Fotodiox Leica is the correct size
Old 10-20-2016   #1
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
Fotodiox Leica is the correct size

It feels so good in the hand. About 2/3 the size of an M240. Leica should take note.

https://www.fotodioxpro.com/fotodiox...m9-camera.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #2
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
.. . Leica should take note. . . .]
Unfortunately they are constrained by the laws of physics. It's much easier to make a non-working model, of any size you like, than a working camera.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #3
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
That was the excuse Leica gave when they introduced the M8 and said it had to be a crop sensor. Laws of physics.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #4
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
That was the excuse Leica gave when they introduced the M8 and said it had to be a crop sensor. Laws of physics.
Um... You might want to look more closely at the laws of physics. And at the difference between "excuse" and "reason". And at "technological progress". And microlenses and custom sensors.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-24-2016   #5
Jason Sprenger
Registered User
 
Jason Sprenger is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 437
I too remember the M8 excuses and also the coming of the M9.

Could you be specific about the laws of these physics personally, Mr. Hicks?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-24-2016   #6
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Dear Jason,

For a start, consider flange/sensor distances, and telecentric lens designs.

Then look at microlenses, which are much more necessary with a short flange/ sensor distance. http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_rel...s_image_sensor might help you here.

Then consider the quantity of electronics that Leica managed to stuff into a body only slightly bulkier than a film M. Compare it with the size of a DSLR.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #7
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
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...

What is going to happen is that software is going to correct the physical issues that you mention. The Q is already using it. How else do you think the latest iphone takes such good photos and is so thin with such a tiny lens?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #8
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Those are all excuses due to old tech.
Do you want to use the old tech (M mount and lenses) or not?

Leica could build a digital M mount rangefinder with a significantly smaller size than the current camera. The flange-to-sensor distance however is what it is. The form factor would therefore need to be something new, and that is a marketing risk (perhaps rather spelled 'suicide') they are unlikely to take anytime soon. Leica could also come up with a new rangefinder mount allowing for a smaller camera with all sorts of bells and whistles, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks that would happen.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #9
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
Do you want to use the old tech (M mount and lenses) or not?

Leica could build a digital M mount rangefinder with a significantly smaller size than the current camera. The flange-to-sensor distance however is what it is. The form factor would therefore need to be something new, and that is a marketing risk (perhaps rather spelled 'suicide') they are unlikely to take anytime soon. Leica could also come up with a new rangefinder mount allowing for a smaller camera with all sorts of bells and whistles, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks that would happen.
Dear Lasse,

All true, but there are always people who are sure that they know better than the people who are actually making a success of the business. It helps, as I said before, if you ignore the laws of physics. And commercial good sense. And being able to use the vast majority of lenses made since 1931. And the cost of writing software corrections for all those lenses...

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #10
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
Of course you could use the M lenses. Software could make the corrections, as the camera will already be able to recognize what lens is mounted due to the 6 bit coding.
And Leica already has a menu selection where you can manually pick the corrections for whatever non 6 bit lens is mounted.

Software is the answer, why are you hung up on physical limitations? It's already being used in the current Ms!

Leica will do this, because it will kick start the M sales. I see zero reason to update my M240 for a new M that is the same bloated size. It already takes amazing pics.
But if they reimagined the M by making it's size comparable to a film M, oh my.
It can be done.

Or you can pretend it is impossible, the way people accepted the limitations of the M8...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #11
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
. . . And Leica already has a menu selection where you can manually pick the corrections for whatever non 6 bit lens is mounted . . .
No. You can pick SOME lenses. But don't let facts stand in the way.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Leave the M Alone
Old 10-25-2016   #12
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 62
Posts: 2,617
Leave the M Alone

Go buy the Q if you like that size.

I like the M cameras just like they are. Leica is doing a fine job with them. It is one of the very few systems out there that just works, without any hassle. I put my 1933 Elmar 50 on my M Typ 262 and everything works great together.
__________________
"Your 1st 10,000 Photographs Are Your Worst"
HCBresson

"My 2nd 10,000 Are Not A Lot Better"
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #13
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
No. You can pick SOME lenses. But don't let facts stand in the way of your fantasies. After all, you haven't so far.

Cheers,

R.
You have gone from denying the possibility to now admitting that SOME lenses can be corrected.
I'm sure when the first digital camera came out you thought of it as some kind of black magic! Because that is impossible! Don't they know the laws of physics?!

Simple test for you. Turn off the profile for the Super Elmar 18mm lens on a digital Leica. Or whatever super wide angle you want. The image becomes a mess. Turn it back on. Magic!! It looks amazing! Wow, how did they do that?

And that is with code written 10 years ago. That is aeons ago in the tech industry.

Keep futilely shaking that stick at the innovators. They don't care because they are not held back by preconceived notions of how things should be because of how they were.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #14
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
That was the excuse Leica gave when they introduced the M8 and said it had to be a crop sensor. Laws of physics.
And they were correct with the technology of 2006.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #15
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Of course you could use the M lenses. Software could make the corrections, as the camera will already be able to recognize what lens is mounted due to the 6 bit coding.
And Leica already has a menu selection where you can manually pick the corrections for whatever non 6 bit lens is mounted.

Software is the answer, why are you hung up on physical limitations? It's already being used in the current Ms!

Leica will do this, because it will kick start the M sales. I see zero reason to update my M240 for a new M that is the same bloated size. It already takes amazing pics.
But if they reimagined the M by making it's size comparable to a film M, oh my.
It can be done.

Or you can pretend it is impossible, the way people accepted the limitations of the M8...
This makes no sense at all. How can software change the incidence angle of light on the sensor or the register distance of a lens?
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #16
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Go buy the Q if you like that size.

I like the M cameras just like they are. Leica is doing a fine job with them. It is one of the very few systems out there that just works, without any hassle. I put my 1933 Elmar 50 on my M Typ 262 and everything works great together.
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #17
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
And they were correct with the technology of 2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
This makes no sense at all. How can software change the incidence angle of light on the sensor or the register distance of a lens?

The first one answers the second one. And the second statement was what was said as the excuse for the M8 being a crop camera.

It's not 2006 anymore.

Did you know that the iphone did not even exist in 2006? Think about that for a moment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #18
YouAreHere
Registered User
 
YouAreHere's Avatar
 
YouAreHere is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 110
What if Leica simply made the right hand side of the camera thinner and left every other surface as is?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2016   #19
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
You have gone from denying the possibility to now admitting that SOME lenses can be corrected.
I'm sure when the first digital camera came out you thought of it as some kind of black magic! Because that is impossible! Don't they know the laws of physics?!

Simple test for you. Turn off the profile for the Super Elmar 18mm lens on a digital Leica. Or whatever super wide angle you want. The image becomes a mess. Turn it back on. Magic!! It looks amazing! Wow, how did they do that?

And that is with code written 10 years ago. That is aeons ago in the tech industry.

Keep futilely shaking that stick at the innovators. They don't care because they are not held back by preconceived notions of how things should be because of how they were.
First sentence: no I haven't. Where did I say that? It really isn't worth discussing the matter with you. You seem to think that Leica is deliberately making inferior or excessively bulky cameras. Why would they do that? Just to annoy you?

As Jaapv pointed out, "This makes no sense at all. How can software change the incidence angle of light on the sensor or the register distance of a lens?"

Your comment about "black magic" is frankly insulting. I understand things like (as Jaapv said) the incidence angle of light on the sensor, which is dependent on, yes, the laws of physics, and which requires trick sensors to overcome the problems of a short flange-to-sensor distance.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #20
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
As Jaapv pointed out, "This makes no sense at all. How can software change the incidence angle of light on the sensor or the register distance of a lens?"
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.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #21
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
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.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #22
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,446
I also like the size of my digitl Ms.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #23
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
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?
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #24
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 867
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
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #25
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
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!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #26
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #27
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
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.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #28
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
It would be easy for Leica to make M smaller. . . .
Why do you think they don't, then? Spite?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #29
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
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...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #30
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 62
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
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.
__________________
"Your 1st 10,000 Photographs Are Your Worst"
HCBresson

"My 2nd 10,000 Are Not A Lot Better"
Dan
  Reply With Quote

R
Old 10-26-2016   #31
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,707
R

Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
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.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #32
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
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.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #33
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
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.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #34
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
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.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #35
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 62
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
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.
__________________
"Your 1st 10,000 Photographs Are Your Worst"
HCBresson

"My 2nd 10,000 Are Not A Lot Better"
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #36
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,992
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #37
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
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?
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #38
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,169
It is very simple. An M camera is a full-size rangefinder camera built by Leica.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #39
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
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.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2016   #40
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 434
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..
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:37.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.