Dismayed by the M10-D

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At the moment my SL601 and M246 satisfy my photographic needs (wants) admirably.  I can happily live with the size of both and other warts for a very long time.

I am looking forward to snapping up S/H future SL2, regardless of its size.  Ardent Leica users  will sell them on the cheap as soon as M11 hits the prime time - with or without EVF 😎

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[frperdurabo]

I doubt you'll ever see high res sensors in a rangefinder M because the rangefinder just isn't accurate enough, especially at the long end.

But then, I have a weakness for conspiracy theories.

[mmradman]

2 hours ago, frperdurabo said:

I doubt you'll ever see high res sensors in a rangefinder M because the rangefinder just isn't accurate enough, especially at the long end.

But then, I have a weakness for conspiracy theories.

Leica is already making M lenses which are difficult to focus on RF camera, like Noctilux 75mm for which Leica advises to be used on EVF camera, so no need to be shy over higher resolution sensors in the future.

[jonoslack]

I've just read the whole of this thread, and what springs to mind over and over again is the obsession that it must have an M mount

Sure - I understand why people want a full frame EVF camera to use M lenses with . . . and that some of them find the SL too big.

But why shouldn't it have an L mount? that way it can be slimmer and can also take advantage of L mount lenses (of which there will soon be many). Build the camera by all means, make it look like an M if you must, but why hamstring it by giving it an M mount?

All the best

 

 

[jaapv]

Because an L mount camera might have Video - anathema!!😩😡

[jonoslack]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Because an L mount camera might have Video - anathema!!😩😡

Haha - but Jaap - eek - an M mount camera might have Video as well 🤮

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

[...] But why shouldn't it have an L mount? that way it can be slimmer and can also take advantage of L mount lenses (of which there will soon be many). [...]

Because the L mount cannot provide for auto image magnification with M lenses. Also because M users (at least this one) are not interested in big AF lenses at all. So why bother with the L mount on an M camera? Let alone that a camera w/o rangefinder and M mount would not be an M camera anymore. 

[jonoslack]

Just now, lct said:

Because the L mount cannot provide for auto image magnification with M lenses. Also because M users (at least this one) are not interested in big AF lenses at all. So why bother with the L mount on an M camera? Let alone that a camera w/o rangefinder and M mount would not be an M camera anymore. 

Oh - I'm pretty sure that you could provide auto image magnification with M lenses. If it's got got an M mount and an EVF it's not an M camera anymore either!

I'm an M user, and it's one thing not wanting to use big AF lenses at all . . . . but it isn't going to hurt you if other people have the option (is it?)

[lct]

1 minute ago, jonoslack said:

Oh - I'm pretty sure that you could provide auto image magnification with M lenses. If it's got got an M mount and an EVF it's not an M camera anymore either! [...]

An M camera can be defined by its mount, not only its rangefinder. Otherwise Leica would not call "second M" a camera with EVF in place of the rangefinder. As for the L mount providing auto image magnification with M lenses, i will believe it when i see that.

[asiafish]

I bought the M-D (Typ 262) just over three-years-ago, and then a year later I "upgraded" to the M10.  A year after that I sold the M10 and bought one of the last M-D 262s I could find, specifically a demo model with about 500 clicks on it.

The new M10-D really makes me happy that Leica stuck with this concept, though I won't be upgrading to it.  I could care less about the thumb lever, think the EVF functionality and the live view and JPG functions it brings will likely be ignored most of the time by owners.  

For me, it was just a realization that the original M-D really did get everything right, and that the M240-based sensor was really more than good enough for everything I do with a color rangefinder camera, which is mostly travel and some (unpaid and strictly personal) event work.  The only people I really have to please with my photography are myself and to a lesser extent (family travel only) my wife.  For that, the M-D is absolutely perfect.  It never ceases to amaze me when I put the card into my computer at the end of a day how such a high percentage of my images are in proper focus and have perfect or extremely close to perfect exposure.  

I think more when I'm using this camera.  While I almost always shoot in Aperture Priority, I pay closer attention to the lighting of a scene and use the AE lock function much more than I do on the M Monochrom CCD (I always just underexpose to protect highlights) or M10 (which was more shoot, chimp, adjust exposure compensation).  Even though the M10 had the newer and better rangefinder (and mine was calibrated to my lenses), I just take a lot more care when focusing the M-D because I know I can't check.  Sure enough, taking that extra care rewards me with a high rate of accurately focused images even with fast lenses wide-open.

I hope Leica sells M10-Ds like crazy and continues the series.  It won't make anyone a better photographer, but like film, it does make some (me) a more careful photographer.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, lct said:

An M camera can be defined by its mount, not only its rangefinder. Otherwise Leica would not call "second M" a camera with EVF in place of the rangefinder. As for the L mount providing auto image magnification with M lenses, i will believe it when i see that.

Why should an M camera be defined by anything at all? There have been plenty of rangefinder cameras in all kinds of mounts and even fixed-lens ones. It is just an accident of history that Leica is the last man standing. An M camera is whatever Leica calls an M camera.

i think that Leica has a pretty good portfolio..Resisting demands from all sides of the customer spectrum should not be a hardship.

As for auto-magnification, it is at much an annoyance as a feature. It only works (obviously) on the auxiliary EVF, where it is unneeded for the majority of shots. Automation runs contrary to the Leica M philosophy anyway. 

[pgk]

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Why should an M camera be defined by anything at all? There have been plenty of rangefinder cameras in all kinds of mounts and even fixed-lens ones. It is just an accident of history that Leica is the last man standing. An M camera is whatever Leica calls an M camera.

i think that Leica has a pretty good portfolio..Resisting demands from all sides of the customer spectrum should not be a hardship.

As for auto-magnification, it is at much an annoyance as a feature. It only works (obviously) on the auxiliary EVF, where it is unneeded for the majority of shots. Automation runs contrary to the Leica M philosophy anyway. 

Come on jaapv, you are just winding things up with this sequence of comments.

[Kwesi]

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

I've just read the whole of this thread, and what springs to mind over and over again is the obsession that it must have an M mount

Sure - I understand why people want a full frame EVF camera to use M lenses with . . . and that some of them find the SL too big.

But why shouldn't it have an L mount? that way it can be slimmer and can also take advantage of L mount lenses (of which there will soon be many). Build the camera by all means, make it look like an M if you must, but why hamstring it by giving it an M mount?

All the best

 

 

There seems to be a huge and pent up demand for a full frame CL. Question is, whats stopping Leica for filling the demand?

[ramarren]

2 hours ago, lct said:

An M camera can be defined by its mount, not only its rangefinder. Otherwise Leica would not call "second M" a camera with EVF in place of the rangefinder. As for the L mount providing auto image magnification with M lenses, i will believe it when i see that.

It would be easy to do that, it just costs money. Add a follower cam to the M Adapter L to track the movement of the rangefinder cam in the lens mount, couple it to a transmitter to send a signal to the body that the focusing mount is moving ... it could even tell the body precise focus distance (like the SL with native lenses can display), since M lenses have to move the cam follower an absolute, discrete amount for the rangefinder in an M to work. 

It's easy to do all that, it just costs a lot of money to make these precision analog devices. And most people complain about the price of the M Adapter L already.

[AlanJW]

I believe (based in part on the meetings we had with Leica executives at the LHSA meeting in Wetzlar in October) that Leica's position is that M cameras are rangefinder cameras.   We all think a slimmed down SL is coming, and we know that L mounts can accept M lenses with an adapter.   If the only issue is auto magnify, there ought to be a way to solve that.  But I have my SL set up so that press of the joystick magnifies and I have used M lenses on it frequently and successfully and don't miss the auto magnify.  If you are willing to deal with APS/C the CL will accept M lenses also.

CL lenses were shown by Peter Karbe to have astoundingly good resolution, on a par with M lenses, so that is another option if you can shake your belief that M lenses cannot be bettered.

[jonoslack]

1 minute ago, AlanJW said:

 If the only issue is auto magnify, there ought to be a way to solve that.  But I have my SL set up so that press of the joystick magnifies and I have used M lenses on it frequently and successfully and don't miss the auto magnify. 

Indeed Alan - I do it all the time - it works fine!

[ramarren]

10 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

There seems to be a huge and pent up demand for a full frame CL. Question is, whats stopping Leica for filling the demand?

There does seem to be. There was a lot of interest when the rumor of a full frame "CM" came out, and a subsequent lot of anxiety and despair when the rumor didn't materialize. 

Of course, the future isn't over yet. No one outside of Leica knows what the plan is, really. And certainly few inside Leica are so well-informed OR willing to share any such information. So I guess we have to just wait and see what happens.   

Meanwhile, we have some wonderful Leica cameras to work with already. Let's concentrate on that and make truly splendid photos to share. 

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!

Leica CL + M-Rokkor 90mm f/4
ISO 3200 @ f/4 @ 1/160

[jdlaing]

Y’all are going to get your full frame CL.

Has everyone not been paying attention?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

10 hours ago, jonoslack said:

...snip...

....L mount lenses (of which there will soon be many)....

 

 

Soon many from Leica, or mostly from the ‘partners’?  Seems the latter.  I’d like to see some smaller zooms for the SL, even if slower or with more narrow focal length ranges, but I’m guessing not a priority.

Jeff

 

[lct]

Why using bulky AF lenses on a compact body incapable to manage AF? The SL is an AF body, the CL is also an AF body but the M is a manual focus camera. And why using smaller AF TL lenses on a full frame manual focus camera? To treat it as an APS camera and have the pleasure (?) to do manual focus on lenses made for AF? Doesn't make sense folks with respect. If the aim is to make a compact SL or a full frame CL, Leica will tell you that the SL is a perfect camera and that the SL2 will be even more perfect with a couple millimeters removed a la Panasonic S1.