What we gave up for the M

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The carbon idea is not bad. Does carbon have the same stability against breaking? From byciclists you hear different opinions.

 

You could drop a CF clad Leica pretty far onto a hard surface before it would ever break. And being more resilient it would never dent or bend from minor impacts. I would think that the internal frame could be made out of CF also instead of cast magnesium but I'm not sure. You probably couldn't thread any screws directly into it. What you can't do is clamp to carbon tubes in ways that could deform them causing cracking. But the thickness of the tubes is a factor also of course.

 

I have a CF bike.. even my brake levers and cranks are CF. In braking I put a lot of leverage onto those brake levers and despite being very thin, they are quite strong. And of course the cranks receive maximum torque. Consider that Formula One cars and airplanes are being built out of the stuff. One company used to make view cameras out of carbon fiber.

 

Here is a video test by a bike frame manufacturer comparing AL with CF frames.

 

pbvid-243228.flv - YouTube

 

There are plenty of composites other than CF too. This man has the idea that car production factories could be much smaller and more efficient if they switched from steel to composites.

 

http://www.ecomagination.com/gordon-murray-races-toward-the-plastic-auto-age

[kdriceman]

 

The carbon idea is not bad. Does carbon have the same stability against breaking? From byciclists you hear different opinions. My tripod doesn't look as if it would be good to maltrate the open tubes by lever force - though I didnt try

 

I understood that the M is built more robust to ensure that heavy R-lenses can be safely adapted (weather sealing is the other reason).

CF done properly would be virtually impossible to break. But I suspect it would be expensive to implement.

[hillavoider]

i think this is a very good thread, alot of interesting posts, i think something has been given up with the new M

 

if sony can make a RX2 with an m mount adaptor well.... lecia bodies are dust..... maybe bespoke lenses are the future

[earleygallery]

i think this is a very good thread, alot of interesting posts, i think something has been given up with the new M

 

if sony can make a RX2 with an m mount adaptor well.... lecia bodies are dust..... maybe bespoke lenses are the future

 

I don't think Sony will make a rangefinder camera.

[AlanG]

...if sony can make a RX2 with an m mount adaptor well.... lecia bodies are dust..... maybe bespoke lenses are the future

 

I think Leica's appeal to people is more complex than that. And this is one of the reason's the company continues to use brass and have a removable base plate.

 

You can't on one hand hold up the RX1 as some kind of model and at the same time lament that the progress shown in the M constitutes some kind of existential loss.

 

As is obvious to all, change to the M cameras may need to come at a gradual enough pace that is acceptable to its core enthusiasts and preserves the camera's "identity." But with the hope that enough competitive features will be added to appeal to a broader market also. It is a balancing act whereas Sony is free to work from a blank slate as their cameras are marketed on state of the art design and features as their primary attributes.

[AlanG]

It was at the gym that I learned it's best to keep the weight off. Maybe that's what this camera company needs to learn. A 15% increase in weight certainly makes a difference, but perhaps not to some of the witty numbed-fingered.

 

A weight gain can be fine if it is all muscle. But I understand that you feel they are going in the wrong direction. I suspect it is not any of the new components (LCD, sensor, electronics, shutter) that added much to this but was mostly the battery. (This will be easy to determine by weighing each.) And that might have been a requirement. The weight of the battery could only have been countered by replacing some metal with composites... something Leica probably didn't want to do.

[Voigt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A weight gain can be fine if it is all muscle. But I understand that you feel they are going in the wrong direction. I suspect it is not any of the new components (LCD, sensor, electronics, shutter) that added much to this but was mostly the battery. (This will be easy to determine by weighing each.) And that might have been a requirement. The weight of the battery could only have been countered by replacing some metal with composites... something Leica probably didn't want to do.

 

Yes. And perhaps the body, like the tripod socket, had to be reenforced to endure the added stress of the larger, heavier R lenses. That might have increased the weight too.

[dwbell]

You could drop a CF clad Leica pretty far onto a hard surface before it would ever break. And being more resilient it would never dent or bend from minor impacts. I would think that the internal frame could be made out of CF also instead of cast magnesium but I'm not sure. You probably couldn't thread any screws directly into it. What you can't do is clamp to carbon tubes in ways that could deform them causing cracking. But the thickness of the tubes is a factor also of course.

 

I have a CF bike.. even my brake levers and cranks are CF. In braking I put a lot of leverage onto those brake levers and despite being very thin, they are quite strong. And of course the cranks receive maximum torque. Consider that Formula One cars and airplanes are being built out of the stuff. One company used to make view cameras out of carbon fiber.

 

Here is a video test by a bike frame manufacturer comparing AL with CF frames.

 

pbvid-243228.flv - YouTube

 

There are plenty of composites other than CF too. This man has the idea that car production factories could be much smaller and more efficient if they switched from steel to composites.

 

Gordon Murray Races Toward the Plastic Auto Age – ecomagination

 

If Solms are reading this, and they're interested, they can PM me.

[AlanG]

Yes. And perhaps the body, like the tripod socket, had to be reenforced to endure the added stress of the larger, heavier R lenses. That might have increased the weight too.

 

I can't say for sure if anything was "bulked up." I think the tripod socket really did need this modification but don't know if that would add weight. The lens mount was already strong enough to be used with the visoflex and long heavy glass. So I don't know if any change was done to it.

 

The battery weight would be simple to measure and see how much of the 80 gram difference that constitutes. If a larger heavier battery produces more images per charge, that will be a pretty clear benefit for some to accept the extra weight. And yes, this extra capacity would also give longer use of the EVF or LCD than you'd get with a smaller battery. So perhaps Leica had specific performance targets they wanted to meet.

[Guest malland]

...f sony can make a RX2 with an m mount adaptor well.... lecia bodies are dust..... maybe bespoke lenses are the future

As others have said, not likely. First, Sony APS-C cameras don't work well with wide-angle M-lenses — actually the best APS-C camera for this purpose is the Ricoh GXR M-Mount, which has micro-lenses. Second, the manual focus system: my feeling that the best focus peaking system, in this respect, is, again, the Ricoh GXR M-Mount; but my experience has been that, although it's good, the focus peaking system works better with lenses of a focal length of 35mm or more, i.e., not great with wide-angle lenses. Most Leica-M users are likely to prefer rangefinder focusing. I certainly prefer to focus with my M-Monchrom than with a Leica-M lens on the GRX M-Mount.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[UliWer]

Yes. And perhaps the body, like the tripod socket, had to be reenforced to endure the added stress of the larger, heavier R lenses. That might have increased the weight too.

 

Yes, I am pretty sure it has. The same is true for weather sealing. You don't get this without additional weight. You may look at the interior of the new M after you take off the the bottom plate. It's metal. For the M8 and M9 ist was plastic. I never had any issues with this plastic on both bodies.

 

So lets be frank: do we want less weight, or do we want a rugged body?

[pico]

[...]I would think that the internal frame could be made out of CF also instead of cast magnesium but I'm not sure. You probably couldn't thread any screws directly into it.[...]

 

You could thread into the correct composite. It is done all the time, often with an adhesion connection to a steel or brass seat into which the fastener is screwed. Of course, carbon fiber is only one composite material. There are many.

 

I am sure you would enjoy touring our composite materials laboratories and factories. It is a big business here. A camera body such as Leica requires can be made of composites. There are downsides such as high electrical resistance, static charges, less efficient heat conduction, permeability (attraction of moisture) for some otherwise promising materials - a particular pesky problem concerning critical alignment. It is a complex issue.

 

One company used to make view cameras out of carbon fiber.

 

Carbon Infinity Limited of England (UK) - no longer in business. Today we have the Toyo-View 4x5" camera of composites. There are also some uni-body MF and LF cameras of composites made primarily in China.

 

And about your bike - I HATE YOU! Seriously, very cool. When I last crashed my good bike (not as good as yours) they replaced the CF front end not because it was damaged, but because the factory absolutely requires it because crash damage cannot easily be identified and one day it just fails all at once.

[Voigt]

 

So lets be frank: do we want less weight, or do we want a rugged body?

 

To be fair, shouldn't this be worded as such?

 

So lets be frank: do we want less weight, or do we want a more rugged body?

[AlanG]

And about your bike - I HATE YOU!

 

Yes the CF bike is light and quite high tech. But I'm in both camps as I also have and like an older classic aluminum bike made by ALAN of Italy. (Of course the name is a factor.) And I've had traditional steel frames too. Cyclists argue which is best, but a 15lb TdF bike needs to be CF today. In my case the fat I carry is more significant than the weight difference between my bikes.

 

I can't see Leica abandoning its current choice of materials and manufacturing but we all know that modern composites have some advantages and other brands are using them in bodies and lenses for lighter construction and other reasons.

 

You can certainly have a more rugged body (dent resistant) that also weighs less. I don't know if technology is such that one could simply replace the metal cladding with identical ones made out of CF. I am certainly no expert on materials.

 

Pico, here is what my ALAN bike looks like.

ALAN bike - Images | Alan Goldstein

[mjh]

So lets be frank: do we want less weight, or do we want a more rugged body?

Since the introduction of the M9 I have seen many people wishing for a weather-sealed body. Less weight was a much less pressing concern (if it was a concern at all). Looks like Leica was listening for once.

[marknorton]

Impossible to be sure, but it seems likely the M battery uses two of the cells used in the M8/9 so part of the weight gain will be down to the weight of the older battery. That said, the camera also loses the motor wind and gearbox to make space but that function will be implemented some other way.

 

We really need to wait for someone to do an "Anatomy of the Leica M" thread.

[hamey]

Yes. And perhaps the body, like the tripod socket, had to be reenforced to endure the added stress of the larger, heavier R lenses. That might have increased the weight too.

 

Thats correct, Leica's engineers took this into account.

This is one the reasons why the Leica M differs from the previous Leica M's.

 

I have NO PROBLEM with the bigger size, frankly I prefer the half case on my M7 as it's more comfortable In my hand and feels more secure.

 

I want to hold my Camera in my HANDS not my fingers.

 

Ken.

[Voigt]

I wonder if the average hand size has grown any in the last 100 years. Many people are suprisingly supporting this thicker, heavier body. I personally prefer the smaller lighter camera, but perhaps I'm now in the minority and its new size actually serves more people better. If Leica were to be able to make its next M camera smaller and lighter, would many not welcome that change and not see it as an improvement?

[AlanG]

If Leica were to be able to make its next M camera smaller and lighter, would many not welcome that change and not see it as an improvement?

 

That is a tricky question. Some people associate the weight of any Leica body or lens with quality. A friend of mine who had never previously handled a Leica felt that way upon lifting an M9 recently. If the Leica ME had a composite top and bottom some people would have said, that is why it can be priced lower than the M9 even if production cost had nothing to do with it. So a lighter camera or lens may lose that attribute even if in fact it is more durable. And lots of people prefer the larger "pro" size bodies from Nikon and Canon... even adding the larger grips to the smaller bodies.

 

When it comes to lenses people certainly look at metal construction as better than composite construction, but I am not sure that composites are not a better choice for some camera and lens design purposes. Again I am not a materials expert just an observer. I have seen that my ski bindings went from magnesium to composites years ago and they take extreme abuse.

 

The new Nex 6 is like the Nex7 but replaces the metal body skin with composites. Some people like the look but also say that it uses "cheaper" construction to save money. I have no idea how significant the cost difference would be at the production level but perception plays a role in pricing.

 

Back to bicycles, users of them associate lighter weight with higher cost, but there still is the feeling among some that the lighter the flimsier, even if that is not true comparing steel or aluminum frames with CF. Of course you can only take this so far before it will become more fragile regardless of the material. (A very high end carbon fiber ultra light wheel could be $2000 compared with a heavier $100 aluminum one that would still function well and be more durable.) But in cameras and lenses, lighter weight is not generally associated with higher cost. And despite the generally smaller size, Leica products have some heft to them that Leica is not looking at as a problem needing to be changed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[iedei]

I like the new M, but I'm not really interested in its live-view or its ability to use R lenses or take motion pictures. That, with an M camera, seems kinda out of place to me. 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.

 

But to say that I can just go about my business and shoot the camera just the way I like and that the added features don't interfere with the traditional operation of this camera is really putting a very positive spin on a rather sad story.

 

If you've had the opportunity to handle an old film Leica M camera, you must realize that what this camera is missing is a lesser weight and smaller size. Live-view and motion pictures require more battery power as the built-in microphone and bigger Rear Screen require greater size. If such features hadn't been added, the camera could have been made smaller and lighter and that's really what we gave up for all these additional bells and whistles. So although, I think the M is a good camera, I'm saddened by what we've given up to have it.

 

it's 2012, not 1979. i think comparisons to film cameras are pretty much useless in this respect. We have different technologies now with different modes of interaction with our devices. I think Leica should be commended for progressing without being ignorant of history rather than ranted against for not sticking to 1979.

 

i'm not a huge fan of the complicated features of the M at this moment.....but i sure as hell respect them. If one doesn't want them....they can buy an M-E. Simple as that, really.