When can we expect a reasonably good screen and fast image review?

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If they're smart, they will use all this liberated space for a larger battery

[AlanG]

If they're smart, they will use all this liberated space for a larger battery

 

With better electronics they'll be able to use a smaller battery.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

Would M users rather have an M the same size as, say an MP, with a battery that has double the shots in it when compared to a current digital M, or a smaller one, with same shot capacity, just so that Leica could use a smaller battery?

 

Rhetorical question, I suspect.

[diogenis]

Alan, why don't you just go make your own camera? You can call it Meica or whatever you want. I will also gladly found your new company as soon as we agree with the details

I'm asking because it seems you got everything figured out.

 

Edit: Jaap will be the CTO, I will handle customer support, you will be the president ofcourse

Edited July 9, 2011 by diogenis

[AlanG]

Would M users rather have an M the same size as, say an MP, with a battery that has double the shots in it when compared to a current digital M, or a smaller one, with same shot capacity, just so that Leica could use a smaller battery?

 

Rhetorical question, I suspect.

 

Consider that a similar size battery can drive a 5DII for around 850 shots and this is several years old technology already. so I don't see why 1,000 shots per charge would be out of the question for an M10.

Since one attribute of the M is that it is smaller than most DSLRs I would think they'd want to keep this attribute even as DSLRs and other cameras get smaller. So using a bigger battery in the M vs. making the camera smaller would not be a good choice in my mind. They could always make an external battery holder if there was demand for more capacity but I think carrying an extra battery is an easy solution.

[AlanG]

Alan, why don't you just go make your own camera? You can call it Meica or whatever you want. I will also gladly found your new company as soon as we agree with the details

I'm asking because it seems you got everything figured out.

 

Edit: Jaap will be the CTO, I will handle customer support, you will be the president ofcourse

 

Are you looking to invest? How much money can you put up? I don't need you for customer support as I have friends in Mumbai for that already.

 

While Leica M sales are doing fine for now and may continue for some time, if you look at what is happening in the camera industry, some of the things that make it an attractive choice are being impacted by newer, smaller, faster, much less expensive cameras. And the M won't be able to simply rest on its laurels as others keep improving and nibbling away at it.

Edited July 9, 2011 by AlanG

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, your über-M is going to be a lot smaller, with a huge rear screen (fold out, IIRC) and an external battery holder.

 

Got any concept sketches we can see?

 

Ta

[diogenis]

Are you looking to invest? How much money can you put up?

 

I dunno, how much you need?

Meica I can imagine, will be: EVF only, AF only, take M lenses only , will have LCD 5" with retina display ofcourse, dimensions smaller than an M etc...

[andybarton]

The Euromillions lottery is going to pay out £166m this week (or sometime).

 

That should give you a good start - get down to your newsagent today, before it's to late

[AlanG]

So, your über-M is going to be a lot smaller, with a huge rear screen (fold out, IIRC) and an external battery holder.

 

Got any concept sketches we can see?

 

Ta

 

I didn't say a lot smaller, just the possibility of it being somewhat smaller as time goes on. Don't put words in my mouth... I would nix the external battery holder as I said. I think it is unwise in a small camera. But of course it is possible to make an external battery holder but I can't see why anyone would want one without it including a vertical grip. (Probably not in demand on an M.)

 

And plenty of cameras that are much smaller than the M have a larger screen, so that is pretty easy.

 

I'm just pointing out that contrary to what others have said, technological changes will not result in a larger camera. If anything they could result in a smaller lighter camera. Otherwise, before long, people will be looking at the M as a largish camera.

Edited July 9, 2011 by AlanG

[andybarton]

Sorry if I overstated the smallness.

 

Those cameras that you refer to as much smaller don't have rangefinders, for which a minimum body thickness is required.

 

Is the average pair of hands getting smaller, I wonder?

Edited July 9, 2011 by andybarton

[AlanG]

Sorry if I overstated the smallness.

 

Those cameras that you refer to as much smaller don't have rangefinders, for which a minimum body thickness is required.

 

Is the average pair of hands getting smaller, I wonder?

 

A lot of photographers prefer the larger Nikon and Canon pro bodies. They certainly offer some advantages and maybe the pro photographers like that they project a pro image too. But I've owned a few and prefer smaller lighter bodies. (As long as they do what I need of course.)

 

I don't think hand size is a factor. It is more about making the camera easy to hold. And a lot of cameras that are smaller than a Leica are easier to hold and use. My old Konica Minolta A2 is much smaller but very easy to grip and shoot with. I wear XL size gloves.

 

You pretty much just need to grip something on the right side of the camera with your right hand. The left side of most cameras isn't gripped at all.

 

The whole camera does not have to be thick to accommodate any viewfinder/rangefinder. The only part of the Leica thickness that is set is the flange to focal plane distance. The current design of the M was a result of the film cassette, horizontal focal plane cloth shutter spools, film advance mechanism, and take-up spool. So while one may like this traditional look it is not utilitarian for a digital camera and is not what anyone would come up with today as a camera design if film never existed.

 

You just have to decide if your preference for the traditional look and shape outweighs the other possibilities.

Edited July 9, 2011 by AlanG

[pico]

Volkswagen owns Porsche and a heck of a lot of other brands. The 'Porsche' has (in the USA) at one time been a rebranded VW and Audi.

 

Leica has no such power and diversification.

[AlanG]

Volkswagen owns Porsche and a heck of a lot of other brands. The 'Porsche' has (in the USA) at one time been a rebranded VW and Audi.

 

Leica has no such power and diversification.

 

Are you getting at that Leica's small size means they can't easily and quickly incorporate new electronics and new LCDs? Maybe so. I can't say. But why Leica ended up so small is a pretty sad story in my opinion and I hope they can change this if that is what it takes to have the resources and be nimble enough to keep its products state of the art.

 

Otherwise, I am not sure of your point. VW/Audi also owns Lamborghini now. Fiat owns Ferrari and Maserati. I believe that all of these cars use pretty much the latest technology in parts, design, and manufacturing. Porsche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini have all produced a steady flow of new models in recent years and seem to be doing better and selling more since they were acquired by larger companies. (Rolls Royce and Bentley have similar stories. But Jaguar and Land Rover have had a bumpier road.) Do you think Leica would be better off as a division of Panasonic for instance?

 

After the war VW was a tiny maker of a weird little car and nobody in England or the US wanted to take over the company. So? They figured it out and grew to become a giant. I don't think any 911s were rebranded VWs. The Cayenne has a VW chassis and there have been a lot of VW components in various Porsches over the years before the acquisition. (Porsche tried to buy VW first and then got taken over.) There might be some tickle down of technology from the parent to help make the high performance stuff too. Or trickle up from Porsche. Who knows?

Edited July 9, 2011 by AlanG

[andybarton]

Leica were never "big" to start with.

[bill]

I thought we were bigger than our ancestors, not smaller Ever seen "Zoolander"? This obsession with miniaturisation reminds me of his mobile phone.

 

Still, I suppose it makes a change from getting all hot and wet over live view - that'll be back as techno-obsession du jour when there's an R in the month again, no doubt...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Leica were never "big" to start with.

 

Neither were most camera companies when they started. But Leica was a division of a larger microscope company. I guess Zeiss was bigger when they started making cameras. Nikon was once a large optical company but after the war they were small, couldn't make products for the military, and turned to consumer camera lenses and cameras kind of out of desperation. They were way behind Leica, Zeiss and others at the time.

 

But Leica once was more prominent in the field and much more of an industry "leader" than it is now.

 

As for the size of our hands... and cameras, the camera only has to be large enough to accommodate your hand where you grip it. Beyond that if the viewfinder and LCD are big enough and you can work all of the controls easily, how will a larger size help much?

 

You could always have a small lead plate that bolts to the camera if you want more mass for shooting hand held at slow speeds.

Edited July 9, 2011 by AlanG

[atufte]

I have been really annoyed with the lousy LCD on the M9 (espesially the lag of a sharp review picture), and just got on with it, but today i bought a silver chrome Leica M9-P, and one of my biggest surprises was the improved monitor, alltough still a low res 2.5" it is clearly a better, higher quality LCD, instant sharpness, much better contrast and sharpness, and much better to view in broad daylight...i think this is a reason to upgrade to M9-P alone, at least for me...

[pico]

Are you getting at that Leica's small size means they can't easily and quickly incorporate new electronics and new LCDs?

 

I believe that is true that they cannot without a dramatic, killer increase in price.

 

Maybe so. I can't say. But why Leica ended up so small is a pretty sad story in my opinion and I hope they can change this if that is what it takes to have the resources and be nimble enough to keep its products state of the art.

 

Perhaps they are small because they would rather survive, regardless of size, than evaporate under economic distress.

 

[...]

Do you think Leica would be better off as a division of Panasonic for instance?

 

No, but when introducing a model that is very different in form from their traditional M, under the M brand, it is too disruptive for the structure of the company. Best to spin that effort to a separate incorporated company with a different name.

 

After the war VW was a tiny maker of a weird little car and nobody in England or the US wanted to take over the company. So? They figured it out and grew to become a giant.

 

We can thank the utter crap that came out of Detroit for that. The VW Bug was also a piece of crap, but an affordable piece of crap until Ford introduced the Pinto at $200 less. (BTW, I own three Bugs today - 1958 through 1972).

 

I don't think any 911s were rebranded VWs.

 

It was the VW 914. I swear Lego designed it, but with an improved engine.

 

Among us old BUG fanatics there used to be a lot of talk like we read here regarding changing the M. Not so much anymore now that Subaru has made the ultimate affordable boxer engine. Some of us are installing them in Bugs.

We love the simplicity of the Bug - after we replace the entire brake system and suspension, wheels, tyres and engine.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pico

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[zlatkob]

I have been really annoyed with the lousy LCD on the M9 (espesially the lag of a sharp review picture), and just got on with it, but today i bought a silver chrome Leica M9-P, and one of my biggest surprises was the improved monitor, alltough still a low res 2.5" it is clearly a better, higher quality LCD, instant sharpness, much better contrast and sharpness, and much better to view in broad daylight...i think this is a reason to upgrade to M9-P alone, at least for me...

 

I am surprised that this is not mentioned in the M9-P product description. But that is really great news! It appears that the answer to the question raised by the OP as to when we can expect a reasonably good screen and fast image review is ... right NOW.

 

So, has the improved screen suddenly turned the M camera into a Swiss Army Knife DSLR? And with this new direction toward providing needless features and trying to be like other cameras, is the M9-P no longer a minimalist tool? ... Just ... kidding!

 

It shows that Leica is steadily refining the digital M ... a big thumbs up for that!