pop Posted August 1, 2014 Share #81 Posted August 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I disagree on two counts.One: an automobile is as much a computer as a camera is. Automobiles are - thanks god - not operated through GUIs and there must be hordes of photographers who would like to operate their cameras as cameras and not as computers. Hence, there might be a smallish market for a displayless M. Leica is well known for serving smallish markets ....Comparing the thickness of the film to the thickness of all the opto-electronical elements at the rear of a camera is not the whole story. You'd have to add the thickness of the back cover and the pressure plate assembly as well, which might land us in the vicinity of the sensor with board and back cover of the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Hi pop, Take a look here Size of the M240 ... why do people complain?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mmradman Posted August 1, 2014 Share #82 Posted August 1, 2014 Phillip, Disagreement noted. If Leica is so good catering for small audiences how about full frame digital R camera, just one example. Everything is possible at cost. Cars computerised or not user interface is limited to accelerator, brake, clutch and sterling wheel, ok gear shift also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 1, 2014 Share #83 Posted August 1, 2014 I'd bet a modest amount that the difference in girth is mostly due to the rear display. Hence, a displayless M would be about the same size as an M6. Stefan Daniel said that the difference in depth between the M240 and M9 could be attributed to 1mm to accommodate the rear display and the remainder the thumb wheel/rest. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 1, 2014 Share #84 Posted August 1, 2014 Phillip, Disagreement noted. If Leica is so good catering for small audiences how about full frame digital R camera, just one example. Everything is possible at cost. Anything is possible at a cost, but not everything is feasible at any cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted August 1, 2014 Share #85 Posted August 1, 2014 Anything is possible at a cost, but not everything is feasible at any cost. I am familiar with "reasonably practicable" rationale, anyone providing services to paying clients should know that very well. Making M digital camera without LCD would be bordering on practicable. On the other hand Leica has track record in unusual commissions like making one-off R 1600mm f5.6 lens for rich Middle Eastern client so anyone wanting that special no LCD camera be prepared to write a mother of all cheques. Personally, M typ 240 dimensions & weight are perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted August 1, 2014 Share #86 Posted August 1, 2014 My 1977 RSR (made by Penske in California from a lightweight 911S) has a sun roof. It had been welded up but I had it opened up again as it is very nice for rallying in hot weather. Since the whole body has a welded in massive roll cage, it makes zero difference to the structural rigidity. Wilson I'm sure it's fine for structural integrity but my point was and the analogy is identical to the difference between an M9/MM and a M240 in that the sunroof is a feature that doesn't make the car faster or handle better, quite the opposite. In fact the sunroof adds complexity and weight. Nothing wrong with it but to purists, they'd pay more for sunroof delete option if it were standard equipment. Sunroof on a GT3 is very similar to Video on an M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 1, 2014 Share #87 Posted August 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sunroof delete isn't about increasing structural integrity it's about reducing weight. Same reason they substitute those little loops for doorpulls. An ounce here, an ounce there, it adds up. Best reason IMHO for sunroof on a pre-964 is because the A/C is pitiful on the earlier ones and it helps evacuate hot air after it's been parked. And best reason IMHO for a sunroof delete on the later ones is because they tend to clatter and rattle. But wth does this have to do with a 1mm increase in the M240??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted August 1, 2014 Share #88 Posted August 1, 2014 Sunroof delete isn't about increasing structural integrity it's about reducing weight. Same reason they substitute those little loops for doorpulls. An ounce here, an ounce there, it adds up. Best reason IMHO for sunroof on a pre-964 is because the A/C is pitiful on the earlier ones and it helps evacuate hot air after it's been parked. And best reason IMHO for a sunroof delete on the later ones is because they tend to clatter and rattle. But wth does this have to do with a 1mm increase in the M240??? It's not about 1mm and I certainly am not making an issue of it. I love my M240. But the comparisons I outlined in detail tell an interesting story in the similarities on many levels between Leica and Porsche and evolution not revolution. There are times when I am going to shoot, I feel like I prefer the M9/MM body size and all of it's 'handling' characteristics...other times, the M240 makes sense..well only for color in my case.. That 1mm is the same as you point out as to the pulls on the doors, ac delete and all deletions to reduce weight. Both cars and both cameras are more than good enough to get you where you want to go. PS: there's no shake rattle or roll on late model Porsche's with sunroofs but they do add over 100 lbs in just about the last place you would want it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 1, 2014 Share #89 Posted August 1, 2014 The main weight loss to be achieved on my RSR is if I could persuade my regular co-driver to go on a diet Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 1, 2014 Share #90 Posted August 1, 2014 10 pounds equals one HP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted August 1, 2014 Share #91 Posted August 1, 2014 so 1mm = 1MP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 1, 2014 Share #92 Posted August 1, 2014 I don't complaint but i would appreciate if digital Ms could get back to having the same size and weight as their film counterparts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 1, 2014 Share #93 Posted August 1, 2014 I don't complaint but i would appreciate if digital Ms could get back to having the same size and weight as their film counterparts. See post #77 above in this very thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 2, 2014 Share #94 Posted August 2, 2014 Happy to see that Wilson shares my feeling but i can only speak for myself here. The use of mirrorless cameras makes me more demanding i suspect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 2, 2014 Share #95 Posted August 2, 2014 It's not about 1mm and I certainly am not making an issue of it. I love my M240. But the comparisons I outlined in detail tell an interesting story in the similarities on many levels between Leica and Porsche and evolution not revolution. The dissimiliarity is that test-shooting an M240 didn't dissuade me from buying one, whereas test-driving a 991 did. PS: there's no shake rattle or roll on late model Porsche's with sunroofs Sure as hell is in mine. Two shops have had it apart thrice each, swore it was fixed, but within a month it's back to rattling like an old pickup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Novak Posted August 2, 2014 Author Share #96 Posted August 2, 2014 I'm a little mystified by the people who want Leica to return to the size of a film M with their digital M. Realistically is it even possible? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 2, 2014 Share #97 Posted August 2, 2014 Some clamored for a bigger, higher resolution display and longer battery life, and now moan when the camera is only a tiny bit bigger. People are funny. I'd rather see the same size camera in a carbon fiber version…except maybe for the price. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted August 2, 2014 Share #98 Posted August 2, 2014 The dissimiliarity is that test-shooting an M240 didn't dissuade me from buying one, whereas test-driving a 991 did. Sure as hell is in mine. Two shops have had it apart thrice each, swore it was fixed, but within a month it's back to rattling like an old pickup. Like I said, both get you where you wanna go.. I have no complaints about my M-240. Sure, if I wanted a custom made M, I would spec it a bit differently but it's amazing how great our cameras are as well as many others. Just like there's something about a late 80's 911 (and all air cooled iterations)...there will always be that feeling for the MM.. When the M240 Monochrom comes...it would be hard to give it up.. Never should have sold my 87 targa! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted August 2, 2014 Share #99 Posted August 2, 2014 Wow, are you guys still wacking-off about this stupid thread? I dare the wanker to make the 100th post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted August 2, 2014 Share #100 Posted August 2, 2014 Wow, are you guys still wacking-off about this stupid thread? I just joined it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.