A digital M6

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And I wonder how many times the point needs to be made, given that it’s just commonsense.

 

Leica have deliberated about six years before they decided to build a monochrome M, a fairly modest development from the model on which it was based. A display-less M would be more costly to develop than the M Monochrom and the expenses would have to be recouped from only a small number of units likely to be sold. Blah blah

 

But the point doesn't need to keep being made because the purpose of these threads is usually of the "wouldn't it be desirable if a thinner stripped-down M digital could be made" not "I think Leica should or will make such a product". It's just a pretty aimless discussion. The point (now being repeatedly made) about the cost of producing an increasingly niche product, etc. is obvious, rather boring and really doesn't need stating.

[earleygallery]

But the point doesn't need to keep being made because the purpose of these threads is usually of the "wouldn't it be desirable if a thinner stripped-down M digital could be made" not "I think Leica should or will make such a product". It's just a pretty aimless discussion. The point (now being repeatedly made) about the cost of producing an increasingly niche product, etc. is obvious, rather boring and really doesn't need stating.

 

Ian, if you read the posts I've responded to you will see that I was responding to the claim that such a camera would cost less, the logic being that removing the screen is going to cut costs.

 

Indeed we can dream about all sorts of ideas, and this one has cropped up on the forum many times over the years.

[swamiji]

Ian, if you read the posts I've responded to you will see that I was responding to the claim that such a camera would cost less, the logic being that removing the screen is going to cut costs.

 

Indeed we can dream about all sorts of ideas, and this one has cropped up on the forum many times over the years.

 

You mean screens are free?

 

Development costs of a dream camera is 0.

 

As much as I would like to have such a camera, the chance of it really be made is also 0.

 

Read the original post.

[wattsy]

Ian, if you read the posts I've responded to you will see that I was responding to the claim that such a camera would cost less, the logic being that removing the screen is going to cut costs.

 

Ah, on that we can agree. Such a product would inevitably be more expensive than a run of the mill M.

[swamiji]

The value of this type of thread, is the open sharing of wishes for future development. Statements like "I like this" or "I don't like that" has value for Leica. Whether Leica uses any of the ideas from these threads is something else entirely.

 

This is one of the purposes for Leica to participate (although passively) in such forums, to get an idea of what it's users are thinking.

 

Having someone come along with statements like you must pay cash up front for development, is really not helpful, and is not of any value. Since the goal of the thread is not to tell Leica we must have this or that or we walk. It's an exploring of issues and possible solutions.

 

The issue here is that people feel the M is gotten too large and too heavy, and wouldn't be nice if an M6 sized camera was developed, and what ideas we could think of to help in that direction.

 

The idea that Leica would actually build such a camera was not even mentioned until show me your money or walk was mentioned...

[earleygallery]

The OP has suggested a smaller, simpler M, without a screen, because that in his opinion will make the camera more 'film like'.

 

I and some others have responded pointing out the folly in such an idea, and why it won't happen.

 

We're all having a discussion here.

 

I would like to start a little discussion here about something that has been on my mind for a long time.

 

I used the M8 for 5 years and now i switched to the M240. Beside that i still own but rarely use an M6TTL.

 

Since the digital M's get thinker an heavier with ever new release, they move more and more away from the original M6 size and weight. The M6 is in my opinion the slickest camera ever build. I still prefer the way i work with my M6 over every digital camera.

 

So her's the idea:

A new M that is in every aspect like the M6 was, but has a sensor instead of film.

And i mean i EVERY aspect! Exact same size of the body, NO monitor, VERY limited control buttons. Only ISO and RAW or JPG can be chosen.

 

So one would have the exact same shooting experience like back in the days on film, without the hassle of developing and scanning.

 

It would also be the absolute best street and reportage camera and my preferred choice for travel and work in risky places.

 

In the film days, there where tons of very unique cameras out there for every possible use. Nowadays, all the cameras are kind of the same and i'm 100% sure that there's a place in the market for such a unique digital camera, specially when it comes from Leica! Think about the media-hype. First digital camera without a monitor :-)

 

Would you buy such a camera?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is simply not true. Even a cursory read of this thread will tell you otherwise. I'm astounded by this continued unabashed misrepresentation.

 

Here's a few:

Smaller/lighter body.

A more durable body.

A more weather resistant body.

A cheaper body component-wise.

A cheaper body manufacturing and R&D-wise .

A different user experience and handling.

A less battery consuming body.

A better looking body (don't deny it, this is paramount to many).

 

I could go on.

 

In other words, the shrinking camera, the GoPro.

[zlatkob]

I hope this is making some sense to you. I'm not trying to say the idea of a digital M6 is impossible, quite the opposite. But surely you can see that it will appeal to a smaller proportion of people that a Leica M would, or even an MM.

 

I agree that it is possible, and that the market is small. It would seem to appeal to photographers who:

 

I. Value simplicity above all, but not too much:

 

a) They value simplicity so much that a screen on the camera is too thick & distracting, and any buttons for digital functions are too many.

 

But they don't mind carrying, powering and connecting a secondary screen (smartphone/tablet/pc) to change camera settings, format a card or review an image; creating a film-like experience is worth the extra complexity.

 

II. Have plenty of time, but not too much:

 

a) They are not so rushed that they want to review an image or check an exposure in-camera; they don't desire immediate feedback from the camera either for quality control or learning purposes; all of that can wait until whenever they get around to downloading the images.

 

But they do still require the immediacy and convenience of digital because waiting for film to be developed and scanned sometimes takes too long.

[wattsy]

I agree that it is possible, and that the market is small. It would seem to appeal to photographers who: blah blah blah

 

Why should it bother you so much? Bizarre.

[zlatkob]

Why should it bother you so much? Bizarre.

 

Right ... why discuss camera design on a camera forum? That is bizarre.

[pop]

Right ... why discuss camera design on a camera forum? That is bizarre.

 

You are not discussing camera design. You are stating (over and over again) that your personal preferences are different from those of the person who started this thread and from those who would find the proposed device useful.

 

If you do not understand the stated preferences of other members, do not try to ridicule them by paraphrasing them in a way which makes them seem absurd to you. Otherwise, the joke might be on you.

[zlatkob]

You are not discussing camera design. You are stating (over and over again) that your personal preferences are different from those of the person who started this thread and from those who would find the proposed device useful.

 

If you do not understand the stated preferences of other members, do not try to ridicule them by paraphrasing them in a way which makes them seem absurd to you. Otherwise, the joke might be on you.

 

I'm not discussing camera design? I understand the preference and discussed its implications, both for actual photography and as a design philosophy. I think my point of view is consistent with the fact that Leica hasn't implemented such a retro design in any iteration of the digital M. Perhaps they will in the future.

 

On the topic of preferences, I imagine that manufacturers know that what people say they prefer and what they actually buy often doesn't match. Remember all of the people who expressed preferences against:

- CMOS sensor

- thumb grip integrated in body

- video mode

- live view

I suspect that many of them bought an M240 with exactly those features and did not buy the M-E or keep the M9/M8 as their main rangefinder despited better matching their expressed preferences.

[bla]

Remember all of the people who expressed preferences against:

- CMOS sensor

- thumb grip integrated in body

- video mode

- live view

I suspect that many of them bought an M240 with exactly those features and did not buy the M-E or keep the M9/M8 as their main rangefinder despited better matching their expressed preferences.

 

Maybe they bought it because the improvements over M9/M8 in other aspects are big enough to live with video mode and live view and the thumb grip, even if you didn't want it in first place.

[zlatkob]

Maybe they bought it because the improvements over M9/M8 in other aspects are big enough to live with video mode and live view and the thumb grip, even if you didn't want it in first place.

 

Exactly. When it came down to spending real cash money, the money went to the hot new M240 rather than the formerly preferred CCD cameras. It shows that performance improvements rule for most buyers, despite what they may say. The fact that these details had been the subject of strong philosophical disapproval went right out the window as soon as the new camera arrived. People who dismissed CMOS, live view, video & thumb grips as dslr-style anti-Leica went right out and bought the M240 — and they liked it. (Of course, not everyone, but many.) It shows how fickle buyers can be about their stated preferences, and manufacturers know it.

[bill]

Exactly. ...It shows that performance improvements rule for most buyers, despite what they may say. ...

 

No.

 

It shows that simply having the newest and shiniest rules for most buyers, regardless of whether they need the "performance improvements" or have the talent to make the most of them.

 

That's humanity for you.

 

Sent from another Galaxy

[zlatkob]

It shows that simply having the newest and shiniest rules for most buyers, regardless of whether they need the "performance improvements" or have the talent to make the most of them.

 

Yes, that too ... just having the newest and shiniest. But performance improvements make the buying decision much easier.

[mjh]

The value of this type of thread, is the open sharing of wishes for future development.

Which would imply that this is more than just some pie-in-the-sky, “One can dream, can one?” kind of thread, but rather a discussion about something one hopes Leica will actually build some day. And I believe the TO would agree since he had asked specifically: “Would you buy such a camera?”

 

Now it is quite obvious that there are no insurmountable obstacles in the way of developing such a camera. The crucial question is whether developing and marketing such a camera would make any business sense. If it doesn’t then the camera won’t be built, regardless of its viability from a technical point of view. So if you really want Leica to build it, you need to convince them that it would earn them money.

 

I am not taking any delight in bursting anyone’s bubbles and if bubbles – rather than something more tangible – are all you are after, then that’s fine with me.

[Jeff S]

So if you really want Leica to build it, you need to convince them that it would earn them money.

 

I'm not a proponent/buyer of this hypothetical camera, and I agree wholeheartedly with your notion that Leica would need to be convinced about its business sense and profitability, but I doubt Leica proceeded with the Mononchrom because forum members convinced them of its profitability; rather, the company did that on its own, despite many naysayers here. In fact it was dismissed then by some current owners.

 

I suspect that some things just resonate more with the powers that be. As we agreed earlier, Leica marches to its own beat.

 

Jeff

[mjh]

I doubt Leica proceeded with the Mononchrom because forum members convinced them of its profitability; rather, the company did that on its own, despite many naysayers here.

I suppose you are right. Monitoring forum activity cannot and should not replace serious market research. While it can give you some ideas it is pretty much useless when deliberating whether to actually pursue those ideas. Moreover, the concept of a monochrome M originated in Solms, rather than here in this forum. Here the idea of a monochrome M was tossed about time and again over all those years but the naysayers always appeared to be the majority.

 

On the other hand I am sure that the ‘digital M6’ concept is something Leica will not come up with on their own.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[swamiji]

I am sure that the ‘digital M6’ concept is something Leica will not come up with on their own.

 

As a Monochrom owner, I would not be so bold with such statements.

 

Various rumors have been coming out of Leica about a smaller interchangeable lens camera, and Leica has said it will not come out with another lens series... So nothing is impossible.