What we gave up for the M

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have difficulty understanding all this talk about the size of the M. The fact that the M-E is virtually the same size as the M9 shows that technology hasn't reached the point where a digital M will fit in the form factor of an analog M. So, for now, we have what we have, like it or not.

 

What to me matters more than the depth of the body is the implementation and user-friendliness of the various functions, placement of buttons etc. I found the M instantly likeable (or should that be Leicable? ) and very well laid out button-wise.

 

I am considering the M but will reserve ultimate decision until I have seen reviews and have had enough time to try it. In the meantime I am happy shooting with the TTL.

[Advertisement]

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

[zlatkob]

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.

 

I have the perfect solution that will restore tradition to the digital M. It involves just two changes:

1. Make the battery really small so that it lasts for just 36 exposures and then needs to be replaced with a fresh battery. This way, the body will be light again.

2. Remove the LCD so that there is no image preview; this way the body will be thin again.

These two simple changes will restore the M tradition and quiet all of the complaints.

 

OK ... never mind ... that would be a terrible digital camera.

 

It is likely that some future technology will enable both a thinner body and a smaller battery. But in the meantime, we have to accept what is available.

 

Photographers' desires for traditional forms is a kind of nostalgia. It sometimes conflicts with photographers' desires for improved performance & functionality (lasting batteries, better LCD, weather resistance, thumb grip, etc.). These conflicting desires exist within the same photographers. In the end, a camera company can't really build for nostalgia at the expense of performance. While that might win over a few buyers, I believe that most buyers — even those with conflicting desires — will ultimately choose performance over nostalgia. This happens when they get to the point of actually spending money. That's when the thought of getting worse performance for one's money becomes very unappealing. Hence, when it comes to the business of selling cameras, Leica can be well-guided by the original post ...

 

But OK, I'll buy one anyway because it shoots faster, promises better images and might be more weather resistant. I also like the new red or white frame lines and thumb stub that will help me grip it better.

 

Still, I think it is amazing how much of the traditional form is retained in the new M. There is no other full-frame digital camera that retains so much. So I think it is not just a question of viewing the glass as half full vs. half empty. I think that any realistic measure would view the glass as at least 95% full.

[AlanJW]

I am sure the M7 was an abomination to some. What an outrage. An auto exposure mode and a battery.

[bill]

It's simple. Want a film M form factor and superlative performance - buy a film M.

 

Happy to put up with middle-age spread (pretty inevitable over 50...) and superlative performance - buy a digi M.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy

[Voigt]

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

 

All one really has to do is eliminate some of the added features/accessories that use up too much energy. The Leica M is trying to be a Leica M, a Leica R and a motion picture camera (with sound). It's trying to take too many people to too many destinations. If Leica is truly designing a Porsche, it shouldn't have to also serve as a bus.

[Voigt]

I have difficulty understanding all this talk about the size of the M. The fact that the M-E is virtually the same size as the M9 shows that technology hasn't reached the point where a digital M will fit in the form factor of an analog M.

 

The fact is that the M-E is(!) the M9, a camera introduced more than three years ago. And technology has(!) advanced.

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

All one really has to do is eliminate some of the added features/accessories that use up too much energy. The Leica M is trying to be a Leica M' date=' a Leica R and a motion picture camera (with sound). It's trying to take too many people to too many destinations. If Leica is truly designing a Porsche, it shouldn't have to also serve as a bus.[/quote']

 

What features/accessories, specifically, are you referring to and how much weight will these features save? Outside of removing the sensor, LCD and associated electronics, I doubt you are going to gain much in terms of size, but of course, you would be able to dramatically reduce the mass of the battery...

[UliWer]

Well, there was a way to reduce the depth of the body, if it is true that the sensor isn't just a piece of glass but has some electronic devices behind which need space:

 

You could reduce the distance betwen the bayonet and the sensor. This has been unchanged since film times in 1954 - and don't you think technology has advanced in almost 60 years?

[Voigt]

What features/accessories, specifically, are you referring to and how much weight will these features save? Outside of removing the sensor, LCD and associated electronics, I doubt you are going to gain much in terms of size, but of course, you would be able to dramatically reduce the mass of the battery...

 

If the M didn't have to support the R lenses, it would require less live-view power and if it didn't do cinema it would use even less power. If a smaller, high-quality screen could be used, still more energy could be saved. Then perhaps the battery could be made smaller, thinner and lighter as might the rest of the camera. I'm convinced that with today's technology the M9 could now be made faster, smaller and with better image quality, and that, in my opinion, would have been a better path to take in the evolution of this M camera. The R lenses should have their own separate bodies. And basic cinema capability is so common-place nowadays that it was not even worth including.

[Rick]

 

The fact is that the M-E is(!) the M9, a camera introduced more than three years ago. And technology has(!) advanced.

 

I didn't quite understand what you were talking about in your previous posts but, now that you added the exclamation points I understand now.

[kdriceman]

 

If the M didn't have to support the R lenses' date=' it would require less live-view power and if it didn't do cinema it would use even less power. If a smaller, high-quality screen could be used, still more energy could be saved. Then perhaps the battery could be made smaller, thinner and lighter as might the rest of the camera. I'm convinced that with today's technology the M9 could now be made faster, smaller and with better image quality, and that, in my opinion, would have been a better path to take in the evolution of this M camera. The R lenses should have their own separate bodies. And basic cinema capability is so common-place nowadays that it was not even worth including.[/quote']

 

Now this is just stabbing around in the dark.... This forum has a bunch of armchair engineers second guessing the tradeoffs the real engineers have had to make as well as the tradeoffs the marketing people had to make. Perhaps someone will make a lightweight, low capacity battery for the M and those that want to save a couple ounces can turn off all these features and be happy at last.

[UliWer]

... If a smaller, high-quality screen could be used, still more energy could be saved. Then perhaps the battery could be made smaller, thinner and lighter as might the rest of the camera. I'm convinced that with today's technology the M9 could now be made faster, smaller ....

 

It was my impression, that the main issue about the digital M was the depth of the body. One can easily look how much space is between the film and the shell by opening the rear window of a film-M. I measure 6mm. I am sure you know a digital sensor with contacts and all it needs to work which has an overall thickness of 6mm. If you add the display you get already more depth for the body. To stay in the limits of a film M you have to reduce the distance between bayonet and sensor. I think you know what that would mean. Batteries are irrelevant.

[mjh]

You could reduce the distance betwen the bayonet and the sensor. This has been unchanged since film times in 1954 - and don't you think technology has advanced in almost 60 years?

Indeed all the new camera systems introduced within the last three to four years do specify a shorter flange distance than the M system. There has been a clear trend towards large throat diameters (in relation to the image size), short flange distances, and near-telecentric lens designs. Olympus had been right all along; all the new systems have vindicated the theoretical considerations that had led to the FourThirds standard. If Leica should get around to design an entirely new system, I have no doubt it would share these features.

 

But that would be a departure from the M system. M lenses could still be adapted, just as they could be adapted to nearly all the other mirrorless cameras out there, but focusing would have to rely on the live view image.

 

Reducing the depth of the body while staying within the limits imposed by the M system would be a daunting task. With the given flange distance, shaving off a few mm from the body would require a tube to protrude from the body so the flange distance was preserved. Achieving the mechanical rangefinder coupling through the tube would pose some challenge, and I fear the optical and mechanical parts of the rangefinder would require some protrusions of their own. It could turn out to be a seriously ugly design.

[Voigt]

It was my impression, that the main issue about the digital M was the depth of the body. One can easily look how much space is between the film and the shell by opening the rear window of a film-M. I measure 6mm. I am sure you know a digital sensor with contacts and all it needs to work which has an overall thickness of 6mm. If you add the display you get already more depth for the body. To stay in the limits of a film M you have to reduce the distance between bayonet and sensor. I think you know what that would mean. Batteries are irrelevant.

 

Then what in your opinion is making the new M chubbier?

[UliWer]

The dimensions of the camera don't depend on my opinion. Your assumption that the body of the new M is "chubbier" is based on which facts?

[mjh]

Then what in your opinion is making the new M chubbier?

Only your preconception that is was, when in reality it isn’t. The new M has different protrusions than the old, but it is still roughly the same size.

[Voigt]

The dimensions of the camera don't depend on my opinion. Your assumption that the body of the new M is "chubbier" is based on which facts?

 

That people who attended Photokina have told me that it felt thicker. That Leica states that it is thicker. That people on the internet who have handled it said it was thicker and heavier, And finally in that the pictures of the bigger battery seem to indicate that the body is thicker. What makes you believe that it's not? Do you have some information that indicates that all I've seen and heard is incorrect or is that just your assumption?

[zlatkob]

If the M didn't have to support the R lenses, it would require less live-view power and if it didn't do cinema it would use even less power. If a smaller, high-quality screen could be used, still more energy could be saved. Then perhaps the battery could be made smaller, thinner and lighter as might the rest of the camera. I'm convinced that with today's technology the M9 could now be made faster, smaller and with better image quality, and that, in my opinion, would have been a better path to take in the evolution of this M camera. The R lenses should have their own separate bodies. And basic cinema capability is so common-place nowadays that it was not even worth including.

 

However, you mentioned you will buy the new M. So you are voting with your wallet. Despite your expressed misgivings, you are affirming Leica's new design decisions. If enough people vote this way, it will tell Leica that photographers are willing to pay for performance and features. It also will also signal that photographers disfavor the lower-weight, non-video, non-liveview design of the substantially lower-priced M-E.

 

I also think you're putting too much blame on the video and live view. A larger battery may have found its way into the new M even without video & live view, if only for other performance reasons. The battery of the M8/M9 was not a great performer, so a substantial upgrade of the battery would have been welcomed by many stills-only photographers.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Voigt]

Only your preconception that is was, when in reality it isn’t. The new M has different protrusions than the old, but it is still roughly the same size.

 

What does "roughly" mean, Michael? Maybe 5mm? And how does roughly translate to weight? Three or four ounces? I generally count protrusions when I measure things, especially important protrusions. And real photographers are generally more sensitive to camera weights since they have to carry them all day long and not just occasionally hold them over a work bench.

[UliWer]

I fear I was the first one in this Forum to remark that according to the technical specs of the new M compared to those of the M9 it was 5mm deeper. So I have some responsibility for the confusion. I first thought that the extra 5 mm were caused by measuring the thumb grip, which is not true.

 

The comparison between the data given in the two specs was wrong: the spec for the M9 says it's 37mm deep (1 mm less than the MP:confused:) !!). 37mm is only true if you don't take the display into account (as well as you could ignore the rear window of the MP). With display the M9 is 42mm deep. The spec for the new M says it's 42mm deep. Some mm, some chubbiness.

 

More confusion was caused by different explanations given by Leica representatives.

 

Stefan Daniel explained in a video interview that the total depth was the same as for the M9, but they added 1mm on the top plate for better integration of the larger display. When one looks at the photos of the new M, it is indeed the top plate which looks "chubbier".

 

Then there was another interview with Jesko von Oeynhausen, who explained that they added "less" than a mm for the bottom plate.

 

I do not know what is right, may be both, for wording in some quick inerview may not be as exact as a criminalistic investigation would ask for.

 

When I had the new M in my hands for about five minutes I did not realize any size difference, even the impression I got from photos, that the top looked "fatter" did not strike me in reality. This may be caused by the fact that I was interested in other things.

 

So we'll have to calibrate our callipers and wait for new chances to get hold of the chubby object.