Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #41 Posted September 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Awwwww. A tear rolls down my cheek. Go buy an M3. Save yourself $6,000. Thanks, but I'll settle for the M while you so sensitively dehydrate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 Hi Voigt, Take a look here What we gave up for the M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bocaburger Posted September 27, 2012 Share #42 Posted September 27, 2012 Mnothing: 139mm x 80mm x 42mm (467,040 mm3), weight 680g M5: 155mm x 84mm x 36mm (468,720 mm3), weight 700g. M5 is still the one to beat, but not by much. Mnothing is 3% lighter in weight but only 1/3 of a % smaller in volume. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 27, 2012 Share #43 Posted September 27, 2012 Are there really complaints about the larger display? Voigt had complained about the “bigger Rear Screen”. He appears to be the only one though. Companies like Fuji and Sony have shown that the inclusion of a decent sized display does not have to come at the expense of an over-sized body. The M body is basically the same size as that of the M8 and M9. I don’t need to explain (again) why the M8 and M9 were slightly bigger than the film Ms. And no, Fuji and Sony have shown no such thing. What they have shown is that you can build a smaller camera if you use a smaller sensor, or adopt a shorter flange distance, or do without a rangefinder – or all of the above. Nothing of which helps in designing a new M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted September 27, 2012 Share #44 Posted September 27, 2012 The M body is basically the same size as that of the M8 and M9. I don’t need to explain (again) why the M8 and M9 were slightly bigger than the film Ms.And no, Fuji and Sony have shown no such thing. What they have shown is that you can build a smaller camera if you use a smaller sensor, or adopt a shorter flange distance, or do without a rangefinder – or all of the above. Nothing of which helps in designing a new M. And I don't think I have to explain (again) that making a digital M "slightly bigger than the film Ms" radically altered the "feel" of the camera for the worse. Techno-geeks look at the measurements and weights and ask "what difference does a couple of mms make?", whereas photographers pick up a camera and make a call on how balanced the thing feels. Does anybody seriously believe that an M8 or 9 has the tactile appeal of an M2 or 6? Those few extra mms and the clumsier feel of the shutter release make a huge difference, and the last thing Leica should be doing is making their new model even more bloated. What Fuji and Sony have done is show the spirit of Oskar Barnack in tearing up the rule book and looking forwards rather than backwards. Leica would do well to take inspiration from their efforts and make sure that they remain a viable option for serious photographers as well as bling-obsessed hobbyists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 27, 2012 Share #45 Posted September 27, 2012 And I don't think I have to explain (again) that making a digital M "slightly bigger than the film Ms" radically altered the "feel" of the camera for the worse. And you can cry all day if it helps. It is like it is, and for a good reason. What Fuji and Sony have done is show the spirit of Oskar Barnack in tearing up the rule book and looking forwards rather than backwards. And yet there are those who still love a FF rangefinder camera taking M lenses, and the M is made for them. If you think a rangefinder is obsolete – well, there are lots of alternatives out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 27, 2012 Share #46 Posted September 27, 2012 I guess the SONY RX-1 disproves that statement. No, it doesn't even come close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted September 27, 2012 Share #47 Posted September 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) And you can cry all day if it helps. It is like it is, and for a good reason.And yet there are those who still love a FF rangefinder camera taking M lenses, and the M is made for them. If you think a rangefinder is obsolete – well, there are lots of alternatives out there. So offering an opinion that conflicts with your own amounts to "crying"? Very mature. And where did I say that I believe a "rangefinder is obsolete"? Hoping for an innovative approach to the move from a film to digital M doesn't amount to writing the concept off. If Leica are sensible they'll pay more heed to those who offer constructive criticism than those who mindlessly applaud their every move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artichoke Posted September 27, 2012 Share #48 Posted September 27, 2012 the M typ 240 name portends some fascinating possibilities for Leica's bread & butter product I believe this M will be followed shortly by another, using perhaps the Truesense 29 MP CCD, which offers great promise such an M would be far simpler to implement for Leica & will be far more welcome for me than the M 240, which I think is a way of Leica providing R users an upgrade path that doesn't require building a new R body very few samples from the new sensor are available & the few up are unimpressive even at their web reduced size this is wild speculation on my part, but I believe changing the traditional naming of their M series noteworthy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 27, 2012 Share #49 Posted September 27, 2012 {Snipped}Does anybody seriously believe that an M8 or 9 has the tactile appeal of an M2 or 6? Those few extra mms and the clumsier feel of the shutter release make a huge difference, and the last thing Leica should be doing is making their new model even more bloated. {Snipped} Actually, since you asked, I prefer shooting my M9 (with grip) for long periods of time over my M6 and M3 (and by long periods of time, I mean I'm often shooting with an M9 for 10+ hours). I have larger hands, and that's just the way it goes. I agree with you on the shutter feel though, but I haven't used an M yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted September 27, 2012 Share #50 Posted September 27, 2012 And I don't think I have to explain (again) that making a digital M "slightly bigger than the film Ms" radically altered the "feel" of the camera for the worse. It did alter the feel - for me - somewhat, but not really noticeable... maybe not for the better, but certainly not for the worse. For you, perhaps 'radically' and 'for the worse'. But you do not need to explain (again)... we are all able to make our own observations. For me, I'm quite happy to have a full frame digital rangefinder and the moderate increase in thickness and weight over a film M, doesn't really affect how I use or perceive a digital M. I'm looking forward to the added functionality of the M-nothing even if it does weigh a few more ounces than my M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted September 27, 2012 Share #51 Posted September 27, 2012 Some people loved the feel of the M5, so I've no doubt that they'll also love the M(5d)... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 27, 2012 Share #52 Posted September 27, 2012 Wouldn't it be more fair to compare the size of the M with the M-Mot motorized film cameras? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #53 Posted September 27, 2012 And you can cry all day if it helps. It is like it is, and for a good reason. The reason that it is as it is is because you are what you are: easily satisfied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #54 Posted September 27, 2012 If Porsche turned its 911 into a mini-van, some would probably support it claiming that fit more people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted September 27, 2012 Share #55 Posted September 27, 2012 the size thing appears to be quite personal. some don't find the new M's larger size and heft to be a factor; others do. i guess it surprises me that Leica FF Ms are getting bigger, whereas the FF options of other camera companies are getting smaller and smaller (e.g., Nikon D600, Sony RX1). to me, it matters. to some, it doesn't. just like with most camera things ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 27, 2012 Share #56 Posted September 27, 2012 If you want to build a digital camera which expoits as fully as possible the current set of M lenses, you end up with a body which has another form factor as a film camera exploiting the same lenses. As customer can choose from: Using M lenses with film bodies only Using M lenses with said digital body Using M lenses with a body of the desired dimensions which does not fully exploit the lenses (is there such a thing and is it possible?) Using other lenses with a body with the desired dimensions Not using any lenses and bodies. Take your choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted September 27, 2012 Share #57 Posted September 27, 2012 .........Hoping for an innovative approach to the move from a film to digital M doesn't amount to writing the concept off. .......... 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. Today the recently announced M is virtually the same size as its M9/M9P/MM predecessors, if a little heavier due to an improved battery. Yes it has some new features, but they are optional for those that want them........Live view and video don't have to be used, similarly the EVF/Grip/GPS/Audio accessories don't have to be bought. Without those features what you have is a digital rangefinder model very similar to an M9/P, but with a newer sensor, faster electronics and a degree of weather proofing all powered by a longer lasting battery. And the best bit? It's cheaper than the preceding model! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted September 27, 2012 Share #58 Posted September 27, 2012 If Porsche turned its 911 into a mini-van, some would probably support it claiming that fit more people. Hardly a comparable analogy... but, there are plenty of complainers among the Porsche enthusiasts. Many complained about moving to water cooled engines. And the transition from the 993 to 996 body style. Now, people can't tolerate the electric-assist steering.... It is a very different car than it was 20 years ago... loaded up with 'unnecessary' features like traction control, adaptive suspension, GPS, bluetooth, on-board-computer and for God's sake - cupholders (unusable as they are)! It's a different driving experience, that's for sure. Worse for some of us, better for others. But, where would Porsche be today if they hadn't shoe-horned the best modern technology into something that resembled the form of the classic 911? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted September 27, 2012 Share #59 Posted September 27, 2012 If Porsche turned its 911 into a mini-van, some would probably support it claiming that fit more people. They did and they have.....the Panamera;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #60 Posted September 27, 2012 [ But, where would Porsche be today if they hadn't shoe-horned the best modern technology into something that resembled the form of the classic 911? It would be selling Dodge Caravans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.