Godfrey
somewhat colored
This is a fairly silly notion. What allows them to build a Q with a thin body is a dedicated, from the ground up new lens design and no rangefinder mechanism.
The M's RF is an optical/mechanical device, based on a 28mm mount register, and designed to be compatible with lenses from the past seven decades. Space for the sensor, its supporting filter stack and electronics, the shutter, etc, are what determine the size of the M body, along with the optical/mechanical/geometric needs of the M viewfinder system.
They can easily make a thin "M" minus the rangefinder, compatibility with older lenses, etc. But that's not the point of M camera development. They're supporting our investment in M lenses with the M, and providing a superb body to do it with.
Yes, we've had this exact discussion several times before on this forum. Sigh.
G
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Every dealer is selling these bundles on their websites preorder...as its coming in stock soon..
This really has me close to putting in 5995- for this outfit...as I need a new 50 too...so it works for me..
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Rather hard to determine colour quality (or even black and white quality) on a computer screen, assuming that's how you're making the comparison. For me the print is the determinant.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's not really the sensor itself that is so thick. It's all the other stuff needed to set the image plane in the right place with shutter and space for circuitry. That will not change much by changing the chemistry of the photosite technology.
G
willie_901
Veteran
Well... yes.
Without acknowledging the well explained and understood physics/engineering issues aside, the idea there's a marketing conspiracy involved violates Occam's Razor as well.
willie_901
Veteran
Thinner high-performance sensor assemblies will require radically different imaging technologies. As far as we know these are quite a few years down the road. The investment costs are not justified by saving 4mm of body thickness for a niche of a niche, of a niche of the still camera market share. Instead a body as thin as a film M will be an unintended consequence of a future ultra-thin sensor technology.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Saturday morning walk time ...
All: Leica M-D + Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH (LTM)
enjoy!
G
All: Leica M-D + Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH (LTM)
enjoy!
G
Ruhayat
Well-known
Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell. I wouldn't be so confident of saying never.
Ruhayat
Well-known
In 2006, explaining why they couldn't make the M8 a full frame rangefinder, Leica said this:
"...it would be cost prohibitive and too complex to produce a sensor which can cover the entire 36x24 mm frame and still work with rangefinder lenses."
The main obstacle was tech: "The angle of incidence of light coming from the rear of the lens is so severely off-perpendicular that they would not pass equally through the microlenses above the sensor leading to fairly strong vignetting. Even a modest wide angle lens at this kind of distance could produce a difference of a stop or two between the center of the frame and the edges using a standard CCD sensor."
Incidentally, they solved it for the M9. By using technology discovered while developing the Leica S.
But, okay, time will be the ultimate judge whether the same will happen to a thinner digital M body. Let's revisit this thread again in, say, 3 years' time.
"...it would be cost prohibitive and too complex to produce a sensor which can cover the entire 36x24 mm frame and still work with rangefinder lenses."
The main obstacle was tech: "The angle of incidence of light coming from the rear of the lens is so severely off-perpendicular that they would not pass equally through the microlenses above the sensor leading to fairly strong vignetting. Even a modest wide angle lens at this kind of distance could produce a difference of a stop or two between the center of the frame and the edges using a standard CCD sensor."
Incidentally, they solved it for the M9. By using technology discovered while developing the Leica S.
But, okay, time will be the ultimate judge whether the same will happen to a thinner digital M body. Let's revisit this thread again in, say, 3 years' time.
willie_901
Veteran
They didn't solve it. They use post-acquisition software to remedy the artifacts.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
... along with a customized, specialized, very expensive sensor to minimize the artifacts as much as physics and optics will allow.
G
MCTuomey
Veteran
Been following this thread for awhile.
Practical question for those who own or have used the M-D.
Would you sell an M240 and an M6 (in my case my M body inventory) to provide funds toward an M-D?
Not using either M240 or M6 much, but feel the "antidote" M-D would likely get used more.
Practical question for those who own or have used the M-D.
Would you sell an M240 and an M6 (in my case my M body inventory) to provide funds toward an M-D?
Not using either M240 or M6 much, but feel the "antidote" M-D would likely get used more.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
It's a great camera, so if you're looking for the film shooting experience in a digital body, I'd say the M-D is so far the closest digital camera that does it. I think you'd get a lot of enjoyment out of using it, though admittedly it does take a bit of getting accustomed to it.
willie_901
Veteran
Absolutely.
Still "a customized, specialized, very expensive sensor" alone wasn't enough.
I write this not to bash the M9. I also enjoy lenses I own that rely on post-acquisition corrections.
But the point is the physics and optical challenges are significant and the extra body width is not gratuitous.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have an M-P typ 240 and M-D typ 262. Also an M4-2. All are great cameras.
I'll sell the M-P soon. That will return most of the cost of the M-D. What the M-P does differently from the M-D I don't find I need because I have other cameras that do that better for me. I won't sell the M4-2 because I do occasionally like to shoot some film because of its different imaging characteristics.
But in the end, the simple answer for me is yes: the M-D does exactly what I want any Leica M to do, and does it best for me.
G
MCTuomey
Veteran
Thanks, Godfrey and Vince, I appreciate your balanced in-use thoughts. More consideration needed here.
Renting one would be helpful - I make better gear decisions after real use - but don't know when/if the camera will hit the rental houses.
Renting one would be helpful - I make better gear decisions after real use - but don't know when/if the camera will hit the rental houses.
cz23
-
Mike, I'm curious why you don't use your M240 or M6 but think the M-D might change that. Among Leicas, the M-D, in particular, seems like a camera you know you want or you don't.
John
MCTuomey
Veteran
John, thanks for asking so politely. My question reads like a dilettante's gear ennui, and likely it really is nothing more.
My M240 and M6 don't see much use because I'm shooting less overall and what I am shooting (music venues primarily combined with travel, a little event work) I moved over to Fuji X a couple years ago. As the Fuji inventory has grown, my Leica gear has shrunk down from mutiple bodies and lenses to one film and one digi body and a few lenses. Since they don't see much use, I was thinking to consolidate it down to a body and lens or two that require a different way of shooting, close to film, very simple, no tele lenses, no super wides, zone focus, manual exposure. Which is what I do with the M6, and really enjoy it, except I just don't shoot much film. A digital version of that M6 would be perfect.
A personal camera only, not for the work of getting the shot, but just making and taking shots in a coherent, themed way. Same lens, same sensor, same or at least similar look.
I know that an M240 can be used just this way - don't use the rear screen, don't use live view, and so on. But I don't do that, for some reason. I would use the M-D that way, since that's the only way to use it.
This is not making much sense, I know. So I'll stop there before I embarrass myself further.
My M240 and M6 don't see much use because I'm shooting less overall and what I am shooting (music venues primarily combined with travel, a little event work) I moved over to Fuji X a couple years ago. As the Fuji inventory has grown, my Leica gear has shrunk down from mutiple bodies and lenses to one film and one digi body and a few lenses. Since they don't see much use, I was thinking to consolidate it down to a body and lens or two that require a different way of shooting, close to film, very simple, no tele lenses, no super wides, zone focus, manual exposure. Which is what I do with the M6, and really enjoy it, except I just don't shoot much film. A digital version of that M6 would be perfect.
A personal camera only, not for the work of getting the shot, but just making and taking shots in a coherent, themed way. Same lens, same sensor, same or at least similar look.
I know that an M240 can be used just this way - don't use the rear screen, don't use live view, and so on. But I don't do that, for some reason. I would use the M-D that way, since that's the only way to use it.
This is not making much sense, I know. So I'll stop there before I embarrass myself further.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It is difficult to get across the reason why the M-D (and the M Edition 60 before it) is so special and so motivating compared to the M/M-P240 or regular M262. But it does that ... It is very inviting to pick up and go shooting with for reasons that are not crystal clear.
It is easy to hold, simple to understand, quick to use. You can grok everything about the camera in ten minutes or less, just like with an M6. You turn it on and commence taking pictures ... that's all.
So refreshing.
G
Yes, and this is worth a disciplined try to help your decision, as a test to see how you might get along in this mode... because it's essentially similar to what you'd do with an M-D.
Indeed it's my normal way of using my M240. Turn off the instant preview/replay, set one user profile and leave things set that way. Auto ISO within useful limits, a bit of underexposure compensation, limits on auto shutter vs focal length. No fiddling with compensation or ISO, just lock AE where you want it and recompose to shoot, no Live View or Video. I find this very easy, no temptation to use all the available features. But I realize many others find this challenges their determination and discipline. Worth a try?