______
Well-known
Huss
Veteran
Are you suggesting only expensive things can be curated?
You should see my sock drawer. Nothing haphazard in there. I guess I curated my socks.
tightsqueez
Well-known
Medium format is anything between 24x36 and 4x5. Why is that so hard to understand? It's amazing what semantics can do to a person.
coogee
Well-known
Some of those 'vanities' seem quite tied to the M mount and its lenses.
The >o< exposure indicator, framelines, basic body shape.
I like the battery compartment personally, no fragile hinged doors and plastic covers everywhere, just a simple twist and remove and metal as well but I concede it is obviously a tribute to another age.
Bloated now and 1950s, but you want 'more ergonomics' seems a very tough remit to fill.
'AF compatibility' seems really at odds with the M mount to me, manual focus rangefinder is surely the fundamental competitive advantage of M, AF lenses on an M seems a little like putting a rangefinder in a 5dM3 to me at least.
The >o< exposure indicator, framelines, basic body shape.
I like the battery compartment personally, no fragile hinged doors and plastic covers everywhere, just a simple twist and remove and metal as well but I concede it is obviously a tribute to another age.
Bloated now and 1950s, but you want 'more ergonomics' seems a very tough remit to fill.
'AF compatibility' seems really at odds with the M mount to me, manual focus rangefinder is surely the fundamental competitive advantage of M, AF lenses on an M seems a little like putting a rangefinder in a 5dM3 to me at least.
coogee
Well-known
I look forward to the 'M10' just being, whatever it is. I mean it already is what it is somewhere, assuming the forthcoming announcement actually is it.
LOL if it's another Q or something being announced. The QM maybe - monochrom complete with Autofocus (pronounced Ow Toe Foe Cuss of course)
LOL if it's another Q or something being announced. The QM maybe - monochrom complete with Autofocus (pronounced Ow Toe Foe Cuss of course)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, lucky you. Leica makes an X, Q, T, SL and S series of cameras, offering just these things.
,
k__43
Registered Film User
I think with the M line Leica should stay with the roots. They have the other lines for all the EVF, AF and video-taking capabilities.
When someone buys an M, he/she buys it for being dead simple to use (meaning clear layout and no menu diving, fn-buttons or scene automation, no cluttering BS so to speak) and obviously an optical RF
I see that other people enjoy the hybrid abilities of the M240, but other than the sensor I'd prefer my M9.
When someone buys an M, he/she buys it for being dead simple to use (meaning clear layout and no menu diving, fn-buttons or scene automation, no cluttering BS so to speak) and obviously an optical RF
I see that other people enjoy the hybrid abilities of the M240, but other than the sensor I'd prefer my M9.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
This sums it up for me.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Well, all the things that you like are things I avoid and they are tools to me. I am a full-time professional and shoot advertising commercial and the MM M262 and M-E are my tools of choice.
Most of the things you mention are what most of the other makers are making. Nice to have a REAL choice for those that don't want or need those things. And even Leica has camera options that have some of those features.
willie_901
Veteran
The term 'curated' has been overused in everyday life. From clothing stores, to gourmet donut shops, to now lens ownership.
So you curate the overused words then?
willie_901
Veteran
Maybe I'm delusional, but I seem to remember a significant number of threads here on RFF that discussed the very the lenses selection process you describe. Those with M/LTM mount cameras are fortunate to be able to consider a great number of "different examples" manufactured over decades by several companies.
After reading threads on RFF for over a decade I maintain a significant number of M/LTM photographers actually do curate a set of lenses.
willie_901
Veteran
Are you suggesting only expensive things can be curated?
You should see my sock drawer. Nothing haphazard in there. I guess I curated my socks.
My feet are anatomically flawed (really). My socks are curated. I only keep those that are well made and fit extremely well. I have a moderate pride in how how I look. If I'm gifted socks of a color and, or pattern incompatible with my wardrobe, are poorly made, etc. I donate them.
______
Well-known
If you ask someone who just read a Wikipedia article what medium format means, they might agree with you. However, if you ask a photographer what medium format means, he would respond that traditional medium format meant 6x6 with a few cameras that did 6x7 or 6x9, and later 6x4.5. Current "medium format" digital sensors are half the size of 6x4.5. If a camera manufacturer released a camera with a 24.1x36.1 sensor, and marketed it as medium format camera, would you not cry foul? Yet it fits your definition. Who is engaged in semantics? The digital camera manufacturers are just re-writing the labels to suit their purposes, just as they did when they christened 24x36 "full frame".
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, more than a few that did 6x9. It was the standard small format for decades. Remember all those folders and box cameras?
24x36 was the miniature format, regarded much like micro-4/3rds nowadays by many photographers of the time. How the world has changed...
24x36 was the miniature format, regarded much like micro-4/3rds nowadays by many photographers of the time. How the world has changed...
Huss
Veteran
So you curate the overused words then?
Only the ones with vowels in them.
I think we should replace the word 'moderator' with 'curator'.
An RFF Curator sounds so much better than RFF Moderator. It will make this a much more civilized and agreeable place.
______
Well-known
Yeah, I was trying to stay in the modern era, however one would like to define that.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Yes a lot of portraits studios had RBs and RZs.
I remember reading an article where Adams called his hasselblad a small camera. I guess it just depends on ones perspective.
LightBender
Member
Interesting that there are a few that want all sorts of things from the M camera system and these desired features are justified as being options and tools needed to make the M a better camera. The M is characterized as needing to be more like some modern DSLR with AF, EVF etc. Because, all these features on other cameras make these other cameras better and more versatile.
Features that aren't wanted on the M, or are viewed as in need of change, are described as vanities for luddites that are simply nostalgic carry-overs from the film M cameras.
The argument then goes on to say that the M needs to make all sorts of changes, needs more added features, to become a serious modern tool for photographers.
I guess I'm stuck in the mindset of wanting better photography and not a camera that does more things but, doesn't really make the experience or the photographs better. And, in fact, may detract from what (for me) is what the camera was simply designed for.
As always pointed out, there are plenty of cameras for studio and sports and all other sorts of photography that are better suited because, they are designed for purpose. The M is none of those things, particularly. The M was designed for something else and it does what it does better than anything else.
I do want the M to be better at the things it does do. Improvements in speed, sensor, updated electronics, size, etc. are of course welcome. Make the M better not different.
Features that aren't wanted on the M, or are viewed as in need of change, are described as vanities for luddites that are simply nostalgic carry-overs from the film M cameras.
The argument then goes on to say that the M needs to make all sorts of changes, needs more added features, to become a serious modern tool for photographers.
I guess I'm stuck in the mindset of wanting better photography and not a camera that does more things but, doesn't really make the experience or the photographs better. And, in fact, may detract from what (for me) is what the camera was simply designed for.
As always pointed out, there are plenty of cameras for studio and sports and all other sorts of photography that are better suited because, they are designed for purpose. The M is none of those things, particularly. The M was designed for something else and it does what it does better than anything else.
I do want the M to be better at the things it does do. Improvements in speed, sensor, updated electronics, size, etc. are of course welcome. Make the M better not different.
LightBender
Member
I don't know about all of this thinking that the M needs AF and EVF and all of the other things that don't play to the basic concept of the M system.
It just seems like a second M version that is more tech forward (what ever that means) would be destined to be a real loser concept, as it will not be competitive with other systems that actually have AF lenses (the M has MF lenses) and the M lenses don't really lend themselves to EVF manual focus.
A second M system like this would be set to fail from the start. It makes no sense and would be even more limited in market share as other cameras would kill a system as feeble as an M EVF and AF system. It would be doomed from the start. That is why it isn't ever going to happen.
Very few folks, other than internet arm chair camera designers, would even consider it. It would be a Rube Goldberg sort of contraption that would end up appealing to none.
The way forward is a more pure M that actually steps back toward the intent of the M system and reinforces these strengths. I think we are all going to all want the new M, if your thinking is along these lines.
It just seems like a second M version that is more tech forward (what ever that means) would be destined to be a real loser concept, as it will not be competitive with other systems that actually have AF lenses (the M has MF lenses) and the M lenses don't really lend themselves to EVF manual focus.
A second M system like this would be set to fail from the start. It makes no sense and would be even more limited in market share as other cameras would kill a system as feeble as an M EVF and AF system. It would be doomed from the start. That is why it isn't ever going to happen.
Very few folks, other than internet arm chair camera designers, would even consider it. It would be a Rube Goldberg sort of contraption that would end up appealing to none.
The way forward is a more pure M that actually steps back toward the intent of the M system and reinforces these strengths. I think we are all going to all want the new M, if your thinking is along these lines.
tightsqueez
Well-known
Absolutely. Capitalize on the strengths and harness the greatest luxury of all; reliability. Make it tough as nails and reliable.