A digital M6

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, I'm not. That is your conclusion.

 

Okay. Then how do you have a histogram in the viewfinder?

[PeterP]

These type of posts are painful to read, they have rehashed so many times before. With the same outcome - technology moves on, new features are added on, and the same old complaints kept being reposted.

[Advertisement]

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

[swamiji]

Okay. Then how do you have a histogram in the viewfinder?

 

Well, You remove the frame lines, and put in a back lit, LCD screen. You can project the frame lines, Histogram, etc. from there. This does seem to be the way Leica is going as the M240 has already removed the window for the frame lines.

 

But I vote for no Histogram. I vote for a M6 simplicity. Size, Shape, buttons, ISO same as the M6. Just remove the take up nob and replace it with a LCD for battery and frame count (ala M8). No buttons at all, save the shutter release and the lens release. RAW ONLY.

 

If you have to change any settings at all, you can do it via WiFi. Sony already makes a camera like this. So it's not new.

 

Like the Monochrom, it would not be for everybody, but it would get us luddites off Leica's back.

Edited January 29, 2014 by swamiji

[Jeff S]

These type of posts are painful to read, they have rehashed so many times before. With the same outcome - technology moves on, new features are added on, and the same old complaints kept being reposted.

 

I remember various old posts by some folks expressing the desire for a b/w digital M. The notion was dismissed by many who couldn't imagine deleting color in a modern digital camera. And others who flat out said it wouldn't work. In fact I think some of the current MM owners were among the doubters.

 

Retro appears to be 'in', as the newest Fuji entry shows. Although Leica marches to its own beat.

 

Jeff

[StephenPatterson]

The only feature I would welcome in a "digital M6" would be a return to the classic size, otherwise I prefer my M240.

[swamiji]

The only feature I would welcome in a "digital M6" would be a return to the classic size, otherwise I prefer my M240.

 

I, like the OP, also prefer the classic weight. The M240, in my view, has pushed the M into DSLR space. While the M240, is an excellent camera, and the new features can be useful, it has strayed from it's M roots, of Bauhaus minimalism.

 

The M is no longer the smallest full frame camera on the block, again I look to Sony for that.

Edited January 29, 2014 by swamiji

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But I vote for no Histogram. I vote for a M6 simplicity. Size, Shape, buttons, ISO same as the M6. Just remove the take up nob and replace it with a LCD for battery and frame count (ala M8). No buttons at all, save the shutter release. RAW ONLY.

 

If you have to change any settings at all, you can do it via WiFi. Sony already makes a camera like this. So it's not new.

 

This illustrates the dilemma of the camera designer. People vote for the M6 — same size, shape, buttons, ... everything ... except .... then everyone has a personal exception or two. Ok, an LCD with battery and frame counter. And wifi to change settings. Those are pretty big departures from the M6. Then we need another device (smart phone) and that device has to be available and work in the same conditions.

 

The result is something superficially like an M6, but more like a strange replica of an M6 — a digital camera stripped of some key benefits of a digital camera, just for the sake of "feeling" like a technology that it isn't. At the same time, it's hobbled by an occasional dependency on a smart phone, an utterly un-M6-like partner. To make this digital "M6" look & feel like an M6, we're moving a key part of its user interface to another device which we'll try to keep out of sight, except when we have to change a setting and thus break the illusion of "M6-ness".

 

IMO, this pretty much breaks with any notion of form following function. The M6 had a certain form because of its functions, which related to exposing film, transporting film, rewinding film, etc. A digital camera is similar in that it makes pictures with light, and yet it does so in a different way. A coherent design has to respect and reflect its actual functions, not those of another technology.

 

A potential buyer has to ask, "Which camera will be better ... the one with the histogram or the one without? The one that lets me chimp if I want to, or the one that never does? The one that doesn't need a smartphone or the one that sometimes requires on a smartphone?"

[swamiji]

A potential buyer has to ask, "Which camera will be better ... the one with the histogram or the one without? The one that lets me chimp if I want to, or the one that never does? The one that doesn't need a smartphone or the one that sometimes requires on a smartphone?"

 

You make a valid point, Which camera will be better, a camera with color or a B&W only camera? Sony already has product that requires a smartphone to operate.

 

P.S. Most consumers don't even know what a histogram is...

[zlatkob]

I remember various old posts by some folks expressing the desire for a b/w digital M. The notion was dismissed by many who couldn't imagine deleting color in a modern digital camera. And others who flat out said it wouldn't work. In fact I think some of the current MM owners were among the doubters.

 

Retro appears to be 'in', as the newest Fuji entry shows. Although Leica marches to its own beat.

 

The MM has a certain logic. The Kodak 760m and Phase One Achromatic showed that it could be done.

 

The newest Fuji design makes a lot of sense. Manual dials for the key controls at a glance (shutter, aperture, ISO), but keeping the LCD for its obvious benefits.

Edited January 29, 2014 by zlatkob

[swamiji]

"The MM has a certain logic. "

 

So does removing all distracting elements, so one can focus on the shot. This has always been the advantage of the Leica M.

 

I also remember all the MM detractors...

Edited January 29, 2014 by swamiji

[ThePengu1n]

Maybe a digital film cartridge which fits into the existing film Ms. I saw some punt one on Indegogo but didn't get enough sponsorship.

[earleygallery]

As I've already said, put down some hard cash and Leica might agree to make a screenless body for those that want one. It will cost a lot more than an M of course due to a lower production run, but if you can get 5000 like minded people together they'd have to consider it.

 

They won't make it for the few on here who want one though.

[pop]

… A potential buyer has to ask, "Which camera will be better ... the one with the histogram or the one without? The one that lets me chimp if I want to, or the one that never does? The one that doesn't need a smartphone or the one that sometimes requires on a smartphone?"

This is exactly what the TO does.

You have stated your preferences over and over again. You want a camera which lets you change every single setting at every moment. You also want a camera which shows the images taken immediately. You do not want to carry additional devices even though many photographers did so even before the time of the M6, and if it's only the light meter.

You could just as soon get used to the fact that there are people with other wants or needs, who do not change their settings while on an outing if at all, who prefer thinner and lighter cameras, who have no desire to look at the resulting image in a hurry.

Besides, calling a device with a permanently attached bulky display "more modern" than one which distributes its functions with the most up-to-date wireless transmission over several nodes is debatable. There are quite a few photographic situations where taking the display or view finder off the camera would be of great benefit: Architecture, close-up work and at times even portraits come to mind.

True, those applications are not within the accustomed realm of the M type camera. But there might be people who prefer using such a camera over the currently implemented incarnation.

[Nick_S]

Okay. Then how do you have a histogram in the viewfinder?

Use a taller dot matrix LED display in place of the present segmented one -- there is ample space between the gap of the current lower section of each frameline.

 

Being able to review just completed exposures at eye-level would save having to re-frame each shot after checking the back panel. In manual mode one could set the exposure, fire a frame and make further adjustment based on the whether there is a large peak in the highlight section of the histogram. Taking first pressure on the shutter release could clear the histogram and return the display to normal metering mode.

 

This thread seems to be getting pretty heated for one simply exploring concepts -- it might be more civil if it were treated as just a scratch pad for trying out ideas.

 

Nick

Edited January 29, 2014 by Nick_S

[rodluvan]

This illustrates the dilemma of the camera designer. People vote for the M6 — same size, shape, buttons, ... everything ... except .... then everyone has a personal exception or two. Ok, an LCD with battery and frame counter. And wifi to change settings. Those are pretty big departures from the M6. Then we need another device (smart phone) and that device has to be available and work in the same conditions.

 

You continue to propose this false dichotomy, it's not either exactly like an M6 or nothing at all, neither is it everyone is happy with the design or none at all. You're hyperbolizing with infantile straw-men. A nay-sayer trying to shoehorn assertions into a preconceived conclusion.

 

The entire digital M-series (from M8 and up) is a stark account on how Leica is willing to compromise accessibility to maintaining its idiom. To an even higher degree the pre digital M's did that as well. Leica has always put the experience of taking the photo first through simplicity and easy of use. The MM is a step in that direction, so is the Nikon Df (although failed imo), i.e. to decrease options and increase simplicity. A digital M6 is, counter to what you're presupposing, an entirely logical step for many Leica users as opposed to posers. To what degree it is pursued is ultimately a question for Leica. Nikon failed hugely by not implementing enough changes that many wanted to see in a "digital FM", all they really did was removing video and giving it a retro look.

 

And please stop invoking HCB, I'm sure he wouldn't have touched a digital M with a ten foot pole and certainly not given a rats a$$ what time zone he was in and if that corresponded correctly with his camera.

[MarkP]

The only feature I would welcome in a "digital M6" would be a return to the classic size, otherwise I prefer my M240.

 

I completely agree with you.

[mjh]

Retro appears to be 'in', as the newest Fuji entry shows. Although Leica marches to its own beat.

Indeed they do. Leica may be conservative in some aspects; the simple fact that they are still building rangefinder cameras (even film-based ones) is testament to that. But they don’t do retro. They go forward, if in a somewhat clumsy way at times, not back to where they have already been.

[StephenPatterson]

Leica may be conservative in some aspects…But they don’t do retro.

 

Sure Leica does retro. There is absolutely no other explanation for the baseplate.

[ynp]

There is a lot of empty space on the top plane, above the viewfinder. Enough for a small OLED or Digital ink screen for the histogram and other shooting parameters.

When the histogram is not needed, it will show The Full Leica Script :-)))

Just an idea.....

 

 

Sent from my iPad / Tapatalk HD

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[swamiji]

Indeed they do. Leica may be conservative in some aspects; the simple fact that they are still building rangefinder cameras (even film-based ones) is testament to that. But they don’t do retro. They go forward, if in a somewhat clumsy way at times, not back to where they have already been.

 

Does that imply, that for the next iteration of the M, I should hire a sherpa to carry my gear?

 

Lets see;

I/II/III - small light,

M film (except M5) - Good comfortable size,

M5 - almost sank Leica,

M8/9 - Large but we accepted it as the price of digital.

M T240 - a little bit larger, but much heaver,

M T??? - Slightly Larger yet again and much heavier as more features are added, needing even more power.

 

Is this our future? Do we really need all these features to take a photo? We do have the choice not to use these features, but not the effect of their presence.

 

For me I don't need anything but to control Focus, ISO, Aperture, and Shutter speed. I don't really need a light meter. The rest is fluff. I can see some want the comfort of LV and Histograms, so OK, we have it, but now the camera is too heavy for a days shoot (again only my experience). I would like something fast and light, but it seems that Leica is going the other way...

Edited January 29, 2014 by swamiji
Grammar