M11 Where To From Here? [merged thread]

[Tobers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’d really like to see some sort of prism in the viewfinder that displays on demand an overlay of a digital magnified view of the rangefinder patch, showing the two images sliding over each other.

 

So not an EVF as such, but a “digitally enhanced rangefinder patch”, from live view so it is WYSIWYG.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Tobers

[Jeff S]

I’d really like to see some sort of prism in the viewfinder that displays on demand an overlay of a digital magnified view of the rangefinder patch, showing the two images sliding over each other.

 

So not an EVF as such, but a “digitally enhanced rangefinder patch”, from live view so it is WYSIWYG.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/leicarumors.com/2015/10/14/leicas-patents-for-optoelectronic-rangefinder.aspx/amp/

 

Leica did also mention that attempts to develop a hybrid VF for the M resulted in unacceptable compromises to both viewing options.

 

Jeff

[xiaubauu2009]

keep it as classic as possible, but just up the reliability issue. That is all. 

 

An M is an unique product that has an one of a kind feature, the optical real rangefinder. Do no tinker with that beside making it more reliable, brighter (optically), more anti flare, clearer, easier to service, or even better, a self examine and recalibrating mechanism to the rangefinder arm or even even better, adaptation to each and every single one of rangefinder lens individually through some internal Contrast detect focus algorithm so that every lens is pitch perfect manual focus by just micro adjust the focus arm etc etc. These are what I consider enhancement to the M experience...

 

Other than that, just make the camera more reliable and have less issue, instead of focusing on making the camera 'look' and 'feel' right... making these look and feel changes, basically create new unknowns and making your system unreliable... Focus on the important stuff first.

[PCPix]

It really is time for Leica to simplify the viewfinder to display only the frame lines for the lens in use. The body knows which lens is attached through coding (with all newer lenses) and would need a different system to the current masks method, perhaps some sort of projection system?

With older uncoded lenses the dual frames method could still be implemented mechanically through the mount (as now).

Two modes needed: auto for coded lenses or manual/legacy for the old way.

The M is renowned for pared back simplicity - the dual frame line viewfinders always appeared to me to go against that very ethos. Clutter is not Leica's strong point (thankfully) - perhaps now is the time to de-clutter the viewfinder ;-)

Edited March 31, 2018 by PCPix

[johnp1975]

The M11 imo would have an upgraded sensor with more resolution and higher megapixel count. Aesthetically keep it simple the better and general improvements over the ‘M10 would be sufficient.

[jaapv]

It really is time for Leica to simplify the viewfinder to display only the frame lines for the lens in use. The body knows which lens is attached through coding (with all newer lenses) and would need a different system to the current masks method, perhaps some sort of projection system?

With older uncoded lenses the dual frames method could still be implemented mechanically through the mount (as now).

Two modes needed: auto for coded lenses or manual/legacy for the old way.

The M is renowned for pared back simplicity - the dual frame line viewfinders always appeared to me to go against that very ethos. Clutter is not Leica's strong point (thankfully) - perhaps now is the time to de-clutter the viewfinder ;-)

It appears to me that this is a simple wish with an incredibly complicated solution.

[johnp1975]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It appears to me that this is a simple wish with an incredibly complicated solution.

Agreed!

[PCPix]

It appears to me that this is a simple wish with an incredibly complicated solution.

[PCPix]

Isn't that what the R&D people are supposed to do? Solve things elegantly... ;-)

 

The existing system is a type of projection system (whether the newer led illuminated or the older fresnel illuminated masks) if that entire system were changed to a small evf-type panel (displaying only frame lines) overlayed through a 45 degree prism to bring the framelines image onto the light path to the eyepiece.

[Keith_W]

It appears to me that this is a simple wish with an incredibly complicated solution.

 

I don't think it's that hard. On the M10, the frame lines are illuminated by an LED. LED's can be mounted on panes of glass with thin wiring and made to light up selectively. Look through the viewfinder of a Canon or Nikon DSLR, and you will see a good example of that. 

[jdlaing]

I don't think it's that hard. On the M10, the frame lines are illuminated by an LED. LED's can be mounted on panes of glass with thin wiring and made to light up selectively. Look through the viewfinder of a Canon or Nikon DSLR, and you will see a good example of that.

 

Where would you put the six panes of glass?

[Keith_W]

Six panes? It's just one pane with LED's on it. In fact the M10 probably already has the exact same part already installed, it only selects appropriate framelines according to the lens mounted. It's not too hard to implement what PCPix suggested - instead of relying on the mechanical position of the frameline lever to select 28/90, 50/75, and 35/135, it could simply read the code from the lens and only illuminate the 35mm frameline if a 35mm lens was mounted. It's a good idea for three reasons: (1) it avoids having to engineer the mechanical frameline selector lever and therefore save some space in the camera, and (2) the part they would have to use is going to be hardly different to the part they are already using, and (3) you have only one set of framelines in your viewfinder, instead of two. 

[jdlaing]

Six panes? It's just one pane with LED's on it. In fact the M10 probably already has the exact same part already installed, it only selects appropriate framelines according to the lens mounted. It's not too hard to implement what PCPix suggested - instead of relying on the mechanical position of the frameline lever to select 28/90, 50/75, and 35/135, it could simply read the code from the lens and only illuminate the 35mm frameline if a 35mm lens was mounted. It's a good idea for three reasons: (1) it avoids having to engineer the mechanical frameline selector lever and therefore save some space in the camera, and (2) the part they would have to use is going to be hardly different to the part they are already using, and (3) you have only one set of framelines in your viewfinder, instead of two.

 

Firstly, not all lenses are 6 bit coded.

 

There are six framelines. You would have to figure out a way to cram all six on your pane of glass. A lot can go wrong with the electronics in a setup like that.

 

The current method selected mechanically works fine.

[jmahto]

Am I the only one who like the paired framelines? My usual two FLs on any outings are 28mm and 90mm. Usually I am shooting with 28mm and in the same VF, I know how 90mm framing will look like. I also use 90mm framelines as a guide to guess how much 50-75-135mm will cover for any other lens I am carrying (in case).

 

I am using M240 which doesn't have frame selector and dual framelines helps. Even with frame selector in M10, it is easier to see frame coverage in pairs. All framelines together will clutter it. Pairs are best compromise I guess.

[schattenundlicht]

Am I the only one who like the paired framelines? My usual two FLs on any outings are 28mm and 90mm. Usually I am shooting with 28mm and in the same VF, I know how 90mm framing will look like. I also use 90mm framelines as a guide to guess how much 50-75-135mm will cover for any other lens I am carrying (in case).

 

I am using M240 which doesn't have frame selector and dual framelines helps. Even with frame selector in M10, it is easier to see frame coverage in pairs. All framelines together will clutter it. Pairs are best compromise I guess.

+1

 

My standard walkabout kit is Elmarit 28 asph v2 @M10 & Apo 90 asph @M9. I can previsualize the framing of the complementary camera very comfortably and accurately.

[jdlaing]

Am I the only one who like the paired framelines? My usual two FLs on any outings are 28mm and 90mm. Usually I am shooting with 28mm and in the same VF, I know how 90mm framing will look like. I also use 90mm framelines as a guide to guess how much 50-75-135mm will cover for any other lens I am carrying (in case).

 

I am using M240 which doesn't have frame selector and dual framelines helps. Even with frame selector in M10, it is easier to see frame coverage in pairs. All framelines together will clutter it. Pairs are best compromise I guess.

You’re not the only one who likes paired framelines. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

[Jeff S]

Six panes? It's just one pane with LED's on it. In fact the M10 probably already has the exact same part already installed, it only selects appropriate framelines according to the lens mounted. It's not too hard to implement what PCPix suggested - instead of relying on the mechanical position of the frameline lever to select 28/90, 50/75, and 35/135, it could simply read the code from the lens and only illuminate the 35mm frameline if a 35mm lens was mounted. It's a good idea for three reasons: (1) it avoids having to engineer the mechanical frameline selector lever and therefore save some space in the camera, and (2) the part they would have to use is going to be hardly different to the part they are already using, and (3) you have only one set of framelines in your viewfinder, instead of two.

Part already installed? I think not. Do you understand how the mechanical framelines work? The LED illumination merely substitutes for the light that formerly came through an exterior window; the frame lines are driven by slots and masks.

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/66999-anatomy-of-the-leica-m8-framelines/

 

Jeff

[Keith_W]

I am detecting a certain regressive streak among Leica users. It seems as if the majority of users here only want to defend the status quo, can not see a way forward, and deride anything else. Even something as simple as showing ONLY the framelines suitable for the lens selected is too much progress for some people. 

 

All right, this is what you see when you look through a Nikon viewfinder: 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

See all those little squares? They individually light up to show what the camera's AF has focused on. Count 'em, there are 51 AF points plus illuminated lines and scales. Nikon does not need to sandwich 51 panes of glass for this to work. All that is needed is are individual tiny LED's embedded in a single pane of glass, with wire thinner than hair telling them to switch off and on. 

 

And this is what the viewfinder assembly looks like: 

 

 

Ignore the bulky plastic mount. The actual relevant part is literally - just a plane of glass with some ribbon cables dangling off it. 

 

I think it should be pretty simple to implement. Yet even doing this is considered heresy. If I was amused at how regressive some Leica users were in the past, I think i'm now starting to get quite irritated. I am starting to see how Leica almost went out of business listening to you guys. 

[david strachan]

I think you are right Keith...Leica people are regressive.

The cameras are fun, and nice to use...within their limits.

 

They do have limits, no camera does everything. One needs a couple of systems to cover contingencies...especially close up-macro for me, and auto-focus often enough.

 

Heaven help Leica if it produces cameras with all the functionality of Sony or Fuji, etc.

 

Leica only produce what they think will sell...not what the consumers think they "need".

 

 

...

Edited April 3, 2018 by david strachan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

I’m not opposed to showing single frame lines for each of the six focal lengths, merely illustrating how the current mechanical ones work.

 

Note that they also shift for parallax correction. If it were easy to accomplish within the current form factor restraints (yes, users are particular about that), I suspect Leica would have done it by now. But it would be nice. As would a built-in variable diopter, but that would likely add bulk. And I’m not wedded to the anachronistic base plate.

 

Jeff

Edited April 3, 2018 by Jeff S