Dismayed by the M10-D

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Alex U. said:

I have not the clue what zhis thread is about.

Well originally it was someone expressing dismay over the new M10-D, but it seems to wandered off point somewhat...............

[LocalHero1953]

Andy, Jeff, you are taking extreme positions that don't chime well with your normal rational selves. As always in such cases, nothing is absolute, there are always benefits on one side, even if most of them are on the other.

Two benefits of EVF with an M-mount:

- Histogram in the EVF helps one get exposure right. I don't say 'you' because I have no doubt you can reply that you have enough experience to get it right with the M exposure metering. A large number of people will get it right more easily with a histogram.

- Focusing across the frame. The RF only focuses in the centre; an EVF focuses across the frame (as long as you don't magnify). In some cases, not always, this is a real benefit where I find focus-and-recompose no faster than focus-with-magnification or slower than focus without magnification.

These are just two advantages of an EVF in an M-mount camera. Others may be able to think of more. It doesn't change my view that it would be a waste of effort by Leica to put an EVF in a M-mount body. But there's no sense in denying that there are some advantages.

[M11 for me]

I looked up the term „dismay“. And it is not about May, June, July etc.

I wondered how someone could be disaugusted about a Leica camera.

 

[adan]

29 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I would add that on-sensor focusing also provides for the elimination of required DSLR type lens-body focus adjustments

True - although mostly that is a solution to a problem caused by AF.

My old Nikon Fs never needed "focus calibration" in 25 years, because they had tank-like mounting of their equally tank-like interchangeable focusing screens, with no compromises for an AF system. Mostly Canon and Nikon have decided that their screens are now "vestigial" and for framing only, so the mounting tolerances have gone to pot (except perhaps in the absolute top-of-the-line 1.5 kg 1D/D5 bodies).

And to be fair, RF calibration is not as robust as those solid old pro manual-focus SLRs, either. That is an advantage to "viewing off the sensor" - but at a horrible cost otherwise.

[ramarren]

4 hours ago, Kwesi said:

...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.

If you fit an M mount adapter inside the L mount and made it "inward facing", whatever that means, you would not achieve the mount register required for M-mount lenses, which is ~28mm vs L-mount's ~19mm. 

Beyond all that, the CL is already the basic size and shape of a pre-digital M, and has control locations which are roughly similar. The M Adapter L is so inconspicuous on it, it's hardly noticeable. M mount lenses click on with the same solid feel that they do on my M-D and M4-2. Lens performance of M lenses on the CL is identical to what it is on the M-D and M4-2, aside from the crop factor. 

So aside from the APS-C instead of FF format sensor, Leica has already built what most in the EVF camp are asking for. They just didn't put an M in the name. Yet. Maybe they should just rebadge it and glue the M Adapter L into place?

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, adan said:

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

 

Easy Andy - People like them! I like the SL EVF (and the CL) as well.

But still I agree that the rangefinder is a peerless tool for catching that moment . . . . as long as you keep practising - I'm sure that you'd agree it's a skill.

Your post did interest me though - I was considering which camera I use in different situations, and the honest truth is that if I'm using M lenses, then I'll always attach them to an M camera. But a good EVF with good AF is a fine tool.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

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?

I don't really think the issue is battery life or heat management (or, surely, the Q would have problems). I think they're just rather worried about cutting into M sales (with reason perhaps).

My suggestion was that having produced an M sized L mount body it wouldn't cost so much to release the same body with an M mount (perhaps as a special order). . if they were really smart they could also have a scheme to have your M mount replaced with an L mount (for a fee) when people realised their mistake :).

But I quite agree - the M mount is not under threat

[scott kirkpatrick]

5 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

...

My suggestion was that having produced an M sized L mount body it wouldn't cost so much to release the same body with an M mount (perhaps as a special order). . if they were really smart they could also have a scheme to have your M mount replaced with an L mount (for a fee) when people realised their mistake :).

I believe this qualifies as a proof by reductio ad absurdum.

[jonoslack]

4 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

I believe this qualifies as a proof by reductio ad absurdum.

Thank you Scott - Merry Christmas 🤩

[LocalHero1953]

2 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

I don't really think the issue is battery life or heat management (or, surely, the Q would have problems). I think they're just rather worried about cutting into M sales (with reason perhaps).

My suggestion was that having produced an M sized L mount body it wouldn't cost so much to release the same body with an M mount (perhaps as a special order). . if they were really smart they could also have a scheme to have your M mount replaced with an L mount (for a fee) when people realised their mistake :).

But I quite agree - the M mount is not under threat

What I was thinking about with battery life is that a new M-sized L-mount body would be thinner than the M (unless it had a bigger grip, like the SL) and hence have less space for a battery. The CL can chomp through batteries (I was getting through 2-3 a day as a tourist in India last month), so it might be a challenge designing a svelte body big enough for a battery that lasts as long as the M and SL, and can handle a bigger sensor.

[Tailwagger]

41 minutes ago, adan said:

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..

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

 

You mean like this?    

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!

(cropped only in the vertical for effect)

Beyond LocalHero's thoughts around focusing, particularly when on a tripod and his comment around more exacting controller of the exposure in difficult situations,  there is precision in framing,  not losing crucial positioning of elements due to parallax displacement,  in view leveling, potential for lenses beyond 135mm,  etc, etc. Perhaps none of those characteristics are meaningful in the context of your work, but they are in any of number of situations in mine.  Or is there some law of nature one is violating if one's primary desire is to use a Summilux or Summicron for something that doesn't resemble press photography, say landscape?

If all I was interested in was speed and awareness of what's in and out of frame, I'd have learned to shoot a DSLR with both eyes open.  I came to Leica for the qualities of the glass, not those of the RF. To get the results I was looking for meant accepting both manual focus and a rangefinder body whether I liked it or not. I have since come to relearn the value of focusing for one's self as well as having come to appreciate the value that RF brings in certain situations.   But equally its clear that RF photography imposes various compromises that both mirrorless and DSLRs do address.  I'm no gear head. I want a reasonably succinct set of tools to accomplish what I have in mind.  The combination of OVF/RF and EVF Ms pretty much gets me there.  YMMV. 

 

 

[pgk]

18 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

I came to Leica for the qualities of the glass, not those of the RF.

Firstly, SLR, RF, EVF & other types of camera all have their place. Here is not the place to debate which is most effective for what application. However it is pertinent to point out that whilst there is substantial crossover for the generalist photography usually associated with SLR, RF & EVF cameras none are foolproof nor are all perfect for every application. I use all three and I have my reservations about each. When the camera is correctly matched to a specific shoot though, there can be an optimal result.

But the qualities of the glass could lead to an interesting discussion. Leica M lenses actually offer superlative optical quality but whether that can compete with the integrated optical/digital mix which is now available is questionable. What Leica M lenses offer though is optical quality in a fabulous, small package. That said I am not sure that I would buy into them if I did not like the whole RF system, which to me remains the best way of taking most hand held photos that I have experienced. 

[jaapv]

It is rather relative too - M lenses are wonderful and class leading - but restricted in size. When those restrictions are removed, Leica designers are capable of creating even better lenses - as evidenced by the SL, S and even TL/CL lines.

[IkarusJohn]

Much of this reads like the dialogue of the deaf to me.

It’s easy to see the advantage of the L mount cameras.  If I want a rugged, weathersealed complete system, rhe SL is hard to beat.  The wide zoom is marvellous, the 50 Summilux probably the best lens I own, the 24-90 zoom a perfect one lens only solution and the 90-280 zoom at the limits of what I can use effectively. I will almost certainly buy a Summicron prime at some stage.

But this has nothing to do with the M system at all. Zero.

The M system is about the fabulous manual focus lenses and its simple, traditional direct control.  Every time I pick up an M camera, I love the feel, the aperture and focus rings in the right place on the lens and the shutter control (and now the ISO, as a former Nikon user) in the right place too.  This is no place for the electronic sophistication of the L mount cameras (beautiful as they are).  The coupled rangefinder of the M, while great when it works, is the fly in the ointment for all the reasons we’ve discussed before.

What is being discussed is not another L mount variant, but an M camera. Nothing more - everything the M10 is, but with the OVF removed and the real estate used for the EVF from the SL.

Would this sell?  Why not?  If you want an M camera for all the reasons above, would you want an EVF?  Well, many use their existing M(240)s and M10s with the add-on EVF, and they have the crippled Monochrom and M-D.  Why would an EVF based M10 have any impact on M camera sales (other than widening its appeal - choices of M10, M10-P, M10-D, M10-M & M10-E) and what has it got to do with the L mount cameras?

I appreciate that Leica is very unlikely to make an M10-E, but I’m not convinced by the reasoning here.  A company which makes a digital camera without an LCD (it has made three), to the derision of many, is quite capable of making an EVF version of the M camera.  But it has announced, I understand, that it will only ever make an optical view finder M camera - that rather kills the discussion, I think.  I love my M cameras, and my SL.  The TL2 is really useful, in a way that the CL does nothing for me at all.  

Would I buy an M10-E?  No.  

[Prosophos]

3 hours ago, adan said:

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!

Alas, Adan, most here will not appreciate the truth of which you speak. 

I’ve used the quickest of the “other” cameras (mirrorless, and DSLRs as well... up to and including this year) and nothing  — I repeat — nothing is as good as a rangefinder and its optical viewfinder, when it comes to “seeing” and capturing the decisive moment. 

I know this statement will be ferverently attacked, but que será, será...

—Peter.

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Prosophos

[jaapv]

Not by me - but I fail to see why the shot you quote couldn't be taken with just about any camera...  Actually, I would have thought it was the Q.

[LocalHero1953]

30 minutes ago, Prosophos said:

Alas, Adan, most here will not appreciate the truth of which you speak. 

I’ve used the quickest of the “other” cameras (mirrorless, and DSLRs as well... up to and including this year) and nothing  — I repeat — nothing is as good as a rangefinder and its optical viewfinder, when it comes to “seeing” and capturing the decisive moment. 

I know this statement will be ferverently attacked, but que será, será...

—Peter.

 

Attack? Certainly not! Disagree? Certainly!
Not everyone takes photos in the same way.

Edited December 23, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Prosophos]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Attack? Certainly not! Disagree? Certainly!
Not everyone takes photos in the same way.

Regarding the "attack" comment, fair enough.  Unfortunately, civility on the internet is not often encountered so it's nice to read a measured response (such as yours).

Regarding not everyone taking photos the same way, that is certainly true.  And not everyone takes the same kind of photos either. 

Perhaps I could have been less dogmatic and specified that I agreed with Adan's remarks because of how I photograph.

Thanks,

―Peter.

 

[Tailwagger]

28 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Attack? Certainly not! Disagree? Certainly!
Not everyone takes photos in the same way.

Precisely!  No one disputes the advantages of an M for certain sorts of activity.  What I fail to understand is why  some seem to believe that the only legitimate use of 70 years of optics is inextricably tied to it.  

The only serious technical argument I can make to myself against an EVF only M mount camera is the absence of auto aperture control which means the need to open and close the lens for truly accurate focusing.  From my early experiences screwing up focus with the SEM21 via EVF when at smaller apertures, its not hard to imagine that for some users this aspect of operation could be a deal breaker. But OTOH, the situation is no different when mounting M glass on an SL or CL or A7R, what have you. Its a price I'm personally willing to pay given I gain an SL level EVF,  battery life more akin to the Q, no need for an external wart of a finder, far shorter blackout period, perhaps multiple native metering modes as well as an e-shutter for shooting wide open in bright light, not to mention all the other items previously discussed and oh yeah, I get to keep the set of lenses I know and love.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mmradman]

Ignoring Leicas pricing policy M-EVF version shouldn’t cost more than Q camera, it wouldn’t even have fixed optics attached. If such camera is launched in parallel with Optical RF version maybe one without rear screen it would satisfy both camps. Now, how about EVF version without rear screen, that would be bold.

i have a suggestion., let’s ask Adminitrator to set up a poll (I was about to say referendum but than it would be only binary choice) to try to quantify what would be interest in novel style of full frame M mount camera.