Dismayed by the M10-D

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, lct said:

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.

Besides, the CL has the advantage of giving you more tele with normal full frame lenses, which is the ideal solution for safari’s etc. because the CL sensor is nearly just as good as the M sensors. I wouldn’t touch the CL as it is now. 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Safaris not so much... It saw little use in Botswana last month. 200 mm equivalent is simply too short.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, lct said:

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.

Yes - "Real photographers don't want AF cameras" all but killed the company the last time Leica thought that  was what their customers wanted. They won't make that mistake again.

[jonoslack]

6 hours ago, lct said:

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.

With due respect lct I think you're crazy!

We both agree it would be great to have an M sized full frame camera with an EVF (okay so far)

Today I took the CL out for a spin - lots of people use this exclusively with M lenses (and it works well apart from the crop factor). I was using the 28 'lux and the 50 APO M. fine . . . and I was also using the 75 APO Summicron SL . . . in my (and Peter Karbe's) opinion this range of L mount APO summicrons are going to be the best lenses leica have ever made, and very likely the best full frame lenses made by anyone. They're relatively small and light and balance nicely even on the CL (and the AF is really quick) -  (they'd be better on an M sized body). 

. . . . . . and you're suggesting that Leica brings out a new top of the range camera which won't use these lenses? Just on a whim because you don't like AF? yep you're crazy 😉😶

All the best

 

[jaapv]

And all that becauseof minor automatism taking over the flick of the right thumb? Senseless automatism in most cases as well, as you have to adjust the magnification on the M11 by...a flick of the thumb.🙄

[ramarren]

You guys can debate all this as much as you want. I'm completely happy with my prosaic M-D and the CL just as it is. I use M lenses on the M-D, and M+R lenses on the CL. I have focal lengths from 16 to 135 in M, and from 15 to 360 in R. I'm completely happy with manual focus on either body, and find no issues with the focus assist magnification and peaking on the CL just as I have it. 

Whether you're crazy or I'm crazy is irrelevant. I'd rather just make photos, and this lets me do it nicely. 

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 M-D typ 262 + Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4
ISO 400 @ f/4.8 @ 1/500

enjoy.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, ramarren said:

 I'm completely happy with manual focus on either body, and find no issues with the focus assist magnification and peaking on the CL just as I have it. 

 

 

hI Godfrey - That's great - but this isn't about manual focus or AF (at least as far as I'm concerned). . . . . and I'm sure you aren't crazy!

[ramarren]

19 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

hI Godfrey - That's great - but this isn't about manual focus or AF (at least as far as I'm concerned). . . . . and I'm sure you aren't crazy!

Thanks, Jono. I must have lost the thread of this conversation then. If not crazy, getting a little ADHD ...

Have a great holiday! All of you! Make great photos of family and friends!

[Tailwagger]

On 12/21/2018 at 12:06 PM, 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

Why? 

1. Well, perhaps those in that camp, I'm one of them, are being overly anal, but frankly, if I spend somewhere between two and twelve thousand dollars for a lens, I want it to mount natively.  Anything other than that feels at best like an afterthought, at worse hackery and forces me to pay not only for an additional mount, but for features I have little to no interest in. 

2. We don't want any of the added buttons, electronics, menus and other cruft necessary to support AF systems. 

3.  We expect, and particularly at the presumed price level, for the sensor to be fully optimized for the lens family we intend to mount on it.  One wonders just how L mount glass behaves on a sensor with M micro-lensing?  Or should we M adherents be expected to shell out twice the cost of a Z7 for roughly the same set of limitations on the wide end?

Making a smaller SL addresses none of the above. The issue of size conflates two totally separate issues AFAIC. And from the interviews I've read, Leica already seems to have gotten the message that there is quite of bit of displeasure regarding the SL body design.  Presumably we'll see a more svelte version next time around.  Regardless, I fail to see why there is any need at all for a large and a small bodied SL.  What does not exist is a 21st C. EVF-based mirrorless M. M optics aren't some doddering old relative destined to be taken in and cared for by their offspring in their old age. They continue to have an independent life in their own right.  As such they deserve a home of their own, one designed with their needs exclusively at the fore.

As for the millennia-L glass... it can get the hell off my lawn.  🙂   

[jaapv]

I detect an inconsistency here. If you want to "mount them natively"  surely you want to focus them natively, i.e. helicoid and rangefinder mechanism. Otherwise you are into a hybridized mount anyway.

[djs]

7 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Why? 

1. Well, perhaps those in that camp, I'm one of them, are being overly anal, but frankly, if I spend somewhere between two and twelve thousand dollars for a lens, I want it to mount natively.  Anything other than that feels at best like an afterthought, at worse hackery and forces me to pay not only for an additional mount, but for features I have little to no interest in. 

2. We don't want any of the added buttons, electronics, menus and other cruft necessary to support AF systems. 

3.  We expect, and particularly at the presumed price level, for the sensor to be fully optimized for the lens family we intend to mount on it.  One wonders just how L mount glass behaves on a sensor with M micro-lensing?  Or should we M adherents be expected to shell out twice the cost of a Z7 for roughly the same set of limitations on the wide end?

Making a smaller SL addresses none of the above. The issue of size conflates two totally separate issues AFAIC. And from the interviews I've read, Leica already seems to have gotten the message that there is quite of bit of displeasure regarding the SL body design.  Presumably we'll see a more svelte version next time around.  Regardless, I fail to see why there is any need at all for a large and a small bodied SL.  What does not exist is a 21st C. EVF-based mirrorless M. M optics aren't some doddering old relative destined to be taken in and cared for by their offspring in their old age. They continue to have an independent life in their own right.  As such they deserve a home of their own, one designed with their needs exclusively at the fore.

As for the millennia-L glass... it can get the hell off my lawn.  🙂   

 

I am also in "that camp", and agree 100%

Take the current M - strip out the rangefinder - fit an EVF instead.  🤩

And for those who object, no need to buy as the rangefinder M will still be available.

[jaapv]

Personally I would like them to build fully manual small lenses for the CL. I'm sure it ain't gonna happen...

[jonoslack]

7 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Why? 

1. Well, perhaps those in that camp, I'm one of them, are being overly anal, but frankly, if I spend somewhere between two and twelve thousand dollars for a lens, I want it to mount natively.  Anything other than that feels at best like an afterthought, at worse hackery and forces me to pay not only for an additional mount, but for features I have little to no interest in. 

2. We don't want any of the added buttons, electronics, menus and other cruft necessary to support AF systems. 

3.  We expect, and particularly at the presumed price level, for the sensor to be fully optimized for the lens family we intend to mount on it.  One wonders just how L mount glass behaves on a sensor with M micro-lensing?  Or should we M adherents be expected to shell out twice the cost of a Z7 for roughly the same set of limitations on the wide end?

Making a smaller SL addresses none of the above. The issue of size conflates two totally separate issues AFAIC. And from the interviews I've read, Leica already seems to have gotten the message that there is quite of bit of displeasure regarding the SL body design.  Presumably we'll see a more svelte version next time around.  Regardless, I fail to see why there is any need at all for a large and a small bodied SL.  What does not exist is a 21st C. EVF-based mirrorless M. M optics aren't some doddering old relative destined to be taken in and cared for by their offspring in their old age. They continue to have an independent life in their own right.  As such they deserve a home of their own, one designed with their needs exclusively at the fore.

As for the millennia-L glass... it can get the hell off my lawn.  🙂   

 

Good points and much more convincing than LCT's ideas about automatic zooming - couple of answers

1. I can really see the point of this - not keen on adapters myself

2. you don't need added buttons, and the menu options for AF could (and should) be. hidden if shooting M lenses

3. The SL works really well with M lenses - Sean Reid did a lot of excellent comparisons, and whilst the M worked better with some lenses, the SL worked better with others. He has persuaded me that the operability (or not) of M lenses is much much more to do with the thickness of the coverglass than the micro lens design. (and this is rather. borne out by the Kolari modifications for the Sony cameras).

As for the millennia L glass . . don't knock it until you've tried it - the new summicrons are a thing of wonder and awe (and character and life).

10 minutes ago, djs said:

 

I am also in "that camp", and agree 100%

Take the current M - strip out the rangefinder - fit an EVF instead.  🤩

And for those who object, no need to buy as the rangefinder M will still be available.

Okay - but I wasn't criticising the desire for such a thing (even if I don't want one myself), the issue is the limited demographic (but perhaps I'm wrong - it's been known before!).

My point really is that it's a problem for Leica to limit the number of potential purchasers by not having support for L lenses (and also limit the new market for L lenses)

Which leads me to a question:

Supposing Leica bought out a camera looking like an M, with no extra buttons or menus when using M lenses but with an EVF where you could choose when you bought it whether to have it with an M mount or with an L mount - would that still be anathema? 

Just thinking out loud.

 

[evikne]

18 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Supposing Leica bought out a camera looking like an M, with no extra buttons or menus when using M lenses but with an EVF where you could choose when you bought it whether to have it with an M mount or with an L mount - would that still be anathema? 

Or a replaceable mount instead of adapters. Could that be possible?

[pgk]

15 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Which leads me to a question:

Supposing Leica bought out a camera looking like an M, with no extra buttons or menus when using M lenses but with an EVF where you could choose when you bought it whether to have it with an M mount or with an L mount - would that still be anathema?

By many it most certainly would - technologically its a dead end.

The question is whether there are sufficient numbers of actual buyers of such a camera to make its development and production viable. If there are enough I would suggest that Leica should build it as it will make them profit which is what all companies need in order to survive and progress. Unless it were to be exceedingly cheap I would not be interested myself ....

[jonoslack]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

By many it most certainly would - technologically its a dead end.

The question is whether there are sufficient numbers of actual buyers of such a camera to make its development and production viable. If there are enough I would suggest that Leica should build it as it will make them profit which is what all companies need in order to survive and progress. Unless it were to be exceedingly cheap I would not be interested myself ....

 

I don't think it's a dead end technologically - it would effectively be a design for a small L mount camera (which is no dead end) which could also be purchased in a 'hamstrung' mode with an M mount.

I think there would be enough buyers as long as it was effectively a full frame CL in an M lookalike body (so that you could have AF and L lenses if you wanted). 

If it was M mount only - then I don't think there would be - and the sales would be almost directly taken from future M rangefinder sales.

I might be interested in a full frame CL - but certainly not in an M mount camera with an EVF instead of a rangefinder (however cheap it was). Generally speaking though, I find that I can just about struggle to carry around the extra couple of hundred grams of the SL (and I like the camera and the interface). 

The question was in a spirit of conciliation - ie trying to think of a way of satisfying the "M only" crew and also figuring out a camera which might be financially viable for Leica.

Best

Jono

 

[jonoslack]

9 minutes ago, evikne said:

Or a replaceable mount instead of adapters. Could that be possible?

That's a good idea

Not sure whether it would be possible or not, but in the end wouldn't it just be an adapter with a different name?

 

[djs]

3 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

...........

"If it was M mount only - then I don't think there would be - and the sales would be almost directly taken from future M rangefinder sales."

 

Best

Jono

But there could also be additional sales - those who would not buy the rangefinder, but would love to use M lenses with an EVF. They may also increase the sales of M lenses.

I'm in that camp!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

4 minutes ago, djs said:

But there could also be additional sales - those who would not buy the rangefinder, but would love to use M lenses with an EVF. They may also increase the sales of M lenses.

I'm in that camp!

But they additional purchasers would not be constrained by the additional option of being able to use L lenses - I can't imagine that anyone who was previously not an M user would be so doctrinaire as to want a camera without the extra options (as long as they didn't translate into extra buttons and complications).

[evikne]

13 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

That's a good idea

Not sure whether it would be possible or not, but in the end wouldn't it just be an adapter with a different name?

 

It would't be quite the same. It would be an "inward"-adapter instead of outward. What I hate with adapters, is the added thickness to the camera.