M8 official orders

[uulrich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looks like the little wheel inside the bottom plate.

[adan]

1. Interesting about the black/silver choice - generally I would be happy with black, but if the choice is available....hmmm. Which would allow me to 'hide in plain sight' better? - discrete subtle black, or "non-serious, amateur, old-fashioned camera" chrome? Guess my dealer will be putting me to the question soon - I'd better have an answer.

 

2. Oh, dear, Mark. Do I have to haul up the diagram of the Leica RF/VF again to show that there is no way it can contain variable-magnification optics?

 

Leica sells one viewfinder magnification - .72x - unless you want to special-order via 'a la carte'. We will get .72x in the M8 as well, with frames (appropriately reduced in area for the crop factor) to work with 28-90mm lenses (fields of view 36-120mm).

 

MAYBE you'll get your 21-as-"28" frames, although I'll bet any Leica M lenscap you choose against it. I'm not against the idea (I own a 21) - I just don't think Leica's going to go there.

 

3. Leica sales reps in the U.S. are having their annual meeting this week - I understand they will have operational M8s to work with, as well as the other new stuff (Leica D 4/3rds, D-Lux/C-Lux upgrades, any lenses, etc.) due for release at PhotoKina. So, yes, more info is likely to start 'leaking'. I myself will not be able to confirm or deny, since I don't want to - irritate - my reps. After all, they could always lose my M8 order somewhere in retaliation.

 

=8^o

[lct]

...Oh, dear, Mark. Do I have to haul up the diagram of the Leica RF/VF again to show that there is no way it can contain variable-magnification optics?...

Was it the diagram showing that a magnifier should be put behind the RF window as well?

If so, would you mind to explain why i don't need such a magnifier when i use my 1.25x loupe, Andy?

[stunsworth]

2. Oh, dear, Mark. Do I have to haul up the diagram of the Leica RF/VF again to show that there is no way it can contain variable-magnification optics?

 

Who say's it's got to be the same viewfinder?

 

The existing viewfinder becomes a variable magnification viewfinder by the user screwing a small lens behind the eyepiece. What if something similar is done internally?

 

Not long to go before we know.

[Guest flatfour]

It might be interesting to know if the theft of film cameras has declined. If the M8 looks much like any other M perhaps the camera snatchers won't realise it's digital.

[adan]

Stun:

 

Because there IS NO 'internally' in the viewfinder part of the Leica RF/VF - it is solid glass from front to back (with a diagonal slice through the middle where the front and back halves are cemented together and semi-silvered to reflect the RF/frameline images).

 

Internally, it can be any fixed magnification one wants (within reason) but there is no space to slide in, or zoom around, a piece of glass to make it internally variable.

 

Externally one can put on an eyepiece, or lens goggles. Internally - nada. (Unless you know of a way to significantly change the optical properties of glass by running a current through it or some such.)

 

Maybe Leica will put on a swinging goggle in front and a swinging magnifier in the rear (externally) - My, that would be compact and "M"-like. Do you really think so?

 

The Contax G (along with a host of P&S cameras) had a variable-magnification viewfinder. But none of those zoom finders allow manual split-image focusing. Canon made a few SM RFs where one could rotate a prism and get an RF - OR a 50mm view - OR a 35mm view - but only one at a time.

 

Among other things - even if there was room to zoom things around - there would have to be a corresponding zoom system in the optics that feed in the secondary RF image. otherwise one would be trying to align images of two different sizes (??). And the alignment/magnification of both zooms would have to be exactly matched and stay exactly matched throughout the zoom range - or the precision would drop to the point that it could focus nothing longer than a 28.

 

The Leica M viewfinder optics have not changed significantly since the M2. It is the heart and soul of the M line (M for "Messsucher" - "Measuring Finder"). The M8 will have the same viewfinder - or else it will be a Porsche with a wind-up motor.

 

Here's the RF/VF diagram again (small, since the original is no longer on Leica's redesigned website): All that blue on the left is glass - solid from the eyepiece to the front window.

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!

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Couple of other points:

 

LCT - yes, one can always add the rear 1.25x magnifier. and add 5mm to the thickness of the viewfinder - and lose the wide-angle framelines (not visible). If you think Leica is actually going to build that 5mm extra thickness into the M8 body - place your bet. I need a 39mm slip-on cap and a 49mm snap-on for my older 28.

 

8^)

 

Consider the following - the M8 viewfinder (by Leica's own promise) will be compatible with a host of existing viewfinder accesories - which will mean all the goggled lenses: the current 90 macro, the 135 f/2.8 (specifically upgradable to the zebra-codes, per Leica's own list), the various goggled 35s, the DR Summicrons.

 

So the baseline cannot change. The position of the RF/VF windows relative to the lens mount (side to side and front to back) cannot change. The front-to-back depth of the VF cannot change by more than the "3mm" increase in body depth already reported. That pretty much nails down the dimensions of the VF - to exactly the same as the one in the film cameras.

[marknorton]

Seems to me then that they will have chosen an optimised viewfinder magnification for 28 - 90, have done away with different magnifications for the camera to make manufacturing life easier, a new aux finder to handle everything shorter than 28 and the magnifier to make life easier for 90 and 135 users.

 

I can see the logic, but the slavish adherence to supporting all this old iron means they have missed a trick - to update the finder concept to suit the lenses they sell now. As it is, the finder will support barely half the focal lengths available.

 

BTW, Andy, I've never advocated a zoom finder, just two settings, wide-normal and normal-tele would be fine.

[marknorton]

(Does actually make you wonder why they are being so secretive about the appearance of the camera. Given the constraints of the mount and windows positions, the near M7 dimensions and the sort of rear panel which was on Andy's mock-up, that pretty much sets it in concrete. I just cling to the hope that was I saw in Solms last year with its big rangefinder windows was really an M8 and that Leica may yet surprise us!)

[lct]

...Andy, I've never advocated a zoom finder, just two settings, wide-normal and normal-tele would be fine.

Neither did I.

Andy, you seem to take for granted that the M8 will have a .72x magnification.

The problem is a 75/1.4 or a 90/2 lens cannot be focussed at full aperture with such a magnification given the reduction in size of the circle of confusion due to the crop factor.

I have calculated that the magnification factor should be at least .78x (dont remember the post sorry) and it is a minimum.

So with say a .80x magnification, how do you manage to fit 21mm frame lines (28mm FoV) in the viewfinder?

Hence Mark's question which remain unanswered so far AFAIK.

[wattsy]

I can see the logic, but the slavish adherence to supporting all this old iron means they have missed a trick - to update the finder concept to suit the lenses they sell now. As it is, the finder will support barely half the focal lengths available.

 

I can't agree with you Mark. As Andy pointed out earlier, the M viewfinder is at the very heart of the system, and Leica should tinker with it at their peril. My own guess is that the viewfinder will actually be the same as a current 0.85x finder with crop adjusted framelines between 37-120 (therefore offering frames for current lenses in the 28-90 range). As I no longer shoot wider than 35 on my current M bodies (but have a 28 cron left over from when I experimented with a wider perspective), this will suit me very nicely indeed.

[adan]

"So with say a .80x magnification, how do you manage to fit 21mm frame lines (28mm FoV) in the viewfinder?"

 

LCT - I don't.

 

I believe Leica is going back to the FoVs available in-camera from 1960-1980 in the M2/M4/M5/M4-2 - "36" to "almost 135". I've always found the 28 lines in a Leica finder (except the .58x) to be marginally visible anyway, even at .72x.

 

With film, one used an accessory viewfinder for 21/24 lenses - with the M8, these focal lengths will (IMHO) still require accessory viewfinders, even with a cropped FoV.

 

Mark's the one who has ardently hoped for internal framelines for the 21mm.

 

As to focusing accuracy - I'm sure your figures are correct (but maybe Leica isn't using the same figures?) I've personally found focusing the 75 1.4 and 90 2.0 to be marginal even on film, which is why I've never used the 75 lux and traded my 90 cron for a 75 f/2.

 

I don't take .72x for granted - it's one of those things, as Stun points out, that will be a mystery until Pkina. Along with Mark's 21 framelines.

 

But -

 

THE Leica M viewfinder from 1960 to 1995 was .72x - no options. 35-135 FoV for more than half that time. .72x is the only magnification available as 'standard' even now - since the wide and tele versions are special-order only via "a la carte".

 

My gut tells me the FoV will be identical across all "standard" Leica M cameras - MP/M7/M8.

 

But - (version 2.0)

 

I guess I could see a 'flipable' lever-operated built-in magnifier lens (like the eyepiece curtain in an R8/9). I'm not sure I'd like it, because even with the magnifying lens out of the way, it would likely make the viewfinder too "tunnel-vision" and add too much depth to the eyepiece and camera overall (like the Digilux 2's protruding rubber block). But could be.

[adan]

And not to pile on Mark, but "As it is, the finder will support barely half the focal lengths available."

 

True - exactly the same number (5) as the .58x/.85x finders. Heck, the M2 and M3 only supported 3 focal-lengths each.

 

45 days to go...

[jrc]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but when people are talking about these lenses, are we talking only in the default (actual 35mm) lengths? It seems to me that a viewfinder will have to accept at least 21 mm lenses, because with the crop factor, that's going to be the "new" 28. Or perhaps they'll only go to 24, which at an effective 32, will be the "new" 35. And they have said that the 135 won't be supported, so that's out...and the 90 will only be 120, so perhaps they won't need an .85. My personal feeling is that they'll focus on the wide end; and this isn't based on my need for wide, since I have both wide and long lenses -- but the photography that distinghishes Leica tends to be on the wide side...the territory covered, say, by the Tri-Elmar. Is there any reason that they couldn't build a .58 and then simultaneously produce a new screw-in eye-piece a little stronger than 1.25 to cover the long end?

 

Also, there have been hints on a number of forums that the camera is really good, and that there are some surprisingly innovative things about it. Since about the only thing they could really innovate, that we don't know about, is the rangefinder, I expect this is where surprising innovation will be found...I mean, they can't be talking about super-special micro-lenses for the sensor as their big innovations, because, bottom line, few people care how the sensor works as long as it does.

 

I go for rangefinder changes. Nothing that'll make the camera unrecognizable, but something that'll make it more flexible than some of the above posts assume.

 

JC

[lct]

...I believe Leica is going back to the FoVs available in-camera from 1960-1980...

So the M8 would be inferior to the M4-P sort of.

Also digital would be inferior to analogue and Leica inferior to Zeiss with their longer RF base allowing lower VF magnifications.

Hardly a quantum leap isn't it.

Now frankly, Andy, do you imagine PJ's condemned to use an accessory finder or your flippable magnifier to shoot mere 28mm FoV pics?

[marknorton]

It's pointless speculating of course because of this is long since set in stone. A comparative review of rangefinders in Amateur Photographer emphasises that the perception of a rangefinder is largely governed by what you see in the viewfinder. It's the Unique Selling Point, the key product differentiator from what else is on the market.

 

You can imagine the brainstorming which took place when the M8 was specc'ed out, unfortunately probably influenced at that time by a tight budget. On the one hand, you would have the reformists, the modernisers. On the other, the traditionalists.

 

The easy solution would have been to migrate the M7 finder, modified only where necessary for the M8 ("The M8 is an evolution of the M7, why were you expecting something different?"). The best solution is to update the rangefinder using modern design techniques and materials to make it the best on the market. That same AP review describes the M7 finder as "... a measly view. The window feels small and stuffy, like a dusty skylight in a basement flat (apartment for US viewers)".

 

I hope JC is correct. The camera is said to be surprisingly innovative. Let's hope this is the area where some bright young engineers have been given a clean sheet. And if, in the finish, it doesn't support some widget from the 1960s, I for one will not complain.

[lct]

...Let's hope this is the area where some bright young engineers have been given a clean sheet...

Young or old engineers specialised in laser rangefinders perhaps....

 

[wparsonsgisnet]

Per Mark's point about the existing viewfinder,

 

I understand that the physical operation of the viewfinder will remain the same.

However, if a 28mm lens will become a 35mm effectively, I would expect that the framing masks would render a 35 mask for a true-28mm lens and so on.

 

Am I missing something? Isn't it simply a matter of changing the masks?

 

In so, the M8 would "see" the cam on the 28mm lens as "belonging" to a 35mm lens.

 

Bill

[Goldie]

Well Mark with regards to the viewfinder we are clueless as to what's in the top hat, and like all good magicians Leica is keeping us on the edge of our seats. Its either going to be a tweaked M7 finder or something we hadn't considered. But perhaps the total silence is because it is something really novel and they don't want to spoil the party.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

... the M8 would "see" the cam on the 28mm lens as "belonging" to a 35mm lens...

The M8 will see the cam on the 28mm lens as belonging to a 28mm lens and will bring out "28mm" frame lines which will show you a 28*1.33 = 37.24mm field of view.