Pelu2010 Posted February 7 Share #101 Posted February 7 Advertisement (gone after registration) 53 minutes ago, pgk said: Fascinating. The Leica M has a distinct envelope in which it operates extremely well. No amount of tinkering with it will increase this envelope anything other than marginally. So why not just make it in its most effective guise? [Example; boosting its ISO sounds great but the rangefinder is not usable in low light and at low contrast levels]. I shoot in total darkness with the M. No problems with the rangefinder. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 7 Posted February 7 Hi Pelu2010, Take a look here Why the M needs IBIS. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
charlesphoto99 Posted February 7 Share #102 Posted February 7 21 hours ago, Crem said: The minute the M has IBIS we'll see threads about the next game changing feature it needs. I really think the M is at a fork in the road from a product design point of view. We need really need two Ms (the uber tech one and the simple one). That will be an adaptor (or built in) to make M lenses autofocus, of course.... I mean, why didn't they make them that way to begin with? 😏 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleElmar135mm Posted February 7 Share #103 Posted February 7 Because it's an M - Messsucher and manual ... .... and it's not a SL or Q Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 7 Share #104 Posted February 7 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Pelu2010 said: I shoot in total darkness with the M. No problems with the rangefinder. What I do wish the M had was the ability to view the chosen shutter speed in the rangefinder window (when in manual metering mode). Personally I would love to see an M6-D. Essentially a digital M6, winder and all (with ability to add a motor drive) with an SL-3S sensor, and no extra bells and whistles. Maybe a screen and a screen-less model (screen could be very small even). Edited February 7 by charlesphoto99 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 7 Share #105 Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, TeleElmar135mm said: Because it's an M - Messsucher and manual ... .... and it's not a SL or Q Umm, if you are replying to me, you need to put on your sarcasm hat. It was a joke. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted February 7 Share #106 Posted February 7 14 minutes ago, Pelu2010 said: I shoot in total darkness with the M. No problems with the rangefinder. Would you care to explain this comment, Pelu? If you shot "in total darkness" - i.e. a complete absence of light - there would be absolutely nothing whatsoever visible to photograph... Philip. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 7 Share #107 Posted February 7 Advertisement (gone after registration) 21 minutes ago, Pelu2010 said: I shoot in total darkness with the M. No problems with the rangefinder. Rangefinders are limited by their length, the contrast and make up of the subject and the ability of the eye to accurately see precise coincidence. Unless you are very different from the rest of us then you will find there is a low light level at which coincidence cannot be accurately judged. Its the nature of the beast whether we like it or not 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 7 Share #108 Posted February 7 I can see the framelines in total darkness. Even Sony cannot do that. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted February 7 Share #109 Posted February 7 59 minutes ago, pgk said: Rangefinders are limited by their length, the contrast and make up of the subject and the ability of the eye to accurately see precise coincidence. Unless you are very different from the rest of us then you will find there is a low light level at which coincidence cannot be accurately judged. Its the nature of the beast whether we like it or not The rangefinder makes it easier to focus in the dark when autofocus cameras refuse to focus. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 7 Share #110 Posted February 7 1 minute ago, Smogg said: The rangefinder makes it easier to focus in the dark when autofocus cameras refuse to focus. What I was just going to say that. I'm sure that something was lost in translation there and @Pelu2010 didn't mean shooting in a locked closet kind of darkness, but rather situations that are dark where AF would hunt. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted February 7 Share #111 Posted February 7 Actually I doubt why M needs auto exposure, or even light meter at all? Or larger aperture, or ... any new technology! ??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted February 7 Share #112 Posted February 7 14 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said: ...I'm sure that...@Pelu2010 didn't mean shooting in a locked closet kind of darkness, but rather situations that are dark where AF would hunt. So 'Low Light Situations'? OK. Philip. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 7 Share #113 Posted February 7 I often wonder if there has been a demographic change at Leica where the whole M paradigm has shifted, or been lost. While I agree with @FlashGordonPhotography’s post above, it’s only to a point. There will always be camera makers who chase technology - in the 1960s, it was the Nikon F, then others like Pentax with the Spotmatic, the various Canons, Minoltas and then latterly the Fujis and Sonys. Through all that, Leica has stuck almost stubbornly with the M means messsucher and das wesentliche mantras, eschewing metering, AF and other “improvements. And it almost killed the company. The M9 saved the M system. Why? By accepting that it had to adapt to the digital age with a full frame sensor. But, that camera retained the unique position of the M system. The attraction of the M cameras, to me, is that only the essential things are included, and what is included is resolved - the best of what is required. The M(240) and the M11 both departed from that paradigm by including things that could be included, rather than what is needed. Sure, both cameras could be used in the traditional way, but they departed from that stubborn approach Leica adopted when they invented AF, and refused to use it. I know I keep saying I just want the 4 controls and the best DNG file from my fabulous M lenses. That’s why I use my M10-D. The challenge is leaving things out, rather than including them because you can. However, that doesn’t mean I’m wedded to the baseplate, SD cards, poor battery life or any MP level (having an X2D, I don’t mind 100MP, but it’s not a goal in itself). Evolve - yes. But don’t lose sight of what makes an M different from the Sonys & Fujis. 2 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 7 Share #114 Posted February 7 (edited) Here’s a further thought - many hate car analogies, but Porsche went through a similar crisis. They’ve just released a new Carrera S, and on paper it looks fabulous, faster, more refined and only available with PDK. Here, we have half a dozen roads where you can go 110kph - the rest, 100kph or slower. Yet, we have some of the best driving roads to be had. Until last year, Porsche made 1 911 with a manual gear box - the GT3. Another normally aspirated marvel of engineering technology, with speeds you can only use on the track. If I win Lotto today, I’ll be ordering the 911 Carrera T - a tuned down, back to basics 911, with a gear stick, because I love the simple act of driving through the country I love. Edited February 7 by IkarusJohn 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleElmar135mm Posted February 7 Share #115 Posted February 7 vor 1 Stunde schrieb charlesphoto99: Umm, if you are replying to me, you need to put on your sarcasm hat. It was a joke. sorry ... no it was not a direct reply to you. It was a big sigh about the thread. In Germany we have the expression "verschlimmbessern" . I don't know the exact English translation. It is like make worse. But it is hard to translate ... in a dictionary they say it's "kill the patient with the cure" - I think not bad 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 7 Share #116 Posted February 7 9 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: Here’s a further thought - many hate car analogies, but Porsche went through a similar crisis. They’ve just released a new Carrera S, and on paper it looks fabulous, faster, more refined and only available with PDK. Here, we have half a dozen roads where you can go 110kph - the rest, 100kph or slower. Yet, we have some of the best driving roads to be had. Until last year, Porsche made 1 911 with a manual gear box - the GT3. Another normally aspirated marvel of engineering technology, with speeds you can only use on the track. If I win Lotto today, I’ll be ordering the 911 Carrera T - a tuned down, back to basics 911, with a gear stick, because I love the simple act of driving through the country I love. The Cayman/Boxster is back to old 911 size and weight, handles better with mid-engine design, and is far less expensive, despite sharing 90+% parts and made on same assembly line (a tech guy on YouTube disassembled both and compared part for part). Plus the GTS 4.0 (flat 6) comes with manual transmission. Everything, and more, for those who care more about driving than prestige. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpark114 Posted February 7 Share #117 Posted February 7 My dream : 1. The same physical dimensions as M11 series 2. Keep OVF. Leica should come up with a totally different line of product for all those evf/small M mount camera seekers. I'm yet not so sure about OVF+EVF Hybrid. 3. I'd welcome IBIS + Stacked sensor with fast readout speed enabling total electronic shutter operation in any condition. (Or rather, global shutter with improved DR) A mechanical shutter included to act as mechanical shutter aficionados. This is contrary to purist/traditional approach as exemplified in #2 above, but I actually wish to see Nikon Z9 Appoach (IBIS Lockup for switch off state + shutter like dust cover) with no mechanical shutter. 4. Please keep the same type of battery for at least 3 generations, like what you did for Q series & SL Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted February 7 Share #118 Posted February 7 (edited) On 2/5/2025 at 11:03 AM, Stuart Richardson said: All joking aside, [--] in scenes where subject movement is not the main danger, having IBIS really raises the keeper rate. That said, with 60-100 mp and IBIS the M is starting to stray pretty far from its original design specification. [. ] - image stabilization does not have to be mechanical (such as e.g. three piezo crystals for three flat field movements) - but also in memory. At least the EVF should benefit from that, having a lower res than the main picture. but once the parameters are known, it can be applied to the final image too maybe. I like the idea of a floating sensor. Though. but the requirements for M will differ from the standard mirrolessy camera's - here the use case of lenses is 95% <60mm , I guess. That is, statistically irrelevant to make it in an algorithm to fit a Summilux 75mm . . . Having some constraint will allow the M-body to remain slick. Quote Note: I’m voting for IBIS *IF* they can keep the size the same. But not if it makes the M bigger. Gordon OK I don't know what I'm talking about. But I shot some 75mm/18MP today (perceptually sharp) at 1/60th ; and I dare not do something even remotely similar on my 47MP body: I'ld need <1/300. The M12 is on the horizon. I'm curious. What tricks does it have to help us? An M12 with some kind of image support could move "the pendulum" back . Nudge us back, away from where we strayed already erroring . . Edited February 7 by Alberti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted February 7 Share #119 Posted February 7 47 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: Here’s a further thought - many hate car analogies, but Porsche went through a similar crisis... Porsche designed the 928 to be the replacement for the 911 which one or two individuals on the board considered to be utterly obsolete (and by a very long way). The 928 was an extrordinary and extremely capable car. It lasted a mere 17 years. The executives who 'designed' the death of the 911 lasted for less than that. The 911 was introduced in 1964 and is still with us 60 years later. For sure it has been modified all through its lifetime - it hasn't been air-cooled for a quarter of a century - but at heart the essence of 911-driving remains. Leica could do well to consider what M users are really after. Philip. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelu2010 Posted February 7 Share #120 Posted February 7 2 hours ago, pippy said: Would you care to explain this comment, Pelu? If you shot "in total darkness" - i.e. a complete absence of light - there would be absolutely nothing whatsoever visible to photograph... Philip. There is always something where you can focus on. and if not I just test the image and change it if needed Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.