kdriceman Posted September 27, 2012 Share #61 Posted September 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) They did and they have.....the Panamera;) Thank you... my wife will be shocked when I announce we are getting a new mini van! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 Hi kdriceman, Take a look here What we gave up for the M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tomasis7 Posted September 27, 2012 Share #62 Posted September 27, 2012 After these loyalist outpourings, some facts. The baseplate of a film M (I measured my old M4-P) is 138x31mm. That of my M9 is 138x35mm. It is not yet clear how deep the M-nothing is. Some say, the same as the M9. Others say 1mm deeper. Some say 5mm deeper, but that seems to be the thumb shelf. The point is that the baseplate dimensions define the body we actually grip. We don't grip any protrusions, like the monitor screen. Our fingers grasp the body that is a vertical projection of the baseplate. That is what we feel. Well, you say, what are four millimeters? I am reminded of the old tale of the straw that broke the camel's back. In human perception, to our muscular sense, all millimeters are not created alike. There are limits, thresholds, that change what we feel. And frankly, all digital M cameras to date do feel clumsy. When you handle a M4 or M6, and then grip a M9, then that is very obvious. The taller top plate ushered in by the M6TTL is simply ugly, and we can resign ourselves to that. But the M8, 9 FEEL ugly. And if the actual body of the M-nothing is really another mm deeper, then it has passed the M5 limit. My M4-P feels like an alert, lithe animal, ready to follow my intentions. The M8, M9 feel like brick. A small one, to be sure. But an inert, unwieldy mass. Not something alive. Slimming the M should be high on the Leica agenda. I don't know what my final reaction to the M-nothing will be. The Devil is in the details, they say, and I agree. I won't make any decision until I have seen and grasped (!) the details. What I know is that the IQ now produced by a 24x36mm sensor is so great, far beyond what I could do with 6x6cm or even 6x9cm film, and actually more than I can reasonably use, that I would gladly accept a smaller sensor size if this would give me back the Leica feeling. The old man from the Age of the M3 I dont agree that we dont hold grip on protusions. On M9 it is simply no flat place to hold on. I usually plce thumb in almost in middle of back in line between hotshoe and dial. baseplate is not accurate way to measure how thick body is regardig ergonomical grip. I happen to hold on lcd screen then it will be measured between lcd screen and front leatherette It explains why you say that m4 feels as little animal. It is more in equation than simple baseplate measurement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 27, 2012 Share #63 Posted September 27, 2012 So offering an opinion that conflicts with your own amounts to "crying"? Failing to accept something Leica cannot change – after 6 years! – does. And where did I say that I believe a "rangefinder is obsolete"? You implied as much. If you want a digital, M-compatible rangefinder than you have to accept what that entails – a camera that is more or less the size of the M, M9, or M8. All those innovative approaches you’ve mentioned imply to forego full M-support. So you have to make a choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted September 27, 2012 Share #64 Posted September 27, 2012 I'm struggling to see what it is that you're trying to debate here.The film to digital M transition happened six years ago with the M8 and continued into the full-frame M9 models, that's when the M body gained in size and weight compared to film M's...! Leica's transition to digital is ongoing. It wasn't simply over and done with when they launched the fairly dismal M8. The M9 was better but it had glitches that would have seemed unforgivable in a Canon or Nikon; it really shouldn't be a valid subject for discussion whether or not a particular Sandisk card will be compatible. Leicas are physically growing at a time when other manufacturers are looking to shrink their cameras. Until a few weeks ago people on this forum were happy to boast that the M9 was the smallest full frame camera, but when the Sony RX1 was announced everybody's favourite dentist was straight on to the case claiming Leicas were better because they were bigger. The paradigm apparently shifted overnight. Rather than working towards a fairly cludgy solution for R users in the form of CMOS and EVF, it would have been way better if Leica had utilised evolving technology in an effort to get back to the sleekness and tactility of a film M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted September 27, 2012 Share #65 Posted September 27, 2012 Michael, I didn't "imply" that I believed "rangefinders are obsolete". That was simply an attempt by you to sidestep the salient points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 27, 2012 Share #66 Posted September 27, 2012 Michael, I didn't "imply" that I believed "rangefinders are obsolete". That was simply an attempt by you to sidestep the salient points. I’ve got it that you would prefer a thinner M. But the harsh reality is that while Leica could build a camera that is the size you prefer (and who knows, they actually might), it wouldn’t be an M. Stubbornly denying that unfortunate fact won’t get you anywhere. (Unless you are more clever than Leica’s engineers and you have actually found a way to build a smaller M. In that case you probably shouldn’t waste your time with us nitwits but talk to Leica. I’m sure they would be all ears.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 27, 2012 Share #67 Posted September 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Isn’t it funny? After all the clamouring for a bigger, higher resolution LCD, now there are complaints about the larger display. Yes, it is rather funny. And, don't forget all the clamoring for the last 6 years for more exposures per battery. Now, the battery capacity has been doubled, the efficiency of the electronics improved, and the shutter completely redesigns to make room for the bigger battery - only to be received by complaints about the camera being too heavy now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted September 27, 2012 Share #68 Posted September 27, 2012 I’ve got it that you would prefer a thinner M. But the harsh reality is that while Leica could build a camera that is the size you prefer (and who knows, they actually might), it wouldn’t be an M... From the perspective of somebody who loves the simplicity, balance and shutter release of a film M, the new M itself isn't an M. Unless of course you consider the M5 to have been the defining camera of Leica's film era. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted September 27, 2012 Share #69 Posted September 27, 2012 There's no pleasing people. All I can say is that the best camera you have is the one in your hand when your taking the photograph Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #70 Posted September 27, 2012 Yes, it is rather funny. And, don't forget all the clamoring for the last 6 years for more exposures per battery. Now, the battery capacity has been doubled, the efficiency of the electronics improved, and the shutter completely redesigns to make room for the bigger battery - only to be received by complaints about the camera being too heavy now. If you had an automobile that you wanted to travel farther without a refill, would you find ways to make it lighter and more efficient or would you just add more weight and turn it into an oil truck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 27, 2012 Share #71 Posted September 27, 2012 Leicas are physically growing at a time when other manufacturers are looking to shrink their cameras. Until a few weeks ago people on this forum were happy to boast that the M9 was the smallest full frame camera, but when the Sony RX1 was announced everybody's favourite dentist was straight on to the case claiming Leicas were better because they were bigger. The paradigm apparently shifted overnight. Rather than working towards a fairly cludgy solution for R users in the form of CMOS and EVF, it would have been way better if Leica had utilised evolving technology in an effort to get back to the sleekness and tactility of a film M. Comparing the resources and design abilities of electronic giants such as Sony with Leica is unrealistic. I think it is quite remarkable what Leica is achieving considering they are such a small player compared with Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung. They obviously have to target their primary market base of M users and can't depart much from that design requirement. I would expect that the M is about as small as Leica can make it today with their resources. And going to lighter composite materials might not have been acceptable to many users. The body has to have room for a battery, full frame sensor and focal plane shutter (from a third party,) some electronics and the rangefinder/viewfinder. And it has to be compatible with a range of existing lenses. Perhaps they could have saved some size and weight by eliminating the removable base plate. (Which serves no useful purpose that I can see.) A little door over the card and battery would have worked. Ideally this would have been on the left hand side so that a grip could be attached without covering the battery and the card. The RX1 doesn't have a focal plane shutter or a rangefinder/viewfinder. And it has a sensor that may be optimized for a single focal length compact lens that is made just for this camera. It would figure that Sony is ahead in miniaturizing the electronics but that alone does not make the camera so small. Should they get enough resources in the future, they might decide to also develop a new system from a clean slate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted September 27, 2012 Share #72 Posted September 27, 2012 All these complaints about "drastically" changing the handling of the camera are welcome to me. All those people who think it is such a drastic change should not buy an M, as they will be disappointed it was not made to their personal specifications. That will leave more in the supply chain for those like me who think the M is a nice evolutionary leap forward even if its dimensions and weight are changed slightly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 27, 2012 Share #73 Posted September 27, 2012 If you had an automobile that you wanted to travel farther without a refill, would you find ways to make it lighter and more efficient or would you just add more weight and turn it into an oil truck? False comparison; last I checked, oil trucks are quite a bit bigger than cars, not just heavier. Different body materials could perhaps be used to reduce weight and retain strength, but in the auto world these composites come at a steep price. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron (Netherlands) Posted September 27, 2012 Share #74 Posted September 27, 2012 My impression is that for the ones who think that the new M is getting too big and too heavy - 0,5 cm is not something that can be overlooked to easily- the X2 is a very attractive alternative already. I must admit when the X2 came out I started thinking how nice it would be selling off my current M's and travelling again lightweight with a superb camera and (only one) lens... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 27, 2012 Share #75 Posted September 27, 2012 Comparing the resources and design abilities of electronic giants such as Sony with Leica is unrealistic. It's hard to imagine that Leica would not have slimed down the M if at all possible. Personally I'd love a digital M the size of my old IIIc but that's just not going to happen. The camera is still much more compact than smaller than comparable FF DSLR's. Don't compare the weight as one of the things we like about Leica's is that they're built like tanks. Personally, I like the weight of these cameras as they sit with greater stability in my hands. And I agree that comparisons with Sony are moot. et's wait until they bring out an RX-1 with interchangeable M-mount lenses and inbuilt optical RF/VF:rolleyes:... Over the years Sony proudly made it's name with minaturisation (and has continued to specialise in this area) and has done what no other company in the world could do. For example, who remembers the Sony IC-120 - the smallest transistor radio ever built - I have two, given to me by a patient, and both still work... ICR-120 Radio Sony; Tokyo, build 1969/1970, 28 pictures, 1 s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 27, 2012 Share #76 Posted September 27, 2012 ...My M4-P feels like an alert, lithe animal, ready to follow my intentions. The M8, M9 feel like brick. A small one, to be sure. But an inert, unwieldy mass. Not something alive. Slimming the M should be high on the Leica agenda. ... When I first touched the M8 after knowing only the M6 before, I immediately thought: oh it's fat! I am now used to the M8 and M9 and touching the M for the first time, I did not notice any difference - though may be my fingers were not calibrated exactly. I also must confess that I am just a sissy amateur user, who usually puts his precious cam in an "ever-ready-case". - I sorted out my calliper measuring the M9 in Luigi's half-case: 41.5mm (the display is just above the case level). M6 in Leica Case: 42.5mm. M3 in the brown Leica "tank-case" (which I don't use as I am confident that suddden fiendly attacks will be rare...): 42.5mm. Though the IIIf in Luigi's half-case again shows what could be wished for: 36mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 27, 2012 Share #77 Posted September 27, 2012 It's hard to imagine that Leica would not have slimed down the M if at all possible. Personally I'd love a digital M the size of my old IIIc but that's just not going to happen.... Maybe... if they some day will make a FF digital with EVF only... it will have the size of a Barnack... after all, the need for the large optical VF of Ms (plus the RF system) eats away considerably space both in height and depth... an EVF Nex' style is located in a volume comparable, in height, to Barnacks' VF/RF... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 27, 2012 Share #78 Posted September 27, 2012 Let's hope that the EVF-only retro-Barnack camera won't get a new VIOOH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 27, 2012 Share #79 Posted September 27, 2012 My impression is that for the ones who think that the new M is getting too big and too heavy - 0,5 cm is not something that can be overlooked to easily- Please try and keep up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 27, 2012 Share #80 Posted September 27, 2012 It's quite simple chaps, if you don't like the M buy an ME. Or if that's too fat for you buy another brand of digital rangefinder. Oh, might be a problem with that!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.