ytwong wrote:
Can Leica keep up with the M lens production if drive up the demand?
I think so, unless they artificially limit stock which I doubt it. Almost all lenses baring 50Cron APO and a few others are in stock everywhere. Even Noctilux 0.95 is available at most dealers. The new factory will be up and running soon. What Leica needs is to produce and sell more camera bodies. Without cameras, lots of M mount lenses are all sitting on dealers' shelves.
rscheffler wrote:
I certainly hope Leica will be bold and announce a FF MILC, even if it upsets some M240 early adopters and potentially impacts sales of that camera.
Leica also surprised many of us by holding the M240 price on par with the M9 when many were predicting $9K-10k, so it could happen.
j.liam wrote:
Would they really? RF aficianados are a curious and devoted breed drawn to that experience, very different from pure EVF with focus-peaking, though they can now do both on the M240, if only to have true macro, telephoto and zoom options. WIth EVF only, Leica is addressing an audience that is in the process or has already gone elsewhere.
M240($6,950)+EVF($550)+multifunctional grip($900)+ R-to-M adapter ($300).....$8,700 before tax, shipping....
I completely agree that RF fans will always lean towards RF (and I would too, having now used one for a couple years), but I think the M240 introduces enough new features, primarily live view, that there would be some overlap with an EVF-only FF camera.
I was going to comment on how the M's price increases substantially with the add-on accessories, but one doesn't need any of those to use the camera with live view and lens adapters don't necessarily have to be purchased from Leica, nor does the EVF when the much cheaper Olympus version will work equally well.
Joe: it seems one can never have enough 50mm lenses, but there's such thing as too many cameras? I agree though. It's the lens sales that every manufacturer desires. It's interesting to look at camera prices over the years - for a given feature set, prices have remained fairly steady, if not decreasing. Yet, look at the latest lenses from Canikony - 30% and greater price increases. A camera body is pretty much useless without a lens.
ytwong wrote:
Can Leica keep up with the M lens production if drive up the demand?
In the the.me link I posted earlier, Leica's Stefan Daniel stated their production has increased from 1,000 to 3,000 lenses per month. Indeed, many are now relatively easy to find in stock. That's one more reason to offer another camera option to generate more demand for lenses.
^^ the idea of focusing a fast full frame lens through a tiny attachable television sounds almost as punishing as focusing a rangefinder, so I guess it might work.
Spyro P. wrote:
^^ the idea of focusing a fast full frame lens through a tiny attachable television sounds almost as punishing as focusing a rangefinder, so I guess it might work.
I know the only reason I chose Leica is because it feels like self flagellation. For the most part though, I find the EVF aspect of peaking and zoom (and hyperfocal + zone) to be effective with NEX cameras. Haven't tried the GXR.
_julian_ wrote:
I know the only reason I chose Leica is because it feels like self flagellation. For the most part though, I find the EVF aspect of peaking and zoom (and hyperfocal + zone) to be effective with NEX cameras. Haven't tried the GXR.
The GXR has the best implementation of focus peaking/magnification. Leica and Sony could learn a lot from Ricoh.
Spyro P. wrote:
Ι"m sure it is, with a bit of squinting. But it will probably be harder with a FF sensor because of the smaller DOF.
Dunno, maybe I'm over reacting (and I havent tried that particular EVF, they say it's pretty good)
hmm, i've found evfs to be leaps and bounds better for manual focusing than anything else, even for action at f/1.2. smaller dof seems to make it easier, but SA makes it harder (as it does on an ovf). other people seem to have a lot of trouble though so i think it's something you have to make an effort to get used to.
sebboh wrote:
hmm, i've found evfs to be leaps and bounds better for manual focusing than anything else, even for action at f/1.2. smaller dof seems to make it easier, but SA makes it harder (as it does on an ovf). other people seem to have a lot of trouble though so i think it's something you have to make an effort to get used to.
So apparently it's a super-boring X with a zoom It will be a huge hit, the same caliber X2 is
Well, what can you expect from this moronic company, seriously... Outside of missing a chance
to come up with an exciting product, they launch a campaign called mini "M", but it will not be M-mount based.
Reminds me when they chose May 10 for their big event and they didn't announce the new M10.
sebboh wrote:
hmm, i've found evfs to be leaps and bounds better for manual focusing than anything else, even for action at f/1.2. smaller dof seems to make it easier, but SA makes it harder (as it does on an ovf). other people seem to have a lot of trouble though so i think it's something you have to make an effort to get used to.
With a good optical finder and screen, I don't really see the advantage except in cases where one needs to magnify a certain area. I find evf's to be basic, rudimentary aids in specific cases, almost like using a pop up magnifier. Unlike an optical finder though, it's very easy to miss seeing important parts of a scene through an EVF that, had one been looking through an optical finder, might have resulted in a different exposure or even composition. That happens probably more for newer users I guess as a lot of experienced users probably compose before even lifting the camera to the eye.
Since the two cameras I most commonly use now are a Sony RX1 with EVF and a Pentax K5 with optical finder, it's interesting to go directly from one to the other. Unfortunately, I find I'm pretty disappointed with the EVF once I put the K5 to my eye, even though the view is slightly smaller. It's like going from mono to surround sound.
Since it looks like we're drawing the usual lines in the sand about RF vs. OVF vs. EVF ... I'll just add having used a number of f/2 and faster lenses on the M9, they *can* be extremely easy to focus accurately, even on moving subjects (with some practice), providing of course the lens/rangefinder combo is properly calibrated and the lens has a reasonable focus throw. The Noct f/1 and ZM85/2, Nikkor 5cm/1.4 and Canon 50/1.4 come to mind.
Having used focus peaking on NEX cameras, I've been burned by inaccurate focus numerous times to the point where I won't generally trust it with 50mm and longer lenses at farther distances. I will instead zoom in, but that then eliminates the full scene overview and is generally only good with static scenes. And yes, the Ricoh GXR mode 2 'predator' focus peaking is IMO a better implementation.
snowboarder wrote:
So apparently it's a super-boring X with a zoom It will be a huge hit, the same caliber X2 is
Well, what can you expect from this moronic company, seriously... Outside of missing a chance
to come up with an exciting product, they launch a campaign called mini "M", but it will not be M-mount based.
Reminds me when they chose May 10 for their big event and they didn't announce the new M10.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
With a good optical finder and screen, I don't really see the advantage except in cases where one needs to magnify a certain area. I find evf's to be basic, rudimentary aids in specific cases, almost like using a pop up magnifier. Unlike an optical finder though, it's very easy to miss seeing important parts of a scene through an EVF that, had one been looking through an optical finder, might have resulted in a different exposure or even composition. That happens probably more for newer users I guess as a lot of experienced users probably compose before even lifting the camera to the eye.
Since the two cameras I most commonly use now are a Sony RX1 with EVF and a Pentax K5 with optical finder, it's interesting to go directly from one to the other. Unfortunately, I find I'm pretty disappointed with the EVF once I put the K5 to my eye, even though the view is slightly smaller. It's like going from mono to surround sound.
Backlit situations are of course the worst for EVF's. This is typically what I see through the EVF (after adjusting it for more DR, less contrast and so on):
...and this is what I see through the optical finder:
i couldn't disagree more. i find aps-c viewfinders (even the nicer pentaprism ones) to be dark tunnels that are impossible to focus fast lenses through and poor to compose through. FF dslr viewfinders are at least usable though. evfs give me better focusing, better exposure (because i see actual exposure), and better composition because i have a real wysiwyg view. i miss a lot more shots with an ovf than i do with an evf. it's true i do generally compose before i ever bring a camera to my eye (or waist ), but i have always done that since long before evfs existed. i'd prefer to spend as little time as necessary with a camera pressed to my face.
as far as backlit situations go, i prefer your first picture to the second and would want to see that the image as exposed that way. if you need to see into the shadows it should just be a quick twist of your thumb on the rx-1 (though i can count the number of times i've actually needed to do that with my NEX-7 on my fingers).
i couldn't disagree more. i find aps-c viewfinders (even the nicer pentaprism ones) to be dark tunnels that are impossible to focus fast lenses through and poor to compose through. FF dslr viewfinders are at least usable though. evfs give me better focusing, better exposure (because i see actual exposure), and better composition because i have a real wysiwyg view. i miss a lot more shots with an ovf than i do with an evf. it's true i do generally compose before i ever bring a camera to my eye (or waist ), but i have always done that since long before evfs existed. i'd prefer to spend as little time as necessary with a camera pressed to my face....Show more →
+1
I much prefer composing at waist level on the LCD tilt-screen of an NEX camera than through the excellent OVF of my 1Ds Mk II.
I agree though. It's the lens sales that every manufacturer desires. It's interesting to look at camera prices over the years - for a given feature set, prices have remained fairly steady, if not decreasing. Yet, look at the latest lenses from Canikony - 30% and greater price increases. A camera body is pretty much useless without a lens. 
It will be a huge hit, the same caliber X2 is 
