The M10 or a new camera line? [Merged]

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Huh, WTF? I think you are taking me a bit out of context. I don't think we are talking about a Leica SLR anyway and I was in support of a EVIL Leica. I'm all for Leica making as many cameras as they can make... even if I don't like them. The next M, however, will be a rangefinder.

 

 

Sorry if I didn't know where you are coming from, but I didn't see the relevancy then. The simple fact is that photographers can utilize various cameras and it is up to Leica to decide how many markets they want to be a part of. They abandoned the 35mm SLR market presumably because they couldn't make a profit from it... not because photographers didn't like SLRs. I'd suspect that if they think they can make a profit in another segment, they might enter it. It has very little to do with what you or I would like. E.g. the S2 will appeal to a very small number of photographers (way smaller than the M.) But Leica has surely made projections where a small number of sales will make it profitable.

 

This being said, I believe the future for Leica cameras will be EVF/Live view models and I am sure that every other manufacturer also sees the potential of this design.

[Advertisement]

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

[ndjambrose]

I am struggling to think how an EVIL technology would give me any improvement in image, or ease of use for lenses in the 18mm to 90mm category, which is what I use most of the time. If I compare the M camera to any DSLR competitor (DSLR seems to be the only really high end cameras with interchangeable lenses) then I see that the M has these advantages:

• Its much smaller and more easy to handle
  
• It is quieter and therefore discrete.
  
• Focussing accuracy is better (theoretically) than a DSLR below 90mm and in poor light.
  
• Continuous mode should be faster than a DSLR (as there is no mirror to move) however apparently for some reason this is not the case when compared to best Canon and Nikon models. I do not know why.
  
• It is easy to fit a 21mm, TriElmar 90mm and a M8 body in a small case...try that with a DSLR where the lenses need to be physically bigger and have motors on them.
  
• There is less to go wrong on a M compared to a DSLR so in theory if Leica build them right they should be more reliable and rugged. (Shutter hardware issues suggest that Leica should look at the internal linkages perhaps?)
  
• There is a wide range of fast Prime lenses available that are not offered by Nikon and Canon.
  
• The CMOS sensor seems just fine to my eyes and the results are more like film than what I have seen from Nikon and Canon. An EVIL solution suggests moving to CMOS and if that degrades the image quality due to the need for an antialiasing filter or whatever I would not be pleased.
  

...

 

That boat sailed several years ago - at least, for some items on your list. Have you used a pro grade DSLR lately? A D700 can focus on a gnat's kneecaps in near darkness, track fast movement with predictive focus, shoot at 8 fps at full-frame RAW for over 50 shots, make convincing 24" enlargements at 6,400 ISO, has a wide range of 2.8 zooms or 1.4 primes (some of them of stellar quality), has a lens range with shorter focal lengths than any M, is rated for over 500,000 shutter actuations (has any M8/9 ever made it that far?), and is close to bullet proof, with scant evidence of user complaints despite the user population being several hundred times larger. Less to go wrong with an M8/9? Hardly - in fact, that's the one thing it's absolutely famous for.

 

The M is a lovely design but not a current one, and the strengths of its feature set aren't really along the lines you've described, except for bulk and weight, where it scores best.

 

To my mind, the M is about thinking and working differently. A slower, richer experience, perhaps, for people willing to trade the form factor of a DSLR along with some of its technical performance. So I can't see much, if any, of the EVIL feature set doing anything except diluting that experience, and bringing it too close to a generic sub-compact in feature set, making it difficult to market as a premium or specialist product. And EVF's are seriously slow with far worse luminance than a direct vision finder, and I wouldn't like to use any camera that had one - at least, not without a step change in performance.

 

Mark's suggestions are closest to the target, in my opinion. Keep the simplicity, add a couple of parallel features that address its weak spots. Done.

[Riley]

the answer then

is a plugin EVF, that nobody has to buy that doesnt want it, but will support liveview for those that see a need for it. In which case they would be crazy not to provide video as it is just a function of sensor choice and software deployment.

 

In this way they can offer a body that supports M and R mounts, with MF superior to anything in OVF or RF pattern, just as Panasonic's 'G' line mFT cameras demonstrate.

[hoppyman]

Riley that pre-supposes a new different sensor of course and you would need completely different electronics in the camera to make your removable EVF work. So there are a lot more design and cost considerations rather than just making the EVF as an optional extra. There is there is only one supplier and one sensor in production in the world that will work with M cameras owing to the unique micro-lens arrangements. You cannot source any off the shelf sensor from any other manufacturer at any price that will work.

 

It's the unique qualities that make the M system so enduring and both Leica Camera and their traditional customer base are very sensitive to those attributes and the market niche.

 

Maybe there will be some future Leica camera with more dSLR type features and maybe you will be able to adapt M lenses to it. Or more likely we may see a camera from elsewhere. As is known, Leica Camera already judged that they could not compete in the dSLR field with a new dedicated design (R10)

 

Compromising what is their core product (Stefan Daniel said it is their heart) to make a new design that would be even less competitive in that area would not be sensible, in my opinion. You could end up with an M that costs more but doesn't do M things better while also being well behind what is expected in the dSLR area.

[Riley]

the fact is a full frame transfer chip wont do liveview very successfully, and for a CCD you really need an interline transfer type

 

I dont think the sensor they are using now has such qualities as to make it an unreachable goal with another sensor type, indeed some progression in sensor design might prove more beneficial instead of the other way around. Kodak have made other sensor types, they currently produce interline transfer chips as they have done for Olympus E-400 in the past.

 

the EVF itself could be sourced from a number of makers, Epson Olympus and Panasonic make their own.

[rosuna]

You could end up with an M that costs more but doesn't do M things better while also being well behind what is expected in the dSLR area.

 

That is a real danger. Leica should be careful. For instance, the X1 is a good camera with weak points, but, at least it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, so you can modify and adapt the concept in the next version. However, when you present an all new system with interchangeable lenses you have to do it right, because you will be hooked to the specifications forever.

 

Regarding a classical M with live view and clip-on EVF, I think there is no danger at all. Technology will force such a design, sooner or later.

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the fact is a full frame transfer chip wont do liveview very successfully, and for a CCD you really need an interline transfer type

 

I dont think the sensor they are using now has such qualities as to make it an unreachable goal with another sensor type, indeed some progression in sensor design might prove more beneficial instead of the other way around. Kodak have made other sensor types, they currently produce interline transfer chips as they have done for Olympus E-400 in the past.

 

the EVF itself could be sourced from a number of makers, Epson Olympus and Panasonic make their own.

 

Riley I think that you are rather missing the point. Could does not mean should. Are you shooting with an M camera now? What sort of stuff do you like to do? Why are you attracted to the Leica world?

 

To take a mainstream example, I read recently that Canon had just made their 40 millionth EOS camera. Clearly they have the ability and backing to produce anything they wish. Why do you suppose that they don't make a rangefinder digital camera? Because it is a tiny niche already occupied by a superb instrument. Why on earth would Leica Camera try to compete in areas where many Japanese companies have very successful product ranges and huge resources behind them? It is precisely the M system's unique properties and capabilities that make it attractive to its users.

 

You may like to research why Leica Camera has chosen that Kodak sensor. They have that relationship at least partly because other manufacturers don't make an off the shelf sensor that is usable. It is really really hard to produce a sensor in small quanities that will produce great results within the constraints of M Lens parameters. There are reasons why it took a long time to come up with a 24x36 sensor that worked well with M lenses. Leica camera is a small player and needs a sensor partner that can make this unique sensor. M lenses and all of the properties that they require and provide need particular things that are not mainstream and are not what may make sense for large volume dSLR makers and their customers.

 

 

In the final analysis, many Leica Camera customers simply do not want the sort of changes that people suggest would make M cameras closer to what dSLR cameras do. There are already a plethora of options if you want those things and I do not. I am confident that many other Leica Camera customers agree.

 

We want M's. That means manual focus, best possible quality, simplest possible interface, the ability to use decades of lenses as they are right now, rangefinder, current form factor and philosophy. If we want another camera with those current features like video and Livewiew and even autofocus , there are many many options available already. None of them are M's and that's fine. I don't believe that there is any market segment as sensitive to tradition and philosophy as that occupied by M's.

[Riley]

well you know what, i was commenting quite genuinely on the OPs scenario with technical assistance that nobody else contributed. In my world we call this reality

 

FYI, Leica not only have the M line, they have the import X1, and they have rebadged compacts as well as a perfectly acceptable line of MF R lenses that seem to me to be going to waste.

 

So in I step with my take on a universal solution, to utilise M mounts, R mounts, provide LV to those who want it, with zip effect to those that dont sans putting up with the appearance of a plug port. For awhile there, I just thought people might be interested in that, but everyone is entitled to one mistake.

 

Unknown to me, that a bunch of fellas sitting on sofas with blankets over their knees dreaming about Morgan Cars and travel in biplanes feel that no change is acceptable, have a plan to corrupt any vision that sees R mounts again become useful, or that something, indeed anything, no matter how noticeable might change.

 

Which is coincidently the very reason Leica is in the fix its in today. It was changing to digital and slogging out a deal with Panny that saw them survive, it will be keeping pace with change (which is inevitable) that will see them continue, which one assumes is a common goal.

[stunsworth]

...as a perfectly acceptable line of MF R lenses that seem to me to be going to waste.

 

Leica sold off all their remaining R lenses quite some time ago.

 

If you read all of the threads similar to this one that we've had over the last couple of years you'd realise that very few people have any objection with Leica introducing a singing and dancing camera with live view, AF etc. However it should be obvious that a good number of people don't want that camera to become the next M.

[Riley]

Leica sold off all their remaining R lenses quite some time ago.

 

silly me, i meant the lenses in ownership

 

If you read all of the threads similar to this one that we've had over the last couple of years you'd realise that very few people have any objection with Leica introducing a singing and dancing camera with live view, AF etc. However it should be obvious that a good number of people don't want that camera to become the next M.

 

i dont see them as having the resources for S2 (which it seems to me will ditch anyway) M9 and an R solution, maybe thats why they killed it. However if they felt they needed an R solution just a few years ago, i doubt a whole lot has changed in the market. There choice is to get Panny to make it, or use the existing kit.

 

Given R mounts are MF, a modified M can meet that objective

[bill]

However it should be obvious that a good number of people don't want that camera to become the next M.

 

I'd go slightly further than that. A good number of people don't want to pay for feature bloat either, ie the not insignificant changes and engineering involved with putting an EVIL viewfinder facility on to an M body a la E-P2.

 

By all means have a separate camera line for the techweenies. Leave the M for those who "get it" and who need and are willing to pay for it's unique features.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

I don't think live view should be added to the M. I recall the outcry from 5D owners when the 5DII came out with live view. Canon won't make that mistake again.

[ndjambrose]

...In the final analysis, many Leica Camera customers simply do not want the sort of changes that people suggest would make M cameras closer to what dSLR cameras do. There are already a plethora of options if you want those things and I do not. I am confident that many other Leica Camera customers agree.....

 

Well, I certainly agree.

 

I'm fairly agnostic about cameras and prefer to use what works best for me in a specific situation. I have several DSLRs and medium format systems. Those are all work cameras - they come out for specific applications because they do what they do well. They're brilliant tools but highly impersonal. I rarely shoot them for fun.

 

Almost all of my personal work is shot with rangefinders because they offer me an experience that reminds me why I fell in love with photography. I admire and enjoy the simplicity of an M, and anything that interferes with it too much, or worse, turns it into a pseudo- digital compact/point and shoot, would end that love affair on the spot. If I wanted an EVIL camera there are half a dozen choices on the market already. None of them are in my bag because they don't satisfy any personal need. I have no desire for a meaningful relationship with something that is a pale and inadequate imitation of a DSLR, and a vacant impersonal representation of a perfect rangefinder. Neither fish nor fowl.

 

Where I can see an opportunity is in making a more perfect rangefinder experience: intelligent framelines, focus confirmation, superior image processing. Those things would make a good thing even better.

 

But if my choice is live view and EVF then frankly I'd prefer to use a DSLR because it would do the same job but better. The strength of an M as a product concept is that it does a different job to all other digital cameras, and it does so in a unique manner.

[hoppyman]

Riley you've expressed your opinion and others have expressed different ones. No doubt you have seen many of these threads here previously telling Leica Camera what they should do. Sarcasm doesn't strengthen your arguments.

 

I was commenting genuinely on the technical issues with what you were proposing also as well as expressing my opinion on Leica Camera's position in the market place.

I'm well aware what product lines that Leica Camera markets.

They do not have a line of R lenses available at all. After production ceased the last of the stock was heavily discounted and disposed of. It's an indisputable fact that Leica Camera already decided that the R line was no longer viable and they cancelled the proposed R10 with its new AF lens range as well. Part of the rationale for that decision is that they are convinced they cannot compete directly in the dSLR world and the customers owning discontinued R lenses are not a sufficient market to make a camera to use them. Any such camera would not generate any income from lens sales for those either obviously since they are just gone. That means a new AF lens line to go with the new camera too and you are back to where they already decided the camera would not be viable.

I have no idea how much the other product lines contribute.

 

As far as Leica currently being in a 'fix' I'm sure that you are aware of the success of the M9 and the corresponding great increase in demand for M lenses. Having production at full capacity, orders exceeding expectations. a much higher profile and being unable to meet demand is a 'fix' that they can live with being stuck in!

 

Whatever ideas and visions and opinions there may be, pretty clearly a lot of customers believe that Leica Camera has it right by maintaining the M philosophy just as it is.

 

But of course none of that will change your opinions. Ignore what people in the forum say, none of us have any influence of course. Go ahead and find some of the interviews with Stefan Daniel. I'm pretty sure that he isn't sitting around in Solms with a blanket over his knees.

[AlanG]

I'm of the opinion that when Leica has the technology to do so, they will add live view capability to the M. And to the S.

[bill]

We know...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[georg]

While we know very little about future developments for sure, we can already tell that an Full-Frame-EVF wouldn't replace the M9. The M-series is another game and has been for the past 56 years.

 

The new system WILL have a bigger mount and AF and most likely be an EVF-based system. Hopefully not with a cheap Epson-Viewfinder (all consumer-EVFs are crap right now in comparison to a good optical viewfinder) or some regular Sony CMOS (while they already implement the next generation in their own cameras like they currently do) - but that's all speculation.

 

The M will remain a rangefinder (maybe with added capabilities in the future), period.

[AlanG]

We know...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

My point being that I don't think they have the technology, so it doesn't matter what anyone would like to see. When they get access to the technology, I can't see why they wouldn't implement it. I think this will take longer in the S than in the M. Another camera system (EVIL) is certainly possible. (Perhaps contracted out.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[redbaron]

Maybe they just don't want to.

[hoppyman]

Stefan Daniel 2009 (Luminous Landscape interview on M9 launch)

Leica M9 Stephan Daniel Interview on Vimeo

 

This really is an excellent resource for any interested in hearing Leica Camera's current thinking and of course it's far more authoritative than anything we speculate here.

Interestingly, Stefan does suggest that CMOS with Live View IS possible (but not definite) for a future M.

 

Some text following may be slightly paraphrased.

 

"The question for us is really do we want to move in that sharkpool of the dSLR"

 

"A classic dSLR as you know it from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus something is not going to happen from Leica"

 

"Our connection with Panasonic will concentrate on compact cameras. We will not launch a cooperation or own developed micro four thirds camera"

 

When asked about a collaboration with,Panasonic to produce an M mount 'digital CL'

"No, it is not an option... Because the M is our heart"

 

On function complexity:

"If you compare to the initial M8 we have added a lot of functions,... For my taste we are at the end of what we should do for the camera otherwise it will change its spirit. We have to be very careful not to overload it with everything that is possible. On features it is OK but we shouldn't do more".

 

 

 

.