Guest imported_jtorral Posted August 18, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 18, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Originally it was rumored to have electronic frame lines. I was wrong. Read this: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27152 - Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Hi Guest imported_jtorral, Take a look here My M8 frameline rumors were wrong.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
moikle Posted August 18, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 18, 2006 It's all just hearsay in either direction until Leica reveal the truth don't you think? Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted August 18, 2006 Share #3 Posted August 18, 2006 Jorge, Glad to hear all this. 1. I applaud the $4500 price (I was one of the obstreperous ones who claim there are fewer precision parts in the M8 and that it should therefore be cheaper). Boy! you talk about your end runs! I was thinking cheaper and Leica knocked of 500 bucks. I was thinking a lot more than that. Nuts. 2. Would you describe your 24mm lens please. I am thinking about a wide lens to add to my 35, 50, 75, 90 repertoire and I noted the beautiful images from the 24 in Sean Reid's reviews of the 21 and 28 lenses, and I also read Puts' rave about the lens in his lens book (formerly available for free download from the Leica site). I would be interested in your simpression of the lens in comparison to the 21 and 28. Thanks for the posting, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest agnoo Posted August 18, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 18, 2006 Your friend did not handle it long enough, some errors in his "report". You´ll notice them after Photokina. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 18, 2006 Share #5 Posted August 18, 2006 Hearsay, yes - but as to the finder there are now (at least) two independent sources saying .68x and 24-90 frames. Plus the fact that the existing zoom accesory finder covers the FoV for a 'cropped' 21 and wider, but NOT the 24. If it is .68x - I bet the "whole finder" view outside the 24 frame works for a 21. Actually, Jorge, I never believed in "LCD" frames - Leica has a perfectly nice mechanical keying system that works well and is (relatively) simple. Among other things one can see the frames with the camera off and drawing no power - an LCD frameline mask would require power to be visible. This is also the second source saying the shutter really is quite quiet, with no "motor" sound from the cocking motor - although I wonder what happened to the 1/8000 sec. the same shutter allows in the R8/9. Maybe it just wouldn't fit on the shutter dial? Heading out to pick up my "DMR Practice" issue of LFI - I'll see if my dealer has picked up anything from the reps since their hands-on demo last week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted August 18, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 18, 2006 Just out of curiosity - who runs RFF? Should be interesting to see just what Leica came up with... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 18, 2006 Share #7 Posted August 18, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Would be interesting to see how 75/1.4 and 90/2 lenses can be focussed at full aperture with a .68x VF magnification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest agnoo Posted August 18, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 18, 2006 Would be interesting to see how 75/1.4 and 90/2 lenses can be focussed at full aperture with a .68x VF magnification. Don´t forget the magnifier # 12004, it might be helpful ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 18, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 18, 2006 So we should put a magnifier to focus 75mm and 90mm lenses I believe this when... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smep Posted August 18, 2006 Share #10 Posted August 18, 2006 Originally it was rumored to have electronic frame lines. I was wrong. To difficult for a small company... And the Customer Service could not earn any extra-money by removing framelines... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 18, 2006 Share #11 Posted August 18, 2006 Just out of curiosity - who runs RFF? I believe his forename is Jorge ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted August 18, 2006 Share #12 Posted August 18, 2006 "I believe his forename is Jorge ;-)" Thanks Steve...I suppose I know a bit too much about driving traffic and hit counts for my own good... In any event, I didn't want to steer things off-topic with that question. I do enjoy the speculation of various Leica enthusiasts regarding new products, especially something along the lines of this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted August 18, 2006 Share #13 Posted August 18, 2006 One of the things I don't like about the M7 is the fact that the shutter speed dial is "backwards" compared to all the rest of the M's (don't know about the M5). I hope the M8 has a shutter speed dial like the M3, M4, M6, (and MP?). I am used to doing things the way they used to be. (That makes me the perfect consumer for German products, since Germans have a reputation for not liking to change things. I don't like them to change, either.) I'm still plunking bills into the milk bottle. C'mon M8. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 18, 2006 Share #14 Posted August 18, 2006 Dan, I know that Jorge is accused on some forums of directing people to his website to increase the hits, but I'm usually not that cynical. The main problem I have with rangefinderforum.com is just the overall dullness and the emphasis on gear rather than photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_jtorral Posted August 18, 2006 Share #15 Posted August 18, 2006 ddp, nope. dont need to drive traffic over there. With more than 1.5 million hits per day I think traffic is fine. Just thought it would be good to share what i learned with others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 19, 2006 Share #16 Posted August 19, 2006 Would be interesting to see how 75/1.4 and 90/2 lenses can be focussed at full aperture with a .68x VF magnification. LCT-- Remember, there are people today who happily use the 75/1.4 on the Epson R-D1. Even considering the need to adjust the circle of confusion for the crop factor, the chart on p 35 of LFI 8/2004 (November) implies that there should be just enough accuracy for those lenses. But despite the chart, the last sentence in the focusing accuracy section warns that the figure of 0.033 mm is simply a long-used standard value for circle of confusion, and should for modern purposes be changed to 0.02 mm for the 24x36 format. That would require 0.015 mm CoC for the M8 sensor. As you say, it will be interesting to see a technical justification for this! Pity, though, that my earlier suggestion that a frame for the 21mm lens could be included didn't pay out... But then, it's all still hearsay, right ? --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 19, 2006 Share #17 Posted August 19, 2006 One of the things I don't like about the M7 is the fact that the shutter speed dial is "backwards" compared to all the rest of the M's (don't know about the M5).I hope the M8 has a shutter speed dial like the M3, M4, M6, (and MP?). I am used to doing things the way they used to be. Bill-- I agree about the M7's speed dial. One thing about the M5's: It was concentric with the shutter release, and that difference kept your fingers from getting confused. (I'm not sure, but I think it rotated in the "standard" direction.) Gee, will a milk bottle work? I've been dropping my bills into a beer keg . --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 19, 2006 Share #18 Posted August 19, 2006 Remember, there are people today who happily use the 75/1.4 on the Epson R-D1. Hi Howard, i don't know all the R-D1 users of course but i've never heard of any of them focussing accurately a 75/1.4 lens at f/1.4 so far. It is simply impossible to me. ...the figure of 0.033 mm is simply a long-used standard value for circle of confusion, and should for modern purposes be changed to 0.02 mm for the 24x36 format. That would require 0.015 mm CoC for the M8 sensor... Then it would be even worse, Howard. With a 0.015mm CoC (instead of 0.0226), the effective base length of the rangefinder should be 80mm (instead of 53mm) and would require then a 1.15x (instead of .78x) VF magnification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 19, 2006 Share #19 Posted August 19, 2006 I'm having second thoughts about this description. Whether LCT's calculations for focusing accuracy are correct or not, what would be the benefit of reducing the focusing accuracy/viewfinder magnification if finder frames are available only for lenses 24mm and longer? With the 0.72x finder we already have a frame for the fov of the 28mm lens on M6 & M7--and that's the same field of view a 21mm would have on the M8. We eyeglasses wearers can hardly see the 28mm frame, so a reduced magnification could be helpful in that sense--but not if the shortest lens accomodated is the 24mm. I'm aware of only one additional benefit for a reduced-magnification viewfinder, and it's the same one cited by Leitz when they reduced the magnification of the M3 and added the 35mm frame in the M2: increased brightness. So I think there's a contradiction. Perhaps the dealer misunderstood, or perhaps the story is simply made up out of whole cloth (or, considering the change in shutter, out of whole vertically-traveling metal blades ). Since the 0.72x finder would already marginally accomodate the 21mm lens' field of view on the M8, why reduce the magnification to 0.68x and then start with the 24mm lens (the equivalent of 32mm on full-frame)? Somebody straighten me out! I want one! I have to see this for myself! Inquiring minds want to know! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 19, 2006 Share #20 Posted August 19, 2006 Then it would be even worse. With a 0.015mm CoC (instead of 0.0226), the effective base length of the rangefinder should be 80mm (instead of 53mm) and would require then a 1.15x (instead of .78x) VF magnification. LCT--Glad you got my point! In regard to focusing a 75/1.4 wide open on the R-D1, I commented in the German language section of this forum that it wasn't technically advisable, and promptly got a very nice response saying that despite theory, it worked quite well (http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digitalforum/128-leica-objektive-epson.html#post1482). On the other hand, Sean Reid mentioned in his review of high-speed 50's on the R-D1 that he seemed to have misfocused one of the lenses. It could have been due to an inaccurate focus cam on the lens, or it could have been due to tired eyes with a short rangefinder base (clearly my speculations). --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.