stunsworth Posted October 3, 2007 Share #41 Posted October 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) If seeing an area outside of a framed image was a good idea it would have been incorporated into slr designs 40+ years ago But it _is_ a good idea. I'm sorry but it does make a difference in my expereince. Maybe the reason SLRs didn't use a similar concept was that the reduced magnification made focusing more difficult, or possibly it would need an image circle greater than an SLR lens was able to provide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here Reflections on M? and Full Frame Sensors )including new lenses). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #42 Posted October 3, 2007 If seeing an area outside of a framed image was a good idea it would have been incorporated into slr designs 40+ years ago, if having extra [twinned frame] lines within a framed image is a good idea it too would be a 'norm' for slr cameras.. SLR viewfinders have gotten progressively worse with the advent of autofocus reaching a nadir with the tiny dim tunnels in cropped digital sensor DSLR's -the best SLR finders where made 40 years ago although things have been improving of late on the finder front. If your ideal for a finder is a DSLR you should be using one. The advantages of RF lenses and narrow film to flange register for film don't carry over for digital and in fact have been a nightmare for Leica, solved (partially) by special microlenses. The whole reason for being of the M is in its 'antiquated' viewing system and compact dimensions. If you are suffering with a finder you hate for some perceived great advantage in IQ your kidding yourself. The differences are small between hi-end digital systems as far as IQ is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted October 3, 2007 Share #43 Posted October 3, 2007 If seeing an area outside of a framed image was a good idea it would have been incorporated into slr designs 40+ years ago.............. You are kidding i hope ......... the ability to see outside the frame and put a frame around the world instead of looking through a tunnel is KEY to rangefinderphotography .......... that's what it is all about..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted October 3, 2007 Share #44 Posted October 3, 2007 ....If your ideal for a finder is a DSLR you should be using one. .......... The whole reason for being of the M is in its 'antiquated' viewing system and compact dimensions....... Hank - You may be in the M system for its antiquated viewing, but I'm in despite the anachronisms; I'm actually in for the lenses and compactness. I should also have been in for quietness, but hey, let's not re-open those wounds. There are those of us with extensive rangefinder camera experience on this forum who when discussing faults of, and/or, possible improvements to the M8 are told to go get a DSLR. I'm yet to experience such DSLR advice being received as a helpful response to their discussion. ............... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #45 Posted October 3, 2007 Hank - You may be in the M system for its antiquated viewing, but I'm in despite the anachronisms; I'm actually in for the lenses and compactness. I should also have been in for quietness, but hey, let's not re-open those wounds. There are those of us with extensive rangefinder camera experience on this forum who when discussing faults of, and/or, possible improvements to the M8 are told to go get a DSLR. I'm yet to experience such DSLR advice being received as a helpful response to their discussion. ............... Chris Chris you said: "if seeing an area outside of a framed image was a good idea it would have been incorporated into slr designs 40+ years ago". There are a lot's of great SLR systems out there and if the SLR is your standard that the 'antiquated' M should aspire to why not just use a more advanced SLR system? I'm all for improving the M finder by making it even simpler and more accurate but not by making it more like an SLR finder. There are plenty SLR's to choose from already and some of them are about as compact as an M. Look at the Pentax Ltd lenses -beautiful construction, great performers and small as an RF lens. Size, shutter noise and low light performance are no longer big advantages of the M over modern DSLR's. The one real differentiating factor is the method of viewing and focusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted October 3, 2007 Share #46 Posted October 3, 2007 Why do you guys still want frame lines? Leica could add a viewfinder mask like the one you'll see in the Nikon D3. But that's what I always lament ... the M is antiquated and there's no much room for further development, and these lens coding, focusing assistance, picture frame, noise performance thing can be better dealt with if Leica would jumpstart from scratch. With the the M8, Leica did start from scratch, except for three essential elements -- the lenses, the viewfinder and the form factor. Alter any of the three, and you wouldn't have an M, which is what they were trying to keep. I don't know how they could do a viewfinder mask, because they wouldn't need one mask, but many. And the form factor may eliminate these other options, simply because there's no room for the necessary electronics and larger batteries. If you would prefer a start-from-scratch solution, that might be the 4/3 system, where everything is smaller -- but smaller also means (apparently) that the files will not be as good -- at the present state of the art, you will sacrifice either resolution or ISO performance or both. I think the path for the M is toward a bigger sensor with higher resolution and better high ISO performance, while keeping the rest of the system as simple as possible. I have to say that I would like something that eliminates the frankenfinder; with that thing on the camera, I might as well be shooting my D2x. But I think the frankenfinder also points up some of the problems with changing the rangefinder system: the solution won't be small. Some Leica purists have complained that the M8 is too fat, because it's a couple of mm thicker than the earlier ones. If they could build-in selectable focus confirmation or projected frames, I take another 2-3mm in thickness, although I'd rather not have any more height or width. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 3, 2007 Share #47 Posted October 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) What might be interesting would be to have a 'zooming' finder and a consistent frameline with about the same space around it as the 28 framelines in the M8 finder. I guess that would mean that when you change the lens, the magnification alters but the apparent size of frameline stays the same. I'm not sure how usable that would be - I get the feeling it would be disorienting to have a different magnification finder for each lens. But it would mean single framelines, and no need for secondary magnifiers. I assume it's not practicable actually, because otherwise I think they'd have done someting like this already. I sure wouldn't want a zooming mask like the one in the G2, that was really awful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerasdoc Posted October 3, 2007 Share #48 Posted October 3, 2007 The discussion regarding the possibility of a full frame M camera is moot. Leica has already been very clear about the mechanical limitations of the M lens dimensions. It leica decides to make a digital rangefinder with a full size sensor, it will not be using M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted October 3, 2007 Share #49 Posted October 3, 2007 I didn't read all posts above but I want to say one thing it is stupid pay a lot money for the best optical lenses in the world to get use only 66% of the whole glass area with a cropped sensor. You get less distortion with 28mm so it'd better to use 28/2 as 28/2 etc. It is more difficult to design good 35mm lenses, so it sucks pretty much to have only 35mm lenses to choose to get fov 50mm. No, I don't want it since I know that exist a lot of amazing 50mm lenses to pick up.. Other ways are just only "desperate" adaptations. IT is no WAY to get fully satisfied with cropped sensors until it extends to full size or at least to 1.1x. Surely now one must use what he is got now of current technology as I do now with 1.5x sensor with terribly low DR compared to film stuffs. I don't really stop to be thankful that we can get films at fair price still 6mpx is more than enough, I'd take it easily with 3x higher DR than 20mpx with 1x DR. So it is not about getting higher MPX with larger area. So Nikon did a very WISE move with new current lineup. For higher, cleaner ISO for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 3, 2007 Share #50 Posted October 3, 2007 Some Leica purists have complained that the M8 is too fat, because it's a couple of mm thicker than the earlier ones. If they could build-in selectable focus confirmation or projected frames, I take another 2-3mm in thickness, although I'd rather not have any more height or width. God forbid that these purists use any digital camera, by all accounts they should stay with film and only use a M3 ... Jesus Christ, Batman, putting a battery into the M is totally insane! I could give up upon the VF mask thing but please, give me ONE frameline at a time ... and I want a 0.85x or 1x magnifying factor, how difficult is that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 3, 2007 Share #51 Posted October 3, 2007 it is stupid pay a lot money for the best optical lenses in the world to get use only 66% of the whole glass area with a cropped sensor. The M8 sensor measures 27mm x18mm and it's actually only using 56.25% of 24mmx36mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #52 Posted October 3, 2007 The discussion regarding the possibility of a full frame M camera is moot. Leica has already been very clear about the mechanical limitations of the M lens dimensions. It leica decides to make a digital rangefinder with a full size sensor, it will not be using M lenses. I would have thought that until I read an interview with Mr. Lee that suggested the M9 could be full frame. I could give up upon the VF mask thing but please, give me ONE frameline at a time ... and I want a 0.85x or 1x magnifying factor, how difficult is that? I'm with you on those 2 requests. I'd also say that I would like improvements in the 50 year old finder but only if they can be done in the present sized package. Making the frames more accurate, having only one at a time and having flexibility in magnification would enhance not change the current finder. If the technology isn't there to do it and preserve the compact size (which I would find hard to believe) I'll be happy with the current system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtZ Posted October 3, 2007 Share #53 Posted October 3, 2007 The M8 sensor measures 27mm x18mm and it's actually only using 56.25% of 24mmx36mm. I disagree 18*27=486 24*36=864 486/864=0.5625 (I agree) 1/0.5625=1.7778 so 77,78% and not 56.25% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 3, 2007 Share #54 Posted October 3, 2007 Hi folks! Someone's wishes are to see a New M9 (or whatever it calls) with a Full Frame Sensor, but i guess one thing: Do we really need it? Maybe I will "just" need some more Mpixel, some higher ISO and some new faster lenses! If M9 with full frame sensor had available, i certainly won't be running to buy it. I think 1,33x crop factor is the best way to cut out vignetting,soft corners and all of those things that so often had to be criticized in the past (and still now!).Do I really need a Sensor showing up all of this?My answer is NO! I'd much prefer to see some faster lenses, and some Wider (12-15-18-21-24-28), because if i had a Wider sigle lens (thinner and faster than WATE) i would be so much happy! In relation with this, i can't understand the decision of making the new "cheaper" summarit. We already discussed about this, and still i think that when someone has the opportunity to spend almost 5000€ for a camera, it just won't be a problem to think about an outstanding high-class Leica lens of about 3000€! For cheaper ones it won't be a problem to buy a CV or Zeiss (or Leica used) lens, I guess(as i do). If I had to choose between a New M9 camera with full-frame sensor (spending 5000€ at least) or having a really noiseless 2500iso on my "old camera" with a 21/24mm F2 or a 28mm F1.4 or 35mm F1 lens for the same price, i would go for the second way for sure. And maybe it won't be that much expensive! Obviously this is just MY point of view.... Waiting to see yours.... Regards Maurizio MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site Coming back to the original issue... The crop factor, I agree is not the problem, and surely solves "border" problems with lenses. I think Leica would better to think of FF for DSLR, if they'll go on on this too (and it isn't of interest for me). On the contrary, I think new Summarits are not a bad idea... they make a move against Zeiss/CV and also against user market, which of course is not of interest for them (personally, I was thinking of a used 90 2,8... or a 75CV...now of course I am waiting on both sides...); and they are also giving a sort of alternative 2 vs. 1... a Cron asph 50 ?..or maybe a 35 one ? ..or both of the focals at f 2,5...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 3, 2007 Share #55 Posted October 3, 2007 I disagree 18*27=486 24*36=864 486/864=0.5625 (I agree) 1/0.5625=1.7778 so 77,78% and not 56.25% ???????????????? Where did 1/0.5625 come from? .56 is already a percentage. Half, or 50%, of 864 is 432. Isn't this obvious? rounding off... 864 X .78 = 673 sq mm. 864 x .56 (or 56 percent) = 484 sq mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted October 4, 2007 Share #56 Posted October 4, 2007 Man I'll just take some more accurate framelines. I know that it is impossible with a mechanical system of framelines to not be accurate at all distances, but what Leica were thinking I have no idea! I'll also take manual shutter speed indication in the viewfinder - long overdue on all M's and a real pain when shooting in the dark or with a large flash on the hot shoe that covers the shutter speed dial. I'll also take a pc connection while they're at it. At risk here of offending purists I'll also say I wouldn't mind the M9 being a bit larger height wise and even slightly thicker if that means extra buffer speed, better battery power etc. I personally like the way the M7 is weighted with the M Motor - the motor grip also doesn't make your hand so cramped as the M8's grip does. Maybe something along the size of the M's with the leicavit attached might be a good compromise. Or offer an M9P version that is larger size but with bigger buffer and battery. I would love true 16 bit files, but the way the hardware is configured right now I think it would make the camera real dog and might see a lot more battery pulling resets going on. So consequently a slightly bigger more robust model might be needed for that. And quiet it down! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 4, 2007 Share #57 Posted October 4, 2007 But it _is_ a good idea. I'm sorry but it does make a difference in my expereince. Maybe the reason SLRs didn't use a similar concept was that the reduced magnification made focusing more difficult, or possibly it would need an image circle greater than an SLR lens was able to provide. Its a very good idea. That it was not integrated into SLRs has no bearing on whether or not the idea was good. That area outside the frame lines is extremely important to myself and many other photographers. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 4, 2007 Share #58 Posted October 4, 2007 as long as we are dreaming, replace the rangefinder with a eye-level (through an eyepiece at the current location) full view lcd and electronic focus assist. That would mean the end of the 2mm wrench and all the bellyaching about framelines. -bob We're all different. If I dreamed that I'd wake up in terror. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 4, 2007 Share #59 Posted October 4, 2007 Why do you guys still want frame lines? Leica could add a viewfinder mask like the one you'll see in the Nikon D3. But that's what I always lament ... the M is antiquated and there's no much room for further development, and these lens coding, focusing assistance, picture frame, noise performance thing can be better dealt with if Leica would jumpstart from scratch. If frame lines (mechanical or electronic) are antiquated, give me antiquated any day. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 4, 2007 Share #60 Posted October 4, 2007 The M8 viewfinder is a mess waiting for modernisation and greater sales. I'd like the frame lines to be set for one or two meters but I would argue, by contrast, that the M8 has the best finder (to my eyes) of any digital camera made to date. The "supposed advantages" of RF cameras are very real for some of us. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.