Old 05-03-2016   #81
Vince Lupo
Registered User
 
Vince Lupo's Avatar
 
Vince Lupo is online now
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,500
I think the M-D is a beautiful camera -- just not sure I really need one.
__________________
Check Out Our Redesigned Website! http://www.directiononeinc.com

Flickr Albums: http://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/sets/

Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/

'Mapping the West' - Named as one of the Best Photo Exhibits of 2016 by the Washington City Paper: http://www.directiononeinc.com/mapping-the-west/
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2016   #82
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly View Post
Is there really no technical way to overcome this?

Every other piece of very complex computer equipment manages to get smaller and thinner over time.

Is this a limitation of physics and optics or just current technology?
The only way would be to thin the sensor array down to the thickness of film and the motherboard+connections to the sensor to the thickness of a pressure plate. Unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, if at all.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #83
Luke_Miller
Registered User
 
Luke_Miller's Avatar
 
Luke_Miller is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Rural Virginia
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly View Post
Is there really no technical way to overcome this?
Sure - Leica could introduce a set of M mount lenses with a shorter register distance to work with a new digital body with the same thickness as an M7. Of course none of the existing M and thread mount lenses would work on it.
__________________
http://lukemiller.photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #84
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,651
I don't understand why anyone needs to buy a digital M without an LCD screen. They should just buy a used M8. Their LCD is so bad it's almost like having no screen. (Oops I am going straight to Leica hell for that one.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #85
olakiril
Registered User
 
olakiril is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly View Post
Is there really no technical way to overcome this?

Every other piece of very complex computer equipment manages to get smaller and thinner over time.

Is this a limitation of physics and optics or just current technology?
Oh there definetly is.

After tryinh to mod an FE with a digital sensor and removing the LCD from the xpro1 I got a clear idea about size limitationss.

Most cameras have a sensor, then the sensor plate,, then the main motherboard and finally the LCD with the plastic cover.
The thickness of the LCD is actually very very small. So of course it wouldn't lead to a significantly smaller body and my guess is that is why md wasn't thinner.

To allow for thinner designs the motherboard has to shrink and move to one side of the camera. Many small cameras have adopted this design in order to be very thin. The sensor plus its plate are about the same thickness as the distance from the film pressure plate to the back of the camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #86
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
 
Ken Ford's Avatar
 
Ken Ford is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suburban Chicago, IL USA
Age: 57
Posts: 3,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke_Miller View Post
Sure - Leica could introduce a set of M mount lenses with a shorter register distance to work with a new digital body with the same thickness as an M7. Of course none of the existing M and thread mount lenses would work on it.
Or they could bump the lens mount forward on a thinner body to maintain the register distance. Of course, people would complain about that too.
__________________
"If you can control yourself and just loathe us quietly from a distance then by all means stay." - Joe

Leica: M-P Typ 240 - M6 - Leicavit M - RapidWinder - Motor M - 21 Super-Elmar - 28 Ultron - 35 Summicron ASPH - 40 Summicron - 75 APO-Summicron ASPH - 75 Summarit-M - 75 Color-Heliar - 90 Elmar-C
Nikon RF: S2 - S3 2000 - 35/2.5 - 50/2 - 50/1.4 Millennium - 105/2.5 - 135/3.4
X-Pro2, X-M1, X100s, NEX-7, dp0 Quattro, N1V1, N1V2, oodles of other stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #87
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,632
if the film body wasn't thinner, nobody would care about the digital bodies being thicker. the solution: travel back in time and change the m3's size.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #88
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,015
I think I like this thing..
No screen to smash or fail...
Simplicity in operation as well as risk...will improve photos probably...
Close to M6 feeling once again..but with no chemicals..
Whats not to like for an old fart like me...
I'm turning 60 this week..maybe I'll order one for fun...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #89
donny
Registered User
 
donny is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 13
Perhaps it's because I feel the M9 isn't so stellar at moderate ISOs, an ISO dial is something I wish the M bodies have, LCD or no. Maybe I'm alone here and/or I'm just doing it wrong?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #90
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ford View Post
Or they could bump the lens mount forward on a thinner body to maintain the register distance. Of course, people would complain about that too.
They’d get into trouble with the rangefinder linkage...
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #91
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by donny View Post
an ISO dial is something I wish the M bodies have, LCD or no. Maybe I'm alone here and/or I'm just doing it wrong?
Nope, not alone. The addition of the ISO wheel and the overall simplification of the UI for quicker and more intuitive operation are exactly the reasons why I like the removal of the screen. In majority of my photography, I have absolutely no need for the screen for any operation that truly requires a screen from the UI design perspective. I use the screen because I have to check things like the ISO setting and exposure compensation there. It should not be so, and with the M-D it is not so (as far as ISO goes).

It's a mistake to look at this camera and only think there are applications where it will not work well.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #92
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,184
EC setting is in the viewfinder readout.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2016   #93
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,013
What I would miss is Auto ISO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2016   #94
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is online now
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
What I would miss is Auto ISO.

I recently discovered that on my M (late to the party, eh?) and it is great!
I use it all the time now.

But as the MD has the ISO dial right there, instead of having to push a couple of buttons and dial through the menu to set the ISO, it's not a huge loss. In fact I think it's a good trade off because AUTO ISO is much more necessary if changing ISO manually is fiddly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2016   #95
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,013
It's just the way I photograph Huss. I want to be able to react quickly in very different light here in NYC. It can go from bright sun to dark alley quickly here. I trust my cameras up to a certain ISO, so I always use auto ISO. I wouldn't want to change. That said, I would only buy another Leica (due to manual focus, no shutter priority, etc.) if I decided to do something different in the way I photograph. You never know when you get bored of a certain way of working. Changing to a Leica M like this one could be a very good change if you are currently stagnant in your current way of doing things.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2016   #96
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,108
I always thought that getting rid of the screen would be a great idea and I also guessed that by removing the screen there would be a substantial price reduction
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2016   #97
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence View Post
I always thought that getting rid of the screen would be a great idea and I also guessed that by removing the screen there would be a substantial price reduction
But why? LCDs aren't that expensive I would imagine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2016   #98
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is online now
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
But why? LCDs aren't that expensive I would imagine.
And also it now requires a newly machined body case, with a new mechanism (ISO dial) for a camera that will sell in lower numbers.

I get why one could argue it should be cheaper. But I also see the other side to the argument.

I just wish that this was the direction they went to originally...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2016   #99
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,725
A cool review
https://fstoppers.com/originals/defe...ica-m-d-128158
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2016   #100
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
But why? LCDs aren't that expensive I would imagine.
At a guess: about 20$...
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2016   #101
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
And also it now requires a newly machined body case, with a new mechanism (ISO dial) for a camera that will sell in lower numbers.
That is indeed the reason. Plus different machining on the top plate and development costs amortized over a small number of cameras, etc.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2016   #102
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
 
LeicaFoReVer's Avatar
 
LeicaFoReVer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,333
This may make sense if the body is thinner now. Is it? or how much thinner? Do you know?
__________________
Leica M6 TTL x.72
Leica iiif
Leica Elmar-M 5cm f2.8 (rare early version)
Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM
Voightlander Color Skopar PII 35mm f2.5
Contax G2 + 45mm & 28mm
Contax RX + Zeiss 50mm f1.4
Olympus OM-4 + 24mm f2.8 + 35mm f2
Fed 3 + jupiter-12
Sony NEX 7


websites:
http://www.blurb.com/user/store/aykutkaraca
http://flickriver.com/photos/2851236...r-interesting/
http://sites.google.com/site/aykutphoto/Home
http://aykutkaraca.webs.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2016   #103
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeicaFoReVer View Post
This may make sense if the body is thinner now. Is it? or how much thinner? Do you know?
It is not any thinner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2016   #104
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeicaFoReVer View Post
This may make sense if the body is thinner now. Is it? or how much thinner? Do you know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
It is not any thinner.
It can't be.
But we've been around that May pole a few times already.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2016   #105
jschrader
Registered User
 
jschrader's Avatar
 
jschrader is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
if the film body wasn't thinner, nobody would care about the digital bodies being thicker. the solution: travel back in time and change the m3's size.
Bad idea. You might change history. The M3 might have got some 10% less sales because of the fat body and Leica went bankrupt long before the M5.

Todays M-D would seem thinner but there would be none.
__________________
J"rgen
----------------------
M6/35mm, D700 / FE / F2 / F
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2016   #106
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
 
Ken Ford's Avatar
 
Ken Ford is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suburban Chicago, IL USA
Age: 57
Posts: 3,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
It is not any thinner.
From pics I think it *is* slightly thinner in the area where the screen would be, but the overall dimensions don't change because of the thumb hump. The thinner area (if it exists) isn't where a human would put their hand, so it's just cosmetic. Maybe left eye shooters with big noses can feel the difference.

I would still love an M-D as a second body, but *that* ain't happening!
__________________
"If you can control yourself and just loathe us quietly from a distance then by all means stay." - Joe

Leica: M-P Typ 240 - M6 - Leicavit M - RapidWinder - Motor M - 21 Super-Elmar - 28 Ultron - 35 Summicron ASPH - 40 Summicron - 75 APO-Summicron ASPH - 75 Summarit-M - 75 Color-Heliar - 90 Elmar-C
Nikon RF: S2 - S3 2000 - 35/2.5 - 50/2 - 50/1.4 Millennium - 105/2.5 - 135/3.4
X-Pro2, X-M1, X100s, NEX-7, dp0 Quattro, N1V1, N1V2, oodles of other stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2016   #107
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
The body itself is identical to the 240/9/8 in dimensions, but obviously lacks the protrusion of the LCD/buttons.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2016   #108
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,725
Actually its the M 262 that also has the stepped down top plate and a really quiet shutter like the 262.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2016   #109
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,879
It's gorgeous, and as a left-eyed shooter, it'd be nice to not have to see a big smear of nosegrease on the screen.

Too bad it doesn't come in silver.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  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 07:50.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.