sdai Posted October 3, 2007 Share #21 Posted October 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) When you can charge $2-3,000 for a prime lens you have lot's of leeway in minimizing things like CA and vignetting. I wonder what Canon, Nikon or even Sigma could achieve if they could charge $3,000 for a 50mm or 35mm prime lens. They don't have to, Hank ... and even if they try, people won't really appreciate it. Lexus is a good example when compared to Bimmer and Mercedes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Hi sdai, 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!
ptruman Posted October 3, 2007 Share #22 Posted October 3, 2007 Really couldn't give a monkey's about full frame, more pixels or more of anything else. Also don't want it soon as I have not had the M8 for that long. Got enough pixels for anything I want. If anything I need less noise at high ISO. I would also appreciate frame lines that frame the picture. 1.3x crop factor is also fine so I don't have to go through the lens fiddle again. What I do want more of is reliability. My M8 has been fine, but clearly others have suffered, so improved reliability if only to stop the never ending whingeing on this and other forums! Oh yes, and I want it all as a free upgrade to what I have now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 3, 2007 Share #23 Posted October 3, 2007 I'm fascinated by these feature-requests for focus assist, and live-view lcd finders and masks instead of framelines and so on - all of the added features that seem to me to be the very antithesis of M-photography, in fact. My personal hope is that none of these additional electronic 'features' make it into the M9: if I'm ever going to get back into digital capture with a Leica M, I'm simply hoping for a better sensor and FF. For all the extra knobs and whistles that are being described here, there's plenty of DSLRs out there just waiting for you... oh - and incidentally - I love the way that the Noctilux (for instance) vignettes on film. Not everyone wants that area cropped away - even if the effect can maybe end-up accentuated in the current iteration of sensor development. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted October 3, 2007 Share #24 Posted October 3, 2007 I'm fascinated by these feature-requests for focus assist, and live-view lcd finders and masks instead of framelines and so on - all of the added features that seem to me to be the very antithesis of M-photography, in fact. My personal hope is that none of these additional electronic 'features' make it into the M9: if I'm ever going to get back into digital capture with a Leica M, I'm simply hoping for a better sensor and FF. For all the extra knobs and whistles that are being described here, there's plenty of DSLRs out there just waiting for you... oh - and incidentally - I love the way that the Noctilux (for instance) vignettes on film. Not everyone wants that area cropped away - even if the effect can maybe end-up accentuated in the current iteration of sensor development. I have to agree, really strange in how someone would want to mask out the very periphery that allows you to see what is about to enter the field of view. And yes, full frame all the way, it is really silly to crop $3,000 prime lenses like the 35 1.4 and make them a 50. If the M8 were a 1.5 crop, I would never have bought it. And that corner softness and vignetting issue? Overblown. It is no worse than on a film camera in real world use. The 16-35-II on the 5D is incredible. The high ISO issues with the M8 do make it look a little behind the times when one compares it to the better DSLRs, but I still think it is good when I consider what 640 speed color slide looks like. I can live with the M8, but the fastest 35mm fov being F/2 is a bit strange.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #25 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. Here I don't agree. The big attraction of the M is it's optical rangefinder. The only 'improvement' would be to increase accuracy of the frames and see just a single frame at a time. If it could be made brighter that would be OK but it's already quite good in that respect. If you could optically switch among 3 finder mags like a tri-elmar that would be OK as well. None of those changes if feasable would degrade the current function. Frames are superior to a mask as they allow you to see past the frame and only minimally interfere with your normal vision of the scene. Less between you and the world is good. No prisms, electronic finders, masks, etc., etc., and why I choose RF over SLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 3, 2007 Share #26 Posted October 3, 2007 I agree the only real 21st century gizmo i want is the electronic viewing of the frames . It just replaces the manual ones but for each lens attached that frameline comes up but is accurate to the lens on the camera through coding and mount. Frankly you would never know the diffrence between what is in there today, it would be just electronic projection just like they do with the shutter speeds only in white or black and maybe just corner crops and it would correct for parallax also. This brings it up to date but still retains the Leica M in every way and acts like one. Focusing patch could be a touch bigger also Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 3, 2007 Share #27 Posted October 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) What amazes me is the number of persons who DON'T even know what I am talking about before they hit the reply button. If you haven't looked through the D2X or a D3 viewfinder ... go pick one. To Hank, I agree with you on the switch of magnification factor thing, in the mean time, I must clarify that I'm also strongly against any kind of EVF and live view stuff as well ... geez, I don't even care about the LCD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 3, 2007 Share #28 Posted October 3, 2007 Simon that i actually like so instead of the corner crops a darker mask outside area of coverage of each lens could be very nice also. You can still see through it and if we remove all the af crap in there and put the focusing patch it would be very clean indead. And as you change a lens the mask moves to that coverage area. As long as the mask is very thin to look through it would work nicely. Or use the corner crops . Either one would be perfect and takes nothing away from the camera i agree i don't want live view or EFV stuff. Gimmicks sorry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 3, 2007 Share #29 Posted October 3, 2007 What amazes me is the number of persons who DON'T even know what I am talking about before they hit the reply button.If you haven't looked through the D2X or a D3 viewfinder ... go pick one. I actually checked-out the dpreview review to see what you were talking about before i hit the reply button. If you seriously think that this image of what one sees through the D3 viewfinder is preferable to the clear and uncluttered view of the world I get through my M7 viewfinder... Well, the D3 certainly looks like it takes amazing digital captures - I'm sure it'll make a lot of people very happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 3, 2007 Share #30 Posted October 3, 2007 Mani need to take all that black line stuff out of there also which i agree is a freaking mess to look at . If it is just the focusing patch and a light mask it would work pretty nice. Or maybe a menu option in a secondary postion to either use a mask or corner crops. Actually pretty easy to do, so you have a choice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 3, 2007 Share #31 Posted October 3, 2007 If you seriously think that this image of what one sees through the D3 viewfinder is preferable to the clear and uncluttered view of the world I get through my M7 viewfinder... Well, the D3 certainly looks like it takes amazing digital captures - I'm sure it'll make a lot of people very happy. Well, I have two M7s and the one thing that I don't like at all is the paired framelines so I actually paid someone to mask some of them out ... one with only the 90mm frameline and the other with a 35mm frameline. The Nikon VF picture I included in my post was hotlinked from Rob G's web site and it doesn't really give you a best feel of the actual viewfinder ... if you do put one up to your eyes, the real thing is a lot brighter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #32 Posted October 3, 2007 What amazes me is the number of persons who DON'T even know what I am talking about before they hit the reply button. If you haven't looked through the D2X or a D3 viewfinder ... go pick one. I know what you are referring to and I would prefer just thin corner marks without the outside the frame area being greyed back or altered in anyway. My ideal with the M is shooting with both eyes open and having the illusion of the single frame floating in my view and that view looking just as it does without a camera. I want the camera to be as close to transparent as possible. By comparison that screengrab looks like a nintendo video game interface. It looks like you are ready to fire a stinger missile at the truck:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 3, 2007 Share #33 Posted October 3, 2007 Well I'd be happy with that sork of masking, but the Nikon has it easy. It only has to add a single mask to cover all the lenses, where as the M has to provide one of six - and have either the ability to show them in pairs, or a manual system, for non-coded lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 3, 2007 Share #34 Posted October 3, 2007 To be fair Hank that's just the baggage associated with the AF system - which an M wouldn't need - and a microprism/ramgefinder patch that would be replaced in the M by just the rangefinder patch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted October 3, 2007 Share #35 Posted October 3, 2007 Actually IMO the problem is shallow DOF.--. Tom, having being using the CaptureOne 4 beta for a month now, transforming 3.000 shots to some gorgeous pictures, I dont see a big DOF issue right away. When enlarged (the 100% button of C1-4) the M8 shows a much shallower DOF than than I was used to, you can sometimes just count the few mm's of a full opened 50 Summicron or 90 Elmarit. For me even the 35 cron now has a shallow DoF - and stopping down a bit (half a stop?) starts bringing enough room for enlargements. Like many said, for a given lens the inherent DOF does not differ, but in a larger magnification it shows it up more (the DOF coding like I think Lars mentioned is for a 10x15 cm - A6 print size from a 24-36 frame, so for the 1.33 extra magn. the coding should be smaller - but who uses that anyway?). So you trade in half a stop of speed (guestimate) for a lower magnification (at FF) to get the same end result. OK, if you want the same scene you now use a 28 mm where you were used to a 35 mm; then you would select an extra half stop or so and you need a faster lens maybe. There is a lot of money in between! I'm not sure any more if that is worth it. albert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwfreund Posted October 3, 2007 Share #36 Posted October 3, 2007 No please - see how difficult we are to please <grin>. If I wanted an SLR I'd buy one. I agree I don't want an slr, I guess I am just postulating perhaps the wrong solution to two problems 1) framelines 2) focus issues A technological solution to both would be interesting to me, and if the optical viewfinder could be preserved, that would be ok too. or focus issues, I end up using the magnifier almost al of the time and I really would like to have a larger rangefinder base. How can Leica do it without actually having a larger base would be a nice problem for some young engineer to solve. Also a focus bia setting that can be set into the camera for each lens (one for each lens code) would be better IMO than a one month turn-around to an uncertain repair from New Jersey. focus patch emulation would be interesting with a microprocessor controlled stepper-rotor mounted rangefinder patch mirror and electronic center focus sensors. Then I could dial-in the effective magnification I am using on the rangefinder patch without losing the field of view. -bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted October 3, 2007 Share #37 Posted October 3, 2007 To be fair Hank that's just the baggage associated with the AF system - which an M wouldn't need - and a microprism/ramgefinder patch that would be replaced in the M by just the rangefinder patch. Yes and I believe you can turn a lot of it off. But my point was that I don't want an 'interface' in the finder. I want the scene unaltered -just minimal corner marks so I can place the frame. As I said when an M finder is done right you can shoot with both eyes open and see the world naturally with just those corner marks for framing floating in front of you. I'm all for using modern technology like LCD's to make it simpler (one frame at a time) and more accurate. But leave the masks and cockpit controls in the finder to the SLR's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtZ Posted October 3, 2007 Share #38 Posted October 3, 2007 My ideal with the M is shooting with both eyes open and having the illusion of the single frame floating in my view and that view looking just as it does without a camera. I want the camera to be as close to transparent as possible. Hank, That's possible right now. I shoot with my eyes open from 28mm to 90mm! You only need the MS MAG 1.35x magnifier from Megaperls Webshop I have one sleeping in one of my M8s and I can keep both eyes wide open On the other M8, I have the MS MAG 1.15x which I use with the MATE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted October 3, 2007 Share #39 Posted October 3, 2007 Simon and Guy - I share your thinking on improving frames and the viewfinder in general which I think is an anachronistic mess long overdue an overhaul. I have come to the M8 for the same reasons as I have used many roll-film rangefinder cameras; the benefit of the lens design advantages, and smaller camera body, but not for the supposed advantage of it's viewing. 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. The M8 viewfinder is a mess waiting for modernisation and greater sales. The bolt on/fall off magnifier with swopping over of diopter correction lenses, in this age, is a joke solution for gaining acceptible magnification of an otherwise tiny image framing area. Whatever comes next, regardless of it's sensor size, I hope it will have a modernised solution to framing images incorporating switchable magnification of the image framing area, built in diopter correction, no twinned framelines, and redesigned framing rather like either Simon's or Guy's ideas. ............... Chris Oh yes - And a thumbwheel shutter speed control + shutter speed indication [say for 2 seconds] in the viewfinder. You'd love it Hank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Olof Posted October 3, 2007 Share #40 Posted October 3, 2007 I'm fascinated by these feature-requests for focus assist, and live-view lcd finders and masks instead of framelines and so on - all of the added features that seem to me to be the very antithesis of M-photography, in fact. Agree 100% if you want this, you can buy a SLR ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.