ZhanMing12, with all due respect, I regret to tell you that you are totally missing the point of the M. The TL or SL would be more suitable for what you're looking for.
I respectfully disagree that a Leica M has to be "simpler". This hasn't been in the past - just compare the M6 with the M7. The M7 had for its film days all bells and whistles like SLR film cameras - automatic modes, automatic film ASA detection, over/underexposure settings. I have both, the M6 and the M7 - but I most often use the M7 with manual mode similar to the M6. Nevertheless, I like to have the option to use some of the other capabilities of the M7 if needed.
How does this now compare to a modern digital M? I can see them on a M6 status digital-wise - simple and without too many menu options. But for a new, more modern M? I think the concept (or excuse) of just being "simple" doesn't work anymore with digital technology. I am not talking of a more complicate to use digital M, but at least there should be a sensor in it for the price which is competitive to other mirrorless FF technology out there.....just my 2 Cents.
ZhanMing12 wrote:
The Canon part is the same for me - that's the reason I starting using the NEX5 instead of a 5d classic. And I have a fairly nice setup of Leica glass - the 50mm APO Cron, the Noctilux ASPH and the 21mm/35mm Lux ASPH. I starting using M lenses on the NEX5, and now shoots the A7rII.
I agree that the SL was designed with M lenses in mind. But unless I'm shooting the Noctilux, the SL feels too big for the lens. It's nearly as heavy as the 7rII with the APO Cron attached. My ideal vision of a mirrorless Leica is a Q with the lens replaced with a M mount. The SL is probably the polar opposite of that.
All said and told, I'd probably stick with the 7rII even if the SL were $3,000. That's because while I agree that Sony has been piling on features excessively, a good amount of them are actually quite useful. Sony's DRO massively improves the quality of JPEGs while making sure that RAWs have highlight information. IBIS is probably something that you'll never see on a Leica, but being able to shoot at 1/8s or 1/4 in a pinch is great.
What I want is simply for Leica to at least put the latest imaging pipeline (e.g. great sensor, spot-on white balance, on-sensor metering with EFC) into its $7,000 bodies, and preferably also add some genuinely useful features (better peaking, unlimited self timer, electronic shutter, adjustable highlight warning). Those who want simplicity can turn all of it off. But Leica seems to content to design their cameras for a very narrow spectrum of shooting conditions. You can certainly use an M for portraiture or landscapes, but it's a subpar experience at best.
I shoot my 50mm APO Cron with AF (Techart) and face detection where the camera prioritizes a registered face It works surprisingly well. Is it too much to ask for a 40MP digital M with live view overlay in the rangefinder? ...Show more →
It seems to me what you want and what Leica wants in their M cameras don't converge. That's fine and I understand where you are coming from. I disagree with you in the aspect that using the M is a subpar experience (and I wear glasses and can't use contacts). If it were subpar, then why do I enjoy using it so much? If it were subpar, then why would I continue to use it? Like people have mentioned earlier, if your notion of what you want an M to be doesn't align with Leica's offerings, then there are other excellent mirrorless cameras out there that might cater to your needs, be it a Sony, Fuji or even a different Leica (SL). I've owned multiple consumer, prosumer and professional cameras and lenses from both the big N and C brands, and often during the same time. I've slimmed my "collection" to one Fuji asp-c camera a few Leica M's. I use both systems to complement the way I shoot. I understand that I won't find the perfect camera that ticks all the check boxes for my needs as it's all mental masturbation. My enjoyment comes from knowing the rules (or limitations) of each camera I use and to utilize them to their full potential that coincides with my vision. That's why I don't solely shoot Fuji or Leica.
Back to the topic of the M10...I'm digging the ISO wheels emulation of the film rewind knob, the rumored .72x viewfinder and the (marginal) decrease in thickness. I'm not hung up on the (same?) megapixel count or the EVF, as I believe the actual shooting experience will maintain the Leica feel. All the other extra bells and whistles are, to me, the icing on the cake. As long as it doesn't detract from the Leica experience I enjoy. I won't pony up and get an M10 as my 246 & 262 still have much to offer me. I'm more interested in the 50APO and acquiring a 90/2.8 elmarit (E46) instead.
retrofocus wrote:
I respectfully disagree that a Leica M has to be "simpler". This hasn't been in the past - just compare the M6 with the M7. The M7 had for its film days all bells and whistles like SLR film cameras - automatic modes, automatic film ASA detection, over/underexposure settings. I have both, the M6 and the M7 - but I most often use the M7 with manual mode similar to the M6. Nevertheless, I like to have the option to use some of the other capabilities of the M7 if needed.
How does this now compare to a modern digital M? I can see them on a M6 status digital-wise - simple and without too many menu options. But for a new, more modern M? I think the concept (or excuse) of just being "simple" doesn't work anymore with digital technology. I am not talking of a more complicate to use digital M, but at least there should be a sensor in it for the price which is competitive to other mirrorless FF technology out there.....just my 2 Cents. ...Show more →
But on the other hand, the essentials (das wesentliche) became Leica's motto for the M series. It is exactly this simplicity that keeps me and many M users with this system. It is actually one of the unique aspects of the M, since every other system, even from Leica, is as complicated as can be.
edwardkaraa wrote:
But on the other hand, the essentials (das wesentliche) became Leica's motto for the M series. It is exactly this simplicity that keeps me and many M users with this system. It is actually one of the unique aspects of the M, since every other system, even from Leica, is as complicated as can be.
Das Wesentliche (simplicity) could well align with modern hardware technology. And isn't the Leica-M-D already made predominantly for the "keep it simple" principle?
Alpha_Geist wrote:
It seems to me what you want and what Leica wants in their M cameras don't converge. That's fine and I understand where you are coming from. I disagree with you in the aspect that using the M is a subpar experience (and I wear glasses and can't use contacts). If it were subpar, then why do I enjoy using it so much? If it were subpar, then why would I continue to use it? Like people have mentioned earlier, if your notion of what you want an M to be doesn't align with Leica's offerings, then there are other excellent mirrorless cameras out there that might cater to your needs, be it a Sony, Fuji or even a different Leica (SL). I've owned multiple consumer, prosumer and professional cameras and lenses from both the big N and C brands, and often during the same time. I've slimmed my "collection" to one Fuji asp-c camera a few Leica M's. I use both systems to complement the way I shoot. I understand that I won't find the perfect camera that ticks all the check boxes for my needs as it's all mental masturbation. My enjoyment comes from knowing the rules (or limitations) of each camera I use and to utilize them to their full potential that coincides with my vision. That's why I don't solely shoot Fuji or Leica.
Even this comparison of M series with the mentioned other brands/lines is not so simple:
Sony Alpha Series: probably closest to Leica M but issue with sensor glass thickness and some M lens performance especially at the wider end.
Fuji: no full-frame - totally different ball game.
Leica SL: bigger than Leica M, also even more expensive.
I guarantee you if Leica made a M-size camera using a similar sensor performance-wise to Sony which fits all M lenses and a good EVF plus OVF, they don't need to do anything else to have a winner and suddenly a competitive model to Sony. Make the price compared to Sony just about $1K higher, too. Forget about all electronic menu bits and pieces etc - here simplification can kick in.
It's a subpar experience if you consider that the alternative has a (fairly usable) eye detection for portraits while the M has problems with lenses with field curvature because one must focus and recompose.
As for landscapes, the 60 second bulb limit is annoying, and I would much prefer a remote to a cable release.
retrofocus wrote:
Das Wesentliche (simplicity) could well align with modern hardware technology. And isn't the Leica-M-D already made predominantly for the "keep it simple" principle?
The M-D is Leica's way of being extravagantly eccentric and pushing the simplicity boundaries to unprecedented levels. This tells you clearly what Leica thinks of its own M system.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
It seems to me what you want and what Leica wants in their M cameras don't converge. That's fine and I understand where you are coming from. I disagree with you in the aspect that using the M is a subpar experience (and I wear glasses and can't use contacts). If it were subpar, then why do I enjoy using it so much? If it were subpar, then why would I continue to use it? Like people have mentioned earlier, if your notion of what you want an M to be doesn't align with Leica's offerings, then there are other excellent mirrorless cameras out there that might cater to your needs, be it a Sony, Fuji or even a different Leica (SL). I've owned multiple consumer, prosumer and professional cameras and lenses from both the big N and C brands, and often during the same time. I've slimmed my "collection" to one Fuji asp-c camera a few Leica M's. I use both systems to complement the way I shoot. I understand that I won't find the perfect camera that ticks all the check boxes for my needs as it's all mental masturbation. My enjoyment comes from knowing the rules (or limitations) of each camera I use and to utilize them to their full potential that coincides with my vision. That's why I don't solely shoot Fuji or Leica. ...Show more →
It is a great experience for doing many things. For street shooting and light event work I'd say unparalleled. But at Leica's price point I don't feel unjustified in expecting the M to be a better general-purpose body.
I suspect that Leica knows this. They did add video (which IMO quality-wise is completely useless for production work) to the type 240. But instead of that, why not add features that are directly relevant to what people use the M for? As I've said previously, you can always choose to turn a feature off, and the M is priced at a point where they can't possibly "overcharge" for just about anything.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The M-D is Leica's way of being extravagantly eccentric and pushing the simplicity boundaries to unprecedented levels. This tells you clearly what Leica thinks of its own M system.
I am getting a bit confused here - so it should be simple but not too simple even very simple follows exactly the guideline of "Das Wesentliche" similar to handling an older film-series M?
Andrew Gough wrote:
As Ron says, the Leica lenses are what its really all about.
When I bought my first M9, I was never really sure that anything was in focus, but somehow, the images were sharp right where they were supposed to be. I learned to trust the RF...
+1
ZhanMing12 wrote:
I agree that the SL was designed with M lenses in mind. But unless I'm shooting the Noctilux, the SL feels too big for the lens. It's nearly as heavy as the 7rII with the APO Cron attached. My ideal vision of a mirrorless Leica is a Q with the lens replaced with a M mount. The SL is probably the polar opposite of that.
All said and told, I'd probably stick with the 7rII even if the SL were $3,000. That's because while I agree that Sony has been piling on features excessively, a good amount of them are actually quite useful. Sony's DRO massively improves the quality of JPEGs while making sure that RAWs have highlight information. IBIS is probably something that you'll never see on a Leica, but being able to shoot at 1/8s or 1/4 in a pinch is great.
What I want is simply for Leica to at least put the latest imaging pipeline (e.g. great sensor, spot-on white balance, on-sensor metering with EFC) into its $7,000 bodies, and preferably also add some genuinely useful features (better peaking, unlimited self timer, electronic shutter, adjustable highlight warning). Those who want simplicity can turn all of it off. But Leica seems to content to design their cameras for a very narrow spectrum of shooting conditions. You can certainly use an M for portraiture or landscapes, but it's a subpar experience at best.
I shoot my 50mm APO Cron with AF (Techart) and face detection where the camera prioritizes a registered face It works surprisingly well. Is it too much to ask for a 40MP digital M with live view overlay in the rangefinder? ...Show more →
+1 Many nice people seem to think it's "either or". The M system should be "X". Fill in RF or whatever. The horse left the barn with the SL, no matter the "name". It's a Leica M body (and also a S and R body).
I don't think anybody believes the classic M, a la M10, should be should be replaced by a small interchangeable Q. They think that should be another option like the SL is an option, and why not make it cutting edge as well?
I really don't get the opposition to this. Saying you would not buy one, that I understand. Implying Leica should not make it, why not?
retrofocus wrote:
I guarantee you if Leica made a M-size camera using a similar sensor performance-wise to Sony which fits all M lenses and a good EVF plus OVF, they don't need to do anything else to have a winner and suddenly a competitive model to Sony. Make the price compared to Sony just about $1K higher, too. Forget about all electronic menu bits and pieces etc - here simplification can kick in.
Since Ron points out even the M8 and M9 were farmed out for design (I did not know that--who did it?), they could do the same. I suppose popularity might bring it's own set of headaches
ZhanMing12 wrote:
It is a great experience for doing many things. For street shooting and light event work I'd say unparalleled. But at Leica's price point I don't feel unjustified in expecting the M to be a better general-purpose body.
I suspect that Leica knows this. They did add video (which IMO quality-wise is completely useless for production work) to the type 240. But instead of that, why not add features that are directly relevant to what people use the M for? As I've said previously, you can always choose to turn a feature off, and the M is priced at a point where they can't possibly "overcharge" for just about anything.
The M system since its inception and the previous screw mount Leicas with interchangeable lenses were all around the idea of the rangefinder for focus and rapid photography. That is why Leica also released the Leica SL, SL2 and later Leica R cameras and system which was their SLR system with all of the capabilities of the Manual Focus and all around jack of all trades. That was a great system up until the system was discontinued and retired in 2009. There had been talk for some years of a digital Leica R solution that did not materialize and the idea seemed mothballed. That was until the release of the M240 which still offered the capabiliies of the rangefinder focusing as well as the ability of adapting R lenses, and other maker's lenses as well. At the time, Leica was touting the M240 as the R solution. But, as you have pointed out and many of us determined for ourselves, with the inability of shooting longer than 60 seconds with the shutter release, the inability of moving the focus point for the add on EVF or LCD, it's not so friendly mounting and taking off of the tripod etc., it really was not an ideal R solution so many of us just looked elsewhere including the Sony A7 series of cameras. That has now changed to some extent with the release of the new Leica SL which is very inviting to many of us and it is a real R solution. Save, the fact of the cost, the relatively large size, weight, and the limitation of the MP of the camera in particular to 24 MP. The SL and those to follow will hopefully be more to the liking of many that can afford the camera as it is a much better option for using extremely long, macro, and wide angle lenses that many of us want that are Landscape, Wildlife, and Nature photographers.
retrofocus wrote:
I am getting a bit confused here - so it should be simple but not too simple even very simple follows exactly the guideline of "Das Wesentliche" similar to handling an older film-series M?
I guess that having an LCD screen is considered as an essential part of a digital camera, and has been in every digital M camera, until the M-D, which even as admitted by Leica is a very niche product for people who are confident with their technique and want a film experience in a digital body. It's simple, not confusing at all
In the past years we've had a multitude of threads requiring Leica to do certain things with the M. Unfortunately Leica people do not seem to be democratic, and quite stubborn in their own vision of their M system. I'm not trying to discourage anyone, by all means keep on trying, you might get lucky one day.
edwardkaraa wrote:
In the past years we've had a multitude of threads requiring Leica to do certain things with the M. Unfortunately Leica people do not seem to be democratic, and quite stubborn in their own vision of their M system. I'm not trying to discourage anyone, by all means keep on trying, you might get lucky one day.
I think it's more like begging than requiring
It worked with Sony, except for the poison pill filter stack, which you pegged from the start. My naive heart still aches on that one. But I'm scheming my revenge.
Did someone predict the SL? or the Q? There is no telling what Leica will do. So it can't hurt to let them know again what is glaringly obvious: there is a large potential market for a EVF FF Barnack.
Leica can (and should) produce a set of M cameras, since they're not price sensitive manufacturers. One for the purists. One with an EVF instead of an RF and maybe even one with no rear screen but it takes the EVF from the TL. They can all take M lenses.
There are purists who will be catered for but a mirrorless (EVF) M makes sense for Leica. Even with the SL in the mix.
uhoh7 wrote:
I think it's more like begging than requiring
It worked with Sony, except for the poison pill filter stack, which you pegged from the start. My heart still aches on that one. But I'm scheming my revenge.
flash wrote:
Leica can (and should) produce a set of M cameras, since they're not price sensitive manufacturers. One for the purists. One with an EVF instead of an RF and maybe even one with no rear screen but it takes the EVF from the TL. They can all take M lenses.
There are purists who will be catered for but a mirrorless (EVF) M makes sense for Leica. Even with the SL in the mix.
Gordon
As mentioned by myself and also by Jono on the other Leica forum, it would make more sense for Leica to make a small SL body, perhaps in a Q form, that would solve this problem definitely. From what I could deduce from reading between the lines, such camera might very well be already in the works.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Manufacturers do work in mysterious ways Charlie
I still crack up thinking: within 60 days of me dissing you for predicting the thick-filter stack on the "toy" A7 in the fall of 2013, I owned a M9 and you owned a A7
Utterly priceless. I know on your part it was not totally voluntary, but still........
We had such a giant battle going for a month or two, as I was not willing to accept M wides were bad untill every one had been tried and failed
Now, where is that A9, the "real camera" Sony was going to make?
It works surprisingly well. Is it too much to ask for a 40MP digital M with live view overlay in the rangefinder? 
