lct Posted January 16, 2019 Share #81 Posted January 16, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not sure that rangefinders take up that little place in M bodies. I'm no techie at all but replacing the RF by a similar EVF as that of the CL with less jerky effect in low light would be satisfactory for me. YMMV. 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/293092-they-say-future-m-might-be-able-to-switch-between-rf-and-evf/?do=findComment&comment=3665409'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 Hi lct, Take a look here They Say Future M Might Be Able To Switch Between RF and EVF. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted January 16, 2019 Share #82 Posted January 16, 2019 True - the removal of the RF would make space, but a high quality EVF will take more in the form of extra electronics and higher electricity consumption AKA battery and computing power AKA heat management. See the not-quite satisfactory performance of add-on EVFs. I'm sure that technology will shrink it down in the future, though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynp Posted January 16, 2019 Share #83 Posted January 16, 2019 Interesting discussion. Thank you. Sometimes I think that some people buy the M cameras for totally bizarre reasons: to show off their (relative) wealth, because the digital M cameras are the most expensive little full frame digital cameras, because M lenses are so small and cute and jewelry like etc. If I still understand those you want a hybrid viewfinder, I find it strange to desire an M camera with the M mount but without a reliable way to focus those precious lenses effectively. And it takes not so much effort to learn how to use the rangefinder. Maybe you will persuade Leica to make such a camera for the vocal minority . Let it be a very limited and expensive to ignite the desire of those who cannot live without the rangefinder-less M. Sorry, I am Russian and we are known to be rude. Yevgeny 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp995 Posted January 16, 2019 Share #84 Posted January 16, 2019 vor 1 Stunde schrieb lct: ...May be useful for accessory needs, not to compete with the best mirrorless cameras on the market. A Leica M is a very special niche product and will never compete with the best mirrorless cameras on the market. In this case Leica offers the modern L-Mount system ... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted January 16, 2019 Share #85 Posted January 16, 2019 34 minutes ago, ynp said: If I still understand those you want a hybrid viewfinder, I find it strange to desire an M camera with the M mount but without a reliable way to focus those precious lenses effectively. And it takes not so much effort to learn how to use the rangefinder. Right. I suppose that’s why Leica sells those expensive magnifier eyepiece adapters. Because the rangefinder is so easy and reliable to focus with. I have found the evf Visoflex to be a much more reliable way to nail focus consistently with my M lenses on my M10 than the rangefinder mechanism. Particularly with long lenses, fast lenses wide open, or low light conditions. Simple as that. I also find it absurd that to ensure this outdated mechanism works accurately with all of my dozen+ M lenses, I need to send the camera and all lenses in for service (months-long wait) to have them all mechanically calibrated to the same point. Learning how to use a rangefinder is easy. Being able to accurately nail focus repeatedly and consistently, with a variety of lenses and in difficult circumstances, not so much. But with the evf, it is a breeze. The whole idea of the M system is to “get out of your way” so you can focus on creating a photograph. The rangefinder is a severe impediment to that goal. The evf makes it effortless. And please don’t pull out the trope that we are all show-offs who buy Leica as bling. That’s just an insult meant to dismiss our views without engaging in any serious consideration or analysis of the reasoning behind them. Some of us have been shooting seriously for decades and consider Leica the pinnacle in terms of quality, simplicity, and amazing glass. But that doesn’t mean we are wedded to 20th century technology when better technology is available. If we were, we would all still be shooting film cameras. 2 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 16, 2019 Share #86 Posted January 16, 2019 1 hour ago, ynp said: If I still understand those you want a hybrid viewfinder [...] Don't count me in please. I'm not interested in those hybrid finders. I'd just like to use my M lenses on a compact FF mirrorless camera. And this with no more compromise than on my RF cameras. Being the best compact lenses available, i believe M lenses (and their owners) deserve that. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 16, 2019 Share #87 Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 3 hours ago, cp995 said: A Leica M is a very special niche product and will never compete with the best mirrorless cameras on the market. [...] Not only Leica Ms can compete with the best mirrorless cameras on the market but they can do much better. I own one of the best adapted mirrorless bodies for M lenses so far, a Kolari modded Sony A7s that i use essentially with M lenses. It can do things that some Leica owners could not dream about but it cannot recognize M lenses and it is unable to do auto image magnification. M lenses are no more "special niche products" than other high end lenses from this viewpoint. I see no reason why they could be used with no compromise on RF but not on mirrorless cameras. Edited January 16, 2019 by lct Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp995 Posted January 16, 2019 Share #88 Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) vor 5 Stunden schrieb lct: Why would M users pay for an adapter to put their M lenses on an M body? ... You don't need to do this! I put my M-Lenses on my M-Body and enjoy the rangefinder to take my photos. That's the spirit Leica M! If it's not a spirit for you, you can got with Leica SL, Sony, Nikon or whatever ... The Nikon Z Series has a nice size, similar to the M and you can easy use your M-Lenses with it.https://camerasize.com/compare/#795,702 M stay M with RF - Everything else is not realistic ... Edited January 16, 2019 by cp995 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 16, 2019 Share #89 Posted January 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, cp995 said: If it's not a spirit for you, you can got with Leica SL, Sony, Nikon or whatever .. I've been using my M lenses on rangefinders since the seventies and i use them currently on a Leica M240 along with a Sony A7s mod and a Leica digital CL. In all cases my spirit, if any, has always been and will probably remain that of an M lens user. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted January 16, 2019 Share #90 Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, cp995 said: I put my M-Lenses on my M-Body and enjoy the rangefinder to take my photos. That's the spirit Leica M! If it's not a spirit for you, you can got with Leica SL, Sony, Nikon or whatever ... Or, you know, we can go with a future Leica M with an integrated EVF instead of a rangefinder mechanism. I mean, if using the rangefinder is “the spirit of Leica M,” then why does Leica even make and sell the Visoflex EVF? There is obviously a sufficient market base that wants EVF functionality with this camera. And I expect a large percentage of that user base (and also many future potential Leica M customers) would prefer the EVF be integrated into the camera rather than a clunky, expensive add-on attachment. It boggles my mind how many people seem to be so wedded to nostalgia that they would trash others for looking forward to the future and innovation. Twenty years ago, these same types of people would have scoffed at the notion of a digital M and likely criticized anyone who wanted Leica to develop one. Yet, how many people today are buying a new M-A or MP film camera vs. an M10? I suspect the difference is substantial. In twenty more years, I expect the rangefinder mechanism will be a quaint relic of the past, relegated to a niche product, and most of the M cameras sold will have an integrated EVF. To say this “is not realistic” is to bury your head in the sand of history. Edit: I also find it interesting how many people feel the need to be “gatekeepers” about what the essence of an M camera is or should be for all photographers. To me, it’s about many things: size, feel, esthetic, quality of build, simplicity and ease of use for photography, but most of all, as lct says, the quality of the native M lenses (both vintage and new) and the ability of the camera to get out of the way and allow me to get the most out of those lenses. Edited January 16, 2019 by Dirk Mandeville 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 16, 2019 Share #91 Posted January 16, 2019 20 minutes ago, Dirk Mandeville said: It boggles my mind how many people seem to be so wedded to nostalgia that they would trash others for looking forward to the future and innovation. You are easily boggled. Who is trashing whom? Why do you accept so much angst with Leica when you have huge alternatives? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveclem Posted January 16, 2019 Share #92 Posted January 16, 2019 I'm sure that this will happen. There is only a small market for M-D versions but a larger market, with perhaps failing eyesight for whom RF focusing is less of an option. How many would have shuddered at the thought of an AF Leica? Leica move with the times, its how they have survived. Purists can buy an M-D whatever or, just go back to film and a 3f or flex standard. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 16, 2019 Share #93 Posted January 16, 2019 4 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said: I have found the evf Visoflex to be a much more reliable way to nail focus consistently with my M lenses on my M10 than the rangefinder mechanism. Particularly with long lenses, fast lenses wide open, or low light conditions. Simple as that. Most long/fast lenses are already grossly out-of-proportion to an M body. If someone chooses a Leica M (regardless of finder) to use such lenses, then in the words of the knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, "He chose....poorly." A failure of "due diligence." Even before considering the viewing and focusing mechanism. Speaking of history: Go to a museum with a photo collection, and find out how many pictures made with "long/fast lenses at full aperture" have been set aside for conservation for future generations. Not a lot. They tend to be pretty generic and "look-alike" ("something sharp - a lot of blur") and don't stand the test of time. How long does it take to shoot with an EVF? As compared to "snap two images together/fire shutter" with an RF? If I want "slow and contemplative" - I'll get a 4x5. Leica understands what the M system is all about, and they make: 17 lenses: 50mm and wider 7 lenses: longer than 50mm (of any speed) Finally, that inconvenient truth that many people hate to hear. A camera system is exactly as good as the best pictures ever made with it. For pictures that don't measure up to that standard - look behind the camera for the faulty variable. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 16, 2019 Share #94 Posted January 16, 2019 8 hours ago, jaapv said: Yes - but those best mirrorless camera either are larger, derive their compact size from a short flange distance or are APS, to compensate for the physical dimensions of the EVF and the larger battery required. The M is digitally handicapped by its (for digital) long register distance and heritage form factor (no handgrip to squash electrical stuff in) It would take quite a bit of development and miniaturization to get it in the size class of the M10. I'm sure it can be done, if Leica puts its mind to it, but it will take time and money. Okay, I’ll play (though I think my initial reaction was sufficient). The dimensions of the M10 are already set. There’s no reason for the substitution of the rf mechanism for an evf to affect the register distance (or the sensor, for that matter - the M10 already has live view). The ONLY issue is whether removing the rf gives enough space for the evf. For that, look at the dimensions of the SL, the Q and the CL. I haven’t done the maths, but I expect the volume of the M10 to sit not far below the SL, and above the Q and CL (while acknowledging that the CL is APS-C and the Q doesn’t have the mount, the issue is purely the space left by the rf gubbins ...) As for battery consumption (and heat), I’m sure you’re right, but the batteries for the TL2, CL & Q do seem to cope. Perhaps losing the baseplate, and installing a click-in battery would solve this problem. The M10 battery already powers the 020 EVF. So, would it “take quite a bit of development and miniaturization” to make this work? It’s another straw man argument, Jaap. Leica has all this technology in its existing offerings. If it did do a lot more research and development, so much the better - but I guess that won’t change your longstanding opposition to this concept. So, yes - cobblers to that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 16, 2019 Share #95 Posted January 16, 2019 How may people would buy a Nikon F fitted with an EVF instead of the pentaprism and a full frame sensor, but which could only use manual focus lenses with no connection between body and lens? Actually it wouldn't really be a Nikon F which was an SLR would it. And the modernised equivalent exists. Possible to build, yes. Many sales? - well there would be some no doubt but viably enough - I doubt it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 16, 2019 Share #96 Posted January 16, 2019 26 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: Perhaps losing the baseplate, and installing a click-in battery would solve this problem. That would be tempting. I use a hand-grip on all my Leicas (except the IIIG) anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 16, 2019 Share #97 Posted January 16, 2019 1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said: Okay, I’ll play (though I think my initial reaction was sufficient). The dimensions of the M10 are already set. There’s no reason for the substitution of the rf mechanism for an evf to affect the register distance (or the sensor, for that matter - the M10 already has live view). The ONLY issue is whether removing the rf gives enough space for the evf. For that, look at the dimensions of the SL, the Q and the CL. I haven’t done the maths, but I expect the volume of the M10 to sit not far below the SL, and above the Q and CL (while acknowledging that the CL is APS-C and the Q doesn’t have the mount, the issue is purely the space left by the rf gubbins ...) As for battery consumption (and heat), I’m sure you’re right, but the batteries for the TL2, CL & Q do seem to cope. Perhaps losing the baseplate, and installing a click-in battery would solve this problem. The M10 battery already powers the 020 EVF. So, would it “take quite a bit of development and miniaturization” to make this work? It’s another straw man argument, Jaap. Leica has all this technology in its existing offerings. If it did do a lot more research and development, so much the better - but I guess that won’t change your longstanding opposition to this concept. So, yes - cobblers to that. You are obviously not aware that the release of the M10 was delayed for a year because the developers were struggling with miniaturisation. And no, they don’t have the technology on the shelf. The Q derives it’s size from an integrated sensor-lens unit with an exceedingly short sensor distance, the M10 has an exceedingly specific design, even featuring an unique bent motherboard. Where do you see any opposition with me? I question the wisdom of using an obsolete mount, that is all. Personally I have moved to EVF for 80% of my photography, if not more. I have no horse running in this race.Leica can build this camera with my blessing, but ohne mich. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 16, 2019 Share #98 Posted January 16, 2019 22 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: The ONLY issue is whether removing the rf gives enough space for the evf. Well, not exactly. An EVF is not shaped like the long skinny "gerrymander" space used for the Leica RF/VF. (see lct's pix top of the page, although I'm sure we're all familiar with the layout). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File:The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png With a substantial juggling of the M10 innards (think of those sliding-number games: https://www.amazon.com/Toysmith-TSM1956-Number-Slide-Puzzle/dp/B002LGVYBA ), Leica could collect all that space into one more-efficient "cube", but it would mean moving mostly electronic stuff around, and thus require redesigned ribbon cables or flexible CBs to reconnect all the bits that have moved to new places. https://www.flexiblecircuit.com/product-category/flex-printed/ Now, so long as Leica amortizes all the R&D and "bespoke parts" costs required into strictly the price of the M10-E (and doesn't palm them off onto the prices for our happily-sufficient plain-vanilla M10s), that's OK with me. I look forward to the whines and howls when the EVF crowd find out they will pay $8700 for a CL-grade EVF-M. You want SL-grade? The depth of that finder is about twice the depth of an M body (and the required-quality eyepiece is about twice the diameter of the M10 eyepiece). In theory, Leica could "periscope" that with a right-angle bend down into the body innards, like the Fuji X-Pro 2. https://fujifilm-x.com/global/stories/advanced-hybrid-multi-viewfinder-of-x-pro2-part2/ But it won't be simply transplanting the SL finder. It'll need custom optics (a prism for one), and "special parts" = "special prices." And you'd still need an eyepiece so wide it would require moving at least one of the rear-LCD function buttons - or moving the whole complex - or going to a totally-touch LCD or a smaller LCD. First step in engineering - buy a ruler and measure things. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 16, 2019 Share #99 Posted January 16, 2019 1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said: As for battery consumption (and heat), I’m sure you’re right, but the batteries for the TL2, CL & Q do seem to cope. Perhaps losing the baseplate, and installing a click-in battery would solve this problem. The M10 battery already powers the 020 EVF. In my experience shooting the Q side by side with the M10, so same temps, conditions, the Q battery far outlasts the M10 with EVF enabled. The Q battery is down 100 mAh to the M and, occasionally, moving a lens around as well. Presumably the external finder and holding the shutter open is fairly expensive from a power perspective. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 16, 2019 Share #100 Posted January 16, 2019 18 minutes ago, jaapv said: You are obviously not aware that the release of the M10 was delayed for a year because the developers were struggling with miniaturisation. So? That job has already been done. We’re talking about removing the rf and replacing it with an evf ... Quote And no, they don’t have the technology on the shelf. Now, now, do n’t misquote me. Leica has the evf technology in its existing offerings - that’s not “off the shelf”. Quote The Q derives it’s size from an integrated sensor-lens unit with an exceedingly short sensor distance, the M10 has an exceedingly specific design, even featuring an unique bent motherboard. Where do you see any opposition with me? What does this have to do with anything? I referred to the Q to point out that a good (though not as good as the SL) EVF can fit into a body smaller than the M10. What has the sensor lens design got to do with it? Quote I question the wisdom of using an obsolete mount, that is all. Personally I have moved to EVF for 80% of my photography, if not more. I have no horse running in this race.Leica can build this camera with my blessing, but ohne mich. I’m sure Leica is relieved to have your blessing, Jaap. As for the obsolete mount, I couldn’t agree more. But Leica is committed to this mount - they’ve been saying this for decades. So, let’s take the mount as a given, along with the popularity and continued development of lenses using that mount, and the cameras, for that matter. That gets us to the focusing mechanism, which is what this thread is about, No? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.