Alternative Leica M camera concept

[chrismuc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica M cameras have one advantage (for people who cherish this feature): due to the rangefinder concept, one can see not only the motive but also the surrounding area.

But the rangefinder concept has several severe drawbacks:

- due to mechanical restrictions (production tolerances of rangefinder mechanism in camera and lens plus usage caused increased tolerance) and concept restriction (rangefinder focussing does work less accurate for longer focal lengths) the focussing accuracy is limited and is basically unsufficient for fast lenses

- only central point focussing possible

- fast, large lenses cover a rather big part of the viewfinder

- the rangefinder focussing concept is limited to lenses of about 28 to 75 mm

 

The back side TFT since using CMOS sensors in M cameras allows real focussing. But holding the M like a smartphone is not an appropriate solution to use a M camera. The external EVF is useful but ugly and lacks resolution and refresh rate.

 

What could be a solution for a future camera in M dimension but with improved focussing capability for (fast) M lenses of any focal length?

 

Probably a concept synthesis of Leica M and Leica Q.

 

Means: Take a Leica M, skip the rangefinder viewfinder mechanism and replace it with the latest 5.76 MP EVF and quick electronics ... plus the 47 MP Leica Q/ Panasonic sensor.

IMO a wonderful camera that combines the classic, compact M camera design and the usage of all M lenses with contemporary requirements of accurate focussing via a high res EVF with short lag and quick refresh rate, with focus points all over the sensor (in order to be finally able to focus through the camera on an out-of-center eye of a person with an M), and the only way to focus accurately with a high resolution sensor.

(yes there is the Leica SL, but that camera is just too big and heavy)

 

What do you think? Blasphemy or a meaningful evolutionary step for the M system with potential success on the M market for Leica?

Edited August 29, 2019 by chrismuc

[Advertisement]

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

[Kwesi]

My only issue  with manual focus lenses and EVF cameras is the need to open up the lens to focus accurately and then stopping down to working aperture before the shot. 

[adan]

Neither blasphemy - nor meaningful. Also not new here - been discussed several times.

Hundreds of great photographers have: made their living, made their reputations, earned places in museum collections, sold books, sold pictures in galleries, been published, and will be in the history of photography books 150 years from now. While never using an EVF, and often using a rangefinder.

How did they ever manage to do that, if the rangefinder has "severe drawbacks?"

When someone uses an EVF camera to join that anointed group, I'll pay attention. Until then, EVFs are just "background noise."

Personally, I'm by no means limited to 28-75 on a rangefinder. I use lenses from 15mm to 135mm (including a 75 f/1.4) successfully every day with my Leica rangefinders. And that's with crummy, aging 65-year-old eyes.

I used "central point" focusing for decades even before using rangefinders, since SLRs used to have a very nice central split-image focusing device not unlike the Leica RF in use (align two images). Which I loved - I had no time to be yanking a lens back and forth until things looked "sharpest" - I just put the two images together and shot. Half a second - zip-beep-done.

In fact, it was when the SLR-makers quit providing fast, binary, aligned/not-aligned central focusing devices on their screens that they permanently lost me as a customer (Leica, take note).

BTW - the Leica RF/VF means you see what is happening at and through the exposure (including flash exposures). No finder blackout. Something even the SLRs could not do, nor can an EVF. To me that is far more important than seeing "outside the motive."

_________________________

What might be meaningful would be EVFs that provide a crisp, clear simulation of a Nikon "A" or "K" screen split-prism.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Split_prism

Which would need phase-detect pixels on the sensor. It would have to be real-time, which probably means electronic shutter without "roll." It would have to be sharper and clearer than Fuji's rather feeble attempt, which will mean a base screen resolution at least 4x the SL's. Still have to figure out how to remove any viewfinder interruption to compete with the M RF/VF. But other than that, it is just a computer graphics problem - someone (maybe Leica) should be able to figure it out.

[evikne]

24 minutes ago, adan said:

What might be meaningful would be EVFs that provide a crisp, clear simulation of a Nikon "A" or "K" screen split-prism.

Just as I suggested not too long ago:

[RexGig0]

5 hours ago, chrismuc said:

Leica M cameras have one advantage (for people who cherish this feature): due to the rangefinder concept, one can see not only the motive but also the surrounding area.

But the rangefinder concept has several severe drawbacks:

- due to mechanical restrictions (production tolerances of rangefinder mechanism in camera and lens plus usage caused increased tolerance) and concept restriction (rangefinder focussing does work less accurate for longer focal lengths) the focussing accuracy is limited and is basically unsufficient for fast lenses

- only central point focussing possible

- fast, large lenses cover a rather big part of the viewfinder

- the rangefinder focussing concept is limited to lenses of about 28 to 75 mm

 

The back side TFT since using CMOS sensors in M cameras allows real focussing. But holding the M like a smartphone is not an appropriate solution to use a M camera. The external EVF is useful but ugly and lacks resolution and refresh rate.

 

What could be a solution for a future camera in M dimension but with improved focussing capability for (fast) M lenses of any focal length?

 

Probably a concept synthesis of Leica M and Leica Q.

 

Means: Take a Leica M, skip the rangefinder viewfinder mechanism and replace it with the latest 5.76 MP EVF and quick electronics ... plus the 47 MP Leica Q/ Panasonic sensor.

IMO a wonderful camera that combines the classic, compact M camera design and the usage of all M lenses with contemporary requirements of accurate focussing via a high res EVF with short lag and quick refresh rate, with focus points all over the sensor (in order to be finally able to focus through the camera on an out-of-center eye of a person with an M), and the only way to focus accurately with a high resolution sensor.

(yes there is the Leica SL, but that camera is just too big and heavy)

 

What do you think? Blasphemy or a meaningful evolutionary step for the M system with potential success on the M market for Leica?

Not being an engineer, I cannot address the first of your four “bullet points,” except to say that not all Leica M photographers have trouble focusing 135mm M-mount lenses, with the rangefinder, and I seem to have no trouble with 85mm and 90mm M-mount lenses.

Regarding your second bullet point, how can only a central focusing point be usable, when the rangefinder focuses on a plane, not a point? (Lenses, of course, can have some field curvature.)

Regarding the third bullet point: Are large lenses really a significant problem? My Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM blocks much of the viewfinder, which vexes some shooters, but does not annoy me. I shoot with both eyes open, as I think should be a normal thing to do. I really do not see what “all the fuss is about,” and if necessary, I can quickly activate Live View, or, if I had one, attach an EVF/Visoflex.

Regarding the fourth bullet point: My M10 and Monochrom 246 cameras’ rangefinders focus accurately with my M lenses, which range from 21mm to 90mm. The rangefinder finds a plane of focus, regardless which lens is mounted. The aperture, inside the lens, determines the depth of what is in focus. Other M system users report successful rangefinder focusing with ultra-wide lenses, and 135mm lenses. The frame lines do not affect the focusing process.

Perhaps Leica should develop a better EVF, specifically for the M10-series?

The next-generation Leica SL may well have a smaller form factor. As for heavy, well, this is personal, so not applicable to all, but, my Nikon D4s and D5 are not “heavy,” when I use a compact lens. The hand-filling, curved contours of a D4s/D5 make it seems weightless, unless I affix a long lens, and it is the job of my left hand to support the weight of a long lens. I will concede that large cameras do contribute more mass to the cumulative total of one’s gear, which bears upon one’s hips, knees, feet, and back.

I think that the overall body of Leica-M customers are relatively traditionalist/conservative, with a significant number wanting to use something very much like current and former M cameras. I see nothing wrong with innovation, but a new product must sell well, or Leica could run into financial trouble.

Perhaps Leica should develop a better EVF, specifically for the M10-series? 😀

For a frame of reference, I am new to the Leica M system, having started in April 2018. I continue to use my SLR cameras, especially for birds, wildlife, and macro.

Edited August 29, 2019 by RexGig0

[ru2far2c]

10 hours ago, chrismuc said:

(yes there is the Leica SL, but that camera is just too big and heavy)

 

What do you think?

There is only a 5.5 ounce /160gram difference in weigh so not a big difference maybe in size. 

It would be interesting concept and I think some one posted recently a link to a rumor site about an M with EVF.

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, ru2far2c said:

There is only a 5.5 ounce /160gram difference in weigh so not a big difference maybe in size. 

It would be interesting concept and I think some one posted recently a link to a rumor site about an M with EVF.

It's not just the size of the camera itself, lenses are also bigger and heavier compared to the M line and to other mirrorless systems.

[lct]

14 hours ago, Kwesi said:

My only issue  with manual focus lenses and EVF cameras is the need to open up the lens to focus accurately and then stopping down to working aperture before the shot. 

Need? I focus all my mirrorless cameras at real aperture down to f/8 at least. No problem at all thanks to focus peaking and/or focus magnification. Also focusing at full aperture is the best way to get soft results in case of focus shift. Just for illustration, this shot i'm rather proud of (handheld please!) has been focused stop down at f/11.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-RCWN9Qv/0/1acc4075/L/i-RCWN9Qv-L.jpg
(Digital CL, adapted Tessar 35/3.5, Macro-Adapter-M, f/11)

Edited August 29, 2019 by lct

[ru2far2c]

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

It's not just the size of the camera itself, lenses are also bigger and heavier compared to the M line and to other mirrorless systems.

I understand that very clearly. That is the beauty of manual lenses and M's the size and weight. Something has to give when you start adding EVF and moving LCD's to small body cameras that are FF. 

[01af]

There's nothing inherently wrong with alternative concepts ... except that they are not Leica M. So you'll have either a Leica M or an alternative concept.

[lct]

Just a matter or words.

[luigi bertolotti]

My view at this moment :

- TODAY , lot of M users (all or next) like the M for the rangefinder (me in the band)

so they have the M line and they have the SL line for pure EVF and AF

is there space, for a rather small company, for a THIRD product  FF digital (M style, pure EVF, no AF) ? In my opinion NO : too costly with risk of cannibalization on both M and SL lines

Maybe in some years, and if they will be still well alive, there will be simply no more enough people/customers  to keep alive a RF camera… and they will act consequently…

And, there is the CL which, apart format, can be used that way : buy the body only, forget native AF lenses, take your M glass…

[mmradman]

3 minutes ago, luigi bertolotti said:

My view at this moment :

- TODAY , lot of M users (all or next) like the M for the rangefinder (me in the band)

so they have the M line and they have the SL line for pure EVF and AF

is there space, for a rather small company, for a THIRD product  FF digital (M style, pure EVF, no AF) ? In my opinion NO : too costly with risk of cannibalization on both M and SL lines

Maybe in some years, and if they will be still well alive, there will be simply no more enough people/customers  to keep alive a RF camera… and they will act consequently…

And, there is the CL which, apart format, can be used that way : buy the body only, forget native AF lenses, take your M glass…

The CL camera is already fitted with L mount and we know that SL which is full frame also have L mount.  The M sized body camera with EVF only is pretty much achieved, only need inserting bigger sensor into the CL.  Call it M-CL or M-L or Kitty or DrK or some other cute name.

[pico]

1 hour ago, luigi bertolotti said:

FF digital (M style, pure EVF, no AF) ? In my opinion NO : too costly with risk of cannibalization on both M and SL lines

I cannot forget what Steve Jobs said, "If we do not cannibalize our own product, someone else will."

 

[chrismuc]

The question is: how many people nowadays focus fast lenses with rangefinder double-image? My guess is 90% focus by life view on the back screen or with the external EVF which both are not an appropriate solution for focussing an M. I use my M 75f2 Apo on my M9. Yes works, but maybe 20% of portrait shots have critical sharpness (eye) at open aperture. On my GFX50s I can achieve with that lens (which btw. fully covers 44x33mm and renders beautifully) maybe 60% with a slowly moving person. The position of sharpness is typically out of center and the DOF is just a 1-3 cm. Impossible with rangefinder. But the GFX is too large, I want the GFX focussing comfort (and it's sensor resolution) in a M package .. let's call it MQ 😉.

[pico]

25 minutes ago, chrismuc said:

how many people nowadays focus fast lenses with rangefinder double-image? My guess is 90% focus by life view

That is a highly unlikely statistic.

[Peter Kilmister]

83.5% of statistics are made up.

[Matlock]

43 minutes ago, Peter Kilmister said:

83.5% of statistics are made up.

As are the other 64.7% 😆 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Per P.]

10 hours ago, Peter Kilmister said:

83.5% of statistics are made up.

And, to quote a great statistician I know, all numbers are somewhat wrong. I‘m with adan, it is hard to understand why split screen focusing disappeared. Imagine an SL with that and a Summilux ...

[Rus]

About the rangefinder enabling the user to see the peripheral areas outside the framelines, I personally have rarely felt its benefit, although I'm sure it is a very real advantage for many others. For me, who have to wear glasses, although I do occasionally see the potential subject walking into (or out of) the shot, most of the time I see just very thin margins outside the framelines. 

And I actually don't tend to raise and hold the camera to my eye to wait for the moment to happen, but keep the camera around chest level until I see at least some potential that a fleeting moment of order might emerge from the jumble of movements in front of me.

The biggest advantage of a rangefinder, for me, is that the ghosting/double images gives an instant and much more reliable indication of whether the subject is in focus or not. With the EVF and live view, this is actually harder to know for sure at the first glance. Zooming in on the EVF is more reliable, but slower. Focus peaking is faster, but less reliable. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Rus