This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
p.1 #1Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
Inspired by the separate Drone Images and Discussion threads, I’ve been thinking for a while now that it might be useful to have a thread devoted to discussions about the various Leica camera systems and lenses. Not because the Leica M/X/T/S/Q Picture Thread gets derailed by off-topic posts, it clearly doesn’t. Rather I’m hoping this new thread will encourage conversations about technical, philosophical, or other issues of interest to Leica users.
I was prompted to start this thread today after watching the live announcement of the Sony A7R IV camera last night. I’ve had and happily used all of the Sony A7 series bodies (apart from the A7 III) from the original A7 through to the A7R III. But, as impressive as the new model obviously is, at the end of the presentation my overriding thought was that the only new camera I wish to buy is a Monochrom Leica based on the M10. In other words, instead of a technological and electronic marvel, I now prefer to use a camera whose essential functions and mode of operation have not changed since the Leica M3 was introduced in 1954. And what I’m currently looking forward to is the arrival of a 1986 Tele-Elmar 135mm f/4 lens I purchased earlier in the week.
I was prompted to start this thread today after watching the live announcement of the Sony A7R IV camera last night. I’ve had and happily used all of the Sony A7 series bodies (apart from the A7 III) from the original A7 through to the A7R III. But, as impressive as the new model obviously is, at the end of the presentation my overriding thought was that the only new camera I wish to buy is a Monochrom Leica based on the M10. In other words, instead of a technological and electronic marvel, I now prefer to use a camera whose essential functions and mode of operation have not changed since the Leica M3 was introduced in 1954. And what I’m currently looking forward to is the arrival of a 1986 Tele-Elmar 135mm f/4 lens I purchased earlier in the week.
Jul 16, 2019 at 08:30 PM
p.1 #2Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
One question I ponder: is if Leica were to offer a higher-resolution sensor in a putative M11, would the optical-mechanical rangefinder be accurate enough for some of the lenses which demand precise focus placement?
Jul 16, 2019 at 10:20 PM
p.1 #3Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
genji wrote:
Inspired by the separate Drone Images and Discussion threads, I’ve been thinking for a while now that it might be useful to have a thread devoted to discussions about the various Leica camera systems and lenses. Not because the Leica M/X/T/S/Q Picture Thread gets derailed by off-topic posts, it clearly doesn’t. Rather I’m hoping this new thread will encourage conversations about technical, philosophical, or other issues of interest to Leica users.
I was prompted to start this thread today after watching the live announcement of the Sony A7R IV camera last night. I’ve had and happily used all of the Sony...Show more →
Regarding A7R4, I have the same feeling. This is the first time I have zero interest to buy a new MILC introduced in past few years, SL, Z7, x1d, GFX, S1/R, you name it. And I did buy two of them Z7 and S1. I am glad to find that out as I am quite selective and not the one that always want the newest and best toy.
Though monochrome M10 is not the only one I want to buy, but I have a fairly good idea when I am willing to open my wallet. 16 bit, 36M stack sensor from Sony is the one make me more exciting, or maybe even sigma foveon L FF but also depend on how they design the body and UI. Only used M10p about a month, I have to say Leica got this right. The UI and control is just about reaching perfect, as good as I can imagine. I feel 24M is reaching the limit of rangefinder focus can handle for 50lux or 90APO, sure for small aperture landscape shooting, m glass can resolve more, I am not expecting Leica can solve Mraw or Sraw out, in that sense, I prefer it is stay 24M.
Discuss more later.
Jul 16, 2019 at 10:39 PM
p.1 #4Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
sirimiri wrote:
One question I ponder: is if Leica were to offer a higher-resolution sensor in a putative M11, would the optical-mechanical rangefinder be accurate enough for some of the lenses which demand precise focus placement?
zhangyue wrote:
Only used M10p about a month, I have to say Leica got this right. The UI and control is just about reaching perfect, as good as I can imagine. I feel 24M is reaching the limit of rangefinder focus can handle for 50lux or 90APO, sure for small aperture landscape shooting, m glass can resolve more, I am not expecting Leica can solve Mraw or Sraw out, in that sense, I prefer it is stay 24M.
The 24mp limit for accurate rangefinder focus that Michael mentions comes up frequently as a question in online discussions and one can only assume that Leica's engineers already know the answer. I'd prefer a 30-36mp sensor but if 24mp is a hard limit, then one alternative would be an M camera in which the optical-mechanical rangefinder was replaced by an EVF. Before I owned an M10-P I would have argued strongly in favour of such a camera but I've since come to appreciate the speed and ease of rangefinder focusing with lenses 50mm and wider so I'm not at all sure I'd be interested in an EVF M. Another alternative might be a Hybrid Viewfinder like that in the FUJIFILM X-Pro cameras but would that be possible whilst maintaining the M10/M10-P's current (perfect) size?
My guess is that the SL is Leica's response to demands for an M camera with an EVF.
One question I ponder: is if Leica were to offer a higher-resolution sensor in a putative M11, would the optical-mechanical rangefinder be accurate enough for some of the lenses which demand precise focus placement?
zhangyue wrote:
Only used M10p about a month, I have to say Leica got this right. The UI and control is just about reaching perfect, as good as I can imagine. I feel 24M is reaching the limit of rangefinder focus can handle for 50lux or 90APO, sure for small aperture landscape shooting, m glass can resolve more, I am not expecting Leica can solve Mraw or Sraw out, in that sense, I prefer it is stay 24M.
The 24mp limit for accurate rangefinder focus that Michael mentions comes up frequently as a question in online discussions and one can only assume that Leica's engineers already know the answer. I'd prefer a 30-36mp sensor but if 24mp is a hard limit, then one alternative would be an M camera in which the optical-mechanical rangefinder was replaced by an EVF. Before I owned an M10-P I would have argued strongly in favour of such a camera but I've since come to appreciate the speed and ease of rangefinder focusing with lenses 50mm and wider so I'm not at all sure I'd be interested in an EVF M. Another alternative might be a Hybrid Viewfinder like that in the FUJIFILM X-Pro cameras but would that be possible whilst maintaining the M10/M10-P's current (perfect) size?
My guess is that the SL is Leica's response to demands for an M camera with an EVF.
Jul 16, 2019 at 11:35 PM
p.1 #5Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
EVF only Leica M won’t work and it will only fulfill a small crowd who want use small manual rangefinder glass on MILC body. A group of fans derived from Sony NEX time. I would argue both Nikon Z and Sony A are that type of cameras offer more pixel, take AF glasses and cheaper. Using M glass on Z7 and M10p are totally different experience.
Rangefinder focus is the soul of Leica M system.
Much smaller SL with more elegant design and take AF glass, having good M glass performance are keys to SL’s future success.
genji wrote:
The 24mp limit for accurate rangefinder focus that Michael mentions comes up frequently as a question in online discussions and one can only assume that Leica's engineers already know the answer. I'd prefer a 30-36mp sensor but if 24mp is a hard limit, then one alternative would be an M camera in which the optical-mechanical rangefinder was replaced by an EVF. Before I owned an M10-P I would have argued strongly in favour of such a camera but I've since come to appreciate the speed and ease of rangefinder focusing with lenses 50mm and wider so I'm not at all...Show more →
Rangefinder focus is the soul of Leica M system.
Much smaller SL with more elegant design and take AF glass, having good M glass performance are keys to SL’s future success.
genji wrote:
sirimiri wrote
One question I ponder: is if Leica were to offer a higher-resolution sensor in a putative M11, would the optical-mechanical rangefinder be accurate enough for some of the lenses which demand precise focus placement?zhangyue wrote
Only used M10p about a month, I have to say Leica got this right. The UI and control is just about reaching perfect, as good as I can imagine. I feel 24M is reaching the limit of rangefinder focus can handle for 50lux or 90APO, sure for small aperture landscape shooting, m glass can resolve more, I am not expecting Leica can solve Mraw or Sraw out, in that sense, I prefer it is stay 24M.Jul 17, 2019 at 01:02 AM
p.1 #6Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
sirimiri wrote:
One question I ponder: is if Leica were to offer a higher-resolution sensor in a putative M11, would the optical-mechanical rangefinder be accurate enough for some of the lenses which demand precise focus placement?
I am not sure I see the correlation between megapixel count and focus accuracy, would the same focus error be more obvious on a 48 Mpixel camera than on a 24 MPixel camera?
One question I ponder: is if Leica were to offer a higher-resolution sensor in a putative M11, would the optical-mechanical rangefinder be accurate enough for some of the lenses which demand precise focus placement?
I am not sure I see the correlation between megapixel count and focus accuracy, would the same focus error be more obvious on a 48 Mpixel camera than on a 24 MPixel camera?
Jul 17, 2019 at 03:37 AM
p.1 #7Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
I prefer keeping the rangefinder focus window and having an optionally attached EVF.
There are times I will attach the EVF when I want to be sure of focus. My recent 10 days at the Calgary Stampede is was on the camera most of the time. I was shooting at wide apertures or the focus was in the distance as I was seated the stands. The range finder focus got me close but I needed to tweak just to get it dead on. Rangefinder focus alone would have been fine and the images would have turned out but I would lose the extreme fine detail I wished to catch (ie competitor's numbers, fine detail on harnesses, saddle or even simple advertising). Of course being able to zoom in and using focus peaking made a difference.
That said there were times that the EVF I wasn't getting focus and a quick look in the rangefinder focus showed me I was way off on focus.
That said if I do not need the extreme fine detail I am just as happy shooting without the EVF attached. I prefer just using rangefinder focusing but it is nice to have both options available given my eyesight isn't what it once was.
There are times I will attach the EVF when I want to be sure of focus. My recent 10 days at the Calgary Stampede is was on the camera most of the time. I was shooting at wide apertures or the focus was in the distance as I was seated the stands. The range finder focus got me close but I needed to tweak just to get it dead on. Rangefinder focus alone would have been fine and the images would have turned out but I would lose the extreme fine detail I wished to catch (ie competitor's numbers, fine detail on harnesses, saddle or even simple advertising). Of course being able to zoom in and using focus peaking made a difference.
That said there were times that the EVF I wasn't getting focus and a quick look in the rangefinder focus showed me I was way off on focus.
That said if I do not need the extreme fine detail I am just as happy shooting without the EVF attached. I prefer just using rangefinder focusing but it is nice to have both options available given my eyesight isn't what it once was.
Jul 17, 2019 at 09:28 AM
p.1 #8Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
Last summer I planned on upgrading to a M10 Monochrom
As it has not come to fruition I started reassessing. On the lens side I plan to add a 135 APO.
What I like with the rangefinder is my kit is small light and inconspicuous.
I still enjoy my Dslr's but a rangefinder gives me other avenues of photography that I do not experience using my DSLR and mirrorless cameras.
I would like to see a bump in MP and maybe that is part of the reason I am reconsidering. When rumour floated of a higher MP rangefinder I was intrigued as I am pondering adding a colour capable rangefinder to compliment the monochrom.
As it has not come to fruition I started reassessing. On the lens side I plan to add a 135 APO.
What I like with the rangefinder is my kit is small light and inconspicuous.
I still enjoy my Dslr's but a rangefinder gives me other avenues of photography that I do not experience using my DSLR and mirrorless cameras.
I would like to see a bump in MP and maybe that is part of the reason I am reconsidering. When rumour floated of a higher MP rangefinder I was intrigued as I am pondering adding a colour capable rangefinder to compliment the monochrom.
Jul 17, 2019 at 10:12 AM
p.1 #9Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
joakim wrote:
... would the same focus error be more obvious on a 48 Mpixel camera than on a 24 MPixel camera?
I would say a focus error would be more noticeable at 1:1, not necessarily more obvious otherwise. However, I suspect a well implemented Live View function with a high resolution LCD would help alleviate that as a potential issue.
... would the same focus error be more obvious on a 48 Mpixel camera than on a 24 MPixel camera?
I would say a focus error would be more noticeable at 1:1, not necessarily more obvious otherwise. However, I suspect a well implemented Live View function with a high resolution LCD would help alleviate that as a potential issue.
Jul 17, 2019 at 11:58 AM
p.1 #10Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
joakim wrote:
I am not sure I see the correlation between megapixel count and focus accuracy, would the same focus error be more obvious on a 48 Mpixel camera than on a 24 MPixel camera?
The effective depth-of-field depends on the picture and reproduction resolution (whatever is lower). Reproduction resolution depends on the size, the quality of the printer, the distance and the eyesight of the viewer. At higher effective resolution, you will notice a small focusing error, which you would not notice (or be able to see) at a lower effective resolution.
sirimiri wrote
One question I ponder: is if Leica were to offer a higher-resolution sensor in a putative M11, would the optical-mechanical rangefinder be accurate enough for some of the lenses which demand precise focus placement?The effective depth-of-field depends on the picture and reproduction resolution (whatever is lower). Reproduction resolution depends on the size, the quality of the printer, the distance and the eyesight of the viewer. At higher effective resolution, you will notice a small focusing error, which you would not notice (or be able to see) at a lower effective resolution.
Jul 17, 2019 at 12:13 PM
p.1 #11Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
genji wrote:
Inspired by the separate Drone Images and Discussion threads, I’ve been thinking for a while now that it might be useful to have a thread devoted to discussions about the various Leica camera systems and lenses. ... Rather I’m hoping this new thread will encourage conversations about technical, philosophical, or other issues of interest to Leica users.
I was prompted to start this thread today after watching the live announcement of the Sony A7R IV camera last night...
Glad to see this thread and its activity in such a short time. About 2-3 years ago, in a nostalgic frame of mind, I decided to re-visit film photography and re-acquired a Nikon F Photomic FTn - and resumed soaking and scanning film - after a decade or longer hiatus.
Months later, after adding another 7 nikon film bodies, I bought my first ever Leica - an iconic and CLA'd M3 with Summicron 50/2 DR w/goggles. Epic. I now fear that the seeds of my eventual Leica downfall were then sown.
Most of my photography remains digital. I "normally" (as if anything is ever "normal") shoot with Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Sony RX sensor bodies. More and more, I've gravitated to the lighter, less obtrusive Fuji X trans bodies and their XF series lenses.
I have two distinct yearnings as a result of running film through my M3: first, an interest in obtaining a metered M6 and 35/2 'cron (my FL of choice) - note, this yearning remains. and also, most frighteningly - financially speaking, the nagging curiosity for what it would be like (leica?) to shoot with Leica glass and a Leica digital sensor/body. Hmmm and big gulp.
Then Leica introduced the Q2 and prices on the original Q instantly become more friendly! Then, last night, I purchased a gorgeous (no bias here) Leica Q-P - that's barely escaped from its packaging. So, I now await the arrival (why isn't it here yet?) of my second Leica gateway drug.
Again, nice thread. Will follow until my ultimate demise!
Inspired by the separate Drone Images and Discussion threads, I’ve been thinking for a while now that it might be useful to have a thread devoted to discussions about the various Leica camera systems and lenses. ... Rather I’m hoping this new thread will encourage conversations about technical, philosophical, or other issues of interest to Leica users.
I was prompted to start this thread today after watching the live announcement of the Sony A7R IV camera last night...
Glad to see this thread and its activity in such a short time. About 2-3 years ago, in a nostalgic frame of mind, I decided to re-visit film photography and re-acquired a Nikon F Photomic FTn - and resumed soaking and scanning film - after a decade or longer hiatus.
Months later, after adding another 7 nikon film bodies, I bought my first ever Leica - an iconic and CLA'd M3 with Summicron 50/2 DR w/goggles. Epic. I now fear that the seeds of my eventual Leica downfall were then sown.
Most of my photography remains digital. I "normally" (as if anything is ever "normal") shoot with Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Sony RX sensor bodies. More and more, I've gravitated to the lighter, less obtrusive Fuji X trans bodies and their XF series lenses.
I have two distinct yearnings as a result of running film through my M3: first, an interest in obtaining a metered M6 and 35/2 'cron (my FL of choice) - note, this yearning remains. and also, most frighteningly - financially speaking, the nagging curiosity for what it would be like (leica?) to shoot with Leica glass and a Leica digital sensor/body. Hmmm and big gulp.
Then Leica introduced the Q2 and prices on the original Q instantly become more friendly! Then, last night, I purchased a gorgeous (no bias here) Leica Q-P - that's barely escaped from its packaging. So, I now await the arrival (why isn't it here yet?) of my second Leica gateway drug.
Again, nice thread. Will follow until my ultimate demise!
Jul 17, 2019 at 01:25 PM
p.1 #12Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
mapgraphs wrote:
I would say a focus error would be more noticeable at 1:1, not necessarily more obvious otherwise. However, I suspect a well implemented Live View function with a high resolution LCD would help alleviate that as a potential issue.
---------------------------------------------
AcuteShadows wrote:
I am not sure I see the correlation between megapixel count and focus accuracy, would the same focus error be more obvious on a 48 Mpixel camera than on a 24 MPixel camera?The effective depth-of-field depends on the picture and reproduction resolution (whatever is lower). Reproduction resolution depends on the size, the quality of the printer, the distance and the eyesight of the viewer. At higher effective resolution, you will notice a small focusing error, which you would not notice (or be able to see) at a lower effective resolution.
Maybe I was unclear in what I said but I don’t really understand how your answers relates to how focusing could be depending on the sensors megapixel count
joakim wrote
... would the same focus error be more obvious on a 48 Mpixel camera than on a 24 MPixel camera?---------------------------------------------
AcuteShadows wrote:
joakim wrote
sirimiri wrote
One question I ponder: is if Leica were to offer a higher-resolution sensor in a putative M11, would the optical-mechanical rangefinder be accurate enough for some of the lenses which demand precise focus placement?Maybe I was unclear in what I said but I don’t really understand how your answers relates to how focusing could be depending on the sensors megapixel count
Jul 17, 2019 at 02:41 PM
p.1 #13Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
joakim wrote:
Maybe I was unclear in what I said but I don’t really understand how your answers relates to how focusing could be depending on the sensors megapixel count
Ah!
The focus mechanics (rangefinder) has nothing to do with the pixel count. The higher pixel count is perhaps less forgiving of poor or sloppy technique.
Maybe I was unclear in what I said but I don’t really understand how your answers relates to how focusing could be depending on the sensors megapixel count
Ah!
The focus mechanics (rangefinder) has nothing to do with the pixel count. The higher pixel count is perhaps less forgiving of poor or sloppy technique.
Jul 17, 2019 at 04:36 PM
p.1 #14Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
I agree with burningheart that “keeping the rangefinder focus window and having an optionally attached EVF” is preferable to a new M design with either a combined rangefinder + EVF or just an EVF. As Michael pointed out, “rangefinder focus is the soul of Leica M system.”
As I mentioned in my opening post, I’ve bought a Tele-Elmar 135/4 and I’m curious as to whether I’ll be able to achieve accurate focus with the rangefinder or whether I’ll need to rely on the Visoflex 020. When I got my M10-P at the beginning of the year I assumed I’d use it with 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses but, once I found that I enjoyed using the 75mm and 90mm FLs, I thought I should give 135mm a try. As much as the APO-Telyt 135 is tempting, it seemed prudent to test the water with the relatively inexpensive Tele-Elmar. We’ll see how that goes...
As I mentioned in my opening post, I’ve bought a Tele-Elmar 135/4 and I’m curious as to whether I’ll be able to achieve accurate focus with the rangefinder or whether I’ll need to rely on the Visoflex 020. When I got my M10-P at the beginning of the year I assumed I’d use it with 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses but, once I found that I enjoyed using the 75mm and 90mm FLs, I thought I should give 135mm a try. As much as the APO-Telyt 135 is tempting, it seemed prudent to test the water with the relatively inexpensive Tele-Elmar. We’ll see how that goes...
Jul 17, 2019 at 07:47 PM
p.1 #15Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
A M with EVF and zero delay and black out should cover most of my travel need for wider than 28mm or longer than 90mm shooting. EVF can also be tilted as chest level finder, which is much preferred than onboard one for low angle shooting.
Unfortunately, we don’t have that EVF experience till now. I hope we will have one in the future. However, once that happened, many Leica user might not consider SL, as they were using M glasses on SL.
genji wrote:
I agree with burningheart that “keeping the rangefinder focus window and having an optionally attached EVF” is preferable to a new M design with either a combined rangefinder + EVF or just an EVF. As Michael pointed out, “rangefinder focus is the soul of Leica M system.”
As I mentioned in my opening post, I’ve bought a Tele-Elmar 135/4 and I’m curious as to whether I’ll be able to achieve accurate focus with the rangefinder or whether I’ll need to rely on the Visoflex 020. When I got my M10-P at the beginning of the year I assumed I’d use it...Show more →
Unfortunately, we don’t have that EVF experience till now. I hope we will have one in the future. However, once that happened, many Leica user might not consider SL, as they were using M glasses on SL.
genji wrote:
I agree with burningheart that “keeping the rangefinder focus window and having an optionally attached EVF” is preferable to a new M design with either a combined rangefinder + EVF or just an EVF. As Michael pointed out, “rangefinder focus is the soul of Leica M system.”
As I mentioned in my opening post, I’ve bought a Tele-Elmar 135/4 and I’m curious as to whether I’ll be able to achieve accurate focus with the rangefinder or whether I’ll need to rely on the Visoflex 020. When I got my M10-P at the beginning of the year I assumed I’d use it...Show more →
Jul 17, 2019 at 08:48 PM
p.1 #16Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
mapgraphs wrote:
The focus mechanics (rangefinder) has nothing to do with the pixel count.
Strangely enough, Leica stated the contrary a while ago already.
genji wrote:
As Michael pointed out, “rangefinder focus is the soul of Leica M system.”
Leica MD & MDa, Visoflex, EVF & Liveview...
As long as they keep selling a rangefinder version, they can offer alternatives...
We should try for our pictures to have a soul, not our cameras.
The focus mechanics (rangefinder) has nothing to do with the pixel count.
Strangely enough, Leica stated the contrary a while ago already.
genji wrote:
As Michael pointed out, “rangefinder focus is the soul of Leica M system.”
Leica MD & MDa, Visoflex, EVF & Liveview...
As long as they keep selling a rangefinder version, they can offer alternatives...
We should try for our pictures to have a soul, not our cameras.
Jul 18, 2019 at 12:11 AM
p.1 #17Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
I'd definitely welcome an hybrid EVF/rangefinder a la Fuji. EVF alone is not good for moving subjects, imho.
FYI, a recent interview with ANDREAS KAUFMANN:
http://bit.ly/2OtdsPD
TL;DR:
- hints to a future EVF (hybrid?) M camera
- the SL is too big, we may do something about it
- Over 40mp is today's standard. Something will be done on the M system as well
- The Q is a massive success
FYI, a recent interview with ANDREAS KAUFMANN:
http://bit.ly/2OtdsPD
TL;DR:
- hints to a future EVF (hybrid?) M camera
- the SL is too big, we may do something about it
- Over 40mp is today's standard. Something will be done on the M system as well
- The Q is a massive success
Jul 30, 2019 at 10:49 AM
p.1 #18Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
I don't want to flame Sony - I own (and LOVE) an a7S, as well as an RX100 m3. They are truly marvels of science and I've been very happy with the images I've captured- especially using the a7S in zero llght with a Nokton 40/1.2.
But, as above, I'm not salivating over the new A7RIV. The overwhelming chorus since the first gen Sony's has been about "ergonomics", mostly from DSLR users who are accustomed to larger camera bodies. Sony heeded this call and the 7's have gotten progressively bigger. I don't want bigger! The first-gen a7S, with the "slim" grip is already pushing it size-wise for me.
I want smaller and simpler! I came from years of using mostly Fuji and a Pentax MX, and now have added a Minolta CLE and Leica M6 to my film arsenal. I see FF DSLRS and they look like frigging BAZOOKAS to me. Never wanted a camera I couldn't take everywhere with me, and DEFINITELY don't want a camera that can't be discrete. A rangefinder-styled full-frame Sony would be my IDEAL, because - just gonna be real here - no way I could afford a Leica digital. My a7S is essentially a "digital back" for my manual glass. Don't care about AF, because I don't own any AF lenses. Don't need that many megapixels, either.
The rapid depreciation and obsolescence of digital sensors is concerning to me, and is the main reason I am wary of investing $$$$$$ in a digital Leica body. Otherwise, I'd be all over it. Maybe we'll eventually see a digital M body with a modular sensor. That, I could maybe get on board with.
Ok,
/ramble
But, as above, I'm not salivating over the new A7RIV. The overwhelming chorus since the first gen Sony's has been about "ergonomics", mostly from DSLR users who are accustomed to larger camera bodies. Sony heeded this call and the 7's have gotten progressively bigger. I don't want bigger! The first-gen a7S, with the "slim" grip is already pushing it size-wise for me.
I want smaller and simpler! I came from years of using mostly Fuji and a Pentax MX, and now have added a Minolta CLE and Leica M6 to my film arsenal. I see FF DSLRS and they look like frigging BAZOOKAS to me. Never wanted a camera I couldn't take everywhere with me, and DEFINITELY don't want a camera that can't be discrete. A rangefinder-styled full-frame Sony would be my IDEAL, because - just gonna be real here - no way I could afford a Leica digital. My a7S is essentially a "digital back" for my manual glass. Don't care about AF, because I don't own any AF lenses. Don't need that many megapixels, either.
The rapid depreciation and obsolescence of digital sensors is concerning to me, and is the main reason I am wary of investing $$$$$$ in a digital Leica body. Otherwise, I'd be all over it. Maybe we'll eventually see a digital M body with a modular sensor. That, I could maybe get on board with.
Ok,
/ramble
Jul 30, 2019 at 11:27 AM
p.1 #19Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
imagesfromobjects wrote:
I don't want to flame Sony - I own (and LOVE) an a7S, as well as an RX100 m3. They are truly marvels of science and I've been very happy with the images I've captured- especially using the a7S in zero llght with a Nokton 40/1.2.
But, as above, I'm not salivating over the new A7RIV. The overwhelming chorus since the first gen Sony's has been about "ergonomics", mostly from DSLR users who are accustomed to larger camera bodies. Sony heeded this call and the 7's have gotten progressively bigger. I don't want bigger! The first-gen a7S, with the "slim" grip...Show more →
Six weeks ago, Nick Dakota wrote in the Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1 thread:
Maybe Zeiss will release a digital Ikon next. That would be the real game changer.
I replied:
Sadly, the Zeiss that might have designed and released a digital Ikon no longer exists.
I believe Nick is correct in predicting that a digital Zeiss Ikon would be a game changer. Assuming that it had an M-lens-friendly sensor and that rangefinder focusing was replaced with a high quality EVF, such a camera could have been manufactured in Japan (or China) and sold for half the price or less of a Leica M10. Sure, it wouldn’t have appealed to the Leica purist (which after a mere six months I seem to have become) but I’m convinced that it would have been popular enough with many of the enthusiasts who for years have been trying to adapt M-mount lenses to mirrorless cameras. No more thin filter mods, no more front-end filters. Add your Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, or legacy M-mount lens and you’re good to go.
But the once great Zeiss, which created wonderful lenses for medium format (Hasselblad, Rollei, and Contax 645) and 35mm full frame mounts (Contax C/Y, Contax G, Classic ZE/ZF/ZK/ZS, as well as the ZM lenses for their Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera) is no more. Instead we have the Zeiss that has devoted its design and engineering resources to bloated Otus and Milvus lenses for yesteryear’s Canikon DSLRs, Loxia lenses with horrible haptics, the Batis CF 40/2 fiasco, and the nonsensical ZX1.
What a wasted opportunity.
I don't want to flame Sony - I own (and LOVE) an a7S, as well as an RX100 m3. They are truly marvels of science and I've been very happy with the images I've captured- especially using the a7S in zero llght with a Nokton 40/1.2.
But, as above, I'm not salivating over the new A7RIV. The overwhelming chorus since the first gen Sony's has been about "ergonomics", mostly from DSLR users who are accustomed to larger camera bodies. Sony heeded this call and the 7's have gotten progressively bigger. I don't want bigger! The first-gen a7S, with the "slim" grip...Show more →
Six weeks ago, Nick Dakota wrote in the Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1 thread:
Maybe Zeiss will release a digital Ikon next. That would be the real game changer.
I replied:
Sadly, the Zeiss that might have designed and released a digital Ikon no longer exists.
I believe Nick is correct in predicting that a digital Zeiss Ikon would be a game changer. Assuming that it had an M-lens-friendly sensor and that rangefinder focusing was replaced with a high quality EVF, such a camera could have been manufactured in Japan (or China) and sold for half the price or less of a Leica M10. Sure, it wouldn’t have appealed to the Leica purist (which after a mere six months I seem to have become) but I’m convinced that it would have been popular enough with many of the enthusiasts who for years have been trying to adapt M-mount lenses to mirrorless cameras. No more thin filter mods, no more front-end filters. Add your Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, or legacy M-mount lens and you’re good to go.
But the once great Zeiss, which created wonderful lenses for medium format (Hasselblad, Rollei, and Contax 645) and 35mm full frame mounts (Contax C/Y, Contax G, Classic ZE/ZF/ZK/ZS, as well as the ZM lenses for their Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera) is no more. Instead we have the Zeiss that has devoted its design and engineering resources to bloated Otus and Milvus lenses for yesteryear’s Canikon DSLRs, Loxia lenses with horrible haptics, the Batis CF 40/2 fiasco, and the nonsensical ZX1.
What a wasted opportunity.
Jul 31, 2019 at 05:01 AM
p.1 #20Leica M/X/T/S/Q Discussion Thread
Leica Rumors reports that a "Leica M10 Monochrom will be released in 2020 with a new 41MP sensor".
https://leicarumors.com/2019/10/30/confirmed-leica-m10-monochrom-will-be-released-in-2020-with-a-new-41mp-sensor.aspx/
Last night I attended the opening of a show of photographs by Craig Semetko (https://semetko.com/) at the Leica Store in Sydney. When asked about the M10M, a store employee confirmed both the rumor and my #1 place on the waiting list.
https://leicarumors.com/2019/10/30/confirmed-leica-m10-monochrom-will-be-released-in-2020-with-a-new-41mp-sensor.aspx/
Last night I attended the opening of a show of photographs by Craig Semetko (https://semetko.com/) at the Leica Store in Sydney. When asked about the M10M, a store employee confirmed both the rumor and my #1 place on the waiting list.
Nov 01, 2019 at 05:48 PM