They Say Future M Might Be Able To Switch Between RF and EVF

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

AFAIK the lead time from first flipover to release at Leica is about four years, the M10 took a year longer.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

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. 

Yep - the SL2 will indicate in which direction Leica will take the SL series. Will they stick with the current Leicaflex style, go more in the direction of the R4 (I would like that) or evolve towards an M shape? I was referring to the last scenario. Of course they could do something unexpected, but the hints by Dr. Kaufmann do not point that way.

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

11 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.

Yes, because I'll only need two of them, everything else will be sold.  You might think it illogical, but I've thought long and hard about this ever since the SL arrived. I bought an M10 instead. From where I'm coming from, buying a camera whose native mount is anything other than an M, means I am switching systems. If its an L mount, why going forward would I buy a WATE over the 16-35L?  Or a 90mm Summicron M over the L version?  So that I could use them in conjunction with an RF as well?  No. Its a Pandora's box which once opened makes it inevitable that I'm transitioning from M to L.

But, as you suggest, if a miniSL-M appeared, with muy MPs, removed the excess buttons, altered the firmware to avoid unnecessary menus, and kept the cost, weight and size reasonable, then, as I keep trying to say, the cost of changing systems, the wider range of interesting optics,  would undoubtedly keep me in the fold.  I might, *might*, even accept the loss of the M specific micro-lensing depending.  Yeah, I'd dream a bit about owning that 90L, but I could resist. An 24MP OVF M for street, a 47MP EVF M for landscape. Works for me. 

[cirke]

On 1/17/2019 at 3:05 PM, pico said:

Well, it's a gentlemen's bet. Guinness okay?

 

Guinness ? no !  a perfect Dunkel Hefeweizen from Germany,  best beer in the world

[M11 for me]

And you can even photograph that beer with you Leica M10.

[Michael Geschlecht]

On 1/17/2019 at 3:24 PM, IkarusJohn said:

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

Hello John,

Supposition & retrospective analysis aside, many projects, like a new camera body, go thru an extensive development & analysis over a long time period before they are introduced. Or are discarded. 

Where did you get the information that: "Development of the SL started when the 240 was released."?

Also: Your: "my guess is planning for the M11 will only have become firm (rejecting some prototypes) once the M10 cleared the decks" :

Presupposes the existence of this planning & prototypes: Previous to the introduction of the M10. That is: Going back to at least the time period of the M240.

Which is what I was writing about.

I simply said that the development of subsequent models as replacements for current models sometimes begins a number of generations before the replacement of the current generation. This is common in many fields. Not only in photography.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited January 18, 2019 by Michael Geschlecht

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, siangue said:

Guinness ? no !  a perfect Dunkel Hefeweizen from Germany,  best beer in the world

Oh, that complicates our agreement! I am said to say that I have never experienced the brew. 😪

[howiebrou]

Suggestion to Leica. Produce a limited run (say 500) of a M11-EVF with RF and a SL EVF built in or just EVF if that is not possible. Best guess it will be sold out in 5 minutes flat.

[Sandokan]

On 1/13/2019 at 9:55 PM, AKW said:

...  Why are you insisting to have a pure EVF-camera with an M-mount?

Who is insisting on this? 

 

[Dirk Mandeville]

There is another thread on the forum currently from someone who recently purchased a used Noctlux f/0.95. It back focuses on his M10, although his other lenses, including an older Noctilux, are perfectly calibrated with it. So his only options to effectively use this expensive lens are to use it with the clunky external evf, or to send it back to Leica to be recalibrated, costing him probably months of time without his newly-purchased lens, as well as a few hundred dollars on top of the purchase of an already expensive lens. Time and expense I’m sure he didn’t expect when he purchased the lens. 

All of this would be a non-existent issue with an M10 that had a high quality internal evf instead of a mechanical rangefinder. Just sayin’....

For the record, I don’t believe anyone is advocating Leica to do away with the rangefinder entirely. We are simply asking for an alternate version of the M camera that substitutes a quality internal evf for the outdated rangefinder mechanism. Although I have said that I believe in 20 years the evf model will be the standard and the rangefinder will be the niche model, much like digital M10’s now widely outsell the film models.  Time marches on and technology and user base evolve over time, despite the protestations of those wedded to older technology. 

[cirke]

Why would Leica have made a 75 Noctilux in M mount unusable with an RF? Certainly because they already had an M with EVF  on the way 

 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

There is another thread on the forum currently from someone who recently purchased a used Noctlux f/0.95. It back focuses on his M10, although his other lenses, including an older Noctilux, are perfectly calibrated with it. So his only options to effectively use this expensive lens are to use it with the clunky external evf, or to send it back to Leica to be recalibrated, costing him probably months of time without his newly-purchased lens, as well as a few hundred dollars on top of the purchase of an already expensive lens. Time and expense I’m sure he didn’t expect when he purchased the lens. 

All of this would be a non-existent issue with an M10 that had a high quality internal evf instead of a mechanical rangefinder. Just sayin’....

For the record, I don’t believe anyone is advocating Leica to do away with the rangefinder entirely. We are simply asking for an alternate version of the M camera that substitutes a quality internal evf for the outdated rangefinder mechanism. Although I have said that I believe in 20 years the evf model will be the standard and the rangefinder will be the niche model, much like digital M10’s now widely outsell the film models.  Time marches on and technology and user base evolve over time, despite the protestations of those wedded to older technology. 

This is silly. It doesn't take months and hundreds of dollars to calibrate a lens. The only problem might be the spare part supply, as these lenses - and their parts- are made in batches. The thing to do is contact Leica CS Wetzlar and have them call the lens in  as soon as they can do it in a fast turnaround. The bill might surprise him.

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, siangue said:

Why would Leica have made a 75 Noctilux in M mount unusable with an RF? Certainly because they already had an M with EVF  on the way 

 

Well, they didn't... 🙄

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

..... those wedded to older technology. 

The reason for using RF is not because its older technology but because many of us like using it. Inferring that we are wedded to older technology is an assumption which suggests that we are simply into old technology which is incorrect. I use EVF, SLR, View and RF cameras so I'm using both modern and older systems. Please don't state assumptions as though they are facts.

Edited January 19, 2019 by pgk

[lct]

1 hour ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

[...] For the record, I don’t believe anyone is advocating Leica to do away with the rangefinder entirely. We are simply asking for an alternate version of the M camera that substitutes a quality internal evf for the outdated rangefinder mechanism. Although I have said that I believe in 20 years the evf model will be the standard and the rangefinder will be the niche model, much like digital M10’s now widely outsell the film models.  Time marches on and technology and user base evolve over time, despite the protestations of those wedded to older technology. 

I would agree if you omitted the words "outdated RF". An RF is an RF. It is not outdated, it is. As you said exactly, some of us are simply asking for an alternate version of the M camera that substitutes an EVF for the RF. But we may wish to use both cameras as well. The RF cannot be as accurate as the EVF on high magnifications but focusing with the RF is faster when nailing focus is not requested, especially if the EVF is not helped by auto image magnification. 

[evikne]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

This is silly. It doesn't take months and hundreds of dollars to calibrate a lens.

I purchased a used 75mm Summilux in November 2017. It was badly back focusing, so I sent it to service two weeks later. I got it back in March 2018, still back focusing. The bill was 270 USD. Then I sent it back three more times until the focus was perfect in November 2018, one year after the purchase. I didn't pay for the three last repairs, but I was nearly giving up this lens (I'm glad I didn't however). 

[Dirk Mandeville]

54 minutes ago, pgk said:

The reason for using RF is not because its older technology but because many of us like using it. Inferring that we are wedded to older technology is an assumption which suggests that we are simply into old technology which is incorrect. I use EVF, SLR, View and RF cameras so I'm using both modern and older systems. Please don't state assumptions as though they are facts.

 

35 minutes ago, lct said:

I would agree if you omitted the words "outdated RF". An RF is an RF. It is not outdated, it is. As you said exactly, some of us are simply asking for an alternate version of the M camera that substitutes an EVF for the RF. But we may wish to use both cameras as well. The RF cannot be as accurate as the EVF on high magnifications but focusing with the RF is faster when nailing focus is not requested, especially if the EVF is not helped by auto image magnification. 

I agree with both of you, actually. I think you are misinterpreting my words a bit and that is probably my fault for not being clearer. I understand the reasons some (most?) Leica users prefer the RF.  I understand it is not simply because it’s older technology, for most anyway. However, I don’t think there is any dispute that it is older technology, nor that many on this forum do seem to be wedded to it (for their own reasons — simplicity, ease of use, speed, familiarity, etc. — and yes, even nostalgia.).  There are some who have expressed disdain for evf and absolute preference for the rf because they see the rf as the “essence” of the M camera.  I would counter that viewpoint by saying that at one time part of the “essence” of the M camera included the notion that it was a film camera.  That notion was shattered with the advent of the M8 and is now, I expect, a minority view.  

Many of the people commenting in this thread have been quite harsh on the idea of an evf-only Leica M, saying it will never happen, they don’t want to see one produced, it goes against the M ethos, etc., and often castigating those of us who would like to have one (in one particular post calling me a whiner, for expressing such sacrilegious views). Given that no one is proposing Leica should banish the rf from all M’s, I fail to understand why the notion of having an evf-M model too provokes such vitriol. 

As for the “outdated technology” comment, let me explain. I don’t think rangefinding as a means of focusing is necessarily outdated. I do think Leica’s implementation of it with a mechanical module is outdated. I think an electronic rangefinder could be developed that would minimize or eliminate the disadvantages of the current system while maintaining and even enhancing the advantages inherent in rangefinder focusing. I would gladly purchase such a camera. As it is, I don’t expect to purchase another M camera without either an internal evf or electronic rangefinder. I’ll keep my M10 and kludgy visoflex. My next Leica purchase will probably be a Q or Q2 as a companion to the M10. 

[jaapv]

Welcome to the club. I experienced the same when I liked Video on the M240...

[Dirk Mandeville]

23 minutes ago, evikne said:

I purchased a used 75mm Summilux in November 2017. It was badly back focusing, so I sent it to service two weeks later. I got it back in March 2018, still back focusing. The bill was 270 USD. Then I sent it back three more times until the focus was perfect in November 2018, one year after the purchase. I didn't pay for the three last repairs. 

Thank you for this. I think these types of stories are way more common than some would like to admit. Who wants to spend close to ten thousand dollars for a camera and lens and then put up with this?  It’s really crazy that this is just accepted as part of the cost of owning an M. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dirk Mandeville]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Welcome to the club. I experienced the same when I liked Video on the M240...

Lol, jaap. And I was one of the ones applauding them for removing the video for the M10. 😂

I guess what comes around, goes around. We all have our preferences, and Lord knows we are a stubborn and opionated bunch.