Really “Is it the end of M road”?

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You need a motor to turn the focus cam on an M lens.

What 'focus cam' are you talking about?

 

 

Where would you put it?

You'd need a motor indeed (but not to turn anything in a lens). And you'd put it somewhere in the camera body. Sure—in the current M10 there's no room left for motors or anything. But then, technological progress is inevitable, and so a future M's electronics will require less space than they do today, leaving some room for new stuff to squeeze inside the body shell.

 

Or it might go into an optional hand grip.

[jmahto]

You need a motor to turn the focus cam on an M lens. Where would you put it?

.. on the side of the lens with belt pulley drive. There will be two models. One with hollowed out brass components for people who don't mind the bulk and want to show off brassing. The other will be for Llyod category where pulley drive and motor will be made of highest tech available from ESA (I wish they go with NASA but damn Euro guys), which will be as small as a German ant. This high tech model will have configurable highest and baddest megapixel sensor (selected by a mechanical lever, just like frame selector) and won't be bothered by then obsolete FLE technology.... since future is cloud image processing. The image from the sensor will be sent to Leica HQ's super computer in real time as lens is being focused and all kinds of digital optimization will be possible. It will even be possible to take picture with the lens cap on since Leica super computer will detect it and send a better picture taken from the same place, same scene to your camera. You will be so pleased with image quality, not even knowing that you didn't take the picture. Imagine shooting so-so looking models and getting pictures of Cindy Crawford in your camera!..... ok, I will stop now. Showing my age with Cindy's reference

Edited August 3, 2018 by jmahto

[pico]

You need a motor to turn the focus cam on an M lens. Where would you put it?

 

Presumably we would put the lens on infinity and push or pull the whole lens. For those lenses which change element relative distances with focusing, such an advantage would be lost.

 

Now, regarding the new body depth required, well if one can invent a camera larger inside than its outside, why bother with cameras when there are billions or dollars there for women's shoes.

Edited August 3, 2018 by pico

[01af]

Now, regarding the new body depth required ...

Why are so many of you fantasising about additional body depth?

[Herr Barnack]

 

And size. They would be a monstrosity.

 

Leica M 7II, anyone?

[Mark II]

Bring back the Contax AX!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why are so many of you fantasising about additional body depth?

How else are you going to fit a moving sensor in? Or a moving mount for that matter?

And you didn't address the FLE problem.

[01af]

How else are you going to fit a moving sensor in?

I am not talking about a moving sensor. You are, for some obscure reason.

 

 

 

Or a moving mount for that matter?

That's it. And that won't require any additional body depth.

 

Of course, it would require some additional space somewhere inside the body. Currently, there is none. So the problem for the engineers would be to scale down the existing innards enough to make room for a moving bayonet, a motor, and some AF control electronics. The required technologies all are there already. The only problem is to stuff them into the M's body shell. But I'm sure the engineers will find a way ... sooner or later (if not in the M11 then in the M12).

 

 

And you didn't address the FLE problem.

I did.

Edited August 3, 2018 by 01af

[jaapv]

That loss would be minor and well worth the trade-off if you'd get AF in exchange. And you'd always have the option to not use the AF and focus manually, fully taking advantage of any floating elements. Using the AF would be optional; it could be switched on or off as desired. The current Macro-Adapter-M also circumvents floating elements—and yet, users officially are encouraged to use it with any M lens, not just with the Macro-Elmar-M 90 mm.

 

 

 

Unlike Sony cameras, M cameras don't need adapters to fit M lenses. Get it?

So you are willing to pay at least 1000$ for a system to reduce CA and then put it on a contraption that negates the investment?

Look at it this way: Who is going to pay through the nose for the best manual focus lenses available and turn them into second-rate AF ones, when Leica offers the attractive L system, Sony and Fuji have wonderful systems, Nikon is coming to this market with Canon not far behind? Completely self-defeating.

[otto.f]

So you are willing to pay at least 1000$ for a system to reduce CA and then put it on a contraption that negates the investment?

Look at it this way: Who is going to pay through the nose for the best manual focus lenses available and turn them into second-rate AF ones, when Leica offers the attractive L system, Sony and Fuji have wonderful systems, Nikon is coming to this market with Canon not far behind? Completely self-defeating.

Let alone that you couldn’t call it an M anymore at all

[glenerrolrd]

I have corresponded with Lloyd over the years many times on his evaluation of the Leica M .   To sum it up :

 

1. The world revolves around Lloyd s desired shooting subjects and preferred output (according to him ).  His points are all valid IF you are primarily a landscape photographer and want to see your images large .  His bristle pine hasn t moved for centuries !

 

2. He rejects street photography as mostly sloppy technique (zone focus for example ) .  Insists that a good photograph must be sharp edge to edge and front to back .  And for sure don t shoot smaller than 5.6/8 or you lose sharpness to refraction .  

 

My primary focus is on extended personal projects that would be called STREET ...I ve been doing this now for almost 15 years with average of about 20K street photographs a year .  Went dozens of workshops ,had many many portfolio reviews from top photographers and editors .  No issues with funding the kit ..so I get what I want to use .  Would seem like I might have some perspective on the M gear . 

 

Just one exchange .....My POV is that you should only be using an M if you can focus with the RF (especially if you are using a M240 where the EVF sucks ).  Now thats a strong opinion  but I really believe there are many better alternatives if you are not comfortable with a RF ..  The SL,CL  ..etc the Sony A7 series etc .  Why fight it of you can t focus quickly and accurately .  Lloyd told me he only uses the EVF and primarily uses the LCD with a magnifier ......  

 

I always thought good street photography required a “Moment “ and said something about people .  Normally when I debate street its about focusing on “JOY” verse “DESPAIR”  . Certainly not about how to use a RF camera .  

 

But WTF do I know ?  I have a standing order for the next M bodies .  

Edited August 3, 2018 by glenerrolrd

[pgk]

That loss would be minor and well worth the trade-off if you'd get AF in exchange.

 

I can see this as a real boon for advertising purposes - never mind the image quality, see the AF. Seriously? You are kidding, right?

[jmahto]

I can see this as a real boon for advertising purposes - never mind the image quality, see the AF. Seriously? You are kidding, right?

...depends on how many auto focus points are and what types. Market loves more points.

Edited August 3, 2018 by jmahto

[ramarren]

I will stick with my M4-2 and M-D 262 bodies, regardless of what Leica does with the M, for the foreseeable future if not "forever" ..  Forever ain't gonna last all that long, I figure my Time will end somewhere within the next forty years.

 

G

[jaapv]

I have corresponded with Lloyd over the years many times on his evaluation of the Leica M .   To sum it up :

 

1. The world revolves around Lloyd s desired shooting subjects and preferred output (according to him ).  His points are all valid IF you are primarily a landscape photographer and want to see your images large .  His bristle pine hasn t moved for centuries !

 

2. He rejects street photography as mostly sloppy technique (zone focus for example ) .  Insists that a good photograph must be sharp edge to edge and front to back .  And for sure don t shoot smaller than 5.6/8 or you lose sharpness to refraction .  

 

My primary focus is on extended personal projects that would be called STREET ...I ve been doing this now for almost 15 years with average of about 20K street photographs a year .  Went dozens of workshops ,had many many portfolio reviews from top photographers and editors .  No issues with funding the kit ..so I get what I want to use .  Would seem like I might have some perspective on the M gear . 

 

Just one exchange .....My POV is that you should only be using an M if you can focus with the RF (especially if you are using a M240 where the EVF sucks ).  Now thats a strong opinion  but I really believe there are many better alternatives if you are not comfortable with a RF ..  The SL,CL  ..etc the Sony A7 series etc .  Why fight it of you can t focus quickly and accurately .  Lloyd told me he only uses the EVF and primarily uses the LCD with a magnifier ......  

 

I always thought good street photography required a “Moment “ and said something about people .  Normally when I debate street its about focusing on “JOY” verse “DESPAIR”  . Certainly not about how to use a RF camera .  

 

But WTF do I know ?  I have a standing order for the next M bodies .  

This sounds like a poor choice of camera and blaming the tools. What is wrong with a nice digital back for this type of photography? Even if I am no fan of Lloyd,  I cannot believe that somebody who is into photography can be so blinkered. Surely there is more.

[adan]

That loss would be minor and well worth the trade-off if you'd get AF in exchange.

 

AF's value is less than zero.

 

Over here in the U.S. we have a cruel expression from the Old West, that expresses how completely worthless something is - "I'd swap it for a dog, and shoot the dog."

 

I can make that a little less cruel. Give me an AF camera, and pay me $10000 in addition - and I might take up that offer. I'd throw the AF camera in the nearest lake, and spend the $10000 on manual-focus gear.

 

I have never used an AF camera where the AF did not degrade the usefulness of the camera to a skilled photographer, in one way or another. Size, weight, lag, plastic construction, compromised optics (partial-lens focusing), imprecise focus-screen positioning, "indecisive" focusing (hunting), imprecise choice of focus point, etc. etc.

[dantemi]

I’m much quicker at focusing with my M10 than with my previous X1D...

[Ko.Fe.]

Three, no, four pages on nobody to judge Leica. Google can't find almost any photo taken by this digiloid.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Ko.Fe.

[jaapv]

Well, that is putting it a bit strongly.

I do prefer manual focusing, it is the simplest way to decide which part of a photograph is in focus, which should be a decision of the photographer and not of the machine, but there are situations where AF has its uses.

It is a lot better than zone (mis)focussing, for instance. And it does help in sports reportage and snapshots.. 

 

But for serious photography, manual focus is preferable.  Much too bothersome to get an AF point just on the spot where you want it and hope that it does indeed pick up on the detail which you intended.

 

Having said that, I will confess to being as lazy as the next guy when somebody puts an AF camera in my hands, or to succumbing to the technology when a camera is designed for AF to the point that real focussing becomes a PITA

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

You’re sounding old.