freaklikeme wrote:
That is some magical thinking. The M doesn't "teach" you anything you can't "learn" by turning your mirrorless/SLR to manual mode and turning off AF.
Quote from "Adan", Allan Piper (I think) from Leica Forum. Genji posted this quote once before too.
Leica Ms are uniquely good at:
"forcing one to see the subject ("the thing itself") as it exists.
It refuses to show you depth-of-field (or lack thereof), or pretty bokeh, or lens "perspective" or exposure preview - just the world at about a 32mm field of view, with a part of the world framed by a box. And if what you see within that box is not especially interesting in and of itself, it reminds you forcefully that to get a truly interesting photograph, you must do things to change what is within the box (the content), rather than count on the toys of photography to make something inherently boring into a prettier version of something inherently boring.
Of course, that is mostly true of any "window-viewfinder" camera - the Leica Ms are just the only ones that do it in the digital realm. (Except the late Epson R-D1).
Now perhaps those "unique goods" make up something of a "niche" photographically. But about 70% of the memorable "35mm" pictures made over the past 70 years fall into that niche. And who wants to aim for "unmemorable?" "
Leica M helps teach you to see photographically rather than relying on a mini tv. I can go out in the word and picture my 28, 35, 50 and 90mm frames in my minds eye with no effort. When I go back to an electronic viewfinder, I feel like I'm cheating. I immediately start pulling the camera up to my eye and panning to look for composition. And zooms....
Rob L wrote:
It refuses to show you depth-of-field (or lack thereof), or pretty bokeh, or lens "perspective" or exposure preview - just the world at about a 32mm field of view, with a part of the world framed by a box. And if what you see within that box is not especially interesting in and of itself, it reminds you forcefully that to get a truly interesting photograph, you must do things to change what is within the box (the content), rather than count on the toys of photography to make something inherently boring into a prettier version of something inherently boring. ...Show more →
True but on the other hand, a lot of good photographer learned to compose with a SLR, a view camera or a mirrorless.
But pretending that using a SLR/Mirrorless with a prime in MF mode is the same as using a rangefinder is simply not true, at least for most of us. For some people, it makes no difference (or even a negative one).
freaklikeme wrote:
That is some magical thinking. The M doesn't "teach" you anything you can't "learn" by turning your mirrorless/SLR to manual mode and turning off AF.
How naive of you to ignore the “third eye” present in Leica’s (any other will not cut it!) rangefinder!
freaklikeme wrote:
That is some magical thinking. The M doesn't "teach" you anything you can't "learn" by turning your mirrorless/SLR to manual mode and turning off AF.
Not really. Because it has been done so many times and in so many ways over the past decades...
What is the point of stating the obvious once again for someone who did not elaborate himself but just gave us his opinion as if it was the truth just to spoil a thread about the M10R, not the old SLR vs Rangefinder debate.
pmeheut wrote:
Why would 47MP be the end of the history? If this is to take pictures, one can use any M, even a 50 years old film one. But if you want the top in image quality, you can always expect another M with an even better sensor, more DR, more high ISO...
"End of history" is an exaggeration. But based on the fact that many M shooters are quite happy to spend $7K on a "mere" 24MP camera, while others are actually bemoaning the resolution increase (echoing the complaints many had about the Nikon D800's sensor nearly a decade ago), it seems to me that many in the Leica user community would be very satisfied for quite a while with a 47MP Leica M.
There may be other features that prompt future upgrade (e.g., IBIS), but I don't think a push above 47MP would be one of them. If I wanted to buy an M right now, I doubt I'd even wait around for a 47MP version - I'd be quite happy with the 24 even though I can see the appeal of 47.
I worry though that the push to higher pixel densities will also exacerbate Leica's ongoing trend to larger lenses in an effort to satisfy the pixel-peepers on the Internet. One of the things I love about M-system lenses is their tiny size and (relatively) simple optical formulas. But feeding a high-resolution sensor the "best" (according to the Internet) image data may push Leica further into the universe of >1kg lenses - not a welcome development in my book.
Not really. The fact that you made the statement in the first place suggests to me that you either (1) haven't used both systems, or (2) that you have used both systems but did not appreciate how the differences in workflow affects how and what you might learn. I've used both systems and certainly appreciate how each causes you to think about image-making differently from format to format. But if (as your comment suggests) you don't agree, I suspect there is little that I can write here will cause you to change your mind.
freaklikeme wrote:
That is some magical thinking. The M doesn't "teach" you anything you can't "learn" by turning your mirrorless/SLR to manual mode and turning off AF.
Coming from and continuing with super sonic even mesmerizing Sony mirrorless cameras both AF and MF operations, I totally get the back to basics experience I had learning how to shoot a Leica Rangefinder which is why I posted the above. Based upon my own experiment, I really like these quotes and will repeat often when asked to compare. But I totally get what you are saying too. I felt the same way the first few frustrating weeks trying to learn my first RF, the M10. But once I relaxed and stopped trying to use the M10 like my mirrorless kit it all lined up to include fine tuning my Zone Focusing skills to a level that is now repeatable and dependable with my M10 kit, something I would have never bothered to refine with my mirrorless--no need to really.
But even more magical IMO is how some of these super wavy Leica M glass MTFs produce such beautiful imagery. What exactly is going on there 🤩
It's about time the wonderful lenses available fo Leica M cameras get a sensor that can live up to their resolution potential. A better 47MP sensor will always extract more information from a lens than a 24MP camera, which will be great for rural and backcountry landscape and travel photography, and enable larger prints.
rscheffler wrote:
M Nocti lenses make sense in that it's probably a high margin segment of the M lens line. Also, the 50/0.95 is starting to show its age. It's still a very good lens, but looking at the comparison images over on the Nikon board in the Noct-Nikkor 58/0.95 thread, the new Nikon is impressively sharp within the plane of focus. It gives the impression Leica has catching up to do, though by all accounts the 75/1.25 is excellent. IMO the 50 Lux ASPH could benefit from an update if Leica could keep its size while flattening the wavy plane of focus of the current model....Show more →
I hope Leica releases an optically perfect $15,000 50mm Noctilux 0.90 that weighs 5 pounds. It'll drive down the pricing on pre-owned 0.95 and 1.0 lenses and I can get one of those. That seems to be what happened with the 75mm f/1.4 when the 75mm f/1.25 came out - prices on used summiluxes stabilized as well-heeled owners of that lens unloaded theirs for the 2lb monster that is the 75mm noct.
Arka wrote:
I hope Leica releases an optically perfect $15,000 50mm Noctilux 0.90 that weighs 5 pounds. It'll drive down the pricing on pre-owned 0.95 and 1.0 lenses and I can get one of those. That seems to be what happened with the 75mm f/1.4 when the 75mm f/1.25 came out - prices on used summiluxes stabilized as well-heeled owners of that lens unloaded theirs for the 2lb monster that is the 75mm noct.
That's why I'm hoping for the M10-R.... Because I wouldn't mind grabbing a M10 at a decent price
Are we getting any closer to the M10- R launch? Or just more wishful thinking and forum enthusiasm welling up again?
"New photos of the upcoming Leica M10-R camera leaked online"
"New info:
-[T]he Leica M10-R sensor may not be the same as in the SL2/Q2 but a brand new 40MP sensor, similar to the M10 Monochrom but in color.
-Price is expected to be identical or close to the M10 Monochrom ($8,295 in the US).
-Based on the pictures we have seen so far, we will probably get two different colors: black and silver.
-The Leica M10-R will most likely be announced on or around July 16 or maybe even earlier. Stay tuned."
BTW, I would appreciate a clarification as to (functionally) how a rangefinder would be different from a manual lens wide open on an SLR? I shoot my MF glass through the optical viewfinder of my K1 ... and yes, have trained myself to compose in my mind without requiring the forced framing from looking through the viewfinder.
I used (long ago), a Yashica rangefinder before moving to SLR, so I'm not totally unfamiliar with the difference. Also, have briefly used a Graflex long ago, too. No need for touting the Leica quality / glass (I already own some R glass) as part of the equation ... mostly the functional difference of how the "view" being transformative moreover than manual glass on SLR would occur (Fuji rangefinder, et al).
I'm a bit baffled by that one.
What am I missing ... other than the dof of a wide open lens may be different from the dof of the viewfinder while viewing. Is that the basis for the "transformative" viewing or, is there something else?
A link to a primer would be welcome (if not wanting to rehash).
"01:02
Leica has always stood by the M-System,
01:05
adapting digitalization to the M-System rather than the other way round.
01:12
Traditionally we want our optical systems to meet four different requirements:
01:18
compactness, light intensity, imaging performance and robustness.
01:23
These four factors are combined in any M-Lens
01:28
and we have committed ourselves to always achieve maximum performance
01:33
with the minimal amount of lens elements.
01:37
Perfection in lenses
01:40
goes far beyond designing beautiful MTF curves or nicely corrected aberrations.
It means that a lot of effort has to be put into production
01:50
so that ultimately, this perfection reaches the customer."
"02:49
The M camera educates photographers,
02:52
similar to learning how to write with a fountain pen.
02:56
Using a fountain pen might not be easy at the beginning,
03:00
but once you’ve got it,
03:02
you will not want to write any other way.
03:04
In exactly the same way, the M might lead you to make mistakes at first,
03:09
forcing you to improve your photography,
03:11
just like the fountain pen corrects your handwriting.
03:14
You will see that in your images afterwards."
03:33
An M camera naturally leads you to that point
How does that (functionally) occur?
Is it a matter of the ground glass being used, such that the "snap" into focus is stronger than the ground glass used with the slr? Recalling how much different the slr viewfinder was when we went from film to digital, due to the reflectance / transmission variance ... as some looked to using different ground glass to get that "snap" back.
For reference, I shot Nikon FE with a different ground glass (I forget which one it was) than stock, until going digital. So, if the ground glass is the basis for making a difference in how the view and focus is achieved ... yup, that'll make a diff.
RustyBug wrote:
What am I missing ... other than the dof of a wide open lens may be different from the dof of the viewfinder while viewing. Is that the basis for the "transformative" viewing or, is there something else?
It depends. I've used Leica M & SLR for 35 years now and EVF for at least 5 years.
I can compose and shoot with anything and like you, I am trained to "preview" my frame in my mind without the need to look through the viewfinder. I do not do it with zooms though.
But still, a rangefinder is a different experience: I find manual focusing with it easier with a 50mm or wider. And when I look through it, I do not look at an image but at the scene, it is almost like there is nothing between me and the subject.
Surprinsingly, I have almost the same feeling when I using the screen of a P&S: I look at the scene, just check my composition and shoot.
But as I said, it depends: I'm a rangefinder guy. Each time I hesitate about which camera to take with me, I end up with the M (I have too much gear )
Other people "see" differently and for them, using a rangefinder is nothing but troubles.
That seems to be what happened with the 75mm f/1.4 when the 75mm f/1.25 came out - prices on used summiluxes stabilized as well-heeled owners of that lens unloaded theirs for the 2lb monster that is the 75mm noct. 
