Dismayed by the M10-D

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/15/2018 at 1:44 PM, easy_action said:

That article doesn't mention the sensor in the SL, just the sensors in M system cameras and the CMOS sensor of the M240 specifically.

If I mount a wide or ultra wide M mount lens on an SL, can I expect the same performance in the corners of the image as I would get with an M10 or an M240?

I adore using my MD and it's optical rangefinder, but for certain applications (and lenses) the same camera with an EVF would be attractive - I could see myself owning both.

 

 

The  Q owes its shape and size to the integrated design of lens, shutter, aperture and sensor - it would never work for an M body

[mmradman]

somebody said it would never worked, you have information it was tried?

Here are some comparisons between Q and M10, it appears body of Q is no bigger than M10 and it contains EVF.  Lens barrel of Q is significant but it think it is due to AF functionality.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#625,702

Not sure how to import picture from Camersize web page.

 

[mmradman]

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!

[mmradman]

Just in case you need front view for some more convincing.

Note; screen grab converted in small size JPG file. 

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!

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Just in case you need front view for some more convincing.

Yes, but ..... what is possible in a fully integrated design may still be very difficult in a design which has to take a large number of varied lenses which require a focal plane shutter, 6-bit reader and mechanical interface which 'senses' the focus shift of the roller cam ramp. If it was a simple design which wouldn't cost much to produce based on existing production models I'm sure that Leica may already have done so, if they thought it profitable. I suspect that it requires substantial redesign and complex modifications which might sound simple but may be anything but.

[M11 for me]

Hm, Jaapv provided the information why a Q can not act as an M. And his argumentation is very plausible. To me anyway.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Alex U.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem with an M10E as described here is that it is a half cocked product. The EVF option for the M10 is a supplementary method of focussing/framing that is suitable in certain situations and/or using lenses that are not a core part of the M system. I know that some people like to use M lenses on the SL or use the M10 with EVF to focus their Noctilux but these lenses are manual focus and were designed to be focussed using a RF. Leica's EVF cameras – SL, CL (and Q) – are AF cameras at heart and the system lenses are designed to be primarily used in AF mode. Whilst Leica is happy to provide the accessory EVF for the M (just like it has provided the Visoflex and other accessory viewfinders in the past) I don't think the company would want to make a product that is incapable of using the system lenses in the manner for which they are designed. It's just not Leica's way to do things.

Edited December 17, 2018 by wattsy

[pgk]

10 minutes ago, wattsy said:

The problem with an M10E as described here is that it is a half cocked product ...... I don't think the company would want to make a product that is incapable of using the system lenses in the manner for which they are designed. It's just not Leica's way to do things.

That's quite succinct, but it will still fall on deaf ears I'm afraid.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, mmradman said:

somebody said it would never worked, you have information it was tried?

Here are some comparisons between Q and M10, it appears body of Q is no bigger than M10 and it contains EVF.  Lens barrel of Q is significant but it think it is due to AF functionality.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#625,702

Not sure how to import picture from Camersize web page.

 

How could it be tried? M lenses are not integrated image units. Note that on the Q Leica even needed to use a hybrid (digital-optical) lens design to attain the desired quality level. The lens probably has an extremely short register, for instance, allowing more space for the sensor and LCD.

[mmradman]

I fully agree with Wattsy sentiment with respect of using appropriate lenses on appropriate camera however I am inclined to accept that it would be feasible to create M sized camera with integral EVF and Q is, at least for me, convincing evidence of that.

 If “roller cam” or equivalent is required to pick up M lens being focused to activate EVF magnification it doesn’t have to be as elaborate mechanism as it is on M camera as it doesn’t have to operate RF mechanism, a more simple switch assembly would be sufficient.

As for integral shutter etc, on Q it is I believe central shutter, combined with AF it makes lean barrel bigger than equivalent M lens. In the worst case M_EVF would have to revert to fatter M240 body to incorporate focal plane shutter.

[mmradman]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

How could it be tried? M lenses are not integrated image units. Note that on the Q Leica even needed to use a hybrid (digital-optical) lens design to attain the desired quality level. The lens probably has an extremely short register, for instance, allowing more space for the sensor and LCD.

I am sure a pencil and a sheet of paper in skilled designer hand could overcome such concerns.

[bocaburger]

The rangefinder is the only unique feature Leica has that compels me to pay the brand-premium.  I don't like EVF's (not even the SL's) and would not pay Leica prices for a full-frame mirrorless body capable of attaching M lenses. 

[jaapv]

9 minutes ago, mmradman said:

I am sure a pencil and a sheet of paper in skilled designer hand could overcome such concerns.

Paper is very patient...

[ramarren]

Isn't is wonderful that Leica, alone amongst all the manufacturers, continues to provide us with camera choices that include rangefinder, SLR, and EVF type bodies? And a film rangefinder too? No one else continues to produce as full a range of still cameras types. 

If you want something beyond the rangefinder, just buy a CL or SL. If you only want a rangefinder, buy an M. It's that simple. Of the current lens lines, the M can only really use M lenses with the best efficiency, but the the CL and SL can use L, M, and R lenses, and the SL can also use S lenses. The CL is the same size as the M and lighter. The SL is the same size as a Leicaflex SL, give or take a little, and just a hair bigger than the R6.2 (I have both the Leicaflex and the R6.2 so I know what size they are precisely, and owned the SL for two and a half years so I know how big it is too; the R6.2 is nicely more compact and just a hair bigger than the M-D, minus the prism hump). 

When I looked through a Q viewfinder, I was surprised to see that it felt tight and small compared to the CL. That just proves my original notion: The reason a good EVF needs a bigger enclosure is to have big, bright optics to get the right eye point and so that you can see it clearly. The CL has a modest left-side hump for this reason, unlike the smooth, trim lines of the Q body, and the SL has a large hump for its even better EVF optics and larger panel. It's so obvious to me that the design meme for the SL was the R system bodies and the design meme for the CL was the M system bodies. 

And again, as I said before, Leica might someday stick the FF sensor into the CL body, but the body will cost you twice as much. The imager sensor is the MOST expensive single component in the entire camera, and the EVF subsystem is the second most expensive component. I'm happy with the CL just as it is.

Edited December 17, 2018 by ramarren

[adan]

2 hours ago, mmradman said:

somebody said it would never worked, you have information it was tried?

Here are some comparisons between Q and M10, it appears body of Q is no bigger than M10 and it contains EVF.  Lens barrel of Q is significant but it think it is due to AF functionality.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#625,702

Not sure how to import picture from Camersize web page.

 

The Q is a poor comparison to the M.

It can get away with a lot of things (including size) because it has a "designed to order" dedicated single lens and has no need to accomodate other lenses. That won't be true with any M camera.

The Ms must devote about 33000 cubic mms (30 x 40 x 28mm) of their volume to the "empty box" between the lens mount and the sensor plane/shutter.

The Ms also devote another 20000 mmˆ3 of volume to the focal-plane shutter itself (including its drive motor that we never see) - while the Q has a leaf-shutter, which is part of the lens volume, not the body volume.

Picture of the (relatively bulky) M10 shutter here, about 1/3rd of the way down the page (LONG page): http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-most-comprehensive-leica-m10-review.html

That volume has to exist within any M, to accomodate the legacy lens specs (distance from mount to focal plane, area of shutter opening, protection of the sensor when no lens is mounted). Leica has squeezed it down somewhat from the film cameras, where the horizontal clockwork shutter takes up more than half the camera volume, but they've about reached the limit.

http://photo.imx.nl/Analysis/leica/page103.html

Deleting 53000 mmˆ3 (3.23 cubic inches) of empty space and shutter makes it easy to insert any EVF one wants - but it cannot be done with an M camera.

[mmradman]

1 hour ago, adan said:

The Q is a poor comparison to the M.

It can get away with a lot of things (including size) because it has a "designed to order" dedicated single lens and has no need to accomodate other lenses. That won't be true with any M camera.

The Ms must devote about 33000 cubic mms (30 x 40 x 28mm) of their volume to the "empty box" between the lens mount and the sensor plane/shutter.

The Ms also devote another 20000 mmˆ3 of volume to the focal-plane shutter itself (including its drive motor that we never see) - while the Q has a leaf-shutter, which is part of the lens volume, not the body volume.

Picture of the (relatively bulky) M10 shutter here, about 1/3rd of the way down the page (LONG page): http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-most-comprehensive-leica-m10-review.html

That volume has to exist within any M, to accomodate the legacy lens specs (distance from mount to focal plane, area of shutter opening, protection of the sensor when no lens is mounted). Leica has squeezed it down somewhat from the film cameras, where the horizontal clockwork shutter takes up more than half the camera volume, but they've about reached the limit.

http://photo.imx.nl/Analysis/leica/page103.html

Deleting 53000 mmˆ3 (3.23 cubic inches) of empty space and shutter makes it easy to insert any EVF one wants - but it cannot be done with an M camera.

Good try, try harder.

How about this for consideration. 

Take one digital M as a starting point, either fatter M9/M240 or slimmer M10.

Strip away optical RF, fit EVF electronics and display chip and optics instead.  If necessary include CL style lump.

Metric note; when calculating volumes use of cubic meters is more common than cubic millimetres. Numerical value of result is obviously less impressive numbers.

If inspiration needed look at recent EVF compact camera work by Fuji and Sony.

Edited December 17, 2018 by mmradman

[pgk]

I rest my case.

[adan]

Well, let's see, Mladen. The pictures you yourself posted above, showing the size of the Q and M, are dimensioned in:

a) millimeters?

b) meters?

It's a question of the appropriate scale for the objects in question. Try harder.

Of course, we can compromise. The Q has 53 cc/ml of volume that can be devoted to EVF quality or other electronics - that are not available in an M body (they are needed for lens interchangeability reasons). In other words, more volume than the "cubic" of a 50cc motorbike engine combustion chamber. And larger than the entire volume of a 40mm Summicron-C (40.7 cc). The conversion to cins still stands - 3.25 cubes 1" x 1" x 1".

Naturally, an EVF-M would delete most of the volume of the RF/VF and use it for the EVF. Not all of it, however, since the current RF/VF provides sensing for two functions you will still need, and will need to provide substitute devices for: Sensing of lens motion to switch on the "focus-magnification" feature, and sensing of lens frameline cam type (28/90 or 75/50 or 35/135) as a part of lens type detection.

If I may quote from you again:

8 hours ago, ramarren said:

When I looked through a Q viewfinder, I was surprised to see that it felt tight and small compared to the CL. That just proves my original notion: The reason a good EVF needs a bigger enclosure is to have big, bright optics to get the right eye point and so that you can see it clearly.

The M and the SL are Leica's flagship products (at flagship prices.) Yet you want to offer the M with the second-rate finder of the CL (or the 3rd-rate finder of the Q) rather than the best EVF Leica makes (that from the SL). Walk me through how you plan to sell "pay for an M/SL, get a CL finder" to your fellow Leica users.

Edited December 18, 2018 by adan

[Jeff S]

Andy, I think you quoted Godfrey (ramarren), not Mladen.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Dur...apologies to both. All those Rs and Ms mixed me up. (not their fault, of course.)

I stand by my numbers, though.

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by adan