Leica CM / ML?/ New Leica Mirrorless Announcement

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

∆∆∆∆∆ Dunk. When I had my SL I didn't bother with any SL lenses as I already had S lenses that were sharper and the same size as the SL lenses. Leica have already the TL lenses that are fantastic and also very Compact

Neil

[Guest]

Point being I am sure Leica can give us smaller AF lenses to go with the small sensors on the SL2

[bags27]

Again, given the fact that Jono has hinted that the rumoured CM, as hyped up / sexed up by forum members, is not in the pipeline, then 'soon' likely will not happen. Furthermore, even an announcement of something in the future could be unlikely - given the need not to divulge future FF mirrorless plans to e.g. Nikon and Canon … both of whom allegedly have prototypes near to production.

 

dunk

 

Not wanting to get into a disagreement about what a third party (Jono) said or didn’t say, but my recollection was that he threw cold water on such a camera appearing right now and also on some of the improbable fantasies voiced on this thread . But that in no way rules out that Leica might have some smaller, more current version SL still in house but getting close to beta testing. It would be surprising if that weren’t true, I think. Edited June 18, 2018 by bags27

[dkCambridgeshire]

Not wanting to get into a disagreement about what a third party (Jono) said or didn’t say, but my recollection was that he threw cold water on such a camera appearing right now and also on some of the improbable fantasies voiced on this thread . But that in no way rules out that Leica might have some smaller, more current version SL still in house but getting close to beta testing. It would be surprising if that weren’t true, I think.

 

 

 

Unlikely … in the video

 

 

 

 

Dr K states that the SL "will get a a liitle bit more elegant …" … but nothing was said or hinted about it getting smaller … and Dr K emphasised it's "… a totally different camera system …"    The SL was conceived at least 4 and maybe 5 years ago - so it's bound to have a successor e.g.  the SL2 under development … but it's totally different to the TL about which Dr K said " … has much more opportunities than you see here at the moment …" … but no hints that it would morph into a FF camera … and again, no hints that the SL system cameras would become smaller.  'Elegant' likely means rounding off the the SL's top plate EVF bulge which was originally included in the somewhat 'retro' body design as a tribute to the shape of the 1976 year Leica R3 SLR.  

 

Much as I admire the SL's capabilities, I've not bonded with the retro body shape - it bears too much resemblance to the 1974 Minolta XE/XE-1 which inspired the R3. 

 

dunk 

Edited June 18, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[LocalHero1953]

I didn't have big expectations of this announcement. The messages were too contradictory, and Jono Slack's comments too clear, and the technical issues potentially too challenging for an new L-mount M-sized EVF body to be likely. But I was curious, just the same.

 

What it has done in reinforce the evolution of my system away from M bodies to CL and SL. I will use both with M-lenses where they work well, but I'm more likely to expand my TL lenses to include a zoom (just 18 and 60 at present). 

 

My M240 is being used less and less - when the CL is available, the M just does not cut it in comparison as a light enough and small enough carry-around body. I rarely notice the smaller sensor affecting IQ (which I often did with MFT systems). For my photography (serious: people/performance; casual: travel/family) AF and EVF are real benefits (though the RF is better in some circs). This isn't a choice based on careful consideration of the options and rational analysis - it is simply the observation that where I used to use the M, I now prefer to take the CL (except where neither the 18 or 60 are suitable).

 

I doubt I'll sell the M240, though it might have a trade in value if the CM ever does come to light.

[MarkP]

I've been using my new SL as of late with both the 24-90 SL and M lenses (It does indeed well suit the larger and faster M lenses).  I would like a larger MP sensor SL as I do a lot of landscapes and long exposures. It is a very competent camera that does everything so well.  Having just bought the SL I 'm glad a higher MP camera hasn't been released just yet!

 

However, yesterday I went out with my Monochrom v1, 35 Summicron v4, 75 Summilux, and some orange filters. A pleasure going back to the rangefinder.  I had almost forgotten how stunning are the files from that old Monochrom which, at lower ISO settings, still leave B&W conversions from my M10 and SL for dead.   

Edited June 18, 2018 by MarkP

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Paul I'm really enjoying my new P20. I'm not sure if it's up there with the M10 IQ wise but small and handy it is. I've not even sean a CL but it's obviously a bit with you. S for sensors how would you say it compares to the Tl2?

Neil

[Guest]

I've been using my new SL as of late with both the 24-90 SL and M lenses (It does indeed well suit the larger and faster M lenses).  I would like a larger MP sensor SL as I do a lot of landscapes and long exposures. It is a very competent camera that does everything so well.  Having just bought the SL I 'm glad a higher MP camera hasn't been released just yet!

 

However, yesterday I went out with my Monochrom v1, 35 Summicron v4, 75 Summilux, and some orange filters. A pleasure going back to the rangefinder.  I had almost forgotten how stunning are the files from that old Monochrom which, at lower ISO settings, still leave B&W conversions from my M10 and SL for dead.   

Marc

The Moncrome cc is an amazing camera when it comes to 135 format. Leica S conversations blow it away though when you convert S files to B£W

Neil

[MarkP]

Marc

The Moncrome cc is an amazing camera when it comes to 135 format. Leica S conversations blow it away though when you convert S files to B£W

Neil

I have no doubt about that whatsoever Neil but I can't justify an S system at the moment.

 

However I'm about to get into LF film with a friend's Linhof Master Technica as soon as I find some time :-)

Edited June 18, 2018 by MarkP

[Guest]

I have no doubt about that whatsoever Neil but I can't justify an S system at the moment.

 

However I'm about to get into LF film with a friend's Linhof Master Technica as soon as I find some time :-)

fantastic mate. If you need any help with that give .Eva shout. I'm no expert but enjoy doing it.

Neil

[NERICSSON]

Why not a new compact FF AF-lens serie based on Q-lens design? If its possible to do the lens on Q so compact why not on L-mount?

 

Regards, Niklas

[Skyring]

Why not a new compact FF AF-lens serie based on Q-lens design? If its possible to do the lens on Q so compact why not on L-mount?

 

Regards, Niklas

Just quietly, but the Q lens isn't *that* compact. Fabulous lens, but I've got other lenses of similar focal length and aperture which are smaller and lighter.

[NERICSSON]

Compared to available SL lenses I would call a Q-lens rather compact.

 

Edit: I saw now that this topic has already been ventilated earlier in the thread, sorry for that, still I wonder what technical aspects prevent a Q-based L-mount lens serie?

Edited June 18, 2018 by NERICSSON

[tgdinamo]

Just quietly, but the Q lens isn't *that* compact. Fabulous lens, but I've got other lenses of similar focal length and aperture which are smaller and lighter.

 

But are those other lenses you mention autofocus, and if yes are they even close as good as the Q lens?

[jaapv]

Compared to available SL lenses I would call a Q-lens rather compact.

 

Edit: I saw now that this topic has already been ventilated earlier in the thread, sorry for that, still I wonder what technical aspects prevent a Q-based L-mount lens serie?

Lens and sensor on the Q are one integrated unit.

[NERICSSON]

Jaap, yes I saw your answer earlier in the tread, still I wonder what aspects prevent a separation, L mount, between sensor and lens?

Too small distance, too small diameter, diffraction, tolerances or something else that makes it difficult/impossible?

 

/Niklas

[dkCambridgeshire]

Why not a new compact FF AF-lens serie based on Q-lens design? If its possible to do the lens on Q so compact why not on L-mount?

 

Regards, Niklas

 

 

If I recall correctly, there was a Q camera designer interview where one of the designers advised 28/1.7 lens chosen because if offered the smallest package … a 35/1.7 and 50/1.7 would be much larger … necessitating offering smaller aperture longer lenses  to constrain the lens' dimensions  … which might raise similar, "too slow!! too slow!!"  objections … as were voiced after the Mini M was announced.  Once bitten twice shy .. 

 

 

dunk 

[NERICSSON]

Dunk, I remember something similar.

But why would AF generate a bigger lens if you go from 28 to 35? Looking at M lenses, not a huge size difference from 28, 35 or even 50?

[dkCambridgeshire]

The maths suggests entrance pupils as follows for 50mm, 35mmm and 28mm f2 lenses:

 

50mm/2 = 25mm

35mm/2 = 17.5mm

28mm/2 = 14mm 

 

… for any given f ratio, as focal length increases the entrance pupil becomes larger for the f ratio to stay constant. 

 

And M lenses do not have AF mechanisms and they do not have auto diaphragms.

 

But the 'bulk' / 'size' also depends on e.g. the number of lens elements employed. 

 

dunk 

Edited June 18, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NERICSSON]

sorry, I was a little unclear in my "thinking", mayby I am wrong but, the size of the "AF function" would not differ much between a 28 and 35mm lens so the difference remains in the optics, thats why I was refering to M lenses, to get a comparison in size difference excl. "AF function" contribution.

 

/Niklas