Really “Is it the end of M road”?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guess you haven't heard of the TechArt autofocus adapter that allows you to use an M lens (or any manual focus lens) on a Sony body AND get autofocus. 

 

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-techart-pro-leica-m-sony-e-autofocus-adapter/

 

Yes it's ugly. And it has a few significant limitations. But hey, it's AF. 

Yes, by an adapter that is possible because of Sony's short flange distance. On an M body it would need to sit inside the body. Where would you  put it?

[jdlaing]

The M body is a wonderful legacy camera. It uses pretty much every M lens ever produced.

It will not have EVF. That’s what SL and Q are for.

It will not have AF. It’s not designed for that. That’s what the SL and Q are for. The first thing some moron will do is put on an M lens with an infinity lock or sticky focus helicoid with the grease dried up and try auto focusing and burn up the AF motor and blame Leica.

For some of you dreamers Sony and a Tech Art adapter are better for you.

[jaapv]

That's not quite realistic. These AF adapters work by moving the lens, not by turning it.

[jdlaing]

That’s an adapter. These folks are talking about an M body with built in AF. Please note the size of the Tech Art adapter.

[jaapv]

Yes. They are thinking of a Contax-like solution (moving the sensor) which would mean that the sensor would shift 15 mm backwards. Imagine a 15 mm thicker M10!  Or shifting the lens forward. Which would mean a substantial motor inside the body. Plus larger battery. Plus extra electronics. The M240 would be petite...

Making dedicated MAF lenses would mean electrical connections in the M mount (how?) and thicker MAF lenses with viewfinder obstruction.

 

Of course, we all know that Leica could easily overcome all these technical quibbles if they could only shake their conservatism. It is well known that the M8 didn't hit the market in 1995 because Leica didn't want to build it...

[R6M6]

Let me bring in a different idea or concept: Looking back in Leicas history I am fascinated by the early idea of upgrading an existing model to a newer version. I like to have a body, let‘s take the M10 ( my Favorit is the M9 because I own one) and if a new sensor or/and a new processor is available you can send in your M10 body and it will be upgraded. Same procedure as with a new rangefinder. Environment friendly, customer friendly because of costs and a model which fits to a „Manufactur“! Naturally you can buy still a new M11, M12 or Mxy! Hope my bad English is not distroying the idea!

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The conversation regarding Lloyd and his Leica disdain has been going on for some time, as this older GetDPI discussion attests (including links to various tirades.... sometimes he even gets things right, if you cut through the dripping animosity.)....

 

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/55575-getting-tired-diglloyd.html

 

I don’t follow him at all (unless his comments make it to forum chatter), but reading the links, I laughed when he blasted the original MM, in large part because of its inferior tech and design, but then blasted the M240, saying that he preferred the M9 (which is the same platform as the MM). Emotions cloud facts.

 

Jeff

Edited August 4, 2018 by Jeff S

[cp995]

The only possibility or Leica to add AF to their M-Bodies (terrible imagination) is to implemet a sensorshift.

As discussed, there is no space for.

And: Why should Leica do this?

They will destroy the myth of their legendary RF M - Hope this will never happen ...

[cp995]

...I laughed when he blasted the original MM, in large part because of its inferior tech and design, but then blasted the M240, saying that he preferred lthe M9 (which is the same platform as the MM). Emotions cloud facts.

 

Jeff

 

Could have been Ken R.

[jhulton]

My 2 Cents.

There is a big difference between Engineering and Art.

Camera "engineering" certainly can influence outcome. In my case, going to Leica helped me to slow down and become more thoughtful.

But will more megapixels make my images better? I certainly admit things like the X1D tempt me everyday because marketing is seductive and successful but is that my problem or is more "vision" what I need?

 

Lloyd provides a great service to us when it comes to understanding and pushing better "engineering" in equipment. He's a very very smart guy.

But I would respectfully argue that in the brief history of photography, the real "keepers" of those we consider Masters were not a function of "engineering" but "Art".

Isn't the final image what's important not how you got there?

 

Now I know we are on a "hardware focused web site" but I fear we sometimes forget this. And I realize the entire photo industry exists because we all at least sometimes believe the next great image will come out of the next great camera but...

 

As I plan for an extended Masters Class in Japan MY daily fight is:

- do I really need more/another lens or three, higher megapixel camera or

- should I take my M10 and two lenses and focus on what I am trying to do?

So far the former is winning but the latter comes up every night dreaming of what I may see in Japan. 

 

The fight goes!  :-)

Horses for Courses as they say.

 

 

jeff hulton

instagram.com/jhulton

[pgk]

Want to compare the aesthetic of a Nikon,Leitz and Zeiss Otus ....

 

Ummm. No, not really. Lens design and manufacture have produced excellent lenses for decades. Differences in similarly specified lenses are mostly utterly irrelevant today because for the most part we are talking absolute nuances in difference. I defy anyone to criticise a good photograph (content, lighting, composition) because it was taken on a XXX lens instead of a YYY lens. Not going to happen. Where lenses have improved most is on the periphery of design - ultra wide zooms, ultra fast wides, and even very good and remarkably cheap kit lenses. And I have plenty of technically great images taken on old lenses. They are unlikely to be bettered by using the latest and greatest from another manufacturer.

 

You are right in a way though, in that 'context' is of far more importance. If you are very familiar with and enjoy using specific equipment (whatever it is) then you are far more likely to obtain better images with it than by using 'better' gear which you don't like using. My current gear is anything but current (well one lens actually is still in production) but I'm not in the slightest bit bothered. I like using it and know its idiosyncracies so it yields the images that I expect.

 

I really am unsure why there is an obsession with ever 'better' technical specifications and their measurement when most are more than 'fit for purpose' in the vast majority of cases.

[Jeff S]

Could have been Ken R.

Similar intent to drive attention and traffic. I’ve heard of a President who follows the practice.

 

Jeff

[pico]

Let me bring in a different idea or concept: Looking back in Leicas history I am fascinated by the early idea of upgrading an existing model to a newer version. I like to have a body, let‘s take the M10 ( my Favorit is the M9 because I own one) and if a new sensor or/and a new processor is available you can send in your M10 body and it will be upgraded. Same procedure as with a new rangefinder. Environment friendly, customer friendly because of costs and a model which fits to a „Manufactur“! Naturally you can buy still a new M11, M12 or Mxy! Hope my bad English is not distroying the idea!

 

Leica Ms are produced in a mass-production, relatively parallel manner in order to be cost effective. Just imagine how expensive it would be to rebuild one to custom specifications. Boggles my mind.

 

Oh, your English is just fine.

Edited August 4, 2018 by pico

[IkarusJohn]

I AM old, much to my chagrin

  

 

You’re as old as you feel, Jaap. Every now and then, I think about what my parents were doing at my age. I’m convinced I’m 23 (and have been for the last 36 years, and will be for the next 30). My body does disappoint from time to time, but that is just management!

 

That is not quite correct. He sometimes lacks basic photographic knowledge. On one occasion he put a red filter on the Monochrom and wrote an upset/angry blog that it exhibited misfocus and he needed "to investigate this fault further". There are more of such gaffes.

I tried to recreate the red filter focus shift effect with my Noctilux and Monochrom. Failed miserably as every shot was perfectly focused (posted here somewhere). Either I was mis-focusing to correct the effect, or Diggylloyd’s great discovery of a fatal flaw with filters on the Monochrom was ... theory from a “great scientist” who didn’t actually have the camera? I don’t know, and don’t particularly care.

 

To be fair on one point, he and Ming did apparently discover focus shift on the SL 24-90 zoom. This stimulated outraged blogs from Ming and condemnation of the camera. At the time, I was mystified as I couldn’t recreate that fatal flaw either. I asked Ming exactly how he tested the lens and repeated the test - no focus shift. Leica had fixed the problem straight away, it seems (though perhaps with bad grace, I don’t know). To Ming’s credit (after some encouragement from me), he acknowledged that the fault had been rectified and withdrew his condemnation (though he still rejects the SL because the grip gives him sore hands - to be fair, he also switched to Hasselblad at about that time).

 

I see little point in reading reviews and tests after I’ve purchased camera gear. Some are useful when I’m considering buying, but even then I tend to scan them. For all his rigorous testing, I don’t think I’ve ever learned anything I need to know from the fruit and vege man’s reviews (and I hate his website). I love the M system, its MF lenses, and I’m unlikely to add to them. I have 21-28-50-75 covered. Had 90, sold it as I prefer 75. I do have a 135 Elmar from 1960 or so, but use that on the SL. I’d like a 75 Noctilux, and a 35 Noct if Leica ever made one, but that’s just GAS.

 

AF on an M? Zero interest. Like Jaap, I find AF problematic. That’s why I set my SL to manual focus, and press the joystick, and fine tune. Why spoil a beautiful M camera and lens, perfectly conceived, with a half-baked cludge?

 

Just saying

John

[pgk]

  You’re as old as you feel ..... I’m convinced I’m 23 (and have been for the last 36 years, and will be for the next 30).

 

On a Tee shirt in a shop in Brighton: 'Inside this body is a much younger person saying "What happened?"'

[jaapv]

You’re as old as you feel, Jaap. Every now and then, I think about what my parents were doing at my age. I’m convinced I’m 23 (and have been for the last 36 years, and will be for the next 30). My body does disappoint from time to time, but that is just management!

 

I tried to recreate the red filter focus shift effect with my Noctilux and Monochrom. Failed miserably as every shot was perfectly focused (posted here somewhere). Either I was mis-focusing to correct the effect, or Diggylloyd’s great discovery of a fatal flaw with filters on the Monochrom was ... theory from a “great scientist” who didn’t actually have the camera? I don’t know, and don’t particularly care.

To be fair on one point, he and Ming did apparently discover focus shift on the SL 24-90 zoom. This stimulated outraged blogs from Ming and condemnation of the camera. At the time, I was mystified as I couldn’t recreate that fatal flaw either. I asked Ming exactly how he tested the lens and repeated the test - no focus shift. Leica had fixed the problem straight away, it seems (though perhaps with bad grace, I don’t know). To Ming’s credit (after some encouragement from me), he acknowledged that the fault had been rectified and withdrew his condemnation (though he still rejects the SL because the grip gives him sore hands - to be fair, he also switched to Hasselblad at about that time).

I see little point in reading reviews and tests after I’ve purchased camera gear. Some are useful when I’m considering buying, but even then I tend to scan them. For all his rigorous testing, I don’t think I’ve ever learned anything I need to know from the fruit and vege man’s reviews (and I hate his website). I love the M system, its MF lenses, and I’m unlikely to add to them. I have 21-28-50-75 covered. Had 90, sold it as I prefer 75. I do have a 135 Elmar from 1960 or so, but use that on the SL. I’d like a 75 Noctilux, and a 35 Noct if Leica ever made one, but that’s just GAS.

AF on an M? Zero interest. Like Jaap, I find AF problematic. That’s why I set my SL to manual focus, and press the joystick, and fine tune. Why spoil a beautiful M camera and lens, perfectly conceived, with a half-baked cludge?

Just saying

John

Well, to be precise it was another of his theoretical blunders. Ming Thein discovered a focus problem in certain circumstances.Lloyd blasted the world with “focus shift” Technically impossible on an AF system without auto aperture. It turned out to be a misaligned focus point.

[jaapv]

On a Tee shirt in a shop in Brighton: 'Inside this body is a much younger person saying "What happened?"'

Actually I have a feeling that I’m just starting out. The calendar tells me otherwise.

[glenerrolrd]

Ummm. No, not really. Lens design and manufacture have produced excellent lenses for decades. Differences in similarly specified lenses are mostly utterly irrelevant today because for the most part we are talking absolute nuances in difference. I defy anyone to criticise a good photograph (content, lighting, composition) because it was taken on a XXX lens instead of a YYY lens. Not going to happen. Where lenses have improved most is on the periphery of design - ultra wide zooms, ultra fast wides, and even very good and remarkably cheap kit lenses. And I have plenty of technically great images taken on old lenses. They are unlikely to be bettered by using the latest and greatest from another manufacturer.

 

You are right in a way though, in that 'context' is of far more importance. If you are very familiar with and enjoy using specific equipment (whatever it is) then you are far more likely to obtain better images with it than by using 'better' gear which you don't like using. My current gear is anything but current (well one lens actually is still in production) but I'm not in the slightest bit bothered. I like using it and know its idiosyncracies so it yields the images that I expect.

 

I really am unsure why there is an obsession with ever 'better' technical specifications and their measurement when most are more than 'fit for purpose' in the vast majority of cases.

 

Gee another post about ..”its not the equipment ..its how you use it “  .  

 

So useful on a thread about the future of the M camera ?  

 

Lloyd threw out a preposterous point of view to provoke debate and sure to catch some clicks for his website .   This should not detract from the excellent testing he performs and the effective display of the results .  Obviously if you have all the gear you desire and are happy ..the its  of no use .  

 

Thus thread could be a lot better if members contributed to the debate ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE M .  But I know thats too much to expect . 

[LBJ2]

It's clickbait.  Nothing more.  Consider how many clicks even this thread has generated that will help line Diglloyd's pockets.

 

Diglloyd: opinion for hire.

 

Pete.

Well said. We all know of the infamous curemidgeion who uses negativity/criticism to raise funds.  And the beat goes on   

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Gee another post about ..”its not the equipment ..its how you use it “  .  

 

So useful on a thread about the future of the M camera ?  

 

Lloyd threw out a preposterous point of view to provoke debate and sure to catch some clicks for his website .   This should not detract from the excellent testing he performs and the effective display of the results .  Obviously if you have all the gear you desire and are happy ..the its  of no use .  

 

Thus thread could be a lot better if members contributed to the debate ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE M .  But I know thats too much to expect . 

However, there is little to discuss about the future of the M. It will continue to evolve, nothing more, nothing less.