A New Year Wish for the M System

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Fair cop, got me, compatible would be more appropriate.

Not alluding to you personally but splitting hairs seems to be general undertone of this thread. Some people are traditionalists and would love nothing more than digital camera loaded with film like digital cartridges and powered with rewind crank and on the opposite end of the spectrum modernists would like best of modern technology incorporated into the M mount camera. 

If I want traditional I reach for my freezer and pull out roll of film and load my MP.

I have no problem with an EVF camera with an M mount. An M mount lens is a rangefinder lens and not a mirrorless lens. I just don’t see Leica doing it.

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr.Prime]

13 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

I have no problem with an EVF camera with an M mount. An M mount lens is a rangefinder lens and not a mirrorless lens. I just don’t see Leica doing it.

using lens adapters, Leica has options for EVF with m lenses. So do other companies.

i think it’s clear (to me) that this thread is about a camera utilizing a rangefinder focussing mechanism. Of course, that doesn’t limit the implementation of the viewfinder. An EVF with a focus patch and a camera that uses a position sensor for the cam on the lens would also be a lens coupled rangefinder. The advantages of this might include better visibility in darker shooting environments, ability to give a b&w only view, etc. But to show outside of the frame lines means this is not TTL, there would have to be a small cell-phone style front facing camera to drive this viewfinder. I also am not convinced this is what the market wants but as it has never been done before I like to keep an open mind.

[lct]

31 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

An M mount lens is a rangefinder lens and not a mirrorless lens

Rangefinders are nothing but focus tools. There are RF bodies with or w/o M mount and M mount lenses can be used on both RF and EVF cameras.

[Mahesh]

8 hours ago, lct said:

Curious that some M users feel attacked when one suggests that an EVF version of their camera could complement the RF offer. They behave like an endangered species sort of. Do they fear that Leica will stop selling RF's because of that? Just curious.

Agree, this is like being on some Fuji forums now! I don't understand why people feel so threatened if someone has a different wish than the status quo. 

[Mahesh]

5 hours ago, jdlaing said:

You can’t have an EVF M. 
If it has an EVF it’s not an M mount camera.

I don't understand how the mount is affected by evf or ovf. One can build a rangefinder with an L mount if they wanted

[jdlaing]

Just now, Mahesh said:

I don't understand how the mount is affected by evf or ovf. One can build a rangefinder with an L mount if they wanted

Except there are no L mount rangefinder lenses. 😃

[Mahesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jdlaing said:

Except there are no L mount rangefinder lenses. 😃

I hope you got the gist. One can build an l mount rangefinder and l mount lenses. That's what I meant. 

[jdlaing]

Just now, Mahesh said:

I hope you got the gist. One can build an l mount rangefinder and l mount lenses. That's what I meant. 

Yes they could. But what are the odds? 

[fotografr]

3 hours ago, Mahesh said:

Agree, this is like being on some Fuji forums now! I don't understand why people feel so threatened if someone has a different wish than the status quo. 

Once again, I have to say I don't know where you and one or two others are getting the idea that anyone is "threatened" by the notion of a different camera model. It really seems like there are a couple of people who are just hell bent on having an argument and ascribing false motives to others. In that sense, this is becoming very much like some other forums.

Edited February 11, 2021 by fotografr

[astrostl]

6 hours ago, fotografr said:

Once again, I have to say I don't know where you and one or two others are getting the idea that anyone is "threatened" by the notion of a different camera model. It really seems like there are a couple of people who are just hell bent on having an argument and ascribing false motives to others. In that sense, this is becoming very much like some other forums.

Steve made comments like, "Never screw up a brilliant rangefinder camera by building an EVF into the camera." and, "Its not a waste of time to oppose the views of posters who want to ruin a beautiful unique camera." You explicitly spoke up in support of those comments with, "In a thread where people are expressing their views about what changes they'd like to see with the M camera" and, "I find myself in agreement with Steve. I'm delighted with the M rangefinder and hope it's never replaced with an EVF." (emphases mine)

Nobody was trying to screw up the rangefinder, or ruin it. Nobody was expressing views about changing it, or replacing it. They had already gone to lengths to specify that they wanted an additional option, not a replacement. And you (both) responded to them with that anyway, a total straw man. This is a parsing of plain English, not an ascribing of motive. Even if Leica R&D was somehow hanging on their every word, no threat to rangefinders was ever present and so the defensive response were doubly unwarranted.

What is on display here is what everyone resents about Leica culture: paleo-elitism. Would, "they already made my dream camera. I hope they make yours too!" be so hard? Or if you can't bring yourself to summon that wish for them, to at least not feel compelled to stomp on theirs or pontificate about how unlikely you think it is? I'd prefer that culture.

Edited February 11, 2021 by astrostl

[fotografr]

12 hours ago, astrostl said:

 

What is on display here is what everyone resents about Leica culture: paleo-elitism. Would, "they already made my dream camera. I hope they make yours too!" be so hard? Or if you can't bring yourself to summon that wish for them, to at least not feel compelled to stomp on theirs or pontificate about how unlikely you think it is? I'd prefer that culture.

I'm sorry you feel so insecure that you have to start making shit up, but your accusations about "stomping" on others wishes and "pontificating" have no basis in reality. You're behaving like a little kid whose favorite toy has been taken away from him, except that in your case the toy hasn't even been developed yet.

By the way, I much prefer the Mediterranean diet.

Edited February 11, 2021 by fotografr

[astrostl]

18 minutes ago, fotografr said:

I'm sorry you feel so threatened that you have to start making shit up, but your accusations about stomping on others wishes and pontificating have no basis in reality. Grow up.

As with the rest of it, there is a textual record just a few pages back. The straw man stomping (screw up, oppose the views of posters, ruin, changes they'd like to see, replaced, etc.) was just noted in plain and undeniable detail, which you have conveniently snipped from your response. Here is you pontificating about how unlikely you think it is:

"So you would advocate for Leica to offer two versions, such as a M11 rangefinder and a M11 EVF? I wouldn't hold my breath for that."

That is not made up. It is reality. That isn't in question. WHY would be, though. What purpose does that serve except to be an unwelcoming forum-curmudgeon? Or this entire thread starting from the very OP, for that matter? The exact same information can be presented in a purely positive and non-judgey way by simply extolling the joys of simplicity, rangefinders, etc. w/o directing others to get something else if they are interested in anything other than a real M camera. It's a defect of Leica culture and of this forum, and it is harmful.

[fotografr]

8 minutes ago, astrostl said:

As with the rest of it, there is a textual record just a few pages back. The straw man stomping (screw up, oppose the views of posters, ruin, changes they'd like to see, replaced, etc.) was just noted in plain and undeniable detail, which you have conveniently snipped from your response. Here is you pontificating about how unlikely you think it is:

"So you would advocate for Leica to offer two versions, such as a M11 rangefinder and a M11 EVF? I wouldn't hold my breath for that."

That is not made up. It is reality. That isn't in question. WHY would be, though. What purpose does that serve except to be an unwelcoming forum-curmudgeon? Or this entire thread starting from the very OP, for that matter? The exact same information can be presented in a purely positive and non-judgey way by simply extolling the joys of simplicity, rangefinders, etc. w/o directing others to get something else if they are interested in anything other than a real M camera. It's a defect of Leica culture and of this forum, and it is harmful.

That's your definition of pontificating? Man, you've got a serious problem.

This is actual pontificating:  "As with the rest of it, there is a textual record just a few pages back. The straw man stomping (screw up, oppose the views of posters, ruin, changes they'd like to see, replaced, etc.) was just noted in plain and undeniable detail, which you have conveniently snipped from your response."

Just a suggestion, but why don't we get back on track with the subject or just drop this altogether?

Edited February 11, 2021 by fotografr

[astrostl]

Just now, fotografr said:

That's your definition of pontificating? Man, you've got a serious problem.

You have a serious problem with intentionally or unintentionally missing the entire point of a post.

pontificating:  express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic
pompous: affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important
dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true

So yes, I'm going to go with pontificating regarding your entire "contribution" to this thread.

But that isn't the point! The point, again, is this: What purpose does that serve except to be an unwelcoming forum-curmudgeon? Or this entire thread starting from the very OP, for that matter? The exact same information can be presented in a purely positive and non-judgey way by simply extolling the joys of simplicity, rangefinders, etc. w/o directing others to get something else if they are interested in anything other than a real M camera. It's a defect of Leica culture and of this forum, and it is harmful.

[fotografr]

"It's a defect of Leica culture and of this forum, and it is harmful."

If that's your opinion, why are you even here? Perhaps it's just to argue and debate. You seem to get pleasure out of twisting the comments of others to suit your own viewpoint. That's what is harmful.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by fotografr

[astrostl]

9 minutes ago, fotografr said:

"It's a defect of Leica culture and of this forum, and it is harmful."

If that's your opinion, why are you even here? Perhaps it's just to argue and debate. You seem to get pleasure out of twisting the comments of others to suit your own viewpoint. That's what is harmful.

I'm here because I enjoy the camera system and many of the discussions and interactions I have here. To observe defects is not to observe that there are only defects, and I do so because I'm sick of it and want it to be better. I am currently receiving and responding to DMs from others who feel the same as they watch this thread from a distance.

Each time it has been asserted that I've twisted words, I have provided quotes to justify that I have not. As usual, you have skipped over them and gone back to the assertions. If you want to actually run this to ground, let's do that. Here or in DMs. Or not! But the claims are not bogus, and the historical record is on display for evaluation.

Given how much you claim that views are being ascribed to you, I'd like to address this edit:

"You're behaving like a little kid whose favorite toy has been taken away from him, except that in your case the toy hasn't even been developed yet."

One of the many other times this subject arose, I responded thus: "I'm making no such plea, only noting that it is a common and "valid" one. If there was an M11 which was nothing more than an M10 with an EVF, I would be happy for those who care about it and probably stick with the M10 series myself if choosing between one or the other. But both might be nice!"

Which is to say, I'm not going to the mat for team EVF here. I also like rangefinders! I'm going to the mat for being positive and welcoming rather than negative and unwelcoming, and in support of the many who correctly observe that people including but not limited to you get triggered each and every time the subject of an EVF (or other new stuff) arises.

[fotografr]

20 hours ago, astrostl said:

I'm going to the mat for being positive and welcoming rather than negative and unwelcoming, and in support of the many who correctly observe that people including but not limited to you get triggered each and every time the subject of an EVF (or other new stuff) arises.

That is not true. Read what I wrote in post #s 156 and 159. You are misrepresenting my position. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by fotografr

[adan]

39 minutes ago, Steven said:

high quality EVF

A contradiction in terms, like "jumbo shrimp" or "military intelligence."

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Kwesi]

49 minutes ago, Steven said:

Is it really bad that my wish for the future M is that it has a high quality EVF instead of OVF? 

You will definitely get your wish in due course.

It will come packaged as a Q

[Mr.Prime]

On 2/10/2021 at 3:47 PM, jdlaing said:

Yes they could. But what are the odds? 

whilst we’re being pedantic, no they can’t, the L mount Standard contains no provision for a mount that couples to a rangefinder cam.