Sell M to get M10?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And carry on into the future with the only truly relevant limitations the M has in it's prime role... calibration, focus shift with some lenses and the limited useable range without an external finder? You would tie the M to that, even if potential new customers wanted a beautifully simple, high quality, manual focus photographic tool to use with the best lenses ever available?

I understand that for many of you that the M is an optical rangefinder, but if you read through the forum, the vast majority of complaints about the M system, such as focussing accuracy, shift on lenses, frame lines, viewfinder magnification when using longer focal lengths.. it goes on and on, often for pages and pages... and I've only scratched the surface.... if you got rid of those issues, not only would more people buy an M, but those who deserted it for Sony or Fuji would come back.

All these negatives directly affect the one thing we ALL agree on, that the M lenses are the smallest, highest quality and most creatively varied (how many different M lenses are there from over the years, all with very different rendering or particular qualities, still available on the new or used market for example).

The camera should be a slave to the lenses, not the other way round.

It's virtually 2017... time to accept it is no longer the 1950's... Continue with all the same materials and build quality... and design cues... and produce a digital rangefinder with an EVF of the same standard or higher than the current SL for now, and then continue improving it over the coming years.

And yes, continue to produce an OVF version for those that see the M as an OVF and nothing else... and at least you will leave them with something to continue to complain about... or argue over...!

At least it would make the M range relevant and desirable for people interested in photography and bring more potential Leica owners into the fold. And for those that argue 'if you don't like the OVF or find it limiting, buy another camera', are you REALLY that arrogant that you would advise others to leave Leica to keep your own prejudices intact? Rather than give more people the option of using the worlds best camera system by 'allowing' a digital rangefinder version to sit alongside your optical version?

Really?

Bill, Bill, Bil, ... haven't you been paying attention?

 

Repeat after me: M is for messucher; the only important improvement to the M is to make it thinner; there's no such thing as focus shift (except on the SL); EVF is the work of the devil (except the perfect VF-2 released with the M(240)); focus and recompose is just fine for real M users; and the frame lines are just fine!

 

Where have you been? Video is essential, and if they change the OVF, no one will buy it - in fact, I'll sell all my M gear in protest, until the camera is released, of course; then I'll buy three as Leica can do no wrong.

 

I do wish you'd keep up!

[bocaburger]

I suspect the M 240 will be the last M camera I buy. To me it is like I've been given a nuclear bomb to light up my cigarette.

Can't even imagine what a future M could have more useful to me than what I have in my hands.

Same here.  I only upgraded from the M9 because at the time there was no upgraded sensor option in case the glass coating went bad.  And I waited until I could get demos/certified pre-owned M240's for thousands less than new price.  If, and it's a long-shot, I were to upgrade again, it would also be for a demo or certified pre-owned.  Not willing to take the hit on depreciation of these uber-expensive digital cameras if bought new.   As for compelling features, the only one I can think of is image stabilization, and I'm afraid they probably couldn't do that without increasing the size and weight of the camera. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Bill Livingston]

Bill, Bill, Bil, ... haven't you been paying attention?

Repeat after me: M is for messucher; the only important improvement to the M is to make it thinner; there's no such thing as focus shift (except on the SL); EVF is the work of the devil (except the perfect VF-2 released with the M(240)); focus and recompose is just fine for real M users; and the frame lines are just fine!

Where have you been? Video is essential, and if they change the OVF, no one will buy it - in fact, I'll sell all my M gear in protest, until the camera is released, of course; then I'll buy three as Leica can do no wrong.

I do wish you'd keep up!

Lol!!!

 

Clearly I haven't been keeping up!

 

Either that, or the person you are REALLY aiming this post at will come back to you in due course!

 

Good post IkarusJohn!

[jmahto]

Sorry, I skipped three pages (it moved fast!) before adding my 2 cents. I might have missed valuable comments.

 

The lure of (better)EVF is understandable but M shooters know that it is so easy to handhold, focus and shoot (even at low shutter speed) smoothly using RF. There is no need of EVF unless doing specialized work.

 

Yesterday I got my M240 back after 2.5 months of gap and shot very clean pictures (if not artistic) using 50lux in very dim light (EV 3). What I liked:

- Able to shoot shake free at 1/30 sec using 50lux. (yes, I checked 1:1 zoom)

- Clean ISO 3200 files after little PP.

- Feels so good in the hand.

 

So answer is NO. I am not going to sell it unless with the new M following is true (2 out of three is fine with me):

- Weight reduction is substantial (let us say 25%)

- ISO 3200 files are substantially good (let us say like current ISO 800)

- Long exposure is possible

[jmahto]

Do you have to make the decision today? 

Or even in 2017? 

I don't understand the question....or any of the answers.  It's not even out yet.

If one sells now then one will gain on depreciation.... and loose on photo opportunity in the gap period. Whatever is important.

[jonoslack]

Not required in general, but if you want to place the plane of focus precisely without getting lost in DOF it is still neccessary. An EVF cannot change the laws of optics.

 

Hi Jaap

In theory I agree with you (as would Sean Read) - as long as :

1: the camera is on a tripod or your head is lodged against a wall and

2. the lens doesn't exhibit any focus shift . . .

 

but if those things aren't true I'm pretty sure that you lose more by focusing wide open and changing the aperture (and moving your head). I actually feel the same way about magnification for focusing - by the time you've zoomed out and reframed you (well, I) have swayed more than the improved accuracy.

 

Most lenses show focus shift to some extent - basically as far as I can see, as long as the point of 'perfect' focus remains within the zone of 'acceptable focus" it's not really remarked upon . . . but if you're going to focus wide open and then change the aperture I'd suggest that you almost never have the plane of focus precisely where you want it. . . even if you are rock solid.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That looks like logic, Jono; and worse, experience ...

[jonoslack]

And carry on into the future with the only truly relevant limitations the M has in it's prime role... calibration, focus shift with some lenses and the limited useable range without an external finder? You would tie the M to that, even if potential new customers wanted a beautifully simple, high quality, manual focus photographic tool to use with the best lenses ever available?

 

Really?

 

Great Post Bill

So, let's have the M10 AND

let's have an E1

It will be the same size and shape as an M, but instead of the rangefinder it'll have an EVF like the SL, and it'll have an SL mount as well (with a free SL to M adapter no doubt). There isn't any point in having an M mount (it sticks out, and means you can't use SL lenses) - so it would also be AF if you wanted it. 

 

What it boils down to is that there really is a market for a small Leica body which takes M lenses (and it might as well take SL lenses as well). . . here's hoping . . 

[jmahto]

Great Post Bill

So, let's have the M10 AND

let's have an E1

It will be the same size and shape as an M, but instead of the rangefinder it'll have an EVF like the SL, and it'll have an SL mount as well (with a free SL to M adapter no doubt). There isn't any point in having an M mount (it sticks out, and means you can't use SL lenses) - so it would also be AF if you wanted it. 

 

What it boils down to is that there really is a market for a small Leica body which takes M lenses (and it might as well take SL lenses as well). . . here's hoping . . 

Highlight mine...

Jono, this confuses me. If there is a lighter body for EVF only M (then it cannibalizes RF M, isn't it?) and if it takes SL lenses (then what is the differentiation with SL?)

[jmahto]

We have seen (from all around enthusiasm) that there is indeed a market for Sony A7 sized camera that takes ALL M lenses. SL lenses will be a bonus.

[IkarusJohn]

Do we have any evidence of the plethora of Leica offerings cannibalising any other Leica products?

 

This is a genuine question - is there any case history where a manufacturer increasing its product range has sold less product? When existing or potential Leica users are apparently buying Sonys, what possibly downside is there in increasing the functionality of the M camera? We already have 4 versions ...

[Robert M Poole]

 

 

Do we have any evidence of the plethora of Leica offerings cannibalising any other Leica products?

 

This is a genuine question - is there any case history where a manufacturer increasing its product range has sold less product? When existing or potential Leica users are apparently buying Sonys, what possibly downside is there in increasing the functionality of the M camera? We already have 4 versions ...

According to Leica Manchester they've had a lot of people trading in Sony's for Leicas recently. Maybe that bubble has burst.

 

www.robertpoolephotography.com

[ianman]

No-one focuses an M at maximum aperture and then stops it down, ...

uuummm, I think I have a basic gap in my understanding.

 

Why would anyone do this ? And also, even though they might want to do it, why would it be bad ?

 

I'm not seeing how the aperture setting and the act of focussing are related ? (obviously I'm not talking DoF here)

[Bill Livingston]

uuummm, I think I have a basic gap in my understanding.

 

Why would anyone do this ? And also, even though they might want to do it, why would it be bad ?

 

I'm not seeing how the aperture setting and the act of focussing are related ? (obviously I'm not talking DoF here)

They wouldn't, that's the point. When you are focussing an M, the aperture isn't relevant as you are not focusing through the lens wide open (for minimum depth of field and therefore plane of focussing accuracy) and then stopping down to the taking aperture... that's SLR with automatic diaphragm thinking.

 

The point was in answer to Jaap... and I didn't really understand the point he was making (although he edited his post as I was writing mine, so some of what he was saying made more sense with the additional information his edit contained.

 

The point is, they are not related at all... not directly, anyway, as Jono pointed out, so I was confused as to why Jaap brought it up.

 

But I get the point that for whatever reason, some M users are very protective of the optical rangefinder, despite the fact that many of the things those same people complain about are the very things that would go away with a different approach.

 

"It would no longer be an M'

 

I don't agree, but I respect that point of view, which is why I suggested two M's... an EVF/hybrid and an optical...

 

I like Jono's option, an M10 and a E1 in a near identical M body... If they looked identical to my M-P, or better still, an M4, as I said before, I would buy a couple of them...

[ianman]

It's virtually 2017... time to accept it is no longer the 1950's... Continue with all the same materials and build quality... and design cues... and produce a digital rangefinder with an EVF of the same standard or higher than the current SL for now, and then continue improving it over the coming years.

 

And yes, continue to produce an OVF version for those that see the M as an OVF and nothing else... and at least you will leave them with something to continue to complain about... or argue over...!

 

Why have 2 separate versions ? You are talking about a Leica version of the X-Pro2, right ?

 

least it would make the M range relevant and desirable for people interested in photography and bring more potential Leica owners into the fold. And for those that argue 'if you don't like the OVF or find it limiting, buy another camera', are you REALLY that arrogant that you would advise others to leave Leica to keep your own prejudices intact? Rather than give more people the option of using the worlds best camera system by 'allowing' a digital rangefinder version to sit alongside your optical version?

I don't find it arrogant at all to suggest to someone that their choice of camera may not be ideal. What you're suggesting is similar to someone who buys a motorbike and then complains it hasn't got 4 wheels. Surely you, and anyone else, would suggest they buy a car instead. I don't see what's arrogant !?

[Bill Livingston]

I think you are misunderstanding my posts...

[IkarusJohn]

Why have 2 separate versions ? You are talking about a Leica version of the X-Pro2, right ?

 

 

We have 4 versions of the M ...

[jaapv]

They wouldn't, that's the point. When you are focussing an M, the aperture isn't relevant as you are not focusing through the lens wide open (for minimum depth of field and therefore plane of focussing accuracy) and then stopping down to the taking aperture... that's SLR with automatic diaphragm thinking.

 

The point was in answer to Jaap... and I didn't really understand the point he was making (although he edited his post as I was writing mine, so some of what he was saying made more sense with the additional information his edit contained.

 

The point is, they are not related at all... not directly, anyway, as Jono pointed out, so I was confused as to why Jaap brought it up.

 

But I get the point that for whatever reason, some M users are very protective of the optical rangefinder, despite the fact that many of the things those same people complain about are the very things that would go away with a different approach.

 

"It would no longer be an M'

 

I don't agree, but I respect that point of view, which is why I suggested two M's... an EVF/hybrid and an optical...

 

I like Jono's option, an M10 and a E1 in a near identical M body... If they looked identical to my M-P, or better still, an M4, as I said before, I would buy a couple of them...

I brought it up as there is a general misunderstanding ( as expressed in this thread as well) that focus shift is an exclusive rangefinder issue.

[IkarusJohn]

I brought it up as there is a general misunderstanding ( as expressed in this thread as well) that focus shift is an exclusive rangefinder issue.

 

On another thread, I was surprised to find that the SL's AF lenses do this.  I use the stop down all the time.  Sadly, Leica has confirmed the they will not make stop down the default - it has to be activated all the time.

 

Back to the M, clearly this is irrelevant.  The issue Bill makes is that the M system is about the lenses; even if you're a rangefinder lover (which I am), the camera is an electronic processor, wrapped in a lovely case.  It is extremely unlikely it will outlive your lenses.  We need to rethink our approach, I think.  My M cameras are really built around my M lenses.  Adding an electronic M version would be great for Leica.

 

On the SL, I love the way that M and R lenses are stopped down as you focus.  Jaap's concern about achieving best focus stopped down is theoretical, in my view.  The best thing is that you see the exposure on screen, which makes metering largely irrelevant.  I found stop down on an SLR completely useless; great on a good EVF.

Edited December 21, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I don't agree. M cameras have been a phenomenon as such. Just recall the M3, or the M5 debacle. I use lenses from 5 different M-mount brands on my M.