250swb Posted May 23, 2013 Share #161 Posted May 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hmmm ... doesn't sound like there would be anything "mini" about that. That's essentially an M(240) without the live view and video, or an M-E with a new sensor. To be a Mini M, something about it has to be "mini", i.e. reduced in size. The reduction could be in the sensor, the lens mount, the viewfinder, or some combination of those. A smaller sensor is most likely to produce a smaller body. Or 'mini' without the rangefinder, only an EVF and live view? Which would be pretty cynical from Leica. The only reason an awful lot of people have gone for the M240 is because they saw it as the only option to use live view, many other lenses, and an accurateEVF viewfinder. Now they would find they bought an overly expensive camera when just around the corner came exactly what they wanted in the first place! This is not unknown from Leica, hence hanging back on chrome body options on the M9, when a lot of people 'upgraded' to a Chrome M9-p, but never on this scale if true. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Mini M? [MERGED] AKA X-Vario. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted May 23, 2013 Share #162 Posted May 23, 2013 Let's be honest, the launch of the Typ 240 was a debacle from day 1. I think they announced it too early, launched it too soon, and ended up alienating most of the potential customers. If you give somebody 8 months to ponder a $7,000 purchase, they usually change their mind. Didn't stop folks from buying the M8 or M9. Same story; different details. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted May 23, 2013 Share #163 Posted May 23, 2013 ...A smaller sensor is most likely to produce a smaller body. I don't think so. The M8 had the same size as the M9 - though the sensor was much smaller. I think the flange focal distance is essential for the size of the body. If they wanted to reduce this to get a more slim body, the'd need new lenses. I am very sceptical if a new lens line would help to make a new product profitable, even if they'd offer adapters for the M-lenses - and coupled adapters for R-lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 23, 2013 Share #164 Posted May 23, 2013 A smaller sensor is most likely to produce a smaller body. On the other hand, the Leica CL was the Mini M of its day. And it was full-frame. So anything is possible. My guess is it will be: APS-C + EVF. The big question is: M-mount, new mount, or fixed lens? I suspect it won't be a fixed lens, but rather an M-mount or a new mount, either of which will take an R adapter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest snowboarder Posted May 23, 2013 Share #165 Posted May 23, 2013 My bet is FF CMOS Leica M-E without live view and EVF option. That would be the most moronic Leica decision ever. I know most of you live in the past, but this is 2013, not 1950... You are the last generation of the rangefinder users, if Leica doesn't want to die as a brand, they need to become modern. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 23, 2013 Share #166 Posted May 23, 2013 Or 'mini' without the rangefinder, only an EVF and live view? Which would be pretty cynical from Leica. The only reason an awful lot of people have gone for the M240 is because they saw it as the only option to use live view, many other lenses, and an accurateEVF viewfinder. Now they would find they bought an overly expensive camera when just around the corner came exactly what they wanted in the first place! I think this is a real possibility for the new camera: EVF and live view, but no rangefinder. I don't think it's cynical because I don't think live view was such a big selling point on the M240, at least not for "an awful lot of people". I didn't get the impression that there was a big demand for live view among M buyers, or that it was a critical feature for many buyers. It's nice to have as an option, but doesn't really fit into the core M philosophy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted May 23, 2013 Share #167 Posted May 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Or 'mini' without the rangefinder, only an EVF and live view? Which would be pretty cynical from Leica. The only reason an awful lot of people have gone for the M240 is because they saw it as the only option to use live view, many other lenses, and an accurateEVF viewfinder. Now they would find they bought an overly expensive camera when just around the corner came exactly what they wanted in the first place! This is not unknown from Leica, hence hanging back on chrome body options on the M9, when a lot of people 'upgraded' to a Chrome M9-p, but never on this scale if true. ... Well, the awful lot had many opportunities to buy very good cameras with live-view and EVF before the M 240 was even thought of. Leica isn't the only existing brand. The M 240 is an offer to the small lot, who want a rangefinder - with long waiting lists. The cynical idea of cutting off the optical viewfinder/rangefinder part of the camera goes back to the Leica "Standard" from 1932. The Ic, If, Ig, MD, MDa followed. They all were cameras for limited usage. The potential of electronics opens the market wider to the awful lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted May 23, 2013 Share #168 Posted May 23, 2013 I am very sceptical if a new lens line would help to make a new product profitable, even if they'd offer adapters for the M-lenses - and coupled adapters for R-lenses. I've always heard that camera makers make their biggest profit on lenses, not camera bodies. If that's true, than a new camera body that sells more lenses can be good for profits generally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted May 23, 2013 Share #169 Posted May 23, 2013 Whatever is going to be I hope is going to take exposures longer than 60 sec! As a landscape photographer for me the max 60 sec of the M are a deal breaker Safari can’t open the page “http://web.mac.com/giulioz/” because Safari can’t find the server “web.mac.com”. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted May 23, 2013 Share #170 Posted May 23, 2013 I have a really radical suggestion... shall we not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the teaser ads and just wait and see...? Regards, Bill Sent from another Galaxy Indeed, 'que sera, sera'. Thank goodness, less than three weeks to go this time....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smazzucato Posted May 23, 2013 Share #171 Posted May 23, 2013 Don't forget that Jonathan Ive was supposed to be designing an M. and the announcement is the same week as WWDC ... just saying ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 23, 2013 Share #172 Posted May 23, 2013 That would be the most moronic Leica decision ever.I know most of you live in the past, but this is 2013, not 1950... You are the last generation of the rangefinder users, if Leica doesn't want to die as a brand, they need to become modern. Hmm. Leica tried to get with the times:rolleyes: around 40 years ago (when the rangefinder was thought a bit old hat and the SLR was considered the future) and came very close to going bust. It was arguably only the resurrection of the M line that saved the day. The "most moronic Leica decision" would be to think they can read the runes again and predict a future based around some me-too RF-less Fuji/Nex thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted May 23, 2013 Share #173 Posted May 23, 2013 I've always heard that camera makers make their biggest profit on lenses, not camera bodies. If that's true, than a new camera body that sells more lenses can be good for profits generally. Yes, a new body helps to sell the lenses the maker already has in his catalogue, or which fit the catalogue. So the M9 led to an enormous demand for M-lenses. But to design a camera which needs new lenses means that you have to design and to produce the new camera and to design and produce the new lenses as well - besides the products you already have and want to continue. This means a big increase in costs. If your new market is one already overgrown by other products - which any market "below" the M is, you run a very high risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 23, 2013 Share #174 Posted May 23, 2013 I have a really radical suggestion... shall we not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the teaser ads and just wait and see...? Regards, Bill Sent from another Galaxy Good suggestion, I agree... jumping into speculations on "blinking ads" while there are discussions on a subject that it's just starting to be concrete (the M240) means to increase the "rumor level" to an excessive point... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tanks Posted May 23, 2013 Share #175 Posted May 23, 2013 ...The "most moronic Leica decision" would be to think they can read the runes again and predict a future based around some me-too RF-less Fuji/Nex thing. I think it would be also moronic not to have live view/EVF on a new camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HV25 Posted May 23, 2013 Share #176 Posted May 23, 2013 I wonder how Leica are going to manage making two new cameras available in sufficient quantities. Said differently - if the new 'real' M is anything to go by the mini M might be available by the time the successor of the 'real' M will be announced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Martin Posted May 23, 2013 Share #177 Posted May 23, 2013 Full frame, fixed 35mm F2 , optical viewfinder, with video facility . Beautifully engineered and well screwed together. As compact as the Sony RX1 but with a red dot. $4000/£2500 ish, queuing round the block. Yes please Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest snowboarder Posted May 23, 2013 Share #178 Posted May 23, 2013 saved the day. The "most moronic Leica decision" would be to think they can read the runes again and predict a future based around some me-too RF-less Fuji/Nex thing. If it's a crop camera - yes. But if it's full frame they would be the first and they would have a hit. Of course only if it didn't include the stupid things like their center only focus peaking in M or slow refresh in EVF... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted May 23, 2013 Share #179 Posted May 23, 2013 more leaks to come may even end up a holga Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX400 Posted May 23, 2013 Share #180 Posted May 23, 2013 I thought the Leica Blog post about the creation of the s2 was pretty revealing in relation to their process for bringing a new product to market. They are certainly not idiots and perhaps the smartest guy in the room. I think the much more interesting question is what will the release say about what type of company Leica wants to be and what type of person was on the steering team for the product management. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.