RustyBug wrote:
EVF or not ... I think the RF could be made a significantly better RF experience.
There are not many things which I find needing improvement in the M rangefinder itself, but maybe something like this:
+ Revival of 0.91x viewfinder magnification as in the original M3 - ideal to use 50 mm and longer FL lenses
+ Avoiding patch flare - already accomplished with MP-based rangefinder patch in newer M series cameras
+ More external but associated with rangefinder: internal diopter adjustment instead of more cumbersome diopter accessory glass which also varies in size between different M generations
I think Leica considers the rangefinder fully mature at this point. I doubt they will use more resources to make small improvements here - instead already they focus on electronics and hiring more software engineers. The future instead is in mirrorless technology where we will see most improvements.
retrofocus wrote:
As I mentioned much earlier, IMO the only way with such "EVF M" camera to avoid in-house competition is by slopping AF and maybe even video and having the camera like the M-series only used with manual rangefinder lenses. Biggest risk for Leica is actually not competition with the SL but more so with the Q-series. I wonder who would still buy into a $4K fixed lens EVF-based camera when there is another option for a bit higher (hopefully not too high again!) price tag which allows using interchangeable lenses? People who only shoot mostly at 28 mm FL and always use AF? They could easily use any kind of other Sony etc single lens EVF-based camera, too (assuming it is not just because of the Leica name). Now people use it mostly because there is no other EVF alternative regarding form size and lens quality with Leica. Certainly the Q-series will be most significantly impacted by such "EVF M" release, prices might drop over night > 30%. IMO the most likely reason why Leica has not moved forward yet or disclosed anything further of releasing such "EVF M". ...Show more →
Indeed, a significant distinction would be that the Q and SL models offer autofocus, and many people choose them specifically for that feature. The new M-mount EVF camera wouldn't directly compete with them because it's designed as a manual focus-only camera.
RustyBug wrote:
I asked of that a few weeks back ... even, skipping over the M12 and looking forward to the M13, M14, M15.
That's not to suggest that the M11 is a "perfect" camera, but in the maturation of the Digital M era, the curve forward is very likely to flatten extensively, regarding the baseline essence of the camera.
I would like to see a tilt LCD, but even more than that ... I'd really like to see an improved RF experience. I say that, not as some incremental improvement, but some (optical) advancement that is a quantum leap in the RF patch experience. I think they underestimate how much greater of an experience this could be. It may be time for an update / redesign to the optical path(s) associated with the RF. It strikes me that this is an overlooked area that could be time for a REAL IMPROVEMENT (optically).
Couple that with a BUILT IN RF DIOPTER adjustment. I have personally had multiple pairs of glasses scripted differently to try and find an ideal combination, but since the optometry industry makes rather large increments, it isn't possible to get as refined as what could be achieved with a built in diopter of Leica (ummm, they are an elite optics company) refinement.
Imo, PART of the quest for the EVF from folks isn't the "process" of the RF, but QUALITY of the RF experience that some struggle with. Root cause is that the RF experience is insufficient for some folks. Improve that in a quantum leap, and the EVF discussion suddenly quiets down.
I'd much prefer a better optical RF experience ... (battery life / heat / lag / etc. of an EVF). But, as the eyesight doesn't exactly get "better with age", there may come a time for folks that the hindrance of an RF is too much for them to enjoy using. I think it is time for them to take a HARD LOOK at how to make the RF experience a quantum improvement.
Imo, more folks would benefit from an improved RF, than bumping the M12 / 13 / 14 / 15 sensor to 100, 150, 200 MP....Show more →
I appreciate your ideas, but the rangefinder mechanism has stayed pretty much the same since the early days. We also didn't see many improvements from the M10 to the M11. So, considering how things have been in the past, we shouldn't expect big changes. But I'm still hopeful that Leica might come up with something to make the overall experience better.
retrofocus wrote:
There are not many things which I find needing improvement in the M rangefinder itself, but maybe something like this:
+ Revival of 0.91x viewfinder magnification as in the original M3 - ideal to use 50 mm and longer FL lenses
+ Avoiding patch flare - already accomplished with MP-based rangefinder patch in newer M series cameras
+ More external but associated with rangefinder: internal diopter adjustment instead of more cumbersome diopter accessory glass which also varies in size between different M generations
I think Leica considers the rangefinder fully mature at this point. I doubt they will use more resources to make small improvements here - instead already they focus on electronics and hiring more software engineers. The future instead is in mirrorless technology where we will see most improvements. ...Show more →
Yes!
Leica M is small production number enough that they should offer some functional variations (VF mag / framelines) and maybe bring back Ala carte for digital.
Stephen G wrote:
Yes!
Leica M is small production number enough that they should offer some functional variations (VF mag / framelines) and maybe bring back Ala carte for digital.
I'd prefer that to the Mx/Mx-P/Mx Safari game.
Users like us would love this indeed. But unfortunately this is not in line with Leica's current "luxury brand" incentive where collector items play a big role to increase profit. I believe we will see actually more of limited version games and ghost editions which disappear quickly from focus than actual user based versions.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I appreciate your ideas, but the rangefinder mechanism has stayed pretty much the same since the early days. We also didn't see many improvements from the M10 to the M11. So, considering how things have been in the past, we shouldn't expect big changes. But I'm still hopeful that Leica might come up with something to make the overall experience better.
That's kinda my point ... things HAVEN'T changed much to make the experience better in a significant way. Been busy making other improvements. So, as those things change become even more incremental, maybe it is time to REALLY take a look at how the century old design can be improved upon ... even if it warrants a technical redesign. I mean, they did away with the bottom plate, so why can't they revise the RF optics in a much more meaningful way. Sure, it'll require effort to do so, but if folks are asking the question of how can they improve future generations (inferring that there's not a lot to that needs changed), I still think the RF has been overlooked for putting much effort into bringing it up.
I realize it is the "only game in town" for an RF (i.e. not much competitive pressing incentive) ... but, I still think they could do something better with it. You just have to let go of the notion that since it has been this for the last 100 years (therefore it must be as good as it gets), and give it a clean slate for consideration regarding an implementation of all that optical knowledge into the RF. I'm quite certain that it could be done better than it is, and still be an optical RF, coupled to the lens.
RustyBug wrote:
That's kinda my point ... things HAVEN'T changed much to make the experience better in a significant way. Been busy making other improvements. So, as those things change become even more incremental, maybe it is time to REALLY take a look at how the century old design can be improved upon ... even if it warrants a technical redesign. I mean, they did away with the bottom plate, so why can't they revise the RF optics in a much more meaningful way. Sure, it'll require effort to do so, but if folks are asking the question of how can they improve future generations (inferring that there's not a lot to that needs changed), I still think the RF has been overlooked for putting much effort into bringing it up.
I realize it is the "only game in town" for an RF (i.e. not much competitive pressing incentive) ... but, I still think they could do something better with it. You just have to let go of the notion that since it has been this for the last 100 years (therefore it must be as good as it gets), and give it a clean slate for consideration regarding an implementation of all that optical knowledge into the RF. I'm quite certain that it could be done better than it is, and still be an optical RF, coupled to the lens....Show more →
I don't know how much the rangefinder can get better, but I'd be really happy to see it improve.
Am I hallucinating or are the silver tones of M10R/M11/M11P all subtly different (biggest difference being M10 vs M11 generally) with the M11* being a bit darker/gunmetal tone
Stephen G wrote:
Am I hallucinating or are the silver tones of M10R/M11/M11P all subtly different (biggest difference being M10 vs M11 generally) with the M11* being a bit darker/gunmetal tone
RustyBug wrote:
I suspect product lighting variance seems to be the issue.
Note the difference in blacks, red and specular highlights also.
I have a silver M11. I agree that what is being seen is likely a difference in the lighting. I have some silver accessories and they match the M11 silver color exactly the same as they did on previous silver models.
An M11D would be nice to see. But I would like to see a very simplistic version of it in the same line as the MD Typ262 without any gimmicks like a fake film advice lever. A decision worse than the Fuji upside down screen IMO.
The rear thumb wheel and the function buttons can go as well (forget exposure comp) Shouldn’t have a menu either. Wi-Fi only for updating the firmware. Should be just set to average meter, and have the ISO, Shutter speed and the aperture on the lens and that’s it. The ISO should be the back wheel and not at the top. Remove that too. Have the ISO like when you set the ISO on a Film camera. Get rid of that ISO pull up dial on top. Have nothing there like on the MD 262. Go back to that design, but this time it will be a slimmer body.
If you want a film camera that saves a photo in an SD card then that should be it. Nothing else. No film advance because there is no film. The camera itself is a gimmick as it is so I would keep it as bare bones as possible.
Caranis wrote:
An M11D would be nice to see. But I would like to see a very simplistic version of it in the same line as the MD Typ262 without any gimmicks like a fake film advice lever. A decision worse than the Fuji upside down screen IMO.
The rear thumb wheel and the function buttons can go as well (forget exposure comp) Shouldn’t have a menu either. Wi-Fi only for updating the firmware. Should be just set to average meter, and have the ISO, Shutter speed and the aperture on the lens and that’s it. The ISO should be the back wheel and not at the top. Remove that too. Have the ISO like when you set the ISO on a Film camera. Get rid of that ISO pull up dial on top. Have nothing there like on the MD 262. Go back to that design, but this time it will be a slimmer body.
If you want a film camera that saves a photo in an SD card then that should be it. Nothing else. No film advance because there is no film. The camera itself is a gimmick as it is so I would keep it as bare bones as possible. ...Show more →
Caranis wrote:
An M11D would be nice to see. But I would like to see a very simplistic version of it in the same line as the MD Typ262 without any gimmicks like a fake film advice lever. A decision worse than the Fuji upside down screen IMO.
The rear thumb wheel and the function buttons can go as well (forget exposure comp) Shouldn’t have a menu either. Wi-Fi only for updating the firmware. Should be just set to average meter, and have the ISO, Shutter speed and the aperture on the lens and that’s it. The ISO should be the back wheel and not at the top. Remove that too. Have the ISO like when you set the ISO on a Film camera. Get rid of that ISO pull up dial on top. Have nothing there like on the MD 262. Go back to that design, but this time it will be a slimmer body.
If you want a film camera that saves a photo in an SD card then that should be it. Nothing else. No film advance because there is no film. The camera itself is a gimmick as it is so I would keep it as bare bones as possible. ...Show more →
No. Really, no.
That thumb support is brilliant. As a support it's an exact replica of what happens on a film M. Why is it that some think that the film wind on a film M only had one function?? I want it on ALL digital M's but Leica wants to sell less functional thumb grips for $250 or something like that.
Personally, I think the M10D was close to perfect. I'd have one if it had more resolution. First in line. Add the easy charging and battery life of the M11 to it? First in line.
