M9, last of the line?

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I prefer the newer model: it's got more Bokeh

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

There are some parallels to the situation of the early 1950ies. The IIIf was restoring the company's fortunes, and lens development seemed to have reached a platform. The only way forward was more modern designs which had to transmit far more optical information - needing a wider mount. (That that was not 100% the case was proved with the Elmar-M - 30 years later...) One of the main reasons to go with the M3 was the larger M mount. But Leica felt themselves forced to go on building the IIIf and later IIIg, to cater to traditionalists.Currently I think it is eminently possible that the mount may be enlarged - if the baseplate were fixed that would gain 8 mm diameter without compromising the basic design. Of course it cannot be an all-singing-all dancing DSLR or EVIL, it must remain a manual niche product in order to be viable. And Leica can keep on building an M9 or even M9.2 with some of the refinements of the newer type for old fogies like me in a separate line.

[luigi bertolotti]

There are some parallels to the situation of the early 1950ies. The IIIf was restoring the company's fortunes, and lens development seemed to have reached a platform. The only way forwards was more modern designs which had to transmit far more optical information - needing a wider mount. (That that was not 100% the case was proved with the Elmar-M - 30 years later...) One of the main reasons to go with the M3 was the larger M mount. But Leica felt themselves forced to go on building the IIIf and later IIIg, to cater to traditionalists.Currently I think it is eminently possible that the mount may be enlarged - if the baseplate were fixed that would gain 8 mm diameter without compromising the basic design. Of course it cannot be an all-singing-all dancing DSLR or EVIL, it must remain a manual niche product in order to be viable. And Leica can keep on building an M9 or even M9.2 with some of the refinements of the newer type for old fogies like me in a separate line.

 

Risky - RISKY strategy !!! Very difficult to engineer the RIGHT product to ENLARGE their niche... if it does not enlarge they 'd find themselves with two product lines for basically the same customer set (divided into "old fogies" and "young fogies"... )

[luigi bertolotti]

I love the 1961 model, it has that Leica look.

 

It's like M4 to M6... (4 and 6 gearbox, indeed ... and ABS prevents you from falling on the road as well as meter prevents you from falling in wrong exposure... )

[jaapv]

But is was exactly the strategy they followed from 1954 to 1960 - and it worked.

[luigi bertolotti]

But is was exactly the strategy they followed from 1954 to 1960 - and it worked.

 

Yes... but they weren't in a niche, at the times... , they were the LEADERS in 35mm photography...they could afford some "diversive" move in their product line... I don't know what happened in their market in 1975-79 (too young and no forums ... )... but I suspect that when they made the M5 - then CL - then admitted M5 was a wrong design - comeback with M4-2... all this ended to a lost of a share of their customer base in favor of SLR (and, regrettably, most of them no red-dotted SLR... )

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But is was exactly the strategy they followed from 1954 to 1960 - and it worked.

Save that there were not 3 different systems (S, M, X) at Leica then and even 4 counting in PanaLeicas. Hardly credible that Leica can afford a 5th system so far.

[jaapv]

I don't see it as a new system - more as a natural development of the M system. The point is that it may be that the current lens mount is restrictive. It would be a fundamental development, however, as opposed to adding electronic gizmos to the current design.

[luigi bertolotti]

I don't see it as a new system - more as a natural development of the M system. The point is that it may be that the current lens mount is restrictive. It would be a fundamental development, however, as opposed to adding electronic gizmos to the current design.

 

Let's think a little... let'say 8-10 mm more... 4-5 "eaten on the top" and same at the bottom... if they whish to maintain current lenses RF coupling... few space to play with the roller cam position... dificult task... worth some play on my CAD workseat...

[UliWer]

...The only way forward was more modern designs which had to transmit far more optical information - needing a wider mount. (That that was not 100% the case was proved with the Elmar-M - 30 years later...) One of the main reasons to go with the M3 was the larger M mount.....

 

Was the larger mount really caused by optical reasons?

 

As far as we know Leitz experimented with a bayonet mount since the first years after the war at a times when they had not yet reached the optical limits of contemporary screw mount lenses (Summicrons were still ahead). And we have seen "modern" optical designs like the 50 Summilux and Summicron being retrograded to screw-mount some years ago without any loss. At screw-mount times the transmission of optical information was no problem for the mount size, when we remember the 1.9/73, 1.5/50 and 1.5/85 lenses. It was lack of coating, lack of experience and the quality of the glass. Progress of coating, and glass production made possible big steps forward in optical performances of lenses like the last version of the 50mm Elmar, even the Anastigmat for the retro "O-Serie", or some Voigtländer lenses; they weren't bigger than their historical ancestors.

 

On the other hand: where do you see a great step forward in optical design depending on mount size? The R-lenses were bigger, but only better in regions beyond the M-System (makro and tele). Are Zeiss-lenses with (bigger?) mounts for Sony, Canon or Nikon generally better than their ZM-lenses? May be the S-Summarit-lenses are better than M-lenses - I haven't seen a comparison yet. They should have better resolution, less vignetting and distortion at their price with a rather low max. aperture of f/2.5. If Leica would offer M-lenses at a comparable price with this opening, I think those lenses will outperform any other one (I am still dreaming of a 3,5/50 Elmar asph.)

[raizans]

Yes... but they weren't in a niche, at the times... , they were the LEADERS in 35mm photography...they could afford some "diversive" move in their product line... I don't know what happened in their market in 1975-79 (too young and no forums ... )... but I suspect that when they made the M5 - then CL - then admitted M5 was a wrong design - comeback with M4-2... all this ended to a lost of a share of their customer base in favor of SLR (and, regrettably, most of them no red-dotted SLR... )

 

it wasn't just that the m5 was a "wrong decision," but that the cl was a "right decision." leica was ready to stop making rangefinders altogether, and the m4-2 would never have existed if it wasn't for walter kluck.

 

Leica M4-P 70th Anniversary

 

is leica currently, or soon will be, in a position to offer a product similar to the leica cl and its two lenses? they sold many more cl's than m's, mostly because it was smaller, cheaper, and had more features (built-in light meter). it just wasn't profitable because production was outsourced to minolta and it probably ate into m sales.

 

leica has recently developed features that would be useful in a new compact camera system, e.g. interchangeable autofocus lenses for the s2, and live view for the x1 and conjectural r solution. meanwhile, leica's relationship with panasonic seems to have settled on p&s cameras, with only one m4/3 lens. they have repeatedly stressed that they will not become involved in m4/3, and it seems they won't be offering rebadged versions of m4/3 cameras.

 

however, with the x1, they have shown that they accept the aps-c format and have an interest in broadening their customer base. revenue generated by the x1 will be limited because it is a fixed lens camera, and we all know that the money is in selling lenses. everybody always says leica is primarily a lens company, so it's almost a foregone conclusion to me: leica will make an interchangeable lens aps-c compact camera system. it will be smaller, cheaper, and have more features than the m system, and they will make it themselves.

[lct]

I see restrictions in RF, lens and sensor designs but not in the lens mount which is at heart of the M system IMHO. A true M body should work accurately with any old and new M lens w/o having to use coding, filtering or whatever adapters in my opinion. Film does it, digital will remain inferior as long as it cannot do it as well.

[adli]

But is was exactly the strategy they followed from 1954 to 1960 - and it worked.

 

Did it?

 

In the 50, Leica was one of the leading manufacturers of cameras to photojournalists.

 

Leica came with the M3 in 1954. Five years later, Nikon added a mirror and a pentaprism to their SP, introducing the Nikon F. Where are Nikon and Leica today? Nikon has the mass market and Leica is a niche company. Also, most of the photojournalists followed Nikon.

 

I think it would be fair to say that Leica missed an oportunity which they later have struggled to catch up with.

 

From a rangefinder perspective, they are still the company, but looking at what happend to their position after Nikon introduced the Nikon F, business wise something did not work out well in Germany.

[luigi bertolotti]

Did it?

 

In the 50, Leica was one of the leading manufacturers of cameras to photojournalists.

 

Leica came with the M3 in 1954. Five years later, Nikon added a mirror and a pentaprism to their SP, introducing the Nikon F. Where are Nikon and Leica today? Nikon has the mass market and Leica is a niche company. Also, most of the photojournalists followed Nikon.

 

I think it would be fair to say that Leica missed an oportunity which they later have struggled to catch up with.

 

From a rangefinder perspective, they are still the company, but looking at what happend to their position after Nikon introduced the Nikon F, business wise something did not work out well in Germany.

 

That's the perennial question of "How they LOST their leadership ?"...

I think both you and Jaap are right.....

- It WORKED.. but in the RF market which became, in due time, a niche...

- It DID NOT WORK in the global 35mm pro market... probably for they didn't perceive that SLR, with proper set of accessories and right quality, was THE camera for pros... while they quietly introduced the Leicaflex, its (limited, initially) lens set, its (few, initially) accessories, Nikon went on strongly with lenses, finders, motors, backs, zooms... and a compatible cheaper brother (Nikomat - Nikkormat). Leitz lost the position of PRODUCT INNOVATOR in the market (who CAN command high prices), and things went as we know...

 

Japan, in the '60, was still a someway "cheap labor" country... but imho the problem was NOT the cost, or at least not primarly... pricelists of the late '60s / first '70s are instructive about.

[neli]

hm,

i'd rather like to see an M that gave me the possibility of upating to new sensors. or even using different sensors. a low res sensor optimized for high iso, and a super high res sensor that can be as noisy as ac-dc meets iron maiden below iso 200. and maybe even a low power sensor (with whatever characteristics) that quadruples battery life :-)

 

another idea i rather liked that has been on the forum before is that of removing some of the tech from an M9. make the iso a selector switch, remove the lcd altogether, or make it removable and get rid of the c-mode and the auto wind up of the shutter and add a manual cocking lever.

 

this may all be wishful thinking but i don't like all the dslr's because they are so super high tech. computers are high tech so let me use a computer/ipad/iphone for the tech and the camera for taking pictures. i'm not stupid i just don't need the fuss. if i want to delete pictures i can do it on the computer/ipad/iphone at a later point.

i'd like to see the high tech moved to a separate device, like an M-App on the LeicaStore so i can program my M9 from the iphone/ipad/laptop and assign functions to the 4 or 6 or 8 buttons on the back. the most important controls of the leica are covered by the aperture ring the shutter speed dial and the iso dial anyway. get rid of the clutter!

 

oh yeah, and i want this a la carte so i can order it without the leica dot!

[rosuna]

Was the larger mount really caused by optical reasons?

 

 

On the other hand: where do you see a great step forward in optical design depending on mount size? The R-lenses were bigger, but only better in regions beyond the M-System (makro and tele). Are Zeiss-lenses with (bigger?) mounts for Sony, Canon or Nikon generally better than their ZM-lenses? May be the S-Summarit-lenses are better than M-lenses - I haven't seen a comparison yet. They should have better resolution, less vignetting and distortion at their price with a rather low max. aperture of f/2.5. If Leica would offer M-lenses at a comparable price with this opening, I think those lenses will outperform any other one (I am still dreaming of a 3,5/50 Elmar asph.)

 

Yes, there are reasons for a larger mount, specially in digital cameras. It allows a larger last glass element and more back telecentric designs.

 

Canon changed their FD mount for a much larger EOS. Contax did the same with the N mount. Olympus established a very large mount (for their 4/3 system), relative to the diagonal of the format (diameter of the light circle). Etc.

 

Longer lens-to-flange distance is another important factor, so you cannot compare lenses for rangefinder systems and lenses for reflex systems.

[zlatkob]

Nikon went on strongly with lenses, finders, motors, backs, zooms... and a compatible cheaper brother (Nikomat - Nikkormat)

 

The compatible cheaper brother strikes me as a smart business strategy. I wonder how many Nikon users started out with a Nikkormat and eventually upgraded to or added a top-level Nikon F. Likely many.

 

This business strategy seems to be born out by the multitude of cheaper brothers that lead up to today's top pro cameras from Nikon and Canon — all using the same lens mount. Leica's strategy seems to be to let the used market provide the compatible cheaper brothers — the entry-level cameras. But that may not work as well in a time when digital has come to dominate, while film cameras represent most of the used Leica market.

[ho_co]

... but I suspect that when they made the M5 - then CL - then admitted M5 was a wrong design ...

I believe the CL was not pre-planned, but a response to the failure of the M5 in the marketplace. IOW, Leitz needed cashflow and fast. (That wasn't the public explanation, but was recognized within the company.)

 

 

 

Was the larger mount really caused by optical reasons? ...

 

Good question. I don't know whether that was a reason at the time. Once a bayonet was chosen, It had to be bigger in order to accommodate the screw-to-bayonet adapters.

 

But later, particularly during the "speed wars," the advantage of a larger mount was directly felt. Leica regularly mentioned that they were limited by the mount size in creating lenses such as the Noctilux. And Leitz specifically chose a very large mount for the Leicaflex.

 

It may be that we're reading today's understanding back into the thinking of the time when we consider the switch from screw to bayonet mount.

 

 

 

... it may be that the current lens mount is restrictive....

It definitely is, as Rubén said, particularly in designing 'speed giants.'

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

Since Jono brings up the 911point

 

Actually I did in posts #6 and 28. My point remains that Porsche has introduced all kinds of changes, but the basic 911 remains (albeit larger and water cooled), and more radical designs have come the way of new lines altogether.

 

I just would be surprised if Leica killed off the evolution of the M9 with a new name as Jaap posted initially. I wouldn't be surprised if Leica added a new name/line, but I would be very surprised at their not continuing to tweak the M9 (or 10).

 

But, I've been surprised before (see R10).

 

Jeff

[Xmas]

They went to an M mount for the patent, so they were not troubled like they were by LTM clones, all the pre WWII Ge patents were compromised. The viewfinder (M3) was too expensive so they simplified it for the M2, (removed the self timer etc.) to allow the M2 to be more competitive, with the Nikon SP and Canon P. Both were hurting Leitz by late '50s, even when the M mount was protected.

 

Had Nikon, Canon and Zeiss stayed in the rfdr market Leitz might have gone under, by 1970 they were by themselves, and (almost immediately or still) in trouble with the M5.

 

The M mount patents expired 2004, Zeiss, Konica and CV, are nibbling away at Leicas turnover & profit.

 

They need a patent, a good designer, and a pricing policy...

 

Noel