wdshuck wrote:
I could see this being logical for a focus on the focal length used. M11-V highlighted as the solution for wide (24mm and wider) and long (75mm and longer) where the rangefinder is more difficult to focus and compose.
I agree with these comments. I think both the M variant, and the R variant, and now the V variant will be for people who want to add increased capabilities to the vanilla model. The M variant obviously adds enhanced B & W capability. The M10R added increased resolution. This V variant will add better capability for lenses wider than 28 and longer than 75 with a lot easier focus for those lenses (at the cost of having the rangefinder for 28-75mm lenses). Personally, I really like the rangefinder for 28, 35, 50, & 75mm lenses, but I would prefer an EVF for longer of shorter focal lengths.
I think the P variant in contrast is for people who either can't wait to upgrade or who do wait for all the bugs to be worked out and it helps keep the price up between models of the currently selling version. And the D variant is for people who want to shoot more like a film camera so it creates a different shooting experience. I suppose in some ways the V variant will also be for people who want to shoot a different way and more like a mirrorless camera.
wdshuck wrote:
I could see this being logical for a focus on the focal length used. M11-V highlighted as the solution for wide (24mm and wider) and long (75mm and longer) where the rangefinder is more difficult to focus and compose.
Since the rangefinder patch can't be moved mechanically, maybe Leica will introduce a new way to use an EVF. They could offer multiple focusing options, including a fully electronic "virtual patch" that mimics the real thing as a focusing aid. Unlike the traditional patch, this one could be moved anywhere in the frame, something that isn't possible with a mechanical rangefinder. It could be an additional tool alongside focus peaking and other manual focus aids.
Fuji has a similar system in their X-Pro and X100 series, but Leica could take it a step further with a more refined implementation.
I think Leica has the opportuity to create an exeptional if not revolutionary experience at how manual focusing would work on this next variant.
How to digitize the range finder experience? Staying optimisitic
This would really be a great way to go about it for sure.
You would have that legacy feel, but with a morderne functionality enabling always sharp images where you want it to be sharp with the higher megapixel cameras.
The biggest advantage is that we see exactly what the sensor sees, so the need for perfect alignment between the lens and rangefinder is no longer an issue. In theory, this could lower the production cost of the camera since very tight tolerances aren't required for focusing.
wdshuck wrote:
I could see this being logical for a focus on the focal length used. M11-V highlighted as the solution for wide (24mm and wider) and long (75mm and longer) where the rangefinder is more difficult to focus and compose.
This would work well for 6-bit coded lenses. Most of my M - and obviously LTM lenses - are not coded. To manually enter every time the focal length I am using to adjust the focus aid would not work for me. It is already not working for me in my M 240 and M 246 cameras where I would need to manually enter the used lens (or similar lens) to make the FL appear in the EXIF image file. Much too cumbersome, I turned off the lens recognition option in both my cameras especially after I forgot a few times to set it back to another lens after I changed lenses.
There are some really cool opportunities with magnification here. It would be awesome to have an "eye detection" function where the patch auto detects eyes and allows you to align focus in a patch. Hoping leica's take on innovation is an interesting one.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The biggest advantage is that we see exactly what the sensor sees, so the need for perfect alignment between the lens and rangefinder is no longer an issue. In theory, this could lower the production cost of the camera since very tight tolerances aren't required for focusing.
I expect that this will be the same price as the RF M and that on release all the prices will go up a good 5-10%. 😆
connorbacon99 wrote:
There are some really cool opportunities with magnification here. It would be awesome to have an "eye detection" function where the patch auto detects eyes and allows you to align focus in a patch. Hoping leica's take on innovation is an interesting one.
Why would you need to code the lenses if there was an EVF, other than getting focal length tagged to the files? Wouldn’t the EVF just look through the sensor like a mirrorless camera?
retrofocus wrote:
This would work well for 6-bit coded lenses. Most of my M - and obviously LTM lenses - are not coded. To manually enter every time the focal length I am using to adjust the focus aid would not work for me. It is already not working for me in my M 240 and M 246 cameras where I would need to manually enter the used lens (or similar lens) to make the FL appear in the EXIF image file. Much too cumbersome, I turned off the lens recognition option in both my cameras especially after I forgot a few times to set it back to another lens after I changed lenses. ...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
Since the rangefinder patch can't be moved mechanically, maybe Leica will introduce a new way to use an EVF. They could offer multiple focusing options, including a fully electronic "virtual patch" that mimics the real thing as a focusing aid. Unlike the traditional patch, this one could be moved anywhere in the frame, something that isn't possible with a mechanical rangefinder. It could be an additional tool alongside focus peaking and other manual focus aids.
Fuji has a similar system in their X-Pro and X100 series, but Leica could take it a step further with a more refined implementation.
It seems to me possible that your idea of a “virtual patch” might be close to the mark. What struck me as odd about the images in your first post was that the second pair of viewfinder “screenshots” (with what look like frame lines) have what looks like a RF patch — one of which is not in the centre — together with what looks like focus peaking. Moreover, even though both images look equally in focus, one of the RF patches (the one without focus peaking) makes it look like the lens isn’t focused.
This makes me wonder whether (a) there might still be a RF window (as well as TTL), the view from which would always be in focus; and (b) the view from the RF window is being merged with information (in this instance, to give focus peaking) from TTL. And if they are framelines, having a RF window would explain how the viewfinder can show more than the lens can see (unless, as @Steve Spencer suggested, there is cropping going on).
All complete speculation, of course (even assuming that these screenshots are genuine), but I do think there’s some chance that the viewfinder and focusing may be based on some form of hybrid, possibly with the synthesised RF patch, as you suggest. Frankenfinder ….
(Apologies if I’m repeating what someone else has already said, I’ve only just glanced at the last few posts, not the whole thread.)
My expectation is the “patch” is more of an overlay that has increased contrast and other effects (possibly including peaking indicators). Nothing revolutionary.
However, this could be a vehicle for lenses with electronics to facilitate features such as eye-AF, similar to the nikon zf.
I remember some very specific survey questions from Leica maybe a year ago regarding video capabilities of future M system cameras. I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to include video in this camera...it seems like a natural fit and would probably appeal to the intended target audience.
josh-himes wrote:
I remember some very specific survey questions from Leica maybe a year ago regarding video capabilities of future M system cameras. I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to include video in this camera...it seems like a natural fit and would probably appeal to the intended target audience.
The opposite was preferred with the M240 and that is why there has been no video with an M since then. They now offer an SL with video capabilities and I. for one. hope it stays that way.
josh-himes wrote:
I remember some very specific survey questions from Leica maybe a year ago regarding video capabilities of future M system cameras. I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to include video in this camera...it seems like a natural fit and would probably appeal to the intended target audience.
This is one reason why I stick to my M 240 and M 246 cameras. I rarely use video, but I like the capability in camera when I need it. Video was dismissed by Leica with the M10 series moving forward - at the same time when the SL was released which was/is marketed as video centric camera. The "Wesentliche" approach was a nice excuse why video was omitted in the M10 which many bought as main reason. Instead IMO Leica wanted to reduce in-house competition with two exchangeable lens mount cameras potentially doing video (M and SL series). Therefore I don't think the M11-V will include video either even I would love to see it coming back. As I mentioned earlier, I see the M11-V as M11 with EVF instead of rangefinder and not much other body/interior change at all. Maybe some focus aids, but not much else in addition I guess.
wdshuck wrote:
Why would you need to code the lenses if there was an EVF, other than getting focal length tagged to the files? Wouldn’t the EVF just look through the sensor like a mirrorless camera?
My reply came in response to the suggestion that the EVF-based focus aid is focal length dependent. In this case the coding is needed because otherwise the camera doesn't know which lens and focal length is used. It has nothing to do with the field of view shown in the EVF itself - this comes directly from the sensor.
retrofocus wrote:
This is one reason why I stick to my M 240 and M 246 cameras. I rarely use video, but I like the capability in camera when I need it. Video was dismissed by Leica with the M10 series moving forward - at the same time when the SL was released which was/is marketed as video centric camera. The "Wesentliche" approach was a nice excuse why video was omitted in the M10 which many bought as main reason. Instead IMO Leica wanted to reduce in-house competition with two exchangeable lens mount cameras potentially doing video (M and SL series). Therefore I don't think the M11-V will include video either even I would love to see it coming back. As I mentioned earlier, I see the M11-V as M11 with EVF instead of rangefinder and not much other body/interior change at all. Maybe some focus aids, but not much else in addition I guess. ...Show more →
I agree. I miss the video capabilities of the 240, but the video spec was fairly antiquated compared to modern offerings. In my estimation, video is much more important today than it was just 4-5 years ago when the M11 was conceived. Since this camera seems like a non traditional take on the standard M offering, video seems like a logical fit. It's really just firmware, so it would be easy to include.
Sony is getting 8K30 from this sensor, although that requires faster cards. 4K60 would be fine with SD cards and seems like a logical place to land. Or Leica could throw everyone a curveball and spec a faster card and/or larger internal memory and buffer to really maximize video and high FPS still capabilities.
Video on the 240 is like a burger patty shoved between two slices of stale rye bread. I'd rather have a McD while using my phone with its software stabilised video.
panos.v wrote:
Video on the 240 is like a burger patty shoved between two slices of stale rye bread. I'd rather have a McD while using my phone with its software stabilised video.
The M 240 series from 2012 in general is technically outdated. Still its 24 MP FF sensor makes amazing photos with distinct coloration which is more film-like. Same is true for its video capability - outdated by today's standard but it still shines on this sensor. Cellphone video comes with much more bells and whistles, but it's different to take it on a cellphone screen instead of looking through the OVF. And again - IMO an technically outdated video is better than having none in my camera.
retrofocus wrote:
The M 240 series from 2012 in general is technically outdated. Still its 24 MP FF sensor makes amazing photos with distinct coloration which is more film-like. Same is true for its video capability - outdated by today's standard but it still shines on this sensor. Cellphone video comes with much more bells and whistles, but it's different to take it on a cellphone screen instead of looking through the OVF. And again - IMO an technically outdated video is better than having none in my camera.
Don’t let it go! I love the output from the M240 series, and I believe the build quality and reliability were better back then. I’m currently using the M-D body, which has the same sensor.
