M12 wishlist

[ksrhee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, Jeff S said:

Which is why I explained it to you… after you asked for a hybrid system.. plus the sun and stars. 🤪

Jeff

I'm sorry, but I never asked for those.  Exactly the opposite!  I was merely pointing out why it is so difficult to add more stuff to the Leica Camera . . .

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, lct said:

Indeed but Stefan Daniel stated also 4 years ago that « IBIS is desirable and would work well with M lenses [...] if it became feasible to introduce IBIS without increasing size it is something that could be done quickly » (link).

Of course.  But there goes that size thing again.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, ksrhee said:

I'm sorry, but I never asked for those.  Exactly the opposite!  I was merely pointing out why it is so difficult to add more stuff to the Leica Camera . . .

Sorry about that!  Mistook you for ‘cookedart’.

Jeff

[lct]

2 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Of course.  But there goes that size thing again.

Yes but there are alternative solutions. Electronic Image stabilization works fine on the Sigma FPL, for instance, in spite of its 61mp sensor in a smaller body than the M11's. I can take 50mm pics at 1/30s with no significant camera shake issues with it so i don't see why this feature could not be implemented in the M12 as well.

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, lct said:

… so i don't see why this feature could not be implemented in the M12 as well.

Maybe you should email Leica and ask… or explain it to them.

Jeff

[lct]

Just now, Jeff S said:

Maybe you should email Leica and ask… or explain it to them.

They don't need me to explain what they know better than i do, i suspect.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, lct said:

They don't need me to explain what they know better than i do, i suspect.

Exactly.

Jeff

[thrid]

46 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Maybe you should email Leica and ask… or explain it to them.

Jeff

The problem with Electronic Image stabilization is that it doesn't counter the motion blur that is baked into the image due to camera shake.

It is essentially a post process.

It's also really is a solution for moving footage, not still photography.

Basically it is doing a frame by frame analysis and then stabilizing the footage by translating in X and Y. The image is scaled up a little to compensate for the translation that may cause the image to go off screen. The drawback of Electronic Image stabilization is particularly noticeable with moving footage. The image will appear steady, but you may see camera motion blur induced by shake baked into the footage. Depending on the amount of motion blur that is baked into the image this can look very odd.

I think there is also a form of EIS that translates a 'crop' window around the sensor based on feedback from a gyro in order to counter camera shake. That would work a lot better than doing it in post and also on still images, but you would have to scale the image up a little to give the wandering crop box a little breathing room when it goes 'off frame'

IBIS is a far better solution, because it translates the sensor in X and Y in realtime as the image is taken to counteract shake. It's like putting the sensor on a 2 axis gimbal and stabilizing it. Therefore it will work with still photography as well as moving footage

Edited April 13, 2024 by thrid

[Jeff S]

22 minutes ago, thrid said:

The problem with Electronic Image stabilization is that it doesn't counter the motion blur that is baked into the image due to camera shake.

It is essentially a post process.

It's also really is a solution for moving footage, not still photography.

Basically it is doing a frame by frame analysis and then stabilizing the footage by translating in X and Y. The image is scaled up a little to compensate for the translation that may cause the image to go off screen. The drawback of Electronic Image stabilization is particularly noticeable with moving footage. The image will appear steady, but you may see camera motion blur induced by shake baked into the footage. Depending on the amount of motion blur that is baked into the image this can look very odd.

IBIS is a far better solution, because it translates the sensor in X and Y in realtime as the image is taken. It's like putting the sensor on a 2 axis gimbal and stabilizing it. Therefore it will work with still photography as well as moving footage

I wasn’t being literal.

Jeff

[thrid]

6 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I wasn’t being literal.

Jeff

It's a slow day over here...

 

Edited April 13, 2024 by thrid

[PeterGA]

IBIS .

[cookedart]

20 hours ago, thrid said:

This camera already exists and is made by four or five other companies. 

I really don't understand why people want to turn the M series into just another cookie cutter EVF camera, instead of concentrating on improving the basic features without changing the concept.  

We all want a better sensor, improved shutter and weather sealing, less bugs in the firmware, better overall performance like reduced startup times or the ability to see the 28mm frame lines without having to be related to Marty Feldman. But those are just improvements on the basic concept. 

The entire raison d'etre for the M is simplicity.

Once you start adding things like a flip out screen, a thumb rest, hybrid EVF, autofocus etc you're basically asking for a full frame Fuji X-Pro at triple the price. There are at least a dozen cameras already on the market that have all of these features minus a red dot and sell for a fraction of the cost.

The great irony of course is that the rest of the industry is constantly using the M series to pitch their latest EVF wonder, as a 'rangefinder style camera' to the masses, when in fact there is no equivalent on the market and the M series is the only true rangefinder left in existence. 

So, why would we attempt to saw off the very branch we are sitting on by fundamentally changing the gestalt of the camera?

I disagree entirely. No other manufacturer makes a full frame rangefinder, full stop. Nothing I suggested above, for me, would take away from the simplicity of the camera, because i regularly use my M10 with a visoflex. So building in a hybrid EVF would make the camera simpler for me, not having to bring an extra accessory. I also never suggested autofocus, which would not be possible on an M without reengineering all of the lenses. The X-Pro is not at all like what I was suggesting.

What I don't understand is people fighting tooth and nail for every suggestion of progress, without thinking about what value it actually adds to the system. They already have an EVF, it just is a hot shoe mounted option. They already offer thumb rest, its just an additional accessory.

[ksrhee]

11 minutes ago, cookedart said:

I disagree entirely. No other manufacturer makes a full frame rangefinder, full stop. Nothing I suggested above, for me, would take away from the simplicity of the camera, because i regularly use my M10 with a visoflex. So building in a hybrid EVF would make the camera simpler for me, not having to bring an extra accessory. I also never suggested autofocus, which would not be possible on an M without reengineering all of the lenses. The X-Pro is not at all like what I was suggesting.

What I don't understand is people fighting tooth and nail for every suggestion of progress, without thinking about what value it actually adds to the system. They already have an EVF, it just is a hot shoe mounted option. They already offer thumb rest, its just an additional accessory.

I see your point, but you are forgetting a few things.  Adding EVF to the current RF viewfinder system is not making it simple but making it much more complex.  Second, right now, you have the option to use EVF and other accessories, but those of us who do not want to use them are not stuck with them as part of the camera.  So, for me this is the best of both worlds . . .

[lct]

16 hours ago, thrid said:

The problem with Electronic Image stabilization is that it doesn't counter the motion blur that is baked into the image due to camera shake. [...]

EIS seems to work fine on the Sigma FPL (link) , another 61mp digital camera even smaller than the M11. So why not implementing it in the M12 if there is no room enough for IBIS?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

There has always been a disconnect between the original M concept, exemplified by the M3, M2, M4 & M-A cameras, and the “improvements” electronics have to offer.  The original M bodies were made with care and precision, and were made to last.  They were not leading edge, but were refinments of available technology, combining high quality lenses with a deceptively simple rangefinder focusing system.

The M5 added what was (apparently) an acurate and reliable meter system, but committed the cardinal sin of being bigger than its predecessors.  The M6 series corrected that fault, and was the biggest selling Leica camera; but the quality and longevity of the electronic meter did not match that of the rest of the camera.  It wasn’t, realistically, a “camera for life” as Leica found it couldn’t repair the meter when it died.  Problems followed with Dx ISO readers and the M7 shutter.  So, we had the beginnings of Leica’s paradox - an expensive, handmade camera, with electronics unable to match that quality expectation. 

The question therefore is, do we actually need the more these electronic “improvements” the digital cameras offer?

When you look at those cameras, each has been a struggle between relatively crappy electronics (compared to the quality of the rest of the cameras) and the drive to offer more (not because it was needed, but because it was possible, or a misguided desire to keep up), and the apparent simplicity of the original M concept.  The M8 (coffee stain LCD); the M9 (cover glass cracking, sensor corrosion and SD card problems); the M(240) (the electronics on my M60 died); the M10 (the electronics on my M10-D also died); and now the M11 - all have had SD card issues to varying degrees (probably not Leica’s problem, but other cameras don’t seem to be as sensitive), and have struggled to balance maintaining the elegant simplicity of the M concept while adding the benefits of what electronics have to offer.

The SL system has not suffered in the same way, being well conceived, available and reliable from launch (though I confess my early production SL died within the first month, but I was given a loaner immediately and the camera was promptly replaced and has worked flawlessly in challenging conditions since).

After using my M-A, and still using my M9 based Monochrom, I firmly believe Leica should return to “polishing” the digital M so it does the basics reliably and as well as current technology allows.  The M11 doesn’t do this - either conceptually (with considerable add-ons which do not appear to improve on the M10 series cameras) or functionally (freezes and file corruptions etc, @lct and others being the exceptions).

The M system has never been about what can be done, but about doing the least that is necessary, and doing that well.  The SL system does all the rest.

 

[lct]

15 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

After using my M-A, and still using my M9 based Monochrom, I firmly believe Leica should return to “polishing” the digital M so it does the basics reliably and as well as current technology allows.  The M11 doesn’t do this - either conceptually (with considerable add-ons which do not appear to improve on the M10 series cameras) or functionally (freezes and file corruptions etc, @lct and others being the exceptions).

Hehe "lct and others" are not the exceptions but the rule 😄 Anyway in a couple of weeks Leica will do what they've done with previous bodies already i.e. fixing most if not all issues in a firmware update and all this freeze story will be over hopefully.

[Jeff S]

And only 2+ years later.

Jeff

[lct]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

And only 2+ years later.

Only 2 years? 😉 Took 5+ years for the M240. Its last bug fix has been released in Nov. 2017 (fw 2.0.5.0) while the body has been launched in Sep. 2012 if memory serves.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Don’t forget to add the special 6 months service turnaround.  

Proud achievements.

Jeff

[thrid]

59 minutes ago, cookedart said:

I disagree entirely. No other manufacturer makes a full frame rangefinder, full stop.

Essentially, you are suggesting to change the ONLY true optomechanical rangefinder on the market into another EVF camera and eliminate the very reason why people buy this camera in the first place and what makes it unique in the marketplace.  

That makes about as much sense as a handbrake on a canoe.

The optomechanical rangefinder is the heart and soul of the M series. The ORF and the simplicity of the M design is the entire essence of the camera. If you eliminate either, it will no longer be the same camera. And that would be doubly tragic since the M is the last of its kind and that option would cease to exist in the marketplace.

This is a topic that came up on a regular basis, when I studied industrial design. Every once in a while a product comes along that has just the right combination of traits and evokes a satisfied 'hmmmm...' and a smile from the user. It's that pixie dust nobody can formulate, but everyone recognizes and strives for. Ultimately, many of these products become a design classic like the Leica M. When users say something along the line of 'they got it right the first time around', 'it just feels right' or 'it just works', the best advice is to not screw with the essence and fundamentals of the design or you'll end up as another company that decided to 'reimagine' their flagship product and ended up stepping on their,... tail.

 

59 minutes ago, cookedart said:

Nothing I suggested above, for me, would take away from the simplicity of the camera, because i regularly use my M10 with a visoflex. So building in a hybrid EVF would make the camera simpler for me, not having to bring an extra accessory. I also never suggested autofocus, which would not be possible on an M without reengineering all of the lenses. The X-Pro is not at all like what I was suggesting.

What I don't understand is people fighting tooth and nail for every suggestion of progress, without thinking about what value it actually adds to the system. They already have an EVF, it just is a hot shoe mounted option. They already offer thumb rest, its just an additional accessory.

I would not be surprised if IBIS appeared, if they can eliminate the mechanical shutter with a global shutter etc. Otherwise there is not enough space and nobody wants to change the size of the camera. Same for the tilt out screen, but regardless that will probably never happen, because it would change the character of the camera. 

The Viso2 is optional, just like the original Viso. It is intended to allow the camera to perform a few functions it was not intended for reasonably well. It's not meant to transform it into something it isn't. It's a glorified $700 bandaid.

Some day Leica may decide to make a Q with an interchangeable lens mount, which will allow them to satisfy a segment of the market that demands more automation and electronics. Personally, I would just buy a Nikon Z or an SL3.