EVF M rumoured

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

15 minutes ago, lct said:

Re pricing, does anybody recalls how much cheaper the M1 was compared to the M2?

The German "Leitz Gesamtkatalog für den Fotofachhandel" from September 1961  lists the M1 for 396,-, the M2 for 612,- and the M3 for 720,- DM (all prices body only without lens). You could upgrade the M1 to an M2 for the difference between the prices of the two versions.

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Leica has not been averse to compromised viewfinders before. The Leica ii and iii had separate finders for composition/framing and focussing.

Well, this was at a time when an integration of the rangefinder in the viewfinder's window was not possible with the body of a Barnack camera. 

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

29 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I don’t see any M camera as being in competition with any medium format camera. Completely different use cases. 

With all due respect, 60MPixels IS undoubtedly in competition to medium format😁.

[jaapv]

Yes but that was not what I was thinking of. I I meant bulk, lens size, handling, lenses, etc.
Megapixels are , I think, a minor argument for many M users as there is a balance between advantages and disadvantages which is different for each user. 

[evikne]

For me, medium format is not primarily about any of this, but rather about sensor size, which gives a different expression to the images.

[Tailwagger]

Hmmm... just popped back in to see how things were going only to find that outside of the rise of 'rfM' and the fall of 'Mevf', the situation here continues to resemble WWI. No solid intel so everyone is dug in with little ground gained by one side or the other, save that... after what a decade or so of conflict... there perhaps is agreement that the inevitable is on the doorstep.   Otherwise, same old, same old it would seem.  So how y'all been? 

At this point, barring any significant breakthroughs or the seemingly unlikely inclusion of IBIS, I remain content with the existing dual finder solution. If perhaps the 11-V or whatever it is to be called resembles a more sophisticated X-Pro, I might be persuaded to part with my backup M10 for one, but this too seems less likely given the reported window loss.  Given what I would have liked to see seems a no go, what remains interesting, particularly given Leica's history, is to see how hard they lean in on the software side... cough AI cough... of things.  Hopefully the minimalist ethic has yet to be usurped by our future silicon lords and masters. 

The thing I am more concerned about in all this, given my preference for flexibility over convenience, is that the intro of the 11-V might portend the loss of the Viso for the rfM.  That would be a very unkind development AFAIC. Guess I'll check back in when release is imminent.  Hopefully the ORF v. EVF armistice will be a least drafted, if not signed, by then.   

[jaapv]

9 minutes ago, evikne said:

For me, medium format is not primarily about any of this, but rather about sensor size, which gives a different expression to the images.

I was looking from the point of view of M buyers. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, evikne said:

For me, medium format is not primarily about any of this, but rather about sensor size, which gives a different expression to the images.

Agree. Technically MF is not about megapixels but about pixel size. 

[MinRas]

When I tried the digital medium format Fuji GFX100S II with the 55mm f/1.7 lens, I quickly realized that I wouldn’t be taking that heavy setup much farther than my backyard. That’s why I switched to the Leica M11-P and kept the Hasselblad 500CM for when I want the medium format look. System size matters a lot — and in that regard, the M is unbeatable.   

[Oxfordian]

3 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Hmmm... just popped back in to see how things were going only to find that outside of the rise of 'rfM' and the fall of 'Mevf', the situation here continues to resemble WWI. No solid intel so everyone is dug in with little ground gained by one side or the other, save that... after what a decade or so of conflict... there perhaps is agreement that the inevitable is on the doorstep.   Otherwise, same old, same old it would seem.  So how y'all been? 

At this point, barring any significant breakthroughs or the seemingly unlikely inclusion of IBIS, I remain content with the existing dual finder solution. If perhaps the 11-V or whatever it is to be called resembles a more sophisticated X-Pro, I might be persuaded to part with my backup M10 for one, but this too seems less likely given the reported window loss.  Given what I would have liked to see seems a no go, what remains interesting, particularly given Leica's history, is to see how hard they lean in on the software side... cough AI cough... of things.  Hopefully the minimalist ethic has yet to be usurped by our future silicon lords and masters. 

The thing I am more concerned about in all this, given my preference for flexibility over convenience, is that the intro of the 11-V might portend the loss of the Viso for the rfM.  That would be a very unkind development AFAIC. Guess I'll check back in when release is imminent.  Hopefully the ORF v. EVF armistice will be a least drafted, if not signed, by then.   

Its a bit like a conflict this rumoured M11-v, or QM or MQ or........, so many different camps and tribes 😂

Now for me if Leica could put a Q3 and a M11 into a darkened room for a week or two with a bit of luck they could get it together and produce some offspring, if I'm lucky the results of that merger could be what I am looking for, a camera the size and features of a Q but with the additional flexibility that the M mount would bring, if they could do that I reckon Leica could be on to a real winner.

Having said all that the only certain thing is that Leica will not please everyone and no matter how hard they try there is going to be some camps and tribes who will be furious at what Leica brings out and will throw their toys out of the pram in frustration.

My hope - IBIS - very helpful for doddery old farts like me 😁

[jaapv]

52 minutes ago, pgk said:

With all due respect, 60MPixels IS undoubtedly in competition to medium format😁.

Not really. Cramming 60 megapixels on a ff sensor is quite different from making a 60 MP medium format sensor. You can use larger photosites-sensels better sensels, more robust circuitry, less cross talk, better noise behaviour, more photons per pixel, etc. Megapixels is just a number. Image quality is something quite different. 

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Megapixels is just a number. Image quality is something quite different. 

This should be the strapline for the forum

[Jon Warwick]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Not really. Cramming 60 megapixels on a ff sensor is quite different from making a 60 MP medium format sensor. You can use larger photosites-sensels better sensels, more robust circuitry, less cross talk, better noise behaviour, more photons per pixel, etc. Megapixels is just a number. Image quality is something quite different. 

Yes, I agree on your scenario of 60mp FF vs 60mp MF, albeit the main cameras one can buy new are typically using the same pixel size ….for example, the full frame 60mp sensor (SL3, M11) being upsized to medium format 100mp (GFX100 variants, X2Ds) have identical pixel sizes. In terms of image quality, I did a ton of testing between by GFX100 and M11, and sold the former. I found very little perceived difference in resolution for 40x30” prints between the two, and preferred the weight / lens options / rendering / etc of the Leica. For sheer resolution (and my preference in terms of rendering), I think my M11M beats them all. So another example where I’d agree with you that megapixels is a number, but image quality being something quite different, in this case due to the benefit of a different sensor technology from lack of color filter array. 

[pgk]

39 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Image quality is something quite different. 

So what is it? Serious question from someone who stitches both medium and large format images from an FX sensor.

[UliWer]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Cramming 60 megapixels on a ff sensor is quite different from making a 60 MP medium format sensor.

Though I think that sensor production doesn‘t work like this anymore. You may get an idea if you compare the number of pixels and the pixel sizes of a Fujifilm X 100 VI and and a GFX 100 II in relation to the sensor sizes.  

[SrMi]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Agree. Technically MF is not about megapixels but about pixel size. 

?

The pixel size is the same in the M11 and X2D. Technically, MF is about sensor size and resolution.

[jaapv]

I was talking about MF in general and comparing sensors of identical resolution. By introducing a comparison between 60 MP and 100 MP you are only confusing the issue - one parameter too many to make it meaningful.

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

I was talking about MF in general and comparing sensors of identical resolution. By introducing a comparison between 60 MP and 100 MP you are only confusing the issue - one parameter too many to make it meaningful.

I was comparing the use of the same sensor technology between FF and MF: the sensor size and the resolution increase with MF.

It makes less sense to compare formats with different sensor types. 

[jaapv]

That is just the point, you will have

10 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I was comparing the use of the same sensor technology between FF and MF: the sensor size and the resolution increase with MF.

It makes less sense to compare formats with different sensor types. 

Just my point: the same resolution at a better quality on MF. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

I have to say I find it hilarious that folks are diving back into the last millennium seeking guidance on business ops, planning, engineering, pricing, and precedents for what "Leica" might do. As if there was some kind of corporate continuity in its ownership and management.

- Until 1984, there was no "Leica" company. "Leica" simply meant one product line of Ernst Leitz GMbH - the Leitz Cameras.
- In 1987, Ernst Leitz GMbH merged with the Swiss optical company Wild-Heerbrugg to form Wild-Leitz
- In 1989, the combine was renamed Leica Holding B.V. (aka the Leica Group)
- in 1996, Leica Camera AG was separated out of the Leica Group, and became an independent publicly-owned company traded on the Frankfurt stock exchange. One could even buy a Leica M6 special edition (the "Ein Stucke") and also get "one piece" of Leica corporate stock thrown in.

https://cameraquest.com/LM6Ein.htm

- In 2000, the French luxury fashion-accessory company Hermès bought 36% of that public stock.
- in 2006, Hermès sold its shares to Dr. Andreas Kaufmann, as part of his gradual acquisition of most of Leica Camera.
- In 2006, Dr. K also made an offer to all holders of Leica shares to buy back their shares. And fired the top two managers at Leica Camera.
- in 2011, Dr. K forced a stock-repurchase of all remaking outstanding shares, (which were then de-listed as a tradeable stock in 2012) making Leica a private company again.
- in 2011, Dr. K also sold 45% of Leica Camera to Blackstone Inc.
- in 2013 Leica bought Sinar (the Swiss large-format camera company).

After all that, someone will have to walk me through what possible bearing "what Leitz did in 1961," has on what Leica might do today.

Might as well study the 1958 Edsel to figure out what Ford Motors might do in 2026. 🤪

[UliWer]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

I was talking about MF in general and comparing sensors of identical resolution.

Do you know any MF sensor - now on the market  - which has the same resolution as a current 24*36mm sensor?