Leica M10-D

[rodeo_joe1]

Nah! I don't think you can make a decent looking camera

 

- Cameras are for looking through, not at.

[Andrew Garrard]

Agreed with Joe's sentiment, but BeBu's estimation of my skills. :-)

[mike_halliwell]

I had a discussion with someone the other day about the old "Form Follows Function" rubbish (!).

 

He didn't get the fact that function has to come first. Always.

 

If it happens to look nice then that's fine, but not at the cost of any functionality.

[Andrew Garrard]

Eh. People buy things because they look nice. That puts a market pressure on the design over functionality, even if people regret the purchase afterwards. Which is why, for years, TVs default to a brightness and colour balance that is horrendously inaccurate, why HDTVs tend to default to a slight overscan (it makes the screen look slightly bigger than it is), and why - I believe - phones have curvy edges. (I personally believe that curvy edges on phones mostly make it hard to put them in a case, but others seem to like the functionality, so I can't argue.)

 

And phones default to white backgrounds for things like settings - despite white-on-black using lower power, being less bright when you're trying not to disturb your partner, and having less of a detrimental effect on the life of OLEDs. Add to that the tendency to animate everything, when most of the time basic visual cues would suffice and save power and time, but conflicting that with the "make the UI look flat because skeuomorphic design is old-fashioned" trend to make it impossible to identify UI elements (not just software - I sit in front of a monitor with the buttons labelled in black on black) and I get a strong desire to let engineers design everything and keep the artists away. Grr. But it brings in the money...

[BeBu Lamar]

Agreed with Joe's sentiment, but BeBu's estimation of my skills. :)

Please don't think that I am putting you down but i am quite sure you can't design a camera that I like. Your taste is quite different than mine.

[Andrew Garrard]

Ah, I see (not that I have pretensions of industrial design - or particularly of aesthetics, as I prove every Nikon Wednesday). I can certainly play devil's advocate and design with the mindset of someone with different priorities than myself, but how perfectly I do so and how much I'm motivated to do it is another matter. :-)

[rodeo_joe1]

Well, Oskar Barnack's first attempt was as ugly as sin, as were the original Ikoflex and Rollei. And I don't think there's a single LF monorail that would deserve any design award, but they get the job done.

 

Maybe beauty is just in the eye of the (be)holder. Or learning to love what's on offer? It's just too bad if you can't stand the juxtaposition of black leather and satin chrome though!

Edited October 29, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

[BeBu Lamar]

Well, Oskar Barnack's first attempt was as ugly as sin, as were the original Ikoflex and Rollei. And I don't think there's a single LF monorail that would deserve any design award, but they get the job done.

 

Maybe beauty is just in the eye of the (be)holder. Or learning to love what's on offer? It's just too bad if you can't stand the juxtaposition of black leather and satin chrome though!

I think the Linhof Kardan Master GTL 4x5 is a beauty. More so than the 8x10 version. The Sinar P2 is good looking too but not as good. The Sinar looks more modern and perhaps functions better but not as good.

[Andrew Garrard]

I'm not that fond of black leather and satin chrome, in as much as I care at all. Other than my recent street experience where the impression made from having a Coolpix A in a leather case seemed to help, I'm from the "keep it unobtrusive" school. But that's really a functional requirement rather than one of aesthetics. I make no pretensions to fashion or taste, though, so I'm not (despite BeBu's claims) going to be much of an influencer.

[rodeo_joe1]

I think the Linhof Kardan Master GTL 4x5 is a beauty.

 

- Do you have to pay extra to get the other half of the front and rear standards?

 

I'm sure I can see the hacksaw marks where they were cut off.:p

[mike_halliwell]

black leather and satin chrome

 

The trouble with such colour and texture schemes is having to drape a big piece of black velvet over it so it can't see it's own reflection!

[BeBu Lamar]

I'm not that fond of black leather and satin chrome, in as much as I care at all. Other than my recent street experience where the impression made from having a Coolpix A in a leather case seemed to help, I'm from the "keep it unobtrusive" school. But that's really a functional requirement rather than one of aesthetics. I make no pretensions to fashion or taste, though, so I'm not (despite BeBu's claims) going to be much of an influencer.

May be you are only one person but you do buy a lot so for one person you have much more significant influence than I do.

[Andrew Garrard]

May be you are only one person but you do buy a lot so for one person you have much more significant influence than I do.

 

Ah, but I only have one of everything. (Well, not everything.) If anything, having a wide selection of stuff makes my influence less concentrated. Those on the forum with several F2s, on the other hand, are way more likely to be affecting the global demand. :-)

 

As ever, my main influence on anything is gravitational. Sadly, not just because the camera is heavy.

 

Mike: Masking tape or a sharpie. See? BeBu has absolutely nothing to worry about when it comes to whether I can make a camera look good...

[mike_halliwell]

Masking tape AND a Sharpie....:cool:

 

Designers try really hard to make them look nice and then the buyer sticks some weird colour silicon skin on it....:(

[BeBu Lamar]

Ah, but I only have one of everything. (Well, not everything.) If anything, having a wide selection of stuff makes my influence less concentrated. Those on the forum with several F2s, on the other hand, are way more likely to be affecting the global demand. :)

 

As ever, my main influence on anything is gravitational. Sadly, not just because the camera is heavy.

 

Mike: Masking tape or a sharpie. See? BeBu has absolutely nothing to worry about when it comes to whether I can make a camera look good...

 

Yeah masking tape and sharpie I knew it that's why I wouldn't let you touch my cameras.

[rodeo_joe1]

Ooops, strange partial duplicate posting was here. Edited November 3, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

[rodeo_joe1]

Those on the forum with several F2s, on the other hand, are way more likely to be affecting the global demand.

 

- I only have 3! And one of those has a missing screw-cap for the MD rewind hole.

 

As for the global demand: I've watched my 'collection' of F2s diminish in worth to the tune of maybe 80% over 3 decades. So maybe I ought to buy up another couple of thousand of them to drive the price back up? Or I could actually run a film through one of them occasionally?

Nah! I might wait for the promised Silicon Film revolution that's going to breathe new life into all those old cameras....... someday.

 

Saving the planet; one frame at a time.

[clark_roberts]

I really thought that Nikon would of made a Rangefinder type camera but alas no such luck.

[mike_halliwell]

It's a pretty 'retro' niche style of camera that i would have thought Leica has fully covered.

 

... and what lens mount would it have?

[carbon_dragon]

Presumably it would be a revised version of the Nikon S3 2000, only digital! Using contax rangefinder like nikon rangefinder mount (I know the mounts aren't totally compatible). Now that would be interesting! Maybe they'd call it the S4.

[ruslan]

I've been wishing that Nikon make a DSLR with manual focus,

Forget it. Nikon is a modern company (positions itself as modern) and they are in mirrorless race already and large diameter flange and future 1.2 lens is what bothers them. Leica is a niche product.

[Andrew Garrard]

Presumably it would be a revised version of the Nikon S3 2000, only digital! Using contax rangefinder like nikon rangefinder mount (I know the mounts aren't totally compatible). Now that would be interesting! Maybe they'd call it the S4.

 

I've argued before that rangefinders provide a very good solution between about 24 and 100mm (I have an original Bessa R, my lenses are in this range), but that the solution doesn't extend to ultra-wides (because you really need a TTL finder) or very long lenses (because you can't see what you're pointing at and the rangefinder base is insufficient for accurate focus). Leica know this, and produced a long-lens attachment that turned the M series into an SLR, I believe. I'd argue that a rangefinder isn't nearly enough "better" than a dSLR even at its best, compared with how much a dSLR is better than a rangefinder at the rangefinder's worst, to justify them as a general system. I make the same argument about putting the aperture ring near the lens mount.

 

Fuji's X-Pro1 series are very nice cameras, and I'd quite like one - but they're enormous for what they are, and not that cheap. The X100 series is tempting to me as well, but the diopter adjustment isn't enough to handle my weird right eye. To handle general-purpose shooting, Fuji make TTL cameras like everyone else.

 

You could, of course, put the EVF on the top left of the camera rather than central (as some Sonys do). I really don't know why Nikon didn't - my nose is very much a worse camera support than my right cheek. But in terms of image capture for the finder, much though the novelty of the Fujis appeals, TTL all the way.

[carbon_dragon]

The additional framing viewfinder isn't a big problem for ultrawides with Leicas and indeed focusing ultrawides accurately with SLRs is a lot harder than it is to use the rangefinder in the Leica. However, DSLRs and mirrorless cameras with their live view and magnification and focus peaking might be able to compensate in a way the old SLRs could not, though it's a slower way of working than the rangefinder is. Of course the real solution these days is autofocus. No, with Leicas and other rangefinders, it's long lenses that are the problem. Focusing with the 135 is tougher and there are really no more longer lenses for Leica. There was as you say the Visoflex attachment that turned the old Leicas into an SLR. Some lenses came apart so that you could use them on the Visoflex (90s and 135s) and there were lenses made specifically for the Visoflex but they were heavy and awkward and tended to go against the spirit of the Ms. Nowadays, the Visoflex name is being used for the EVF used on the M10.

 

Leica has GREAT optical rangefinders (not surprising under the circumstances) but you have to enjoy using them and practice if you want to nail focus. And if you're doing fast moving photography you have to pre-focus or be VERY good with focusing (I can't but trees seldom move very fast). The rangefinder base is more than adequate in the M till you get to those 135's wide open. The old CL was generally OK too, but they limited themselves to 90mm.

 

As a general purpose camera, the Leica Ms don't necessarily shine, but most cameras have limitations and within their limitations they're wonderful cameras to use. Haven't bought the Visoflex 020 (EVF not a real Visoflex) yet but I probably will. Not because I want to use it a lot, but to try out the GPS and to focus certain lenses without rangefinder coupling.

 

As an added note, I have the 135/2.8 with goggles for the Ms. It's big and heavy and badly needs a cleaning but it uses the 90mm frame lines and has a magnifying lens to make it easier to focus. Effectively it makes it as easy to focus as a 90mm lens. I don't use it much because of the weight and because I seldom need 135mm. If I do, I need to bring another camera.

[Andrew Garrard]

I'd claim that parallax and accurate framing (which can really matter with some ultrawide images) can be a bit of an issue with an accessory finder, not to mention the convenience factor of jumping between the focus finder and an accessory. But also having to use an accessory finder in the first place is an inconvenience. I don't claim it's catastrophic, and film rangefinders do have a wide-angle advantage merely through needing to be less retrofocal in lens design. No doubt telephotos are more trouble, and of course offer less of a size advantage to a rangefinder. I did enjoy using a rangefinder, but in recent years my right eye has acquired an odd aberration that results in overlaid in-focus images (past a certain distance); the dioptre adjustment just about lets me get away with it on my dSLR, but it's not really compatible with rangefinder focus - the twin overlaid images are often twinned just because of my vision...

 

For many, including occasionally me, a rangefinder is a nice camera to use, and very practical within a limited set of shooting (as is, for example, a TLR). But for Nikon to launch a digital rangefinder (with an optical finder) would be assuming a relatively constrained camera, and Nikon would be aiming at the market of "second camera" for many people, which is risky - I remain surprised they went as far as the Df, which has not dissimilar design limitations. Other modern camera designs are currently more flexible, and I suspect it'll be a while before Nikon feels they've covered every niche with "primary camera" bodies.

 

"Rangefinder" in terms of sticking the EVF off-centre, though, that wouldn't have these limitations - mostly you have to remember that the camera won't be in line with your head, but then I already have the same issue vertically when positioning myself with my dSLR.