Fotodiox Leica is the correct size

[Roger Hicks]

Software cannot change the angle of incidence of light on the sensor or register distance, but it can certainly make color corrections for the light hitting the sensor at a certain position (known angle of incidence) as well as correct vignetting and distortion etc.

Sure. You can fudge out all kinds of problems in software. But (as I have now pointed out three times) it would be absurdly uneconomic for Leica to create software for every lens they have ever made. I like using my Thambar on my M9. I may be getting a 73/1.9 Hektor. I have numerous non-Leica lenses. This, I suggest, is why it's a better idea to use microlenses. And, don't forget, software solutions may be actual improvements or simply fudges, especially with vignetting.

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I also like the size of my digitl Ms.

 

[jonmanjiro]

This, I suggest, is why it's a better idea to use microlenses.

Don't Leica already use both microlenses and software correction designed to work in conjunction with each other?

 

[brbo]

It would be easy for Leica to make M smaller. As you can't correct for shorter flange distance in software there are two options:
1. Leica teaches us how to "love the bump" (hey, Apple did just that!)
2. convince us we need adapters with M lenses

"Problem" with #1 is that M will inevitably look ugly to many users. And the bump is then forever (Apple, on the other hand, will someday again sell us a bumpless iPhone as a "magical innovation").

#2 makes little sense if there are no new lenses with shorter flange distance. And if there are, they can't be used on film M bodies.

Either way, a group of users would be pi**ed off.


So, it's more emotional than physical, I'd say 😉

 

[leicapixie]

Those are all excuses due to old tech. Ask yourself why the full frame Q is so much smaller than the M? It has a much better LCD panel, and includes autofocus and image stabilizing.
It is far more highly featured than the M, uses the same sensor size. and is smaller...

The Leica Q I see in display case at Leica store LOOKS BIGGER than an M!

 

[Huss]

Those are all excuses due to old tech. Ask yourself why the full frame Q is so much smaller than the M? It has a much better LCD panel, and includes autofocus and image stabilizing.
It is far more highly featured than the M, uses the same sensor size. and is smaller...

The Leica Q I see in display case at Leica store LOOKS BIGGER than an M!

M vs Q vs Sony RX1 size comparison. All are FF cameras. The Q body is smaller but the lens is bigger as it has the AF mechanism in it. So imagine the full frame Q with the interchangeable M lens on it.

http://j.mp/2dIxeUv

 

[Roger Hicks]

Don't Leica already use both microlenses and software correction designed to work in conjunction with each other?

I believe so. This does not affect anything I said before, though.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It would be easy for Leica to make M smaller. . . .

Why do you think they don't, then? Spite?

Cheers,

R.

 

[brbo]

Why do you think they don't, then? Spite?

I don't know. Could be.

I did list two reasons that are more probable than simple spite. But you obviously didn't bother to read my post past the first sentence...

 

[Pioneer]

That's nice, but that won't help with future sales.
😉

What camera feels better in your hand, your gorgeous svelte M-A, or your chunky munky 262?

I like both of them. They actually feel very similar in use unless I have one in the right hand and one in the left.

I prefer the M-A because I prefer working with film. And besides, though no one else will admit it, that M-A was really built just for me. You know, wish upon a star and all that good stuff. 😀

I also realize that a sensor, the electronics package that goes with the sensor, the display on the back and the other electronic control buttons probably require a bit more room, and add more weight, than a strip of 35mm film does.

In reality, the only camera I own that has a film model converted to a digital model that didn't grow is my Pentax 645D. Since it already had a relatively large film chamber on the back Pentax engineers were able to fit most of the sensor and display screen electronics into that space. It did get heavier though.

 

[Lss]

R

R

2. convince us we need adapters with M lenses

Sure. Assuming that large enough part of the market will continue to value rangefinder focusing, and electronic (or electromechanical anyway) rangefinder technology both proves successful and requires a sufficiently small footprint, this has a reasonable chance of happening. Small body, AF with native lenses, and rangefinder focusing (via EVF, though) with M lenses that are used with an adapter. It only requires a few assumptions, but this is entirely imaginable within a few years.

The error is to expect all this or even something better yesterday. Another error is to expect it is the only, or the best, way forward.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't know. Could be.

I did list two reasons that are more probable than simple spite. But you obviously didn't bother to read my post past the first sentence...

Well, actually I did. No doubt you knew what you meant, but you didn't explain it very clearly.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sure. Assuming that large enough part of the market will continue to value rangefinder focusing, and electronic (or electromechanical anyway) rangefinder technology both proves successful and requires a sufficiently small footprint, this has a reasonable chance of happening. Small body, AF with native lenses, and rangefinder focusing (via EVF, though) with M lenses that are used with an adapter. It only requires a few assumptions, but this is entirely imaginable within a few years.

The error is to expect all this or even something better yesterday. Another error is to expect it is the only, or the best, way forward.

Quite.

Cheers,

R.

 

[brbo]

The error is to expect all this or even something better yesterday. Another error is to expect it is the only, or the best, way forward.

Exactly. And this all hasn't got much to do with the laws of physics.

The limitation is almost entirely in the willingness and/or ability of Leica's marketing and/or R&D.

 

[Pioneer]

Exactly. And this all hasn't got much to do with the laws of physics.

The limitation is almost entirely in the willingness and/or ability of Leica's marketing and/or R&D.

The last time Leica tried a major change to the M body it almost ended in bankruptcy. I think that has left a very long standing memory in that company, and not a good one.

Even the changes necessary to bring a digital to market were probably done with great hesitation. The company seems a bit more diversified now, but the destruction of the M line by thoughtless changes would not be a good move even now. Especially when it isn't necessary.

Other cameras are now available that provide additional options within the Leica line to customers who are no longer happy with the M digital camera.

As for Fuji, I am pretty sure that Leica is not interested in becoming a clone of Fuji. 😱

 

[Huss]

This is an entertaining thread.

You have some claiming it would be impossible to create a more compact M, even though the full frame Q is already more compact!
Then they claim it is physically impossible due to light paths and the such. Who when reminded that Leica has already been using software and microlenses, then claim they know about that already, but the limits of technology have already been reached.

This is a wake up call to the horse and buggy crowd. Leica's tech in the M is already at least 10 years old. And it was already behind the times in 2006 - remember how the LCD panel newly introduced was much worse than any offered by the Japanese cameras?

It's crazy that the auto white balance in my iPhone 4s (yes I still use it!) is much much better than my M240. How is that possible? Apple has better software engineers.
Think about that for a second. A phone that is now 3 generations behind has better imaging software than my current generation digital Leica.

Once again. It's not about physical limitations anymore. That is 1980s talk.
It is about the software.
I get it. Some don't understand that but that is ok, because there are engineers who do.

 

[Lss]

You have some claiming it would be impossible to create a more compact M, even though the full frame Q is already more compact!

What is your definition of an M camera?

 

[jaapv]

It is very simple. An M camera is a full-size rangefinder camera built by Leica.

 

[jaapv]

This is an entertaining thread.

You have some claiming it would be impossible to create a more compact M, even though the full frame Q is already more compact!
Then they claim it is physically impossible due to light paths and the such. Who when reminded that Leica has already been using software and microlenses, then claim they know about that already, but the limits of technology have already been reached.

This is a wake up call to the horse and buggy crowd. Leica's tech in the M is already at least 10 years old. And it was already behind the times in 2006 - remember how the LCD panel newly introduced was much worse than any offered by the Japanese cameras?

It's crazy that the auto white balance in my iPhone 4s (yes I still use it!) is much much better than my M240. How is that possible? Apple has better software engineers.
Think about that for a second. A phone that is now 3 generations behind has better imaging software than my current generation digital Leica.

Once again. It's not about physical limitations anymore. That is 1980s talk.
It is about the software.
I get it. Some don't understand that but that is ok, because there are engineers who do.

Sorry, you have it completely wrong. The thickness of the body is given by the fixed mount-sensor distance which is determined by the lenses plus the thickness of the sensor-motherboard-LCD. There is no technological way out of that predetermined distance. Theoretically the camera could be designed with a protruding lens mount and a thinner body, but the rangefinder coupling mechanism and frameline coupling would dictate a kind of box to accommodate them, making for a weird body shape. And I have not even started on the demands of the optical requirements of the view/rangefinder. Software has nothing to do with it. That is babble.
The only thing you are proving with your posts is that you haven't got the faintest understanding of what you are talking about.
And the white balance (which is completely irrelevant to any photographer who has a basic understanding of postprocessing) of the M240 is miles better than my iPhone.

 

[Emile de Leon]

They can do it...total redesign..but they wont...why...too much trouble..
Just milk the $$ out of the current M system..it doesn't need to change..
It's all about the bottom line..