Leica had trademarked "M11" in 05/2012..

[iedei]

so either they decided between May and now that they are going to use their 'new' M and Type designation.......OR perhaps they will go back to M11? (less likely)

M11 - Reviews & Brand Information - Leica Camera AG , - Serial Number: 79113724

the same site shows the M10 being trademarked in 2010. Interestingly they let the X1 trademark expire, however renewed the M8 trademark this month! not sure why they would do that.....but interesting!

[IWC Doppel]

I see no reason for just the M, we all get used to systems and names. MX of M10 worked for me. It will be what people call it.

They could easily simply put M on the front and M10 on the Shoe

[bybrett]

I've just posted this elsewhere but it's more relevent here -

"Naming the M10 as M also renders it almost completely future google proof."

[farnz]

"Leica M" isn't search engine proof though so does calling it the M instead of M10 make any real difference in this regard?

Pete.

[mjh]

Originally Posted by iedei

so either they decided between May and now that they are going to use their 'new' M and Type designation.......OR perhaps they will go back to M11? (less likely)

It’s the former.

[iedei]

Originally Posted by bybrett

I've just posted this elsewhere but it's more relevent here -

"Naming the M10 as M also renders it almost completely future google proof."

good point. it sucks to search for "Leica M' instead of "Leica M10"....as one ends up with all sorts of other results.

then again, the automotive world has dealt with this over the years, however people often search for cars with their year or chassis/generation number. It won't be easy....but i'm guessing people will formulate a way.

what i found striking is that they trademarked the M10 name as late as May.....so dropping it was a late development....

[EJohnE]

Perhaps by using only "M", Leica is telling us that this is the end of the 80 or so year coupled rangefinder range. To me. M is a generic term for the bayonet mount r/f camera.
With the live view and EVF with peak focus, what further need is there for such an expensive, complex and delicate system of focusing?
A new range of lenses with the diaphram ring placed at the back of each lens, but otherwise needing little if any optical difference could be used for wide open focus with auto stop down. The present lenses would only need manual stop down.
Doubtless I am totally wrong, but that is not for the first time.\
John.

[darylgo]

Originally Posted by iedei

what i found striking is that they trademarked the M10 name as late as May.....so dropping it was a late development....

If Leica trademarks the name, it removes the availability of the designation M10 despite non use. I am surprised they waited until May to do this, no matter when deciding on the final model name.

Once upon a time Olympus introduced a M-1 model, prior to release the model name changed to OM-1. Leica is said to have influenced Olympus to change the name.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

Perhaps what started life as the "M10" & "M11" ended up being "M" & "M-E".

Which, given the late date of the 2nd application, might mean that the M-E was an after thought when some 1 realized that the space occupied internally by the frame preview mechanism & USB port was required for something else in the future, or alternatively, the frame preview's elimination might be part of the phasing out of the optical/mechanical range/viewfinder @ a time period when there is still a strong demand for the M9.

This might partially explain the lower price of the M-E. Incentive to transition.

Similar to the M2 which was introduced in1958: The M3 began production in 1954. The big difference in cost between the M3 & the M2 was the range/viewfinder. The range/viewfinder used in later M3's cost more to produce than the range/viewfinder in the M2. The manual reset frame counter, rewind button & removal of finger guards around the range/viewfinder windows & lens release button, which were less significant, were popularily noted when listing reasons for the price decrease of the M2 (the newer camera). The M4 that replaced both the M3 & the M2 in 1967 was essentially a stylistically updated M2 w/ a non-removable quick load, self resetting frame counter, canted (faster) rewind & 135mm frame shown together w/ the 35mm frame. The M2 had the 35mm frame but not the 135mm outline. The M4 also had standard PC outlets (Prontor-Compur) in place of the stronger & more secure, but less universal, Leitz outlets. The 1st M to have a hot shoe was the M5 which replaced the M4 in 1971. It had 3 flash outlets: Hotshoe, electronic flash & bulb. Each independent of the other.

Best Regards,

Michael

[bybrett]

Return of the Visoflex...

Jan Stamer, 35536 Wetzlar, FED REP GERMANY - a Trademark Correspondent

[Richardgb]

I hope this does not presage a change of mentality in Leica to that beloved by (mainly, but not exclusively) American firms*, namely trademarking various relatively simple and common phrases and bons mots used in their publicity, then getting very snooty and protective if someone (in their opinion) uses this in another context. No doubt all due to some scheme dreamt up by a lawyer with nothing better to do.

Just think how we could all be extolling our Leicas with "I'm loving it" if someone had not got there first...

*If this has whetted your appetite, see:
Microsoft Trademarks
Apple - Legal - Trademark List
What is the Trademark of McDonalds

As for the cameras, the M-number line being developments (some might not say 'improvements') of earlier models, there was some logic in the sequential system. However, although numbers are infinite, a given technology does eventually reach its apogee and a new direction has to be taken.

In this respect, the M8 and M9 are something of a transition - digital technology in a body originally designed for film. When an alternative to rangefinder focusing (i.e. live view) was added - although still a Messersucher - methinks someone in cried, 'Enough is enough!', and so we have M-alone.

What about the M-E? Given this could not be construed as a development of the M9, there was not point in increasing the number. However, as declared by Leica, it is an Entry or Eintritts model. How long before an M user buys one as a second body and cries 'ME too!'?

[bybrett]

Originally Posted by bybrett

Return of the Visoflex...

Followed by return of Frank cue Big Splash

[farnz]

Originally Posted by bybrett

Followed by return of Frank cue Big Splash

PLEASE NOOOoooooo!!

[SJP]

At least someone listened to his advice.

[Angora]

Originally Posted by iedei

good point. it sucks to search for "Leica M' instead of "Leica M10"....as one ends up with all sorts of other results.

Well, it's less convenient.
But a search for +"leica m" +2012; or +"leica m" +240 for example; should be quite efficient.

Systematically adding M10, M11, M12, etc. when talking about the corresponding model will also render Leica's scheme completely pointless.

[mjh]

Originally Posted by Michael Geschlecht

Perhaps what started life as the "M10" & "M11" ended up being "M" & "M-E".

As far as I know, M11 always referred (informally) to a successor of the M10, just as M10 referred to the successor of the M9. There were also the usual internal code names for the M and M-E, but these were neither M10 nor M11.

[mjh]

Originally Posted by EJohnE

With the live view and EVF with peak focus, what further need is there for such an expensive, complex and delicate system of focusing?

Customers buying the camera for just that feature? Just a thought …

[SJP]

We could demand the Mπ, the irrational model, or Mi the imaginary one.

Where has Frank/megasplash gone anyway? At least he provided some text to get our teeth into...

[EJohnE]

Originally Posted by mjh

Customers buying the camera for just that feature? Just a thought …

True. However many new Leica users seem to have trouble, at least initially with rangefinder focusing. Others are simply puzzled by it.
Maybe many of those who say they have always wanted a Leica would be more attracted to a camera with what is now more conventional focus method.
I personally loved the rangefineer/viewfinder system, but as an uninformed guess it must comprise about one third to one half of the camera's cost???
A greater market share may be achieved by a new body able to still use M lenses and those from 1930'sLTM with adaptors, pluse R lenses, and just about any one elses.
Leica had better be quick, otherwise Olympust may beat them to such a 24 x 36 format offering much the same at a lower cost, and little loss of quality.
John.

[IWC Doppel]

Originally Posted by bybrett

I've just posted this elsewhere but it's more relevent here -

"Naming the M10 as M also renders it almost completely future google proof."

The name, yes, but not the Camera. Porsche 911, BMW M3, M5 have gone the same way, for me my next question is 964?, 993?, 996?, 997, 997.2 etc or E34, E39, E60 and so on. The 'M' will only get you have way.

For me the M'number' was Classic and differentiated the models much more elegantly, they could happily put it in small print or Roman numerals on the top. We all know the M range anyway, the marketeers have now added 'E' in any case