Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

The blockage of the (optical) viewfinder would no longer be an issue, since it can be replaced by an EVF also in an AF variant.

So why have a viewfinder? The base problem we have is that some people want an M shaped SL body which only takes M lenses. I can understand the M shaped SL body which actually makes a lot of sense in many ways. Its the M lens only bit that doesn't. A cleverly built adapter could fit onto an M shaped SL body almost seamlessly. What doesn't seem usable about an M shaped SL with a really well taylored adapter for M lenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pgk said:

So why have a viewfinder? The base problem we have is that some people want an M shaped SL body which only takes M lenses. I can understand the M shaped SL body which actually makes a lot of sense in many ways. Its the M lens only bit that doesn't. A cleverly built adapter could fit onto an M shaped SL body almost seamlessly. What doesn't seem usable about an M shaped SL with a really well taylored adapter for M lenses?

You know what these people do first? They buy a handgrip🤣

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 27 Minuten schrieb pgk:

So why have a viewfinder?

My description also said, it would not require an (optical) viewfinder anymore, but the Grok AI model still sticked to that tradition in further renderings even after asking it explicitely to remove it from the rendering. Seems to be hardcoded in the model (and also in some heads) that an M needs an optomechanical range-/viewfinder to be an M...

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!

  

vor 27 Minuten schrieb pgk:

What doesn't seem usable about an M shaped SL with a really well taylored adapter for M lenses?

That's also my question (including the AF capability).

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TeleElmar135mm said:

The worst cast scenario is getting worse ... not only the price :) ... hopefully it's a rumor and stays that way

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/rumored-leica-m12-specs-smaller-and-with-hybrid-viewfinder/

 

 

 

Ah right, so a sort of FF Fuji Xpro camera but smaller.   I can just see it now; image stabilisation, the bright coloured light of focus peaking, image stabilisation and spirit level in the EVF to make sure one gets their composition straight.  And most importantly an M camera with a bright red Leica badge (not a L/CL/SL camera, I mean it just hasn't got that same status has it).  A successful hit with instagrammers/Youtubers/those that can't be arsed with all that challening exposure triangle stuff no doubt.   If that rumour's true of course.

Edited by Ray Vonn
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside technical discussions of what is possible, I think the benefits and challenges of focusing an OVF v EVF based M camera have been done to death in this thread, and many threads previously (at least since the first CMOS based M camera, the M(240)).  For anyone with remaining doubts, perhaps re-read this thread and get out and try you digital M with and without the Visoflex.

The odd question is - what image this would have on your photography.  Or, more generally, what impact has digital technology had on your photography?  I bought a motor drive for my FM2 back in the 1980s.  I liked the grip, didn’t like the increase in bulk and weight and found I didn’t take more images because my hit rate didn’t improve.

My F5 could focus bracket and exposure bracket, but again I never used those functions.

Has having even more functional SL & X2D EVF based cameras changed the way I photograph?  No, not really.  I take different images with them, but that is really more to do with their use.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, costa43 said:

An EVF only M could also open up more conversions of other vintage glass to M mount. Without rangefinder coupling it would be easier to do. Could be interesting.

With special RF coupling too. The Summicron 50/2 DR can focus from 0.5m to infinity with M11 and Visoflex 2 sans goggles for instance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

OMG no!  Don't make it smaller!!  

The same people who yelled about the M240 being fat will yell about the M12 being too small!!  😳

But the M240 WAS too fat! Measure it. A full 0.5 mm !!!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. They included the thumb wheel which is not present on the M9/8. It caused a storm in a teacup at introduction. Some people still believe in the resulting Internet turmoil    However, the body thickness is virtually identical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha fat bottoms cannot lie 🤣
M11 and M240 bottom plate:

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!

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lct said:

Haha fat bottoms cannot lie 🤣
M11 and M240 bottom plate:

 

I said M9/8. The whole point of the M10/11 is that they have been shrunk to film M size, approximately. So yes they can lie by making the wrong comparison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...