The M10 or a new camera line? [Merged]

[Jerry_R]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe this?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/124813-m10-new-camera-line.html

[Walt Calahan]

What the heck is the large level for on the front of the camera?

 

Looks like a Franken-camera to me.

[BKK dan]

In some Leica interview if I recall correctly they announced that within some time the technology used in the S2 will find it's way into "lower" models.

 

The concept sounds terrific, it's exactly what I'd need, size being the make or break point.

 

But I doubt Leica can plan such a revolutionary little thing.

[AlanG]

Making the world's first full frame EVIL system would be an exciting and logical move for Leica. They can keep making a rangefinder M system as long as it sells, but this would be the platform for Leica's future. Everything in this type of camera is already proven.

 

This basically just has to be a larger version of the Olympus E-P2 system. And it would be simpler to make than the M9 or an AF DSLR.

 

It would have to have a new line of lenses but also accept M, R, and other lenses of course and would be adopted by current Leica lens owners very quickly.

 

This is so obvious and I'd bet dollars to donuts that Leica has been studying this (and maybe designing it) for some time. I have been proposing such a system for quite a while but I constantly get attacked for doing so. Those in charge at Leica would be idiots if they are capable of doing this and don't do it... considering they have a unique opportunity to seize the moment and capitalize on their current user base too.

[Chistoso]

Clever placement of the lens and film advance lever; obviously designed for self-portraits in close-up.

[adan]

Been mentioned already in the general Digital forum: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/124813-m10-new-camera-line.html

 

For Walt, Chistoso et al - the picture is not of the rumored new camera - it is picture of a half-frame Leicaflex prototype (never marketed, and yes, a "Franken-camera") from the 1960's or 70's. Thus the lever (film advance). Read the caption on the rumor site just above the image.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...Those in charge at Leica would be idiots if they are capable of doing this and don't do it....

Unless they fear to kill the M9.

[rosuna]

Unless they fear to kill the M9.

 

The M9 will be dead anyway. The M10 may incorporate several modern features as well, and keep the rangefinder concept for those who want it (myself).

 

The problem with an EVIL camera is the technology. Olympus hasn't got it yet. The AF is slow. Olympus will redesign all the lenses. Better algorithms (firmware updates) are not enough. Panasonic did a better job. I don't know how well the Samsung and Sony cameras will perform. The same goes for the Leica X1 (slow) and the Ricoh modular camera. All those cameras have small sensors, and the lenses are small too.

 

Here we are talking of a much larger format, with larger lenses. It will not be easy. This may explain the "pancakes" rumor. Lenses have to be very small. The contrast based AF is a method based on try and error. The EVIL rumor also explains why Leica needs a partner.

 

Leica could find a way for avoiding contrast-based AF. The Contax T and G cameras had AF, etc.

[nugat]

To create a successful FF EVIL camera Leica needs Panasonic technology, most of all the sensor and contrast AF. NmoS can possibly be stitched to four times area and +20MP. Fast AF algorithms are a must. Fortunately Leica has something to offer to Panasonic too : exquisite lens know-how. EVF can be Epson or Panasonic. The focus via sensor movements is highly unlikely though. So is the back compatibility with M glass (backfocus distance and angle of incidence issues).

To me that would be the camera of my dreams. If only D700 high ISO performance was there too...

[SJP]

I do not see how a CMOS EVIL type camera would kill the M8/M9 as it would be a different beast altogether. The CCD rendering of the digital M's is one of the selling points for me and I do not like CMOS (high-iso) at all.

 

A CMOS EVIL thing that takes R and M lenses will be nice addition to the Leica range as a whole obviously, and will probably sell like hot cakes.

[lct]

If Leica would offer a $3K FF body fitting M lenses, which sounds incredible to me, a lot of people would become reluctant to spend $7K for an M9 i guess. Would be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs IMHO.

[luigi bertolotti]

Leicarumors hasn't so a good track record...: but is a interesting hipotesis: I think that if they do it, the simple fact to be the first FF EVF camera could be a corageous smart move (provided that it would be really the first). I think also that body would be surely outsourced... expecially if there is the rumored "AF by sensor moving" it would be a very integrated assembly (even if, imho, they could renounce to this delicate technology).

Risk of cannibalizing M customer base is not so strong, I think: M users like definitely RF focusing... EVF is a completely different way.

I think also that M lenses compatibility could be a difficult engineering exercise... it would mean to have a flange to sensor distance at least 1 mm less than M... is this viable for a FF sensor ? On the contrary, no problem with R lenses... and this should be consistent with the Leica statements on the "solution for R glass owners".

[mjh]

The Sensor. NEVER buy a crucial component from a direct opponent! It's simple, cheap, easy and deadly, once the "supplier" finds out that they can make much more money selling it with their own name...

It does work for Nikon. Also Pentax. Sony’s semiconductor and components division needs to stay profitable in their own right, and if that requires marketing sensors to anyone who asks, then so be it. That’s how they have been doing business for years.

 

If a new camera should be more affordable than an M9, it would be sensible to opt for an off-the-shelf sensor design like they did with the X1.

 

I think we can tell for sure that it will get a new lens-mount, the flange-distance of the R-mount is to large, the diameter and communication of the M-mount is too limited.

The question is: will M-lenses be adaptable as well (flange distance >>28mm) - Leica would be stupid to miss this opportunity since they already have proven that FF-digitals work with M-lenses as well as R-designs (e.g. the 90AA) ?

Choosing such a short flange distance would be just asking for trouble. Fitting a 36 x 24 mm sensor into such a design is a difficult proposition and as the M9 demonstrates, Leica still hasn’t ironed out all the issues. You cannot use a dichroic IR cut filter on the sensor (the absorption filter on the M9 sensor could still be more effective), there is the issue of red vignetting which has to be corrected for in software, and you need custom-designed microlenses, so using an off-the-shelf sensor is out of the question.

 

Leica had to jump through all these hoops in developing the M9 since the flange distance was fixed, but this is about designing a new camera system. When you get a chance to design a camera from scratch, you will choose values for the key parameters that are in some way optimal, not values known to cause issues you don’t really know how to solve completely. And there are no pressing concerns to keep the flange distance that short. There is the M9 now and there probably will be an M10, so Leica doesn’t need to provide an alternative body for fitting M lenses.

 

For example, take the Micro FourThirds design that does avoid all those issues with large incident angles. With MFT, the flange distance (20 mm) is a little less than the image diagonal (21.6 mm) and the mount diameter (38 mm) is a little less than twice that figure. Scaling these figures to a system fitting a 36 x 24 mm sensor would suggest a flange distance of about 40 mm and a mount diameter of about 76 mm. 40 mm looks like a sensible value for the flange distance while 76 mm may seem excessive; I suppose one could opt for a smaller mount when even Canon manages with 54 mm. A flange distance somewhere around 40 mm would still allow for adapting lenses from nearly all the SLR systems out there, including Leica R. Again, adapting M lenses would not be a pressing concern, so ruling out those lenses would be OK.

[luigi bertolotti]

...

For example, take the Micro FourThirds design that does avoid all those issues with large incident angles. With MFT, the flange distance (20 mm) is a little less than the image diagonal (21.6 mm) and the mount diameter (38 mm) is a little less than twice that figure. Scaling these figures to a system fitting a 36 x 24 mm sensor would suggest a flange distance of about 40 mm and a mount diameter of about 76 mm. 40 mm looks like a sensible value for the flange distance while 76 mm may seem excessive; I suppose one could opt for a smaller mount when even Canon manages with 54 mm. A flange distance somewhere around 40 mm would still allow for adapting lenses from nearly all the SLR systems out there, including Leica R. Again, adapting M lenses would not be a pressing concern, so ruling out those lenses would be OK.

The same simple computation I did after my above post...... no chance for M lenses, I fear... unless... ... Kodak has proved to be able to manage decently the microlenses issue for the M9 sensor... and they used to make CMOS too...do you think it would be possible for them to return to this technology, capitalizing the microlenses experience done with M9 ? I mean... 1 mm less than the M9 flange distance could be sufficient... isn't so much (or not?)... maybe they could afford a limitation on, say, 18-20 mm focal length: it would be nice to have M lenses compatibility, though I admit that maybe, in marketing terms, can be not a so important requirement...

[Chistoso]

Andy, what's happened to your sense of humor?

[wildlightphoto]

... I think also that M lenses compatibility could be a difficult engineering exercise... it would mean to have a flange to sensor distance at least 1 mm less than M... is this viable for a FF sensor ?

 

As far as the sensor is concerned, the flange distance isn't the problem, the distance from the exit pupil is what matters.

[d2mini]

Clever placement of the lens and film advance lever; obviously designed for self-portraits in close-up.

 

For myspace and facebook pics.

[AlanG]

As far as the sensor is concerned, the flange distance isn't the problem, the distance from the exit pupil is what matters.

 

That's right. Make the body as thin as possible. They can then design the lenses any way that will work on it.

 

I can't see this killing the M system. If it is successful, it can only give Leica more resources, some of which can be allocated to updating M cameras periodically. As for the technology to make it...how do we know what technology Leica has in house or can contract out? A couple of years ago, who figured they had the technology and resources to make the S2 ?

 

It is a pretty simple proposition form my standpoint... If they can do, it's a no-brainer. If they can't do it, they'll have to wait until they can.

[georg]

@mjh

And whats with the issues of enormous retrofocus-designs? I think the M9 + tiny 1,4/21-50mm lenses show the advantages of optimizing the fast-pacing sensor-technology instead of compromising lens-design. I think they will use a large mount diameter, but they won't go back to SLR-like flange distances in a mirrorless system.

 

I'll stick with my opinion: A standard sensor bought from Sony would be extremely risky, the only reason why Nikon and the others survived this game till now is the stupidity of Sony - but for how long? Canon was much more long-sighted and dominates the market with it's sensors. I've seen several industries were such "suppliers" became aware of their power and simply killed their competitors/ clients and replaced them with their own products. And what does it mean for Leica and us as photographers? The IQ could hardly be superior to a much cheaper Sony-cam using the same sensor + adapted Leica-lenses. I think Leica will learn it the hard way once Sony established it's APS-C-EVIL-system and killing of the need for a X1 for every non Leica-customer (when the Sony is a well-designed camera).

I don't think Leica has the money to establish their own sensor-design and production, but they can choose one of the more fitting suppliers - there are some very exciting CMOS-designs around besides Sony or Panasonic...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jerry_R]

Have you read April LFI 2010 - article about X1?

 

The guy who worked at Panasonic, and was responsible for contacts with Leica - moved to directly Leica, to Germany and became responsible for Leica digital compacts. Compact meaning next generation of small Lecias, this time digital - not compact size sensors. He has been thinking of it for long time. "He was looking to win over new customers ans also give existing ones alternative to work with". This idea was his dream.

 

I have no doubts they worked on it for long time. And that X1 was just a first step, a test for Mr. Kaoru Mokunaka. As we now know it has been success - I think he was given green light for whole system!

 

And I love that idea. It is sth that me and many people I know - prayed for! SO far - the only alternative is Micro 43 system (pls do not call it E-P2 system!) with smaller size, and bigger than could be lenses (AF + stabilization in some of them).