Godfrey
somewhat colored
WJJ3,
It sounds to me that what you want is not a Leica M. You want a Leica SL(2) or CL, and the modern Leica lenses tailored to them. These systems allow direct injection of rich parametric metadata, due to the communication between bodies and lenses, into the raw files by the body for all the kinds of corrections that you want. Leica's SL and TL lens lines for these bodies are, as a whole, the best performing Leica lenses ever made.
G
It sounds to me that what you want is not a Leica M. You want a Leica SL(2) or CL, and the modern Leica lenses tailored to them. These systems allow direct injection of rich parametric metadata, due to the communication between bodies and lenses, into the raw files by the body for all the kinds of corrections that you want. Leica's SL and TL lens lines for these bodies are, as a whole, the best performing Leica lenses ever made.
G
WJJ3
Well-known
The SL system looks fantastic, and if I was making money with my camera gear maybe I would consider it. I like the M system though. I like my film bodies, am having a great time with my recently acquired M9, and love all my Leica mount lenses. What would really be neat is if Leica continued to develop the M bodies, instead of sidelining the system, as Puts put it (no pun intended). If the camera could determine precisely shooting aperture and focus distance then it can apply the profiles and the lens corrections in them much more elegantly. Leica should improve the external sensor solution, not abandon it. They should develop a way to determine focus distance from the position of the rangefinder. They really got the camera size and handling right with the M10-P. They should use that platform and add the features needed to really make the M lens-sensor combination shine.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Leica has not "side-lined" (at least not completely) the M system; we've been told unequivocally by Dr. Hoffman that the M system will continue. But as much as I love the Leica M system, it does not represent the future of Leica - even I can see that. The most we can expect from the M system henceforth is in-camera image stabilization (an absolute must with higher resolution sensors) and, possibly, an EVF model with no optical RF. Leica wants to survive and stay profitable; they've seen the future and the M system is, unfortunately, not made for it (at least not on the front line).
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Nice as the M system is, I've found that the CL proves more versatile and more useful to me at this point in time. I stopped shooting with the M-D 262 without thinking about it much; I just found the CL body did the job I wanted more of the time, and more easily ... even with the same M (and R) lenses.
The need for the body to have specific data on focus and aperture to do correction is largely overrated, in my opinion. I fit the digital back on my Hasselblad 500CM and shoot the same way with that, with my classic set of Hasselblad lenses from the 1960s and 1970s, and find the lack of such information has zero cost in imaging qualities associated with it. Hasselblad's Phocus software, which has tailored curves for all their lenses, produces excellent results but they're not significantly different from the results that Lightroom Classic produces.
I believe Leica knows more about what their future is, where their profitability will come from, than I do. I just use whichever of their products suits me best because I find their lenses, imaging qualities, and the overall design philosophy of their bodies to be amongst the best around for my use of a lightweight, hand-held camera.
G
The need for the body to have specific data on focus and aperture to do correction is largely overrated, in my opinion. I fit the digital back on my Hasselblad 500CM and shoot the same way with that, with my classic set of Hasselblad lenses from the 1960s and 1970s, and find the lack of such information has zero cost in imaging qualities associated with it. Hasselblad's Phocus software, which has tailored curves for all their lenses, produces excellent results but they're not significantly different from the results that Lightroom Classic produces.
I believe Leica knows more about what their future is, where their profitability will come from, than I do. I just use whichever of their products suits me best because I find their lenses, imaging qualities, and the overall design philosophy of their bodies to be amongst the best around for my use of a lightweight, hand-held camera.
G
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Even you?
IMO, the only way for Leica to survive is to continue to be glamorous, prestige brand. Then even simple rebranding of Panasonic work.
The only reason to buy non M Leica these days is to be in prestige group (photos don't even need to be good at all) and have very nice camera nobody else is capable to make so far.
But technically any non M Leica is inferior to any other brand. IMO.
I also don't think IS is needed this much for shutter speed > focal length.
But selling M10 for 8K$ without dust shake is hilarious, yet, is showing how popular M is.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
* There was certainly no ego intended. Just speaking from my own POV, I've loved the M system for most of my life, leaving it only after the M8 (I absolutely hated that camera!) for a short time.Even you?
... But technically any non M Leica is inferior to any other brand. IMO.
I also don't think IS is needed this much for shutter speed > focal length.
But selling M10 for 8K$ without dust shake is hilarious, yet, is showing how popular M is.
* IMO, if you're using 6-bit coded M lenses, (if we're talking non-M) a Leica with the L-M adapter is the best platform.
* The latest M10M reviews are promising, but the reviewers are pushing ISO and avoiding lower shutter speeds.
WJJ3
Well-known
Might be overrated in some or most cases, and might be very nice for others.
From Hasselblad's website:
"Phocus makes use of its detailed knowledge of the lens design and calculates the optical corrections for every shot at the given distance and aperture setting, providing perfect images, and an ideal basis for optimal image rendering and further processing."
This is exactly what I proposed in comment #40, and exactly what Leica ought to provide. Kudos to Hasselblad for coming up with a good solution instead of lame half measures.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Note: that only works for the Hasseblad systems that provide full data to the body. Leica does the same for their systems that do the same. M and R lenses are not part of those systems... In Hasselblad's case, the V system lenses are not part of those systems. No difference.
Buy into the current Leica L mount equipment and you'll get results that reflect that kind of technology.
Also note: there is a bit of marketing-speak in such statements.
G
WJJ3
Well-known
Note: that only works for the Hasseblad systems that provide full data to the body. Leica does the same for their systems that do the same. M and R lenses are not part of those systems... In Hasselblad's case, the V system lenses are not part of those systems. No difference.
Buy into the current Leica L mount equipment and you'll get results that reflect that kind of technology.
Also note: there is a bit of marketing-speak in such statements.
G
I was actually wondering that after I posted. If the Hasselblad software doesn't allow you to manually enter aperture and focus distance values then it is not the solution I was thinking it is.
And well put about marketing speak. The text I pulled from the Hasselblad site is a pretty glossy statement. Still it would be great to see lens profiles that were tuned for each aperture and maybe 3 or 4 points on the focus scale that could be applied manually in a stand alone utility like what Hasselblad provides.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have Phocus (because I have a digital Hasselblad) ... It does nothing with V-system lenses, which can only be used as adapted, dumb lenses on the digital Hasselblad X1D bodies. All these nice features rely upon technology in the lens and the body to record the aperture and focus distance that transfer to the software... Just like with Leica SL and TL type lenses and the cameras' built in lens profile injections for them (and similar for Micro-FourThirds, Sony, Nikon, etc). I haven't seen anything yet that lets me input focus and aperture settings for the CFVII 50c back used on my Hasselblad 500CM bodies, but I'll keep looking until I exhaust the possibilities.
The whole point of Leica's efforts with M and R lenses is to do as best possible a job of preserving the behavior of the lenses that people already own with current digital capture bodies to the limits that the technology they represent can support. Expecting that people will be so disciplined as to rigorously save and input focus distance and shooting aperture for exposures made with such lenses, and do it accurately/consistently/enough of the time as to make such data actually worthwhile, is an unrealistic expectation IMO.
What they do now is very good, but not without its failings and errors. It works better on more current bodies than it does on old bodies like the M9. And when it fails, doing corrections manually with image processing software—with all the skills and time that that implies—works well enough.
G
WJJ3
Well-known
Yeah, probably not a realistic expectation that Leica would make a utility with the features I would like. For snapshots and casual shooting, taking notes of aperture and distance is unrealistic, but wouldn't be for other types of photography.
The corrections in their profiles as they are now are surely indispensable for some of their wider lenses, so it's great they are available. Still unfortunate to see them giving up on systems that address the lack of lens setting communication, like the external light sensor...