What do you want in the next digital M?

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Unfortunately, the kind of enhancements people are asking for affect the distance from the image plane to the back of the body more than the thickness of the battery compartment doing double duty as a grip.

 

And that distance is greater in the Sony than in the M. True, the Sony has a hinged screen; still, storing it in a bag with the lens attached takes a little bit more depth than does the M.

 

It is this very distance which has drawn much criticism here in the forum; I agree that the proportions of a film Leica are much more pleasant that those of the rather chubby digital M.

 

I have apologized to my Nex for unfairly comparing it to an M.

[jdlaing]

Indeed, the NEX7 with the M lens adapter is about as thick as the M.

 

Now please look closely at the diagram below.

The long red segment is what you measured, and the short red segment is the actual thickness of the NEX7 body hosting a sensor with vibration dust removal mechanism.

You can see how the M240 has plenty of space (volume) to host new nice goodies, and how unfair your thickness comparison was .

 

First, and foremost, Olympus is the king of dust removal systems. Sony borrows from Olympus with some modifications that are yet to be proven reliable. Keep in mind Olympus and Sony don't have the oil and lubricant situation the same as Leica. The other manufacturers dust removal systems are third rate. The package, if added to a Leica M body with the sensor they use would add thickness to the body. You don't have to believe me on this statement but you really should. Leica is not about to take a leap in this direction and have it be hobbled.

[Peter H]

Unless the dust removal system actually works better than a blower, and I'm yet to experience one that does though my experience is fairly limited, it would be a feature I'd rather do without.

[CheshireCat]

First, and foremost, Olympus is the king of dust removal systems. [...]The package, if added to a Leica M body with the sensor they use would add thickness to the body.

 

All simple dust removal systems use space around and in front of the sensor plane, so you should add a solid reference to your comment.

 

Even advanced in-body-stabilization systems use minimal space behind the sensor plane, such as these ones (Olympus):

Olympus E-M5: 5-axis image stabilization — Pekka Potka

 

Then again, even if you were right, the next M body could be easily made slimmer by redesigning the body volume in front of the sensor plane. The flange-distance will of course have to stay, but the rest of the useless volume on the sides can be removed for good. Pretty much like the shape of the NEX7 with the M adapter.

Departing from the classical M-body shape for something more practical and more ergonomic is long overdue.

[jaapv]

And commercial suicide..... Shades of the M5

[CheshireCat]

And commercial suicide..... Shades of the M5

 

I understand people thought the M5 was too big; and that is just one of the reason why it did not succeed.

 

If you think people won't buy a smaller, more ergonomic digital M just because it hasn't got the classical Leica M shape, then you think most people buy Leica cameras only as fashion items to wear or display. So sad for Leica engineers.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yeah - the same reasons people buy a Porsche 911, I guess:rolleyes:. It is stupid marketing to change a distinctive shape of a flagship product other than very gradually. People didn't like the flat top of the M5. The size was not that much different from the M4. And it was a pretty good, advanced camera in its time (still is pretty good)

It has nothing to do with posing, but with presenting your product in a recognizable form.

If Leica wants to make a radical change, they can only do so in a new product line, like the T.

[lct]

Indeed and changing a winning team is not the best thing to do to say the least. As long as the M240 sells well there is zero reason to change it radically. People prepared to spend little fortunes in a Leica M don't need another SLR or mirrorless camera. If Leica can give it more speed and better LV/EVF performances in the same if not smaller package, the next M will be closer to perfection than it has ever been.

[Jeff S]

And when the 911 got too big for some, despite the familiar shape, the smaller (less expensive) Cayman became the new object of affection. Many cars have followed a similar route…bigger and bigger over time, despite familiar and successful shapes (Mustangs, Corvettes, Thunderbirds and more). In the car biz, some of this is probably due to safety and legal regs requiring more stuff to get squeezed in, but also seemingly just because that's what car companies do…maybe so they can build sales with newer, smaller models after. The 'mini-M' marketing campaign missed that mark.

 

Jeff

[CheshireCat]

And [the M5] was a pretty good, advanced camera in its time (still is pretty good)

 

Too bad it wasn't compatible with several M lenses...

[lct]

Been there like a lot of ex-newbies here . The problem we had with the M5 was not lens compatibility but the too large size of its body. Oh well for TTL metering, due to this larger size, it was not felt as a true Leica. The vertical strap lugs were another deal breaker then but it is another story.

[jaapv]

And when the 911 got too big for some, despite the familiar shape, the smaller (less expensive) Cayman became the new object of affection. Many cars have followed a similar route…bigger and bigger over time, despite familiar and successful shapes (Mustangs, Corvettes, Thunderbirds and more). In the car biz, some of this is probably due to safety and legal regs requiring more stuff to get squeezed in, but also seemingly just because that's what car companies do…maybe so they can build sales with newer, smaller models after. The 'mini-M' marketing campaign missed that mark.

 

Jeff

Quite agree. The Leica CL was a similar effort that did not too badly. That is why I would appreciate a digital CL,, even with a hybrid viewfinder. To change the M series drastically, though, would kill it stone dead imo. (As with the 911. Or Morgan 4/4 )

[bocaburger]

The average age of (at least US) buyers able and willing to purchase uber-expensive items has increased due to economic conditions. People in their 50s-70s although perhaps healthier and more active on average than their parents' generation was in that demographic, are nonetheless affected to some degree by age. Getting in and out of a low-slung car, tolerance for hard seats and harsh rides, willingness to use a clutch and manually shift gears are less in an older group of buyers.

 

Likewise, so are older folks' tolerance for the weight of a camera bag, and their ability to comfortably focus manually. Since the tightening of airport security and carryon restrictions, traveling with a large camera bag with a couple of (heavy for their size) bodies and a spate of (heavy for their size) prime lenses has become more of a pain.

 

Technology has also made it easier for many car and camera manufacturers to make very capable products at an attractive price point, diminishing the perceived value of the high end brands. Twenty years ago, aside from the likes of Porsche and Leica, the majority of small cars and small cameras were more or less targeted toward economy-conscious "point a to point b" drivers and snapshooters. That's becoming less so.

[horosu]

Back to the original question:

 

1) A "thinner" M,

2) Possibility to have no LCD monitor on the back ( financially affordable)

3) Usable ISO 6400 (like the ISO 1600 in te current M)

 

That would be it

[johnbuckley]

I would like the next M to be virtually the same as the current M, except:

 

1. Zero freezes, lock ups, or quality flaws.

2. A better EVF with less fiddling for focus assist, etc.

3. Some marginal improvement in ISO speed.

4. It would arrive with the same upgrades as the current MP (Typ 240) -- we would not have to wait for them and upgrade mid-cycle to a new MP (Typ whatever.)

 

That's it. Does it sound like I love my M and wish only that it did all the things it does without the flaws it has? Yes.

 

Long way of saying, they don't need to do much to get me to upgrade to a new M for the fifth time.

[Mornnb]

^ I mostly agree.

I would just add that the M240's sensor only resolves around half to a third of the resolution of the great lenses. I would like a 50MP sensor.

Fix the lock up issues, and give us a better sensor.

Also fix a few things about the camera's operation for landscapes. Ie, ability to switch off noise reduction, ability for exposures longer than 60 seconds, ability to move the focus zoom window location in live view. To landscape shooters, these issues are more annoying than lockups.

[Alberti]

Having the electronic frame lines where I'd like them to move not just (mechanically) along the axis but to be resized according to the distance too.

(And then have the option of a special setting manually for the 40mm lenses).

 

The sensor can be improved, in that the banding and dark-signal/green cast has been mentioned.

What I like is a sensor that 'keeps up the rendering of details. At 100% the images sometimes fall apart more than the CCD frames. I would not expect that to imply 50 MP...

 

and maybe I can add some new idea:

• I like to see a BW option that converts the image in camera to the same format (non-RGB based, pure intensity channel information) as the RAW file coming from the famous MM; and keep the option of some electronic filters. 

[SBC]

I want less. And i want it to be priced like a great tool not a piece of jewelry.   High hopes these days!

[cirke]

I want more, much more,  and at the top level , I want the most modern camera  with the best lenses  whatever the price can be

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter Kilmister]

After 52 pages of this I have to say the M-P 240 is wonderful. Why change anything?