M Digital : different set of frames in the finder.

[lucien1]

As I wrote elsewhere, the M Digital will be 1,33X, no question about that.

 

The question is about the set of frames they will put in the finder.

 

IMO, they should remove the frames for the 135mm (180mm) and I hope also the 90mm

(120mm).

 

I think we can expect a 0,72 MD (or M8) with frames for the 21/24/28/35/50/75mm

lenses.

 

21+28, 24+35 and 50+75 mm.

 

x 1,33 =

 

28+37, 32+47 and 66+100 mm equivalent.

 

I hope that the 75mm (100mm) frames will be more "solid" than they are on current M

cameras.

 

And by the way, on the MD, the 28/2 will work well with the less cumbersome lens hood

from the 35/1,4 Asph. and the 35/2 will work with the more efficient 50/2 lens hood

(#12585).

[john_morris4]

Which lines do the existing 21mm and 24mm Leica lenses bring up on existing M cameras? Do they already match the list you suggested?

[john_shriver]

If they will support framelines for any focal length other than 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, and 135mm, they will presumably have to abandon the automatic frameline selection by the lens lug, since I presume that there's no useful coding on the 21 and 24mm lenses.

 

Of course, going to manual selection might elminate the need for doubled-up framelines, since there were only three settings available.

[EricM]

"IMO, they should remove the frames for the 135mm (180mm) and I hope also the 90mm (120mm)."

 

if we get our mindset out of the anolog world, perhaps there will be a menu choice where we can scroll through a list of every focal length available and like digital magic, have the frame lines appear? Be nice eh?

[vivek iyer]

Well said, Eric! What is the point of having a digital camera if the frame lines can't be put in the viewer on demand?!

[lucien1]

John,

 

"Which lines do the existing 21mm and 24mm Leica lenses bring up on existing M

cameras? Do they already match the list you suggested?"

 

Yes. The 21 is activating the 28/90 frames and the 24 is activating the 35/135.

 

The following set of frames will work with current 21 and 24mm without any modification.

 

21+28, 24+35 and 50+75 mm.

 

Lucien

[huw_finney]

Use the screen at arms length, just like loads of digital users I see, some cameras (shock horror) don't even have a viewfinder these days. A simple OLED display in place of the masks would work a treat and eliminate the flare too.

[lucien1]

I HOPE to see a 0,72 MD (or M8) with frames for the 21/24/28/35/50/75mm lenses.

 

21+28, 24+35 and 50+75 mm.

 

x 1,33 =

 

28+37, 32+47 and 66+100 mm equivalent.

 

But I BELIEVE we will see a 0,72 MD (or M8) with frames for the

21/24/28/35/50/75/90mm lenses.

 

21+28+90, 24+35 and 50+75 mm.

 

x 1,33 =

 

28+37+120, 32+47 and 66+100 mm equivalent.

 

Because I don't think they will prevent the use of the 90/2 Apo Asph on the M Digital.

 

Even if I don't see the usefulness of a 120mm (or 135mm) on a rangefinder camera.

[steve_unsworth1]

They could always have automatic frames for 28-90 (I agree 135 would be a little odd) and manual frames for 15/21/25 - imagine a small rotary switch with markings of 'A', '15', '21' and '24'. But who knows, it's not long to Photokina.

[huw_finney]

With an electronic frameset you could use a zoom!

[john_shriver]

They could use a small electronic display (which emits light) to make the bright lines, rather than relying on external light to illuminate a metal stencil. Either an LCD or LED. Just put it where the stencil presently is, and eliminate the frosted window. Might also address the glare problem that lighting the stencil has had the risk of causing since the M2.

 

An external photocell would be useful to adjust the brightness of the "bright lines" as well. (Nothing "hard" about that -- my clock radio does the same to it's display, dimming it when you turn out the room lights.)

 

It also allows the framelines to be complete, since they don't need gaps to hold the stencil together. Also, the sliding metal mask that exposes the right cuts in the stencil poses design limits as well.

 

It could even be a full array, and do parallax correction electronically, and even correct the frame size as one focuses.

 

But this is probably more clever than they will have the time to be.

 

(I actually thought of patenting this idea a few weeks ago, but it's not worth the fees. So, poof, it's in the published prior art.)

[andyaitken]

Funny, I was just thinking about this today. How about this: the existing 35/135, 50/75 and 28/90 framelines could be mechanically activated just as they are right now but a new "null" position where the lug is shorter than the current null (35/135) is used for a 21/24 pair. Those with current 21 and 24mm lenses could just file off a bit of the lug and you'd have 8 framlines covering all the main lenses. It would be nice if they could have a 40mm frameline instead of the 135mm but I can't see a way of easily doing that mechanically.

 

Of course the 21mm and 24mm lines would be annoyingly close together but they surely can't have the widest frameset as a 35mm (46mm equiv.) or we'd kind of be going back 50+ years to the M3!

[terence_mahoney1]

<i>M Digital : different set of frames in the finder.

 

As I wrote elsewhere, </i></p>Wasn't the fact nobody was interested to respond previously a clue? Evidently not, since you've started a new thread. What purpose have these wild speculations? Leica haven't released the specifications. When they do, we'll have something substantive to wail and moan about.

[andyaitken]

And of course new 21 and 24's would be made with the new short "null" lug.

[Guest]

<i>and eliminate the frosted window</i><p>Or they could turn it into a flash, which is what most normal people seem to think it is, anyway... ;-)

[blakley]

Why not just put the flash INSIDE the lensmount, so that redeye is 100% certain?

[ruben_osuna_guerrero]

"if we get our mindset out of the anolog world, perhaps there will be a menu choice where

we can scroll through a list of every focal length available and like digital magic, have the

frame lines appear? Be nice eh?"

 

The problem is not how to activate the sets of framelines. The problem is this: there is not

enough room in a 0,72 viewfinder for 28mm equiv. frameline and visible 135mm

frameline. Even the 90mm frameline would be too small. Therefore, we have the same

problem: Leica will develop different viewfinders with different magnifications. The 0,72

magnification factor AND 1,33 crop factor only allows for 28-90mm equiv. framelines, this

is, 21mm-75mm true focal lengths.

[robert_clark]

"Even if I don't see the usefulness of a 120mm (or 135mm) on a rangefinder camera."

 

Well how about expanding your mind to let in what others might find useful.

[Rob F.]

Lucien, I think you have called it correctly, as far as the selection and pairing of framelines.

 

Ruben: No doubt there will be at least two finder magnifications offered, one to favor the wideangle lenses and one for the remaining range. I wonder if they will leave off the 75mm frame on the wideangle version. I don't think they will need a 0.85 finder, if the longest equivanlent EFL is to be 100mm.

[lucien1]

The current Tri-Elmar will give a 37-47-66mm equivalent.

 

Leica may offer for the M Digital and for M camera a new Tri-Elmar.

 

AFAIK, a 16-18-21mm (21-24-28mm) with a new viewfinder for M film camera.

 

The finder for the Digital M already exist, it's the variable #12013-12014 for 21/24/28mm

lenses.<div></div>

[lucien1]

Terence,

 

"Leica haven't released the specifications""

 

Are you the only one who don't know that the M Digital will be 1,33X ? And that the M

Digital will use current lenses ?

 

http://www.nemeng.com/leica/004f.shtml

 

There are not so many speculations here.

 

;-)

 

Lucien

[lucien1]

Robert,

 

"Well how about expanding your mind to let in what others might find useful"

 

Well, I hope there will be a "a la carte" program, to please everyone.

[Jochen_S]

I have a 90mm cron and look forward for a digital M showing no lens or hood in the 90mm frame. I don't like the Idea of using my 135mm on the M4-P, but it's fine with the M3.

 

Why would you mind permanently visible widest frame lines for the 20mm? Or what's the problem to build them?

 

IMHO the CV 15mm can do with a external finder - is the ZM 15mm coupled, or why does anybody care about this focal length at all?

[michael_b._elmer]

Thank you Lucien,

 

You are normally well informed and I take your post as a confirmation of what I consider to be logical thinking, cf. my ideas on this earlier thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FNGe

 

I hope Leica will avoid confusion with 3 different frames together (21, 28 and 90 mm) and leave out a frameline for the 90 mm lens on the 0.72 version, so that only frames for the 21 and 28 mm lenses will be paired).

 

Logically, the new Wide-angle Tri-Elmar should in my view be a 24, 28 and 35 mm lens giving cropped pictures on the Md corresponding to 32, 38 and 50 mm).

 

A new lens of 16 mm length sounds nice, but perhaps not realistic! Let's see.

[michael_b._elmer]

Ooops - I made a mistake in the penultimate paragraph. I meant to say: A new Wide-angle Tri-Elmar should be a combined 21, 24 and 28 mm lens giving cropped pictures in the MD's viewfinder of 28, 32 and 38 mm.

 

But the design of this new wideangle lens waits to be seen. It will be interesting, anyway.