EVF M rumoured

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

Hi Jaap

You're right - oldies with bad eyesight is not a promising customer base. But Cool 30 somethings with money who fancy an M . . . but don't fancy a rangefinder is a huge customer base, especially in the Far East. Don't you think?

best

Jono

Not sure - If I may generalize, Far East culture is rather tradition-oriented as far as I know.

[Advertisement]

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

[Smogg]

5 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

Thanks for the extra info. The A7RII is from 2015 and it was one for the first in the A7 series with hybrid autofocus - far behind what one can expect today. Also the LM-AE7 was much bulkier, slower and far away from the performance you see from the LM-EA9. So, if we discuss on pros and cons of AF adapters for M-lenses, it should be done at today's technological level.

How can the adapter and camera version affect the fact that the internal lens group does not move during autofocus? Because of this, my image quality suffered.

[jonoslack]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Not sure - If I may generalize, Far East culture is rather tradition-oriented as far as I know.

One of the reasons Leica is doing so well there! I'm thinking of young people with money (going to LSI meetings recently the demographic really has changed a lot )- sure there are plenty of us oldies, but there are also lots of 30 and 40 somethings for whom money really doesn't seem to be an issue - but Leica M cameras are cool

Of course I don't know how well it would sell (unless it looks like the rumors mock up in which case it clearly wouldn't sell at all!). But if Thorsten is right and it's simply an M with an EVF replacing the rangefinder then it probably isn't a huge gamble

Edited February 12 by jonoslack

[jaapv]

16 minutes ago, Martin B said:

[...} the already behind sales expectation SL series [...]

I'm not aware of Leica's sales expectation. Could you please elaborate (unless you are under NDA)?

[jaapv]

1 minute ago, jonoslack said:

One of the reasons Leica is doing so well there! I'm thinking of young people with money (going to LSI meetings recently the demographic really has changed a lot )- sure there are plenty of us oldies, but there are also lots of 30 and 40 somethings for whom money really doesn't seem to be an issue - but Leica M cameras are cool

Of course But wouldn't they want "the real thing" ?

[jonoslack]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Of course But wouldn't they want "the real thing" ?

Yes - and the EVF version as well

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, maybe Leica will try out a special edition first to judge the market.

[jonoslack]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Well, maybe Leica will try out a special edition first to judge the market.

No need - make 1000 and if they sell make some more! I've no idea if they will do it or not, I'm pretty certain they won't make a new camera range though - surely the requests for an EVF based M are just that, not for a Q with an M mount or something else weird. My suspicion is that if they do it, and it looks good, then it would sell well, I don't know whether I'd buy one or not, but I suspect I would and that it would be an excellent companion for a rangefinder M (same look, image quality, handling, menus whatever). 

Edited February 12 by jonoslack

[jaapv]

Well, I'm mentally stuck on the M9 and M9M, so it won't be for me 😉

[Smogg]

9 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

No need - make 1000 and if they sell make some more! I've no idea if they will do it or not, I'm pretty certain they won't make a new camera range though - surely the requests for an EVF based M are just that, not for a Q with an M mount or something else weird. My suspicion is that if they do it, and it looks good, then it would sell well, I don't know whether I'd buy one or not, but I suspect I would and that it would be an excellent companion for a rangefinder M (same look, image quality, handling, menus whatever). 

Indeed! The main thing for us is that Leica feels good financially, and it doesn't matter whether it's due to its main or secondary products. 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.

[Nitnaros]

1 hour ago, costa43 said:

 I also think the M12 could be 100mp. 

a step from 60 MP to 100 MP would not deliver very much

100/60=1.66 more MPs across the sensor means 1.28 x increase in resolution horizontally and vertically (1.28x1.28=1.6); that is not a huge difference resolution wise

a 50% increase in each direction means 1.5 x 1.5 =225 2.25 increase in MP required
that would be a 135 MP sensor

if you really want to upgrade, 2x in each direction in terms of MP, that would mean 60 x 2 x 2 =240 MP sensor...

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 29 Minuten schrieb Smogg:

How can the adapter and camera version affect the fact that the internal lens group does not move during autofocus? Because of this, my image quality suffered.

I did not make this connection.

Camera version (autofocus logic, number of phase detection pixels in the PDAF phase, interpretation of contrast in the CDAF phase, computation power) affects how good it can cope with strong lens aberrations (CA, glow etc.) like you see it on these lenses. On the adapter side it is more about speed and movement precision.

The primary idea of floating elements is the compensation of aberrations in the close focus range and perhaps some secret sauce to reduce focus shift when stopping down. Focus shift is no problem for EVF and AF as the aperture does not change here. Only for the close focus corrections of the FLE it may make sense to prefocus the lens a little.

[costa43]

Just now, Nitnaros said:

a step from 60 MP to 100 MP would not deliver very much

100/60=1.66 more MPs across the sensor means 1.28 x increase in resolution horizontally and vertically (1.28x1.28=1.6); that is not a huge difference resolution wise

a 50% increase in each direction means 1.5 x 1.5 =225 2.25 increase in MP required
that would be a 135 MP sensor

if you really want to upgrade, 2x in each direction in terms of MP, that would mean 60 x 2 x 2 =240 MP sensor...

I've actually no idea on what resolution a new sensor could be. A Sony 100mp sensor has been touted by various sources so I would assume that is a good place to start. How else will Leica draw in M11 users to upgrade. The image quality has to be improved in an M, it cannot go backwards now unless there are two lines offering distinct differences like the SL3/SL3S or there is a huge difference in speed and very little loss in image quality. The resolution will surely keep going up though.

Edited February 12 by costa43

[pgk]

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

I don't believe there more than simply considering highlights anymore - blown highlights is pretty much the only disaster you can perpetrate (short of leaving on the lens cap) - even 5 stops under-exposure is easy to recover. 

That depends on the subject. I sometimes happily blow highlights if the contrast is extremely high and the highlight tonality is not relevant. I want to know where I stand in regard to doing so. Retaining highlights is not as simple as it might sound.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Nitnaros:

if you really want to upgrade, 2x in each direction in terms of MP, that would mean 60 x 2 x 2 =240 MP sensor...

If it really would count, you could get this with IBIS in the pixelshift mode 😉

[Smogg]

3 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

I did not make this connection.

Camera version (autofocus logic, number of phase detection pixels in the PDAF phase, interpretation of contrast in the CDAF phase, computation power) affects how good it can cope with strong lens aberrations (CA, glow etc.) like you see it on these lenses. On the adapter side it is more about speed and movement precision.

The primary idea of floating elements is the compensation of aberrations in the close focus range and perhaps some secret sauce to reduce focus shift when stopping down. Focus shift is no problem for EVF and AF as the aperture does not change here. Only for the close focus corrections of the FLE it may make sense to prefocus the lens a little.

I took test shots for myself only at a distance of 3 meters. There was a noticeable difference in micro contrast when setting the focus to infinity and prefocusing.

[costa43]

Just now, pgk said:

That depends on the subject. I sometimes happily blow highlights if the contrast is extremely high and the highlight tonality is not relevant. I want to know where I stand in regard to doing so. Retaining highlights is not as simple as it might sound.

I agree, when you have little choice then you protect the highlights that matter most in an image. There is a difference between blowing a highlight on someones forehead as opposed to a lamp in the background. Like Jono said though, shadow recovery is so good nowadays it is much easier than it used to be.

[pgk]

1 minute ago, costa43 said:

 ..... shadow recovery is so good nowadays it is much easier than it used to be.

I use shadow recovery on my M9 and Sony photos. Yes its good but it shouldn't usurp the photographer's decision making at the point of taking the photograph. If it does then I'd suggest that all the manual shutter speeds on an M camera are redundant. Just shoot auto and sort everything in post.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Smogg:

There was a noticeable difference in micro contrast when setting the focus to infinity and prefocusing.

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.

[lct]

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

[...] I still don't quite understand why you need to be using low shutter speeds? after all the difference in ISO between the M240 and the M11 would allow you about 4 stops more shutter speed if the light is low? [...]

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.