. There is absolutely no advantage to a non-rangefinder M mount camera compared to an L mount camera with an M-to-L adapter.

[pico]

An M mount camera that is not an M (i.e. a rangefinder) doesn’t make any sense. There is absolutely no advantage to a non-rangefinder M mount camera compared to an L mount camera with an M-to-L adapter.

 

I believe mjh has posited the watershed divide of M and other, and I consider it a historical moment.

Edited November 26, 2017 by pico

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

An M mount camera that is not an M (i.e. a rangefinder) doesn’t make any sense. There is absolutely no advantage to a non-rangefinder M mount camera compared to an L mount camera with an M-to-L adapter.

I find this post very strange. At a point in time where EVF technology is such that there are few disadvantages, what is the benefit in retaining the optical rangefinder as the only focusing and framing option for the M? Or, put another way, we have the 020 EVF as a clip on option for the M; like the CL, why resist a built in version.

 

We’ve had pages and pages, and many threads of people explaining that they don’t want an SL, but they do want an M with an EVF.

 

Is the answer really “it’s an M mount that’s not an M”? That’s a philosophical answer to a practical demand. The practical reality of that response (M means ... you know the rest) is that actually the M system is doomed. Leica’s future is the L mount, and the M system’s future is the optical rangefinder from 1953 (updated, of course, but still a 64 year old concept of a coupled rangefinder).