Leica M and M-E

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Considering the side-image from Leica's site, I don't understand how this 'extra 5mm' only refers to the thumb rest? The part protrudes no further than the LCD screen at the back?

 

I think it does, but I am not sure.

 

Well, you might take a calliper and measure a M8/9-body from the front side to the surface of the display. Perhaps you would get something near 42mm - not 37mm as given in the specs. If you look at Ict's measurements - which have no typo's compared to Leica's original dates - the M7 and MP have 1mm more than the M8/9:confused:.

 

May be the confusion arised when somebody did not take the display into account when he wrote down the depth of the M8/9-body.

[Advertisement]

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

[plasticman]

May be the confusion arised when somebody did not take the display into account when he wrote down the depth of the M8/9-body.

 

As I said above, it doesn't look to me like the total depth of the two cameras - including the LCD screen and controls - is significantly different, but the depth of the metal body is probably 3 - 4mm fatter on the new M. It simply curves round and envelops the rear controls and screen, whereas they protruded outwards before.

 

In other words, the specified depth isn't just the thumb wheel, regardless of other differences.

[philipus]

it doesn't look to me like the total depth of the two cameras - including the LCD screen and controls - is significantly different, but the depth of the metal body is probably 3 - 4mm fatter on the new M.

 

This matches my conclusions after comparing the depth of the M with that of the M-E at Photokina.

[stevelap]

On David Farkas' site

 

http://www.reddotforum.com/content.php/284-Photokina-2012-Day-3-More-Updates-on-the-New-Leica-M

 

He discussed the new M in more detail with Jesko von Oeynhausen, a Leica M-System product manager, this is one of his questions with Jesko's answer.

 

 

"Is the bottom plate on the M larger than the M9? How does overall body size/weight compare?"

 

"The Leica M does use a different bottom plate, but it less than 1mm wider from front to back. Overall, the camera is a few mm thinner than the M9 when measured from lens mount to the surface of LCD. In practice, there is no real distinguishable difference. The M does feel a little heavier, though. And it should, given that it has a double-sized battery, larger LCD, beefier electronics and more metal (rather than plastic) used."

[UliWer]

... but the depth of the metal body is probably 3 - 4mm fatter on the new M. ...

 

You may believe it or not: the "lower part" of the body has exactly the same size as the M8/M9. The top plate has 1mm more depth. The whole dimension measured from front to the display's surface is identical.-

 

Edit:

Well.... just read the quote from Mr. von Oeynhausen above, so I resign...

Perhaps Andreas transcript from what was said at the meeting last Saturday will give us another version...

 

My advise would be to take an M8 or M9-body to any presentation in the next week and try comapring it to the new M.

[Gerard]

I bought my M9-p in Feb. Many on the forum were already showing concerns about purchasing an M9 so close to the launch of the M(10)240. I'm so glad I went ahead with the purchase; it's an amazing camera that can produce fantastic files.

 

Having seen the 240; it offers nothing I need or want that the M9-p does not deliver. And I personally find it butt ugly.

 

The Monochrome, however, is becoming more tempting every day. Hmm...

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You may believe it or not: the "lower part" of the body has exactly the same size as the M8/M9. The top plate has 1mm more depth. The whole dimension measured from front to the display's surface is identical.

 

I haven't had the chance to compare for myself, other than Leica's own pictures of the cameras, so until I can hold the new camera in my hand I'll have to accept this "less than 1mm" difference. I find it hard to believe given how the camera looks on the site though.

 

On the other hand I do stick by my statement that the sample images look like sh!t.

[viramati]

measured my M9 which is 37 across the top plate and about 42 if you include the screen. So as the thumb rest sticks out as far as the back of the screen maybe they count it as being part of the body and the screen as not?

[Borbarad]

Well, I think is there is some confusion here about the thickness of the new M.

 

So, first of all by sheer outer dimensions the new M is about the same as the old M9... pretty much no difference!

 

The difference only size comes in place when your are looking for a place for your thumb when holding. This is quite simple to figure out:

 

On the old M8/9 there is enough space above the scroll wheel for the thumb and therefore when you hold (thumb on the back and the other ones on front) the "old" M9 feels actually quite slim and more Film M like.

 

Now just look at the Back of the new M. The Space which the M8/9 had is now gone! Instead there is a bit of screen and the new "Arrow Pad". This basically means that once you will hold the new M you will have to place your thumb on the screen or on the "Arrow Pad"!

 

And this makes the new M bigger!

 

B

[ymc226]

I think I'm going to get this in addition to the M Monochrome although will wait until early testers report back. Do you still have to remove the bottom plate to replace the battery and SDHC card?

 

Just got the D800 and I absolutely love that I can switch out SD and CF cards at will even with the Really Right Stuff L plate in place. With the RRS L plate with grip on the M9-P, the tolerances are very tight and it is a pain to remove and replace the bottom plate.

[hoppyman]

 

I think it does' date=' but I am not sure.

 

Well, you might take a calliper and measure a M8/9-body from the front side to the surface of the display. Perhaps you would get something near 42mm - not 37mm as given in the specs. If you look at Ict's measurements - which have no typo's compared to Leica's original dates - the M7 and MP have 1mm more than the M8/9:confused:.

 

May be the confusion arised when somebody did not take the display into account when he wrote down the depth of the M8/9-body.[/quote']

 

UliWer, I did exactly that with my M9 baseplate, 35.68mm. Since no one thought to have a vernier caliper in their pocket at Photokina I guess we need to wait for the first review of a production camera now.

 

Part of the helpful info from Philipus is that he put the baseplates back to back and did not see the 5mm difference there. There seems to be continuing confusion and I guess interpretation and different frames of reference. My 2 cents worth of interpretation is that the external WxHxD of the body without all protrusions remains exactly the same. I also think that the references to a 1mm thicker top plate are the material change, not an external dimension change.

[brill64]

It will be interesting how the B&W image quality compares between the M and the M-Monochrom.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

 

..the mm has a ccd & the m a cmos with in-camera file processing so the ccd will win hands down for b+w, no..?

[lct]

Why so?

[luigi bertolotti]

..the mm has a ccd & the m a cmos with in-camera file processing so the ccd will win hands down for b+w, no..?

 

I think isn't a matter of "hands down"... even if I agree that probably a face-to-face comparision between a MM file and a M bw file, both of them with "basic" processing will see an advantage of MM expecially at ISO in the high side : but I also think that taking out a good BW from a good color file is a process that can be VERY finely tuned by an expert people with the right Software tools (and then, there is the printing process... but of course another matter) : BW in digital is really an art in itself... I have just seen, at a lab in my town, an impressive series of BW images processed from a CMOS sensor (Nikon) by a very smart operator of the lab , and was frankly stunned.

[Bundestrainer]

I tried out the M yesterday and compared its size with that of the M9. The size of the sheer bodies is identical.

 

If you want to read about my thoughts on the new M, please have a look at my blog:

My thoughts on the new Leica M. - paulbuchs Webseite!

[lct]

Compared to the M8.2, the M 240's top plate looks significantly thicker but the overall width is very close.

P'shop comparo

[chris_tribble]

I tried out the M yesterday and compared its size with that of the M9. The size of the sheer bodies is identical.

 

If you want to read about my thoughts on the new M, please have a look at my blog:

My thoughts on the new Leica M. - paulbuchs Webseite!

 

I'm trying to work out why the guy in the picture thought he needed to use it like a Nex...

[Bundestrainer]

I'm trying to work out why the guy in the picture thought he needed to use it like a Nex...

 

That's easy to explain: we were a group of a few people standing around the presenter and he wanted to show us the liveview mode on the screen. After that he used the external finder.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[okram]

Compared to the M8.2, the M 240's top plate looks significantly thicker but the overall width is very close.

P'shop comparo

 

M8.2 is smaller of the two pictures as the 50 Lux is smaller on the right picture. If You match the lenses, You will se that the top are approx. same size. The lens mount has moved a bit on the M (240).

 

Photographs have been taken from different angle a bit, but here is the match: first with lenses matching, then bodies best matching.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[lct]

Lenses have (more or less) the same size. It's just that they protrude farther on the M 240.