What do you want in the next digital M?

[rivi1969]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anything that could cost 3K would be perfect for me. (An M for the masses; like an Audi A1 or an Mbenz A-series). But I guess it won't happen.

[Mike Rawcs]

There's a bit of a mistake in there.

 

Digital cameras can indeed be made much smaller than cameras exposing film. But when you take a film camera and insist in making it digital, you are stuck with the geometry of the lens. Placing a motherboard and a sensor stack within the space where there was only a film and a pressure plate is what bloats the Leica.

 

Other constraints are, of course, the size of the optics and the area of the sensor, both of which determine the quality of the image you can produce.

 

In this sense, it's not useful to look at the thickness of a TV set only and to ignore the huge real estate they command within the modern living room. And you can not even place a flower pot or china penguin on top of a modern TV set.

 

Why can't the motherboard go in the china penguin?

[LocalHero1953]

Blaming the M lens mount for the digital M body being thicker is hardly fair on the M2, M3 etc! And does the RF mechanism HAVE to get thicker? The real cause is, I guess, because the sensor stack is thicker than a film. And if the motherboard is placed behind the sensor (is it?), I guess that is to cut down signal paths.

 

Come on modern technology, cut down the thickness of the sensor and motherboard assembly. Make it the same thickness as old technology (film).

[jaapv]

Have you got time? The RF mechanism gets into trouble because the lens mount shifts forwards relative to the RF assembly, indeed due to the sensor motherboard stack. This would change the whole geometry.

As soon as Leica would start redesigning the complete RF, this could change. Let's see what the future brings.

[LocalHero1953]

Have you got time? The RF mechanism gets into trouble because the lens mount shifts forwards relative to the RF assembly, indeed due to the sensor motherboard stack. This would change the whole geometry.

As soon as Leica would start redesigning the complete RF, this could change. Let's see what the future brings.

So THAT'S what's in the new M. I knew you knew something!

[Jeff S]

To repeat an old post...  http://leicarumors.com/2015/10/14/leicas-patents-for-optoelectronic-rangefinder.aspx/

 

Jeff

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem with CF is it shatters rather than bends or warps.

 

Not necessarily. Flexibility can be controlled by opposing the weave directions in each layer. Zero weave is terrible and can rip and crack, 45° is most flexible and strong, 90° is strongest, but least flexible.

[jaapv]

So THAT'S what's in the new M. I knew you knew something!

That is not what I said...  And certainly not a short-term prediction, as the future is an undefined quantity.

Leica is well aware of the wish of its customers to produce a more thin M, but will have a problem to do so without reworking the rangefinder. We can hope and speculate, but not know.

 

Having said that, the camera thickness nor the digitizing of the rangefinder rank high in my personal list of priorities.

[RFlynn]

More dynamic range in the files, a quieter shutter, and lighter weight would be nice. TBH, after my M9, I'm surprised by how much I like the 240. It's not perfect, but it's really pretty great. I'm keen to see if/how they improve it.

[ramarren]

That is not what I said...  And certainly not a short-term prediction, as the future is an undefined quantity.

Leica is well aware of the wish of its customers to produce a more thin M, but will have a problem to do so without reworking the rangefinder. We can hope and speculate, but not know.

 

Having said that, the camera thickness nor the digitizing of the rangefinder rank high in my personal list of priorities.

 

 

I actively do not want a "digitized rangefinder" and find the typ 240/246/262 thickness just fine for my hands. The M4-2 actually seems a little too thin to me. 

[jaapv]

I agree, taking my M6 or M3 in my hands requires active adapting, not to mention using my iiif or even "worse" my Standard...;0

[Jon Warwick]

I agree, taking my M6 or M3 in my hands requires active adapting, not to mention using my iiif or even "worse" my Standard...;0

 

The only thing i can compare is my (now sold M4-P), M7 and M240.

 

I'd take the M240's depth any day.  It's the right shape for my my fairly regular size hand.

 

The M7 is too narrow, so i tried to pad it out with a handgrip, and that was just a bit, well, weird feeling.

 

Too small, and too light, isn't always an asset ......

[lct]

With 42mm thickness, current digital Ms are obese compared to both M8 and M9 cameras (37mm). Before the M240, all M bodies were thinner than 39mm if memory serves. I do hope that Leica will return to its tradition from this standpoint.

[Peter H]

I'm happy with the size just as it is. 

 

I wouldn't be happy to think that Leica are devoting scarce resources to shrinking the camera by a hair's breadth when they could be doing many more interesting things.

[pop]

With 42mm thickness, current digital Ms are obese compared to both M8 and M9 cameras (37mm). Before the M240, all M bodies were thinner than 39mm if memory serves. I do hope that Leica will return to its tradition from this standpoint.

Current digital Ms have a thumb rest which the previous models did not have. The new thickness includes this thumb rest. The thickness of the body itself varies  - so they say - by a fraction of a millimeter from the thickness of preceding models.

[lct]

Not sure if you kept your film and earlier digital Ms. I did and to me the difference is obvious. Never got a fat M like the M240. Even my otherwise larger R-D1 is beaten. For the first time in my life, my M feels the bigger and the heavier camera. Stop this inflation please Mr Leica. 

[Jeff S]

With 42mm thickness, current digital Ms are obese compared to both M8 and M9 cameras (37mm). Before the M240, all M bodies were thinner than 39mm if memory serves. I do hope that Leica will return to its tradition from this standpoint.

 

This thickness comparison was debunked in many earlier threads, as pop explains regarding the thumb rest protrusion, and as Stefan Daniel has described.

 

The M240 weight, however, is indeed more, primarily due to the larger battery, and the resultant grip may confuse people on weight vs size.  If I place my M240 and M8.2 baseplate to baseplate (it's hard to do this top to top), they are virtually the same.  Film Ms are another story...they now feel too skinny to me.

 

Jeff

[pico]

My impression: I prefer the handling of the M2 and M4, but have adapted well to the M9; I ignore the LCD.

 

A great deal of our impressions have to do with our early experience. Younger experience is always superior when it looks back at fifty years or older. So for the advanced age user, or young wimps, the weight issue is exaggerated.

 

Weight? As a 70+ year-old who must lean on a cane, no Leica is heavy. None. Man up.

 

.

[IkarusJohn]

I'm happy with the size just as it is. 

 

I wouldn't be happy to think that Leica are devoting scarce resources to shrinking the camera by a hair's breadth when they could be doing many more interesting things.

 

My guess is the combination of mount to focal plane distance, RF mechanism and battery size have fixed the dimensions of the digital M permanently.  Baseplate to baseplate, the M(240) is thicker than the M9 (diect comparison M60 to Monochrom).  It's less than 3mm, but it is there. 

 

I don't mind a bit. Sure, I notice that the film Ms are thinner, less tall and considerably lighter, and that has it's charm. But the digital Ms still feel very nice in the hand. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

With 42mm thickness, current digital Ms are obese compared to both M8 and M9 cameras (37mm). Before the M240, all M bodies were thinner than 39mm if memory serves. I do hope that Leica will return to its tradition from this standpoint.

Memory does not serve, I fear. The M240 (and related cameras) is virtually identical in size to the M8 and M9. And yes, I kept my earlier M digitals. They are sitting right in front of me.