Smogg Posted February 12 Share #341 Posted February 12 Advertisement (gone after registration) 2 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said: I did'nt use the 0.95 Noctilux exensively but from BastianK at phillipreeve.net I read: "Performance at f/0.95 at infinity isn’t particularly great, but that doesn’t really come as a surprise, as I don’t think this lens has been optimized to be used at infinity at its maximum aperture." So may be, for the 0.95 Noctilux prefocusing makes sense due to it's particular flaws in focus settings where it was not made for. But this cannot be generalized. I fully admit this option. My choice of infinity focus as a test option is explained by the classic starting position on lenses with a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 12 Posted February 12 Hi Smogg, Take a look here EVF M rumoured. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jonoslack Posted February 12 Share #342 Posted February 12 1 minute ago, lct said: I don't mind shooting high iso if needed but i prefer low iso when i have the choice. From 64 to 200 preferably depending on the body. YMMV. Well, I reckon that 200 on the M240 is about equivalent to 6,400 on the M11 - which I’m always happy to shoot at if necessary (without doing any noise removal in post processing). Perhaps you should be a bit more adventurous with Auto ISO! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
evikne Posted February 12 Share #343 Posted February 12 27 minutes ago, Smogg said: Let them produce anything, from teddy bears to tractors, as long as the rangefinder (it's a monopoly for now) remains in its product line and continues to develop. But don’t develop too fast. Natural evolution is OK, but the M has no need to hurry. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted February 12 Share #344 Posted February 12 3 minutes ago, evikne said: But don’t develop too fast. Natural evolution is OK, but the M has no need to hurry. I would even go further and legally prohibit the release of a new version of M more often than once every 5 years, so that we have time to save money😂 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted February 12 Share #345 Posted February 12 vor 4 Minuten schrieb jonoslack: Well, I reckon that 200 on the M240 is about equivalent to 6,400 on the M11 - which I’m always happy to shoot at if necessary (without doing any noise removal in post processing). Perhaps you should be a bit more adventurous with Auto ISO! Although I did'nt like the M240, I would'nt say the M240 was that bad. According to DXOMark, the M240 has a dynamic range of approximately 13.5 EV at ISO 200 whereas the M11 has about 9.5 EV at ISO 6400. May be, the noise still looks nicer on the M11 at ISO6400 but I can't really follow your statement. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted February 12 Share #346 Posted February 12 Leica is a monopolist in the rangefinder market and it's high time for antitrust authorities to impose restrictions on the price and release dates of new cameras😜 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted February 12 Share #347 Posted February 12 Advertisement (gone after registration) vor 1 Minute schrieb Smogg: Leica is a monopolist in the rangefinder market Not really. There is also Pixii. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted February 12 Share #348 Posted February 12 1 minute ago, 3D-Kraft.com said: Not really. There is also Pixii. I'm sure this is a shell company to avoid charges😀 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphlex Posted February 12 Share #349 Posted February 12 15 hours ago, lct said: Or the visoflex-equivalent experience would be giving exactly what some of us are looking for. An M-mount body with an EVF instead of the RF. No bump on the top plate anymore. We could put a flash or a thumb rest in the hotshoe w/o having to remove the Visoflex finally since it would be built in the body. Let alone that the EVF would be on the top left instead of the bump in the middle... Couldn’t Fuji, for example, make that, and even include a rangefinder cam for magnification? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 12 Share #350 Posted February 12 4 minutes ago, graphlex said: Couldn’t Fuji, for example, make that, and even include a rangefinder cam for magnification? Why would Fuji want to support M lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 12 Share #351 Posted February 12 32 minutes ago, Smogg said: Leica is a monopolist in the rangefinder market and it's high time for antitrust authorities to impose restrictions on the price and release dates of new cameras😜 Time to resuscitate Mamiya and bring back a digital Mamiya 6, which was actually one of my favorite rangefinder cameras (when it wasn't in the shop for repair that is). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 12 Share #352 Posted February 12 1 minute ago, graphlex said: Couldn’t Fuji, for example, make that, and even include a rangefinder cam for magnification? I've kept good memories of my little X-E2, although i much preferred the digital CL, but i don't like much Fuj colors personally and i've been spending too much time in post to tweak them. Also a Fuji camera would proably need a thinner sensor stack to fit WA and UWA M lenses. And why would Leica users need an adapter to fit their M Lenses in the first place? Let alone that an adapter with roller cam has never been made AFAIK. Better use the real thing, a true M-mount body, be that at Leica price. YOLO 😉 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 12 Share #353 Posted February 12 Fuji did make the "Texas Leica" with their 6X9 (and 6X8, 6X7 models thrown in for good measure) rangefinder film cameras. But it's a different time and company now, and there is absolutely zero reason for them to want to accommodate anything Leica, one of their main competitors. And in fact, they still have not made a true full frame 35mm camera yet, leapfrogging from APS-C to a mini-medium format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 12 Share #354 Posted February 12 (edited) So to recap: Positives of an EVF-M: 1. M sized and shaped body which has a 2. Sensor optimised to work best with M lenses Negatives of an EVF-M: 1. Only viable with M and/or M adapted lenses 2. Manual Focus only 3. Many other cameras can already be adapted to use M lenses and offer a lot of other functionality and vastly higher specification at vastly lower cost, and, although their sensors are not optimised for M lenses, they will often perform satisfactorily 4. It will be a divisive design and as a consequence will not appeal to all existing M owners, so will have a limited market even within core M adherents 5. Its appeal beyond existing M users is an unknown Seems to me that Leica will need to weigh up its commercial viability and profitability very carefully. Perhaps such a camera might make them money. The question is whether it will also create reputational harm which will damage sales of other M cameras? Edited February 12 by pgk typo 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DadDadDaddyo Posted February 12 Share #355 Posted February 12 3 hours ago, jonoslack said: short of leaving on the lens cap Mmm. Been there, done that. Way underexposed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 12 Share #356 Posted February 12 25 minutes ago, pgk said: Positives of an EVF-M: 1. M sized and shaped body which has a 2. Sensor optimised to work best with M lenses 3. WYSIWYG with M and adapted LTM lenses 4. Auto zoom with ditto 5. 6-bit coding with ditto 6. Leica Perspective Control with ditto 7. Etc. etc. 😄 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DadDadDaddyo Posted February 12 Share #357 Posted February 12 36 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said: "Texas Leica" Yup - I've got one of those in 6x9. 'Tis a monster... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 12 Share #358 Posted February 12 vor 16 Minuten schrieb lct: 3. WYSIWYG with M and adapted LTM lenses 4. Auto zoom with ditto 5. 6-bit coding with ditto 6. Leica Perspective Control with ditto 7. Etc. etc. 😄 ??? If „Auto-Zoom“ means that the EVF produces an enlarged image when you focus, it works with all my M and LTM lenses which are coupled to the rangefinder and if I want to use EVF. Same for „perspective control“ if your camera supports it. You don‘t need an EVF-M for this. Why would an „EVF-M“ have any advantage for 6-bit-coding? Both are completely different features. The „WYSIWYG“ argument is true since the first SLR was introduced. People who think this is essential have had the choice of other systems - even from Leica - for ages. An EVF-M wouldn’t add anything for them they can’t get elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 12 Share #359 Posted February 12 1 hour ago, lct said: 3. WYSIWYG with M and adapted LTM lenses 4. Auto zoom with ditto 5. 6-bit coding with ditto 6. Leica Perspective Control with ditto 7. Etc. etc. 😄 You are assuming that this will be implemented😮. It may add complexity in an area of the body which requires other internals. Hopefully you are correct and that it will work like a Sony using Loxia lenses (which is another cheaper solution). As for Perspective Control, well I detest it because it looks wrong and distorted to me. That said, I've posted a severly corrected image here on the forum and nobody seemed to notice the rather weird distorted shadows .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 12 Share #360 Posted February 12 (edited) 32 minutes ago, pgk said: You are assuming that this will be implemented😮. It may add complexity in an area of the body which requires other internals. Hopefully you are correct and that it will work like a Sony using Loxia lenses (which is another cheaper solution). As for Perspective Control, well I detest it because it looks wrong and distorted to me. That said, I've posted a severly corrected image here on the forum and nobody seemed to notice the rather weird distorted shadows .... I have posted LPC examples, and images look much better with LPC than without and when manually corrected. However, one needs to understand the limitations to apply it correctly. Can you share your post where LPC does not work well? Edited February 12 by SrMi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now