pico Posted January 17, 2019 Share #121 Posted January 17, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 17 minutes ago, Dirk Mandeville said: What bothers me is the disadvantages of the mechanical rangefinder focusing mechanism. So why hang around here except to whine. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 Hi pico, 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!
mdemeyer Posted January 17, 2019 Share #122 Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) The biggest disadvantages I see with EVFs are: - can be difficult to focus quickly with wide/slow lenses (assuming manual focus) - I always have difficulty with them in bright outdoor conditions, especially with sunglasses Otherwise they have merit in many circumstances, but I do prefer the OVF/RF for use with lenses in the range for which it is well suited. Edited January 17, 2019 by mdemeyer 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 17, 2019 Share #123 Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, pico said: Yes, John, however would it be terrible if Leica chose to maintain a traditional M and offer alternatives? I admit I see a profound difference of the M from Leicas alternatives. Someone inform me. Not at all - it’s what I’ve been saying, really. I like the M cameras I have, with the ovf ... Quote So why hang around here except to whine. Come now, Pico, that’s more than a little harsh. Edited January 17, 2019 by IkarusJohn Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted January 17, 2019 Share #124 Posted January 17, 2019 6 hours ago, adan said: 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. Did you just imply that Leica M users shouldn’t be using the 50 Noctilux, the 75 Noctilux, the 85 Summarex, or any of the 90’s or 135’s Leica has produced for this mount? Simply because they are “grossly out of proportion to an M body”? Wow! I don’t even know how to respond to that except with sarcasm, so I’ll just leave it alone. Except to say that it seems like you are trying to apply your own personal prejudices to the entire population of Leica photographers. As for the “go to a museum” comment, I don’t shoot photos hoping they will be in a museum someday. I suggest you take a look through the photo galleries on this very forum. There are quite a few amazing photos that feature “something sharp” and “a lot of blur.” There are also a lot of great wide angle landscapes with unlimited depth of field. Gee, it’s almost as if this camera system can do both of those things (and much more). And either style can produce an iconic photo, depending on the skill and vision of the photographer. Personally, I can hit focus with the evf as fast as I can with the rangefinder. I just find that I actually nail the focus dead-on with the evf a lot more reliably than with the rangefinder, particularly in difficult circumstances. And as yet, I haven’t had to send the evf/lenses back to Leica for a few months for calibration. How nice. Your last comment is a complete straw man, wrapped in a pretentious statement. You can make amazing photos with a 8x10 film pinhole camera. That doesn’t make it a good camera to carry around for everyday use. The digital M is a great camera system. I just want it to get out of the way and enable me to easily take the best photos I can take. I see the rangefinder focusing mechanism as an impediment to that, when compared with a quality evf-based focusing system. I understand you may feel differently about that. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted January 17, 2019 Share #125 Posted January 17, 2019 29 minutes ago, pico said: So why hang around here except to whine. Did you notice the topic of the thread? Is this not a forum for discussion? I notice your own posts have added so much to the discussion. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 17, 2019 Share #126 Posted January 17, 2019 2 hours ago, jaapv said: ... Re Q : The compact design of the lens-sensor unit made it possible to fit an EVF into the smallish body. As I said. Yep, you said that. So what? Are you saying there’s no room in an M body (without the rf) for a EVF? I think you’re making things up again, Jaap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 17, 2019 Share #127 Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 2 hours ago, jaapv said: Let's return to the speculations about the lens mount of a hypothetical VF-M. There is a very strong parallel in history. Coming out of bad times, Leica introduced a revolutionary camera, sporting an integrated rangefinder/viewfinder and on top of that a new M mount. As an aside, the camera was considerably bulkier as well. Old lenses could be mounted through an adapter. Worried that LTM users would not take to the new lens mount, they built a model with a RF/VF and the old screw mount - the iiig. It was quietly phased out in a couple of years for lack of buyer interest... Now one can argue that the LTM-M adapter does not lose functionality, as opposed to the L-M adapter (i.e.Auto-magnification) That is a spurious argument. Either Leica deems the feature marginal* or they could introduce the feature in an L-mount camera, either through a transponder in the adapter, or by sensor based focus change detection. *Personally I prefer control by the thumb wheel over automatics, and I'm not alone. So then is the M-Mount dead, because Leica is once again saying that going forward means an adapter? It pretty darn simple for me. I buy systems for the glass. Call me fickle but when I spend multiple thousands on an optic, I insist it be mounted natively. And when I buy a body for just as many thousands, I want that body to be the best obtainable when working in concert with them. I want my micro lenses, processing, and minimalist UI, no video buttons, no joy sticks or worthless menus to traverse. But what I am most emphatic about is not having to fumble around in my bag in the field dealing with L lens and M lenses and an adapter. I'm not of a mind to spend $400 per M lens to avoid that hassle in the field of the mandatory juggling if I want to switch between multiple M and L optics. Its completely unacceptable at this price point. Make no mistake, where the SL failed with me for all sorts of reasons, recent developments around the L-mount are indeed calling. The body may have left me cold, but optics are spectacular. If, in the end, I'm unable to resist the siren's call, there will be no further Ms in my future. Simple economics and martial survival dictate that. I'll be force to sell the M10 and all glass, hide the 35 and 75 Sluxes/M240 in some dark corner of the house for those moments when only an RF will do (and the wife isnt paying attention). Ie. the L-Mount will have cannibalized all my future M purchases. OTOH, if a native EVF-M appears, the economics and ergonomics of till death do us part will likely carry the day. This isn't speculation. It is the reality for me going forward and a frankly a decision point that is looming in the next year or so. Edited January 17, 2019 by Tailwagger 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raizans Posted January 17, 2019 Share #128 Posted January 17, 2019 11 hours ago, adan said: 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. Portraits being the major and substantial exception! A lot of still life and landscape photos are also taken with telephotos, but stopped down more. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 17, 2019 Share #129 Posted January 17, 2019 7 hours ago, Tailwagger said: As for making sense, how about to take market share from Sony and Fuji? Whose users, I was one of them four years ago, mount a Leica optic and realize that the glass they've been buying is garbage. Folks who have a very different opinion on the value of EVF than traditionalists. Well, price is a consideration and as a Sony A7 series user myself, I can't see the mass move from Sony/Fuji to Leica given the price of lenses, bodies and dare I say it, the marginal improvement in image quality due to using M optics (some Sony/Zeiss offerings are good if bulky/idiosyncratic/subject to QC issues)? Add to this that an EVF 'M' would be an expensive manual focus only body and I doubt any significant shift of market share - unless Leica produced a substantially (as in 20% of current Ms) cheaper body, and even then it would have low specification. If Leica do decide that an EVF 'M' is commercially viable and if the price is sufficiently low I can actually see some uses for it (mostly for technical work - much like the rangefinderless film M cameras), but I'm doubtful of its commercial viability, because its price is unlikely to be low enough and consequently it will never sell in substantial numbers. There is no doubt that some would sell but given that it would require considerable development the real question is whether enough would at a viable price to make it profitable - which it needs to be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 17, 2019 Share #130 Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, raizans said: A lot of still life and landscape photos are also taken with telephotos, but stopped down more. Telephotos required considerable development to make them viable and longer lenses were relatively late in matching the optical quality of short telephotos, standard and medium wides. Likewise ultra wides. So the historic photographic record probably had far fewer long lens images because far fewer were taken. My guess is that it was the latter half of the 20th century which really saw progress in telephoto optics and then they were expensive. In real terms long lenses are probably cheaper today than ever before but still relatively expensive in terms of the prices of photographic lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 17, 2019 Share #131 Posted January 17, 2019 7 hours ago, Tailwagger said: So then is the M-Mount dead, because Leica is once again saying that going forward means an adapter? It pretty darn simple for me. I buy systems for the glass. Call me fickle but when I spend multiple thousands on an optic, I insist it be mounted natively. And when I buy a body for just as many thousands, I want that body to be the best obtainable when working in concert with them. I want my micro lenses, processing, and minimalist UI, no video buttons, no joy sticks or worthless menus to traverse. But what I am most emphatic about is not having to fumble around in my bag in the field dealing with L lens and M lenses and an adapter. I'm not of a mind to spend $400 per M lens to avoid that hassle in the field of the mandatory juggling if I want to switch between multiple M and L optics. Its completely unacceptable at this price point. Make no mistake, where the SL failed with me for all sorts of reasons, recent developments around the L-mount are indeed calling. The body may have left me cold, but optics are spectacular. If, in the end, I'm unable to resist the siren's call, there will be no further Ms in my future. Simple economics and martial survival dictate that. I'll be force to sell the M10 and all glass, hide the 35 and 75 Sluxes/M240 in some dark corner of the house for those moments when only an RF will do (and the wife isnt paying attention). Ie. the L-Mount will have cannibalized all my future M purchases. OTOH, if a native EVF-M appears, the economics and ergonomics of till death do us part will likely carry the day. This isn't speculation. It is the reality for me going forward and a frankly a decision point that is looming in the next year or so. Would you really go buying an adapter for each lens? Just mount it on the camera. Use Superglue, Leica branded and there you have your native M EVF. If you decide for L lenses in the end you’ ll have to get rid of your M system anyway. Come to think of it, Leica could produce an M-like L-mount EFV camera and add a version with a factory-fitted M, not user-removable mount-modifier to cater for the Pure-M market. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZach Posted January 17, 2019 Share #132 Posted January 17, 2019 Rather than a ”EVF M” would be much happier with a ”FF CL”. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 17, 2019 Share #133 Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, pico said: So why hang around here except to whine. No problem a M with EVF is coming and we are very happy .. cheers 🙂 Edited January 17, 2019 by siangue 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 17, 2019 Share #134 Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, jaapv said: Would you really go buying an adapter for each lens? Just mount it on the camera. Use Superglue, Leica branded and there you have your native M EVF. If you decide for L lenses in the end you’ ll have to get rid of your M system anyway. Come to think of it, Leica could produce an M-like L-mount EFV camera and add a version with a factory-fitted M, not user-removable mount-modifier to cater for the Pure-M market. We do not want our M lenses with an adapter , we want a normal M with an EVF instead of RF ... that's all there is nothing interesting in L line, SL lenses sucks Edited January 17, 2019 by siangue 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 17, 2019 Share #135 Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, siangue said: We do not want our M lenses with an adapter , we want a normal M with an EVF instead of RF ... that's all Indeed and there is no such thing as an adapter with auto image magnification. Never seen that in this part of the Galaxy so far. Now even if this kind of UFO could be made at a less than stratospheric price, why would M users need an adapter to put their M lenses on an M body? Also why would L users purchase a manual body to use their AF lenses? Doesn't make sense with respect. AF users should find three new full frame cameras with L mount very soon, the Leica SL2 and the Panasonic S1 and S1R. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 17, 2019 Share #136 Posted January 17, 2019 21 minutes ago, siangue said: No problem a M with EVF is coming and we are very happy .. cheers 🙂 Well, it's a gentlemen's bet. Guinness okay? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 17, 2019 Share #137 Posted January 17, 2019 2 hours ago, lct said: Indeed and there is no such thing as an adapter with auto image magnification. Never seen that in this part of the Galaxy so far. Now even if this kind of UFO could be made at a less than stratospheric price, why would M users need an adapter to put their M lenses on an M body? Also why would L users purchase a manual body to use their AF lenses? Doesn't make sense with respect. AF users should find three new full frame cameras with L mount very soon, the Leica SL2 and the Panasonic S1 and S1R. Indeed, but the magnification on the adapter is just a matter of implementing - all the technology is there; it might well be that the M and SL lines will grow together - Smaller, more traditional SL, hypothetical M-EVF. Leica could possibly bring out the body in two different mounts... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted January 17, 2019 Share #138 Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 22 hours ago, IkarusJohn said: Transplanting? No, it would never be that simple. Development? Sure, but that is what Leica does. Note the reference to Leica having already developed a hybrid EVF/RF. I don’t have Jaap’s keen insider knowledge, but I expect Leica is almost continuallt producing prototypes of all its cameras - the development of the M11 would have started with the release of the M10 for production, as will have the SL2 and the Q2 ... Hello John, It is more likely that the development of the M11 was already underway at the time of the launch of the M9. Best Regards, Michael Edited January 17, 2019 by Michael Geschlecht Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 17, 2019 Share #139 Posted January 17, 2019 Oh boy - comparison SL with L-M adapter permanently mounted and M camera with built in EVF. Which is more attractive to M lens owners, I wonder? The SL is a great universal platform, but if you like your M lenses and cameras, and want a built in EVF, that is no solution. Is Leica really going to consign the M system permanently to just tge OVF? I’d be very surprised. An EVF based M is a small investment for the future of the M system. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 17, 2019 Share #140 Posted January 17, 2019 43 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said: Hello John, It is more likely that the development of the M11 was already underway at the time of the launch of the M9. Best Regards, Michael Hi Michael, While I have no doubt Leica has a reasonably fluid road map for the possible future development of all its cameras, I think this is very unlikely. Development of the SL started when the M(240) was released. If you consider the dead end that camera (the M(240)) turned out to be, and the volte face the M10 represented, my guess is planning for the M11 will only have become firm (rejecting some prototypes) once the M10 cleared the decks. Once the M10 was in production, prototypes of the M10-P, M10-D and Monochrom versions would need to be finalised and the Zagato special edition. It’s a small team. Furthermore, technically, what could Leica have been planning for the M11 in 2009? Your guess is as good as mine, but if Leica knew what the M11 was going to be like back then, let alone the M10, why did they make the M(240)? John 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.