I really applaud Leica for sticking to their vision for the digital M series. There really is nothing out there that compares. Yes, there are glitches here and there but it is such a joy to use. I would really hate it if they started to include features ending up with a bloated camera. Turning such features off would seem silly to me. Heck, I haven't even tried the video on my M240 yet and I wish it wasn't even there.
edwardkaraa wrote:
You can bet that the A9 will be SL sized, and it will still feature that same thick cover glass
uhoh7 wrote:
The worst of both worlds
I should really thank Sony, as they did the only thing possible to drag me me, kicking and screaming to the world of RF focus
The result being many fewer headaches.
Edward and Charlie,
But of the 3 of us, I am the only one to still have and am using my initial FF digital camera my A7r which has now been modified to an A7rM V3 and have added a stock A7r. To that I have added my Leica R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V3, Canon 500mm f4.5 new FD, Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor, Leica M WATE, Leica M 90mm f2.5 Summarit, Leica M 24mm f3.8 Elmar Asph, and my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon. Add to that, I have now added my Cambo Actus and an assortment of 4 Apo Enlarger lenses, and an assortment of 3 digital LF, brought back into service 1 Macro lens LF, and my Leica R 28nn f2.8 Super Angulon PC lenses so that I can use my Sonys as miniature view cameras and can stitch large images if so desired.
My A7RII with a Rayqual adapter and my 50 lux weigh in at 1.07kg, my SL with the Leica M adapter and the same lens weigh 1.30 kg. You will need at least one extra Sony battery to match the life of the Leica battery, so its a lot closer than you think.
The field curvature is not so much a problem with the Leica Cams I have never really had a problem even when shooting the Noctilux. I know that the cover glass on Sonys yield's that effect, but its not really present in the lenses.
It sounds as if you are happy with your current set up, but I wonder why you crave a Leica? I am not sure if you have considered a Kolari mod, but that maybe the best solution for you at this time.
Andrew
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 →
Getting pretty close now. Leicarumors posted a pic from the front, and from that angle, it looks more svelte. Could be interesting. I'm really interested to hear what they have to say about how the M, Q and SL will all operate inside the Leica brand and what it means for future models.
The T's EVF is a welcome addition - this makes superwides truly usable on the M without expensive optical viewfinders. But 24MP is really quite unfortunate in 2017.
I think what doesn't get brought up a lot is that Leica wasn't always behind the curve. The 2006 M8 was roughly on par with the 5D classic at 640 ISO and below. The 2009 M9 was as good as the 5d mkII up to somewhere around 800 ISO, and arguably better at ISO 400 and below. The 2012 M240 (Ignoring availability issues) was about as good as full frame cameras were at the time; only the D800 line had higher pixel counts and the sensor performed as well at ISO 200 as the better full frame bodies at the time. But now all of the 4 major brands have 30MP+ bodies, and Canon really stepped its game up in a big way.
I print, and I also like to crop. But more importantly, the A7rII or D810 allows you to change your workflow in a big way. These days I expose for the highlights and then process as needed. I don't want a Leica body to force me to break that workflow. That's disappointing, knowing that this is the M body we'll get until 2019-2020.
To answer Andrew's question, I think it's entirely reasonable to want an M for the rangefinder, but also expect to use it often as a EVF camera. The M has been a great street shooting camera since the M9, but if that's where the edge over an A7rII stops, I won't want to pay $7,000 for one.
I have two A7rII's - one Kolari modded and one stock. I was hoping to replace one with a Leica body but the SL did not turn out to be what I had hoped (i.e. a M mount Q) and the new M strikes me as uninspiring. Maybe I'll pick up a M240 when used prices dip below $3,000.
ZhanMing12 wrote:
The T's EVF is a welcome addition - this makes superwides truly usable on the M without expensive optical viewfinders. But 24MP is really quite unfortunate in 2017.
I think what doesn't get brought up a lot is that Leica wasn't always behind the curve. The 2006 M8 was roughly on par with the 5D classic at 640 ISO and below. The 2009 M9 was as good as the 5d mkII up to somewhere around 800 ISO, and arguably better at ISO 400 and below. The 2012 M240 (Ignoring availability issues) was about as good as full frame cameras were at the time; only the D800 line had higher pixel counts and the sensor performed as well at ISO 200 as the better full frame bodies at the time. But now all of the 4 major brands have 30MP+ bodies, and Canon really stepped its game up in a big way.
I print, and I also like to crop. But more importantly, the A7rII or D810 allows you to change your workflow in a big way. These days I expose for the highlights and then process as needed. I don't want a Leica body to force me to break that workflow. That's disappointing, knowing that this is the M body we'll get until 2019-2020.
To answer Andrew's question, I think it's entirely reasonable to want an M for the rangefinder, but also expect to use it often as a EVF camera. The M has been a great street shooting camera since the M9, but if that's where the edge over an A7rII stops, I won't want to pay $7,000 for one.
I have two A7rII's - one Kolari modded and one stock. I was hoping to replace one with a Leica body but the SL did not turn out to be what I had hoped (i.e. a M mount Q) and the new M strikes me as uninspiring. Maybe I'll pick up a M240 when used prices dip below $3,000....Show more →
Your idea to try out an M240 may be the best bet. I understand what you are saying with respect to megapixels but Leica is not really one to engage in a high MP race - at least in the M series. I may be in the minority here but I really prefer the RF for the stuff I use the camera for - street, walkabouts, vacation, etc. I don't want to have an EVF to simply have an option to use it if needed. Less is more with the M. You may also want to print some M240 files to see if it meets your needs. I don't print much at all but the few I have done are outstanding. I can send you a file if you like....
More MPs are great, but what would you have to do to get 35mm film to look as good as 20-24MPs? To me, the M is more about being there and getting the shot, not the infinite detail. Sure, more resolution out of the lens and sensor is good, but I'll take form factor and low-light ability first. That is why the M10 and smaller form factor is interesting. Add in a couple levels of tweaks to a Monochrom version versus the last one, which is a pretty good move from the first one, and you are speaking of a camera I can invest in.
Looking at the leica rumors website I noticed with the M10 silver picture there is a B+W 486 filter in front of the lens.
Didn't use those since the M8.
Is the tester or person who leaked pictures an M8 user? Of does the thinner body mean I can dust of these 486's again?
Bijltje wrote:
Looking at the leica rumors website I noticed with the M10 silver picture there is a B+W 486 filter in front of the lens.
Didn't use those since the M8.
Is the tester or person who leaked pictures an M8 user? Of does the thinner body mean I can dust of these 486's again?
Who knows..
You are cruel
The M8 to this day is the most naked sensor ever in a digital camera, and that's why it remains a great camera compared to all those higher MP APS-C pretenders.
Leica was really trying to push the envelope on the M8 sensor, and they asked for only .5mm of S8162 Schott IR cut as cover glass. No filter stack of course.
Wasn't quite enough to mask the non-visible, but it's why the M8 was so great BW, and so distinctive. It's a really sharp camera even today.
The corrosion of the M9 was also a bet that went bad. Same type of coverglass but .8mm. No glass has better IR curves, I think even today. But it is layered obviously sensitive to humidity. The BG 55 replacement has 10% less transmission more or less, I'm told. Safer, but not quite as good.
I think they won't be as bold in the future, so your filters are safe, but some new M8 user would probably love them
The sensor will be an updated SL sensor optimized for M lenses. The EVF is not from the T so probably a better model. The viewfinder is larger, allowing to see the 28mm framelines easier. LV but no video. LCD will be 1mp. That's what I could gather so far.
davewolfs wrote:
I am one of the few who would appreciate a hybrid like EVF. How does the TL EVF stack up against the Q or TL?
They must really consider 24MP to be a sweet spot.
Word on the street is that it's the TL's attachment EVF, which is pretty nice but not as nice as the SL. I'd rate it slightly below the A7rII, but better than the A7II. But yes, it's a massive step up from the M240's EVF (which is effectively ~6 years old at this point).
It's not just the MP count but the high ISO performance and DR. Perhaps they've been able to crank more output from the SL sensor like what Nikon did with the D750.
Yet another thing that irritates me is the 1/4000s max shutter speed. Shooting in daylight and exposing to the left I found myself constantly wanting a 4x ND. Having an actual ISO 50/64 would really help with managing exposure in daylight.
I think this camera looks really promising. It looks like the EVF will be excellent, and the optical finder will be excellent as well. Having both of high quality is something that will really set the camera apart. A great EVF if you want to use it and a great rangefinder. I think the sensor is not nearly as bad as ZhanMing suggests. The SL sensor is pretty much an equal to the Canon 5D MKIV and the Sony A7II sensors in dynamic range, and at least as good in colour depth. It is a bit behind in noise but not hugely so (maybe about a half stop). That situation is way better than the earlier Leica sensors.
Now if they get the small stuff right, I think this will be a great camera. Will the shutter release have a good feel? Will the shutter be relatively quiet? Will you be able to move the focus point for the EVF and LCD away from the centre? Will the magnification work well? Will you be able to shut off long exposure noise reduction? If they get all this stuff right and you have an excellent optical and electronic viewfinder, then I think the camera will be a real winner.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Leica M is a true alternative and I really don't get why anyone would need or want video on a rangefinder. In my opinion, the best Leica Ms are the ones with the least amount of automation. Those are the ones that are the true alternatives to the rest of the digital cameras out there.
I read this piece on the Leica blog and I couldn't agree more.
Whatever. I don't get why people don't get that video is useful and important to some people, even RF users.
You have your (very impressive) uses for an RF. I have my own. The video feature on the M240 was a great compromise because it is unobtrusive and easy to ignore if it isn't your thing, but incredibly useful and easy to implement if it is your thing.
I use my M240 a lot - it happens to be the camera I have on my person most of the time (aside from my iPhone). As a result, I've gotten some beautiful videos of my daughter in unguarded and impromptu moments because the video functionality was available on my preferred camera. If the M10 gets rid of that feature, I suppose I should be glad because I won't be interested in sinking the thousands of dollars Leica will charge for this new camera.
uhoh7 wrote:
Listen, I'm a convert to RF. I love the RF. It's not why I bought the M9 at all. In fact I bought it IN SPITE of the RF, which for the first month I thought was utterly ridiculous. I bought the M9 because the A7 could not shoot the 28 cron or ZM18 correctly.
I think no doubt Leica should have a body as M6 like as possible. But why on earth can there not be another option, with modern choices for those great lenses? You don't have to buy one. The SL is very nice but way too big for me. A really tiny FF M would be useful for many many people. It probably has to have an EVF, not because they are so great, but they can be very small and light. ...Show more →
I'm with you on this. I'd love to see a small SL-type camera (with all of its features) for the M-mount. No AF, but keep video, EVF with focus peaking and zoom-assist, live view, and an ISO dial. The SL sensor is fine by me. That would be a perfect replacement for my M. I love the RF for many reasons, but EVF is more accurate for my increasingly unreliable eyes. Plus, the EVF does not require costly mechanical recalibration (along with all of the associated lenses) every few years.
Arka wrote:
I'm with you on this. I'd love to see a small SL-type camera (with all of its features) for the M-mount. No AF, but keep video, EVF with focus peaking and zoom-assist, live view, and an ISO dial. The SL sensor is fine by me. That would be a perfect replacement for my M. I love the RF for many reasons, but EVF is more accurate for my increasingly unreliable eyes. Plus, the EVF does not require costly mechanical recalibration (along with all of the associated lenses) every few years.
You're getting exactly what you want in a couple of months. A mini SL, probably M shaped, with the latest EVF and video technology. You will still need the M adapter but that's a small inconvenience.
I love what Leica is doing. It is making everyone happy, except the price naggers.
