Westend_jon Posted June 15, 2015 Share #1 Posted June 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi - just a thought on reading that the 240 is a little bit bigger than the M9 - will future digital M's ever get back to the same form factor as the M4P or even the M6? As battery technology advances I wonder if it will become possible to slim down a little. PS I addition to the M4P and the M6 that I enjoy using I have a Leica 1 and an R8 and the difference in size between these two is staggering given that both are essentially light tight boxes that hold film... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Hi Westend_jon, Take a look here Will digital Leicas get slimmer?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Joakim Posted June 15, 2015 Share #2 Posted June 15, 2015 I am no expert but you have the thickness of the sensor and the required distance between the lens mount and the sensor that requires a certain thickness and then the LCD on top of that so I am not so sure there is much to shave off. Maybe a curved sensor could help but that is most likely way into the future. Of course a Q with interchangeable lenses might be a whole different story... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted June 15, 2015 Share #3 Posted June 15, 2015 Curve the sensor and your lenses will no longer work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiOnara Posted June 15, 2015 Share #4 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) I would think over time they will get back to the film body size. They just need to develop the technology to do that. I love my M24X bodies but when I compare to the MP I realise how perfect that camera size is. In the end I tend to get used to the camera I'm working with and forget about the size difference. Even that Mamiya 7 feels small after a while [emoji4] Edited June 15, 2015 by Megadust Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelly Posted June 16, 2015 Share #5 Posted June 16, 2015 My M9 is slim enough I am more worried about my waistline than upcoming new M cameras 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted June 16, 2015 Share #6 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Aside from the the girth, digitals can also do with losing the weight. Edited June 16, 2015 by M9reno Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 16, 2015 Share #7 Posted June 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not sure I am worried about the weight - a moderately heavy camera adds stability. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 16, 2015 Share #8 Posted June 16, 2015 Ditto. No shutter shock. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westend_jon Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share #9 Posted June 16, 2015 I hadn't really thought about the weight - but I do have a Canon 5d Mk1 with a 24 - 105mm lens and a grip and that puts things into perspective! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted June 16, 2015 Share #10 Posted June 16, 2015 My preference is for the weight of an M3, M2, M4, even M5... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted June 16, 2015 Share #11 Posted June 16, 2015 Not sure I am worried about the weight - a moderately heavy camera adds stability. I noticed that with my Leicaflex SL when I got it in 1969. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBC Posted June 21, 2015 Share #12 Posted June 21, 2015 They have to no? As technology gets better and better. Also as other camera manufactures start to chip into the FF non DSLR market that Leica used to own. I hope they make one that is M6 in size. I was surprised by how the tinny increase in size from the M9 to M240 really felt much bigger in my hands. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 21, 2015 Share #13 Posted June 21, 2015 As long as the sensor/motherboard/LCD array has to be accommodated instead of just a film and pressure plate, the difference in thickness will remain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 21, 2015 Share #14 Posted June 21, 2015 I'm guessing five millimeters less in thickness over the next two M bodies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 21, 2015 Share #15 Posted June 21, 2015 As long as the sensor/motherboard/LCD array has to be accommodated instead of just a film and pressure plate, the difference in thickness will remain. I don't understand why the body cannot be thinner with M digitals by moving just the lens-mount forward, or making it thicker. Keeping the original depth would also allow Leica to revert to the original .58, .72 and .85 finders. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 21, 2015 Share #16 Posted June 21, 2015 I don't understand why the body cannot be thinner with M digitals by moving just the lens-mount forward, or making it thicker. Keeping the original depth would also allow Leica to revert to the original .58, .72 and .85 finders. The lens, pushed forward too far, get farther into the viewfinder. Thinning up some of the internals lets the body get a little thinner and the lens mount and viewfinder on the lens side of the camera would protrude a little. The sensor package keeps the distance between the back of the lens and the sensor where it is. For now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 22, 2015 Share #17 Posted June 22, 2015 Yes, that would be the only solution, a NEX-like lens mount protrusion. With the attendant viewfinder window protrusion. Unless, of course, the M would go EVF. .. I'm not sure that I would appreciate a thinner body. Having used my M6 this weekend I find my hands adapt better to the digital thickness. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 22, 2015 Share #18 Posted June 22, 2015 I don't understand why the body cannot be thinner with M digitals by moving just the lens-mount forward, The geometry of the traditional M system RF probably limits how far the rangefinder cam, and thus the lens mount, can protrude from the body. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted June 24, 2015 Share #19 Posted June 24, 2015 The lens, pushed forward too far, get farther into the viewfinder. Thinning up some of the internals lets the body get a little thinner and the lens mount and viewfinder on the lens side of the camera would protrude a little. The sensor package keeps the distance between the back of the lens and the sensor where it is. For now. Would love the next M9 to offer 0.85 ala M3, M6... I hoping the next color M hits all our desires - tho once I got used to M9 / E's limitations I've been very happy. Saw no point in the 240, IQ wise for my style of shooting Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 24, 2015 Share #20 Posted June 24, 2015 The geometry of the traditional M system RF probably limits how far the rangefinder cam, and thus the lens mount, can protrude from the body. I gave that some thought before my post above, and I don't think it would be a problem. The linkage is a simple mechanical lever which can be changed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.