Dismayed by the M10-D

[PeterGA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

46 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? 

...

 

 

No problem here - but probably easier to use a CL type body to do same - leave the M alone -  it can end up being a piece of nostalgia for those so inclined to continue writing about how 24 megapixels is more than enough and rangefinder focusing is better than and a bottom plate is an imperative  ...etc etc etc..blah blah blah..

[Advertisement]

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

[jonoslack]

1 minute ago, PeterGA said:

No problem here - but probably easier to use a CL type body to do same - leave the M alone -  it can end up being a piece of nostalgia for those so inclined to continue writing about how 24 megapixels is more than enough and rangefinder focusing is better than and a bottom plate is an imperative  ...etc etc etc..blah blah blah..

Hi Peter

Personally I quite agree - I really like the CL body and controls (simple and well thought out). But I was trying to find a middle way between the entrenched opposite camps.

But the M doesn't need to be a piece of nostalgia - it will always remain a great option (with a rangefinder and framelines) for a special way of shooting - lots of scope for future development (more resolution / electronic shutter / electronic single framelines etc. etc.) - you'll notice that I said "a camera looking like an M"

[djs]

10 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

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).

But L lenses imply extra weight/bulk. Sometimes less is more!

M lenses are little jewels.

[jonoslack]

2 minutes ago, djs said:

But L lenses imply extra weight/bulk. Sometimes less is more!

M lenses are little jewels.

But an L mount absolutely doesn't imply extra weight/bulk for the camera body, (probably the opposite) and YOU don't need to use the L lenses.

. . and of course M lenses are little jewels, but that absolutely isn't the point! 

Edited December 23, 2018 by jonoslack

[pgk]

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

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.

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.

I would say that what is primarily under discussion here is what you refer to as the 'hamstrung' version - an M mount FF M Rangefinder sized/shaped body EVF camera - and the question is not whether this is what some people want because clearly they do, but whether sufficient numbers want such a camera to make it viable for Leica to produce. I understand the desire for a native M mount FF MRF shaped/sized EVF camera, but I question its inherent commercial viability. An L mount MRF shaped/sized EVF camera makes so much more sense, especially if an 'intelligent' M adapter could be produced, but some clearly detest the idea of any form of 'adapter' which to my mind is very strange because Leica have a long history of building adapters (ltm to M anyone?). How many M2/3/4/etc camera were produced in ltm mount?

[jonoslack]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

I would say that what is primarily under discussion here is what you refer to as the 'hamstrung' version - an M mount FF M Rangefinder sized/shaped body EVF camera - and the question is not whether this is what some people want because clearly they do, but whether sufficient numbers want such a camera to make it viable for Leica to produce. I understand the desire for a native M mount FF MRF shaped/sized EVF camera, but I question its inherent commercial viability. An L mount MRF shaped/sized EVF camera makes so much more sense, especially if an 'intelligent' M adapter could be produced, but some clearly detest the idea of any form of 'adapter' which to my mind is very strange because Leica have a long history of building adapters (ltm to M anyone?). How many M2/3/4/etc camera were produced in ltm mount?

Hi There Paul

Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'hamstrung', but you know what I mean.

I quite agree with you on all points - I was trying to think of a way to unify the camps, make both sides happy and still allow Leica to make some money!

Creating the L mount MRF shaped/sized EVF camera (which makes so much more sense), and then giving people the option to buy it with an M mount (special order I guess) would seem to make everyone happy - wouldn't it? 

Best

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

25 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Hi There Paul

Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'hamstrung', but you know what I mean.

I quite agree with you on all points - I was trying to think of a way to unify the camps, make both sides happy and still allow Leica to make some money!

Creating the L mount MRF shaped/sized EVF camera (which makes so much more sense), and then giving people the option to buy it with an M mount (special order I guess) would seem to make everyone happy - wouldn't it? 

Best

Jono,

Oftentimes, trying to make everyone happy can be a thankless job. Bravo for trying.

Here is my 2 cents.

1- Die hard M users have no problem with buying SL for CL cameras in addition to their M's

2- Leica should make an M styled  and sized SL camera with L mount fixed. Its the only way to enjoy the economies of scale required to make a profit.

3- Sell an M adapter to fit inside the L mount. Charge what you want for it but make it inward facing so it doesn't protrude.

[PeterGA]

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

Hi Peter

Personally I quite agree - I really like the CL body and controls (simple and well thought out). But I was trying to find a middle way between the entrenched opposite camps.

But the M doesn't need to be a piece of nostalgia - it will always remain a great option (with a rangefinder and framelines) for a special way of shooting - lots of scope for future development (more resolution / electronic shutter / electronic single framelines etc. etc.) - you'll notice that I said "a camera looking like an M"

Jono - of course

I agree -  (for all sorts of reasons) - Leica now have enough irons in the fire via CL/SL and M to get enough 'feedback' in order to guage what particular set of attributes would make for a killer product - we all know what these would be...I look forward to future announcements - but in the meantime continue to enjoy the CL/SL and even M on occasion - what a pleasure it is to use this stuff.

Merry Christmas to you and yours

Pete

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by PeterGA

[pgk]

55 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Creating the L mount MRF shaped/sized EVF camera (which makes so much more sense), and then giving people the option to buy it with an M mount (special order I guess) would seem to make everyone happy - wouldn't it? 

Perhaps if the M mount 'adapter' was a factory install job only it would.

[Tailwagger]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

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.

Not at all. If the mechanisms are somehow completely different on the body side,  I don't really care.  My issue is with being forced to stick a second, detachable bit of metal in between my lenses and camera body.  To paraphrase our recently departed President Bush from his heyday, 'read my post, no new adapters!'  :-)

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

 

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).

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.

 

I think you misunderstand my tongue in cheek comment w.r.t to L-glass. I very much covet these new optics but as it stands they are incompatible with my current system.  There is little doubt in my mind that by this time next year, many of us, possibly me as well, will have already or at least be strongly considering forking over substantial amounts of cash for some new L-Alliance hardware.  This development is the largest threat to the M, body or glass.  How many of us are willing, let alone able,  to take on a second, M incompatible, family of Leica glass where the entry fee is a minimum of $5K per optic? 

I know myself. If I buy an SL2, I will certainly find myself wanting to buy what are shaping up to be a spectacular set of native primes for it.  And if I do succumb to such a purchase next year, then I'll will be happy to mount an adapter for my M lenses to it.  But for only as long as it takes to liquidate them to pay for the new L ones.  I'd likely keep my 240 and a pre-ASPH Summilux 35 and 75mm for the occasional RF pleasure of it, but the M10 and its the remaining optics would be up for sale. That scenario, be it the SL2  or some mini-SL2 sporting an adapter, for me, acts a bridge for transitioning to an entirely new system, not a way to continue to leverage my current investment in M glass.  So from where I sit,  the growing allure of the SL family represents a far greater existential threat to buying a M11 or 12. A little brother, EVF-only M does the opposite. It reaffirms my commitment to the M system, be it EVF or OVF based. 

I think #2, while technically possible might not be all that desirable for those the opposite of me,  who primarily shoot AF but only occasionally want to use M lenses.  One of the biggest criticisms of the H1D, for example, was the lack of physical controls to select focus points. I think most would consider some form of AE-L and AE-F buttons mandatory as well. Could I live with the excess, say, of the current layout of the SL?  Probably, but it would annoy me. My list above was why after serious consideration I didnt buy an SL over an M10 to compliment my M240.  Interface was and remains an important factor to me.  Were that not the case, I might have bought a Kolari myself... save for point #1. 

As for your question, while I'd have to assess it in light of whats coming from the L-Alliance,  in all likelihood, given the expense of changing systems, I would buy it.  If the adapter issue is eliminated, I am a realist, I recognize no device for general consumption is going to be exactly what I want.  For Leica this translates into me alternating upgrades between EVF and OVF bodies every few years.  I'll caveat this by saying that my support assumes that the design center chosen was for an EVF-M finding a compromise for accommodating occasional or optional AF use. Anything else, makes no sense to me as the SL already has the charter to accomplish the opposite.  But it also must be assumed that such a path appears prior to me jumping the potentially sinking M-glass boat to go party on millenia-L island. Maybe there's a rescue vessel coming, but if its not here, or at least seen on the horizon pretty soon, I think theres a good chance I'll be forced into abandoning ship rather then slowly go down with it. 

 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Not at all. If the mechanisms are somehow completely different on the body side,  I don't really care.  My issue is with being forced to stick a second, detachable bit of metal in between my lenses and camera body.  To paraphrase our recently departed President Bush from his heyday, 'read my post, no new adapters!'  :-)

Superglue?

 

However, I think that offering small, manual M-lens based lenses in L mount would be a more viable option.

[Tailwagger]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Superglue?

Only if its a custom factory formulation available by the tube for not a farthing less than 500 crowns. Beneath my station otherwise. 

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

I think you misunderstand my tongue in cheek comment w.r.t to L-glass. I very much covet these new optics but as it stands they are incompatible with my current system.  There is little doubt in my mind that by this time next year, many of us, possibly me as well, will have already or at least be strongly considering forking over substantial amounts of cash for some new L-Alliance hardware.  This development is the largest threat to the M, body or glass.  How many of us are willing, let alone able,  to take on a second, M incompatible, family of Leica glass where the entry fee is a minimum of $5K per optic? 

Snip

As for your question, while I'd have to assess it in light of whats coming from the L-Alliance,  in all likelihood, given the expense of changing systems, I would buy it.  If the adapter issue is eliminated, I am a realist, I recognize no device for general consumption is going to be exactly what I want.  For Leica this translates into me alternating upgrades between EVF and OVF bodies every few years.  I'll caveat this by saying that my support assumes that the design center chosen was for an EVF-M finding a compromise for accommodating occasional or optional AF use. Anything else, makes no sense to me as the SL already has the charter to accomplish the opposite.  But it also must be assumed that such a path appears prior to me jumping the potentially sinking M-glass boat to go party on millenia-L island. Maybe there's a rescue vessel coming, but if its not here, or at least seen on the horizon pretty soon, I think theres a good chance I'll be forced into abandoning ship rather then slowly go down with it. 

 

Interesting thoughts. Especially the idea of alternating between EVF and OVF bodies.

I'm no collector, and I only keep kit which I actually use (sadly I can't afford to do anything else). Currently I have an SL, an M10 and a CL (new acquisition). The SL and M10 have been the basis of my kit for the last 2.1/2 years and they both get used a lot, I wouldn't be without either, and I'd be very sad if I had to at any point in the future. On that basis I'm very keen on the continuation of the traditional M. I use them about equally

To tell the truth I don't very often use M lenses on the SL - but when I do, I actually don't find using the adapter even slightly irritating (and I'm quite easily irritated). 

I don't think that the M-glass boat is sinking at all - and I don't see any reason why it should in the future either, especially in the light of the increasing size and weight of FF prime lenses (Zeiss Otus / 50 Lux SL etc.). Why should the boat sink? 

You Say: 

"I'll caveat this by saying that my support assumes that the design center chosen was for an EVF-M finding a compromise for accommodating occasional or optional AF use"

I don't think that these things are mutually exclusive - at least, I don't think that the AF use on such a camera needs to be a compromise. Certainly, the little CL is quite man enough to focus the SL lenses quickly and efficiently.

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, Kwesi said:

Jono,

Oftentimes, trying to make everyone happy can be a thankless job. Bravo for trying.

Here is my 2 cents.

1- Die hard M users have no problem with buying SL for CL cameras in addition to their M's

2- Leica should make an M styled  and sized SL camera with L mount fixed. Its the only way to enjoy the economies of scale required to make a profit.

3- Sell an M adapter to fit inside the L mount. Charge what you want for it but make it inward facing so it doesn't protrude.

This can't happen. The L-mount register distance (sensor to mount) is smaller than the M-mount register distance - the basic thickness of the L-body is always smaller than that of the M series. A L-M adapter will therefore always protrude from a L body. I agree it would be nice if the L-M adapter was narrower in diameter though.

[M11 for me]

I have not the clue what zhis thread is about.

[LocalHero1953]

I don't see Leica stopping the M (OVF/RF/M-mount) any time soon. I could see them launching a M-sized FF body with EVF/L-mount as soon as they're sure they can handle the battery life and heat management issues (and it would probably have video!).

The two questions left would be:

- Would they also launch a M-sized body with EVF and M-mount? Frankly I don't see it happening, because I can't see it having a big market. Most trad users would stick with the true M, and most new users would surely want the extra info, lens options and flexibility the L-mount offers.

- Would such a new camera cut into M camera sales sufficiently to threaten its future (reduced sales not enough to cover R&D+production costs)? And if it did, is this more of a worry to Leica than the benefit of increased L-mount sales? Sooner or later the answers will be in favour of the new model.

I wonder if the new SL2, completely restyled and shrunk, will be this hypothetical M-sized, L-mount camera?

Edited December 23, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

14 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

This can't happen. The L-mount register distance (sensor to mount) is smaller than the M-mount register distance - the basic thickness of the L-body is always smaller than that of the M series. A L-M adapter will therefore always protrude from a L body. I agree it would be nice if the L-M adapter was narrower in diameter though.

No, the register distance would be incorporated into the barrel - i.e. a much smoother design than an M lens on adapter.

[LocalHero1953]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No, the register distance would be incorporated into the barrel - i.e. a much smoother design than an M lens on adapter.

I don't understand what you mean.

A lens designed for the M but with a L-mount instead could, I agree, be designed more smoothly. But an adapter designed to fit an M-lens to a L mount will always stick outwards from a L-body.

I guess you could design a M-thickness body that could be fitted with either an M-mount or an L-mount; the L-mount version would obviously protrude inwards, but this would be a bit of a clumsy beast - made thicker than it needs to be just to avoid a visual protrusion.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Tailwagger et al - Please explain to me the virtue of an EVF.

Because, to use your analogy, as a "home" for M lenses, I have yet to see any EVF that does not amount to a tar-paper shack, with no windows, that reeks of bad sewers.

Their only advantage is that they allow Fuji, Sony et al to make "DSLRs" without the bulk and noise and mirror-shake of the classic SLR mirror/prism viewing system. That is an advantage that Leica Ms have always had, built right in, along with other RFs.

What an EVF does to a rangefinder system is remove its most critical remaining unique advantage - speed. See/frame/focus/shoot in one second or so. Electronic lag, doubled-shutter lag, "focus magnification" (for Bog's sake!). To get anything close to the "speed" of a Leica M RF with an EVF requires good autofocus - otherwise all one gets are slow, boring "postcards" of slow, boring subjects.

The forte of the Leica RFs has always been moments, gestures, the thing that exists for 1/125th sec and then is gone forever. Take that away, and all we are left with is a really expensive way of taking rather cheap pictures.

When I got my first camera, a Canon FX SLR, it had this really cool feature. A circular split-prism in the center of the screen that more-or-less replicated the fast binary "aligned/not aligned" focusing of a rangefinder. I made sure every camera I bought after that had the same feature, and when, with the advent of AF, that feature mostly disappeared, I stopped buying SLRs, saved up, and switched to the M system.

When a manually-focused EVF can capture "instants" like the following - every time - I'll be impressed.

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!

[Jeff S]

12 minutes ago, adan said:

 

Their only advantage is that they allow Fuji, Sony et al to make "DSLRs" without the bulk and noise and mirror-shake of the classic SLR mirror/prism viewing system. That is an advantage that Leica Ms have always had, built right in, along with other RFs.

 

 

Andy, I also haven’t found an EVF that I like, but I would add that on-sensor focusing also provides for the elimination of required DSLR type lens-body focus adjustments, and adds the capability for various focusing aids.  M cameras have their own focus adjustment issues.

But I still prefer OVF. 

Jeff

Edited December 23, 2018 by Jeff S