What do you want in the next digital M?

[JimKasson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not one suggestion of a simple but effective diopter adjustment incorporated into the VF? We are all getting older.

 

Not here, but I'm with you, and suggested it on my blog a few days ago. I even had the temerity to call the add-on lenses "Mickey Mouse".

 

Jim

[krooj]

A few things in the viewfinder:

 

-Live ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop in the lower readout

-Update the mount to have an electronic coupling so that future lenses can register the true f-stop

-Have phase detection AF points on the next generation sensor so that that the viewfinder can provide focus confirmation for the rangefinder patch.

 

(hint: those last two would effectively allow the next M to be an AF mirrorless body with an updated series of lenses)

 

On the body itself:

 

-Configurable "M" button to let you make it do whatever

-USB port

 

Overall, I'd like to see them really focus hard on IQ. The M9 was a very, very hard act to follow, made even harder by the change to a different sensor tech. I would love to see them try to bring the IQ levels back to what was possible from the M9 sensor, with all the included benefits of CMOS, like higher ISO and DR.

[Advertisement]

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

[mmradman]

Here's a far-out thought about a "get the most of out of the M lenses" camera. A 36x36mm sensor and an aspect ratio control like the D4, so you could have:

 

36x24mm (35mm hor)

24x36mm (35mm vert)

33.08x27.4mm (8x10 hor)

27.4x33.08 (8x10 hor)

30.6x30.6mm (square)

36mmx36mm (crop in post)

 

All within the M lens imaging circle, except for the last one.

 

Compromises weight...

 

Jim

 

Good example of baseless desire for change...

 

M lenses are designed for 24x36mm format, so image circle diameter or format diagonal is 43mm. Square sensor sized 36x36mm would require lenses with bigger image circle,

 

Existing lenses projecting 43mm image circle paired with a square sensor would result in 30.49 x 30.49 mm dimension. Of course M lenses could be projecting bigger image circle like their R counterparts, see R lenses on large size sensor camera http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s-typ-006-s2-forum/280110-lei-ko-r-s-adapter.html

[jdlaing]

A simple but effective diopter adjustment on the viewfinder for us old folk.

[efreed2754]

Frankly intrigued by clean sheet concept that allows best sensor, use of current/old/new lenses, and fitting viewing/framing system. This may not mean a rangefinder system which was the best we had starting around 1930. IOW, if we were starting today what would we develop?

 

Problem is there is a large cohort who want the traditional look and feel including a rangefinder. Don't we really want what works best? (Whoops forgot which forum we are on.)

 

Yes I started with a IIIf, then an M3, M2R, M6, M7 and then M9P before getting M few months ago. Regardless I want what helps me obtain the best photos I am capable of. Period.

 

Were Leitz a larger firm, they could design a future looking tool and a more traditional tool assuming there might be two markets.

 

Is there any approach that most would buy if it worked using latest technology at better prices?

 

Ed

[Peter H]

I've increasing become confused regarding whom a M camera is made for (?).

 

...........

 

People like me perhaps, who liked the M9 but wanted some improvements plus the ability occasionally to use R and other lenses.

 

When I want to use it as a rangefinder camera, it's the best digital rangefinder camera I've ever used. The new features are very easy indeed to ignore and have no impact on the purity and simplicity of using the camera. And I love the files it produces, so the sensor is not an issue for me either.

 

But for those of us who no longer want multiple cameras, let alone multiple systems, but who are not prepared to give up the rangefinder to achieve such versatility and elegance of use, this is a beautiful, unique camera that is far more of a breakthrough than the wonderful M9 ever was.

[JimKasson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Were Leitz a larger firm, they could design a future looking tool and a more traditional tool assuming there might be two markets.

 

They were a large enough firm to design a clean-sheet-of-paper medium format body and a line of lenses to go with it. Pretty darned ambitious. One more body aimed at a larger market is small compared to that.

 

Maybe that didn't work out as well as they expected and they're pulling in their horns.

 

Jim

[FTL]

I'd like to see an MP style/size body (no need for LCD to keep it slim, see VF next)

Hybrid Real Mechanical RF / High rez/refresh EVF (superset of X-Pro style, I can see menu stuff here)

Nikon D4 sensor as a base (I just love how 'clean' its images are)

ISO dial where film rewind knob is

Keep the M rear dial for exp. compensation

Function like current M with moveable focus zoom area

The MP shutter would be a bonus for me, I love its sound&feel, don't mind cranking it

 

that's it. I don't need much

[NZDavid]

Agree: make it simple, reliable, rugged.

[mwilliamsphotography]

People like me perhaps, who liked the M9 but wanted some improvements plus the ability occasionally to use R and other lenses.

 

When I want to use it as a rangefinder camera, it's the best digital rangefinder camera I've ever used. The new features are very easy indeed to ignore and have no impact on the purity and simplicity of using the camera. And I love the files it produces, so the sensor is not an issue for me either.

 

But for those of us who no longer want multiple cameras, let alone multiple systems, but who are not prepared to give up the rangefinder to achieve such versatility and elegance of use, this is a beautiful, unique camera that is far more of a breakthrough than the wonderful M9 ever was.

 

Understand your POV.

 

It may well be the best digital rangefinder ... is it the best rangefinder ever?

 

You can use R lenses on it ... is it the best camera possible to do that?

 

By trying to do both, it is neither.

 

That's my POV.

 

(Moot point for me anyway ... I'm not a fan of the M240 files).

 

- Marc

[ModernMan]

Here is what I really want to see in the next M

 

A small detonator built inside the body to automatically explode in the face of anyone that wants an articulating screen ,GPS , and Bluetooth in their next M

 

So, for clarity, you want a small detonator to explode in the face of anyone who's opinion on this matter is at variance with yours?

[Ecaton]

M9 with:

 

-the A7r sensor

-the M240 shutter, buffer, lcd screen,

-1/8000 max shutter speed,

-dedicated iso dial,

-live view,

-about 100 grams slimmed down without compromising on build,

-no bells or whistles such as movie, telephone, music player, gps, wifi, toaster, microwave mode please.

[Ozkar]

Here's my list of features for a "best" camera for M lenses.

 

 

• Accurate focusing at all focal lengths.
  
• Accurate framing at all distances.
  
• Accurate presentation of intra-scene geometry (if it's lined up in the finder, it's lined up in the shot).
  
• Fast operation.
  
• Sensor that can take full advantage of all the resolution the lenses can deliver over a broad range of light levels.
  
• Direct, no-menu, access to frequently-used functions.
  
• And, admittedly a personal idiosyncrasy of mine, both eye and waist-level operation.
  

 

Jim

 

Reduce the weight by 50%. An M240 with grip and EVF is no lighter than a FF DSLR.

 

While I appreciate taps and plumb bobs that are made from brass, is it really necessary in a camera?

[lct]

Give me just this and shorter startup and blackout times, the rest i can do with or without.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pieterpronk]

Kinda painful to learn that practically any new CMOS induced feature of the M is flawed in some way.

 

CMOS sensor: poor AWB and hard to control color.

High iso: Not as impressive as most would like. banding and green shadows. unconventional controls.

Live view metering: shutter induced blur.

Video: shaky video.

EVF: poor resolution and frame rate. blackouts.

 

Basically all the really cool features are not CMOS related:

- Better rangefinder (colored framelines and according to some more reliable/easier to focus)

- Better shutter noise

- Better battery life

- Weather resistant (or whatever term they give)

 

Well, ok, I think the better iso is quite important although just not as nice as most would like.

 

So please allow me to put forward the idea of going back to CCD.

Next M: back to CCD with improved iso (surely there is still something to gain on that front in CCD sensors) and just keep on improving the basic features of a proper rangefinder camera.

 

Just consider this M a test. You put some flawed CMOS features into the M and hardly anybody really cared about them anyway.

[mirekti]

Would something like this be an option?

[lct]

...CMOS sensor: poor AWB and hard to control color...

Are you relating your experience here? According to mine, AWB is now quite good and colors are not hard to control at all.

...High iso: Not as impressive as most would like. banding and green shadows. unconventional controls...

Not sure who claimed that high isos were impressive but those of the M240 do their job very well contrary to the CCDs i've used i must say and i've never got banding and green shadows up to 2500 iso so far.

[pieterpronk]

The amount of people still discussing the color and awb of the M means that there is an issue with it. It does ok but its' awb is lagging behind pretty much every other CMOS camera out there. And the fact that people still are building color profiles show that there still is an issue.

 

And 2500 iso is pretty bad considering what the competition can do with a CMOS sensor.

 

All I'm saying is that most people thought that by going to CMOS Leica would be able to catch up with all the CMOS features that other CMOS ff camera's have, but this has not been the case.

I would like Leica to stop this trying to catch up with the others, but instead I would like it to embrace its niche and just go the direction which they started with the M8 and M9.

 

All this flawed CMOS related gadgetry is just confusing to customers and in the end to Leica itself. Stick to what you know.

[lct]

Well i won't feed the debate CCD vs CMOS sensor that i find one of the most stupid i've ever heard. Just to advise people who don't own an M240 yet to try it in person if they can. As a CCD + CMOS user myself i can just repeat that the WB of the M240 is now quite good after having worked on the beta firmware last summer and that i don't need to build colour profiles anymore after having spent less than half an hour to do one before. YMMV.

Edited October 25, 2013 by lct

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[george +]

This is one fascinating thread. Hope Leica draws the right conclusions from it.

 

But to do so, and to help the rest of us gauging suggestions, it would be nice if you could indicate whether you have an M 240 or not.

 

Having enjoyed one since the spring, and coming from a very early M8, I am very happy with the M improvements and performance. And while I do not make movies and seldom use live view, I appreciate that these are (practically) no cost side products of the technology employed. Their presence is not a bother and may be of use one time or another. Like using live view and or the EVF to validate lens focusing.

 

As far as I am concerned the camera has enough buttons but an ability to reprogram them may eliminate a lot of concerns. And I strongly believe that a fuller lcd projecting frames and select-able information in the viewfinder is technically possible and hopefully coming in a later M version.

 

Other suggestions come from my 42 years of happy M5 ownership. Suspending the camera from the left side made it hang safer, a larger exposure dial allowed easier operation and showing exposure time plus over/under exposure in the finder permitted more informed use.. But I realize that the M5 while a techno wonder was not a crowd pleaser either.