Should I buy an M?

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Given Leica's cosmetic upgrades were hideously expensive I shudder to think what they'd decide to charge for an entire guts upgrade.

[Advertisement]

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

[Exodies]

While we are re-engineering, we should include all the camera electronics in the sensor chip; with a display on the back and x GB of memory so we don't need SD cards. Oh, and for goodness sake make it circular to match the light coming through the lens.

[jdlaing]

While we are re-engineering, we should include all the camera electronics in the sensor chip; with a display on the back and x GB of memory so we don't need SD cards. Oh, and for goodness sake make it circular to match the light coming through the lens.

One word stops that from happening.

[bencoyote]

I've been reluctant to disassemble my M240 and so I do not know the insides very well. I do not think that the modularity at the level you are describing is necessary, you don't need to have compatible chips. There are mechanical and electrical and electronic components. The things that I believe would have to remain the same are actually rather few. These are pretty basic things like the volume and dimensions of the circuit cards and the screw holes that attach them to the case. Then there are electrical connections to the switches and other sensors. What you do is replace the entire logic board and the sensor. This is quite similar to what Leica has been doing already. The M and the M-P are basically the same camera but the M-P has a faster processor more buffer and a few other things I guess. The Monochrom 246 is also a M240 with a slightly different sensor and a slightly different firmware load. I'm just suggesting continuing the trend and make the next M have the same internal and external mechanical components but with a new logic card and sensor. 

 

1) Chips and printed circuit cards are cheapest when bought in volume. to boost the volume of the chips and circuit cards bought around launch of the new product, offer the service to upgrade the internal electronics of the previous models.

2) This maintains the value of the current camera without having to offer a previous generation like they do with the M-E. By preventing a sudden drop in the value of that camera as people upgrade to the next generation..

3) it helps justify the high price by making it a more like a lifetime investment with some reoccurring costs. Sort of like major services on a car.

4) it prevents them from having to say, "we can't fix it because the parts are not available anymore" like they kind of have to do with the M8 and the screen. Instead they simply say, "we no longer have parts for this generation, you must upgrade to the latest generation of hardware which includes these nifty new features."

5) their supplier contracts can have a shorter finite date on them. They can buy X units make a percentage Into new cameras, use a percentage for upgrades and only need to guarantee production for service parts until the next generation of camera.

6) it renews contact with the customer. Almost making the camera almost like a subscription

7) it keeps the cameras in the hands of their current users and off of the used market so they don't have to compete with as much of a secondary market.

 

The point is they already do this with the M240, M-P, and the Monochrom 246. Just make the 250 or 260 or whatever it is going to be the same as the 240 mechanically AND offer upgrades between the generations as part of a CLA process. Call it UCLA for Upgrade, Clean, Lubricate, and Adjust. 

 

I don't think for a minute that the camera needs to be modular.  All that is needed is for Leica (as the customer for the sensor manufacturers) to specify the physical dimensions and electronic contacts for the sensors to be standardised.  The M is already a large camera, and Leica has shown that it can achieve what it (and everyone else) thought was impossible - fitting a full frame sensor into a rangefinder body.  Sony has followed suit, but without the rangefinder - these guys are the only ones in town to achieve this, so far.

 

Sensor manufacturers are no different to any other component producers - they make their products to meet market demand.  Leica buys CCD sensors to their specification, and they buy Sony sensors off the shelf, but presumably adapted to their requirements.  Where CMOSIS is concerned, they developed and produce the M(240) & M(246) sensors to Leica's specification.  For CMOSIS, the issue is volume - if Leica orders enough sensors, they'll make them to whatever specification Leica requires, and they will continue to make them to that specification, no matter how obsolete the technology my be.

[IkarusJohn]

That is exactly what I was suggesting Ben, only you explained it more thoroughly.

 

The response you will inevitably get is that the electronics are different dimensions and won't fit into earlier generations of camera.  To my mind, this is entirely within Leica's control by (1) maintaining the dimensions of the body while allowing some flexibility in how the electronics fit, and (2) specifying the physical dimensions required when ordering the electronic parts - I would assume that Leica's orders are sufficient for them to specify this sort of thing.

[dkCambridgeshire]

The idea of exchangeable electronics has been fascinating me. I can see lots of potential benefits for customers. What I've been trying to figure out is whether it would benefit Leica, too. The question comes down to money: how much does it cost, in parts and manufacturing, to build the mechanics of an M (rangefinder, switches, shutter, classic metering, etc.) compared to the electronics (sensor, power, ports, etc.)? If they're about even, I could see a decent business case that it would be good for Leica to move in this direction; a case that becomes stronger as electronics become relatively less expensive, which is likely in the long term, but weaker if I'm overestimating the cost of brass plates, finely assembled rangefinder, and the like.

 

Here's my argument: it is all about co ...

 

As an aside, I looked for the comments you mentioned, Dunk, but didn't see them. If I'm completely off base, a pointer to the thread you mentioned would be appreciated.

 

Such a modular system would also allow Leica to …. Sure, it might cost $12,000 rather than $8,000, but it could be acquired in $4000 chunks over the years and would allow consumers exactly the camera that each one wants. Less like Apple, more like BMW. …..

 

(Is it obvious that I'm saving up for an M and pondering the possibilities while I wait?)

 

Cheers,

Jon

 

 

I have been trying to find it but so far cannot … maybe deleted as part of the 'clean-up' with the new forum ? But definitely was discussed and one of our well known experts explained why sensor upgrades are not as easy/simple as some might presume. For all the work involved modifying an existing camera it's probably more cost/time/technology/design/software effective to start with a clean slate rather than modify existing products … especially when those existing products might not be made with state of the art production techniques /methods/tooling. 

 

The posts I recall were within a D2 thread where it was suggested that a new sensor for the D2 would give the camera a new lease of life. But cameras are now manufactured very differently … design, technology, and production techniques 'move on'  and the associated parts and software required for a new D2 sensor would not make it a cost effective proposition … apart from the fact that demand would be relatively limited. Any new camera must have volume production potential. 

 

Furthermore, TTBOMK Leica has not been able to 'upgrade' the M9 series sensor to solve the sensor glass corrosion problem … if was a simple matter of whacking in a new sensor Leica would have a solution … but so far the only remedy is to replace with exactly the same sensor.  

 

Simpler upgrades e.g. new monitor screens and shutters are a different kettle.

 

dunk

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sensor upgrades would likely be nearly impossible. There are all sorts of interdependencies between the processor and the sensor as well as all the support electronics around the sensor. However, that is not at all what we have been talking about.

 

What we have been talking about is more akin to replacing the motherboard in a desktop computer. You have the same case, you keep the keyboard and the monitor. The power supply is the same. You might even have the same hard disk but the processor, the ram and all the support electronics get changed. This is possible because the physical dimensions of the motherboard was standardized into one of 3 or 4 sizes with specified drilled points for screws and standardized connectors for power, the on/off button and specified positions for ports. 

 

While designing this way is not easy, it is standard in the industry. Furthermore, it may be easier and more cost effective than the alternative. Designing the case and the internal structure of the camera then building tooling to fabricate the case and all of the internal pieces in it is a non-trivial cost. Molds for injection molded parts are very expensive. Dies for stamping parts are also expensive. Don't incur the cost of new tooling unless you have to. Since people are happy with the case and operational controls, don't mess with them. Standardize all of that then simply change the logic card the sensor and possibly the screen.

 

I have been trying to find it but so far cannot … maybe deleted as part of the 'clean-up' with the new forum ? But definitely was discussed and one of our well known experts explained why sensor upgrades are not as easy/simple as some might presume. For all the work involved modifying an existing camera it's probably more cost/time/technology/design/software effective to start with a clean slate rather than modify existing products … especially when those existing products might not be made with state of the art production techniques /methods/tooling. 

 

The posts I recall were within a D2 thread where it was suggested that a new sensor for the D2 would give the camera a new lease of life. But cameras are now manufactured very differently … design, technology, and production techniques 'move on'  and the associated parts and software required for a new D2 sensor would not make it a cost effective proposition … apart from the fact that demand would be relatively limited. Any new camera must have volume production potential. 

 

Furthermore, TTBOMK Leica has not been able to 'upgrade' the M9 series sensor to solve the sensor glass corrosion problem … if was a simple matter of whacking in a new sensor Leica would have a solution … but so far the only remedy is to replace with exactly the same sensor.  

 

Simpler upgrades e.g. new monitor screens and shutters are a different kettle.

 

dunk

[dkCambridgeshire]

The Ricoh GXR was a simple modular system probably with greater volume production than any Leica … but it fell by the wayside … demand did not justify continued production.

 

dunk

[Berlinman]

Its a good concept, but normally it ends with upgrade costs in the same range like trading the old one for a new camera. And such concepts for modular replacement of sensors, boards etc. are difficult if you want small boddies.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Some engineers/enthusiasts might be able to e.g. shoe-horn a Maserati engine into a model T Ford and make a very interesting and charismatic car… but it won't be a volume production proposition … not enough punters … they only want the latest technology. Similarly, if Fuji, Sony et al commence using a revolutionary camera design and all the other manufacturers follow suit because of demand then Leica's modular system lags behind and sales suffer …  in the same way that significant numbers of M users prefer to use their lenses on the latest incarnation of the Sony A7 series platform.

 

Leica has a new factory with volume production potential thus unlikely they want to divert 'resources', in the broadest sense of the word, to mess about with relatively complicated upgrades … when those same resources can be more effectively employed developing and manufacturing state of the art products. 

 

dunk

[Guest JonathanP]

Leica has a new factory with volume production potential thus unlikely they want to divert 'resources', in the broadest sense of the word, to mess about with relatively complicated upgrades … when those same resources can be more effectively employed developing and manufacturing state of the art products. 

 

Yes. As much as I wish we could go back to a time of maintaining products for many years, Leica has a whole infrastructure including factory, boutique shops, approved dealers, ... that needs to be kept alive by pumping out new products. There's no way any accountant, CEO or shareholder is going to forgo that by offering you a chance to avoid buying the latest must have shiny thing. Even if its technically possible.

 

I really don't like the throw away society, but I don't see how you can put that genie back in the bottle. Opportunities for very small privately held businesses to service some niches perhaps, but VC funded companies with a short term vision? No way.

 

Jonathan 

[michaelbrenner]

My answer is Yes, Highly Recommended.  

 

I shot Nikon film and digital and Fujifilm digital.  If this is your first Leica M 240 I would caution against getting used model until you have a chance to get experience with the M 240 and learn how it works.  If you are set on getting a used model, maybe rent one first.  I had to return my new Leica M 240 as it had some kind of bizarre vertical banding issue that manifested after about 1000 actuations and also the live view kept going blank.  I thought maybe I was doing something wrong but it was the camera.  Thanks to B&H for an effortless return.

 

What I like most about the Leica M 240 is that I feel inspired to do my very best with each capture.  Definitely get the EVF as using it to review captures is like having a slide viewer handy.  Also, it is essential for using R lenses or for using long lenses such as the 135 or in some cases the 90, and it's very effective for fine-tuning focus when needed.  However the EVF is a huge pain in the neck to use when shooting due to the shot-to-shot delay (over a full second) so turn it off before making the actual capture or use bracketing or continuous.  Downside there is that the display goes blank so you are disconnected from the subject, which I find quite disconcerting.  Still, the EVF is a must-have.

 

The rangefinder is amazing, and if this is your first experience to rangefinder photography, very likely you'll either love it or hate it.  I bonded pretty quickly with it.  Being used to autofocus on my Nikons and Fujifilm cameras I was a bit concerned about how difficult the transition would be to effectively use manual focus lenses.  In particular I did a lot of research on how the rangfinder worked and went to a Leica store and tried one out.  But it wasn't until I had purchased the M 240 and had an opportunity to monkey around with it that I bonded with the rangefinder.

 

Key advantages of the rangefinder are:  1) continuous contact with the subject - taking a picture does not interrupt one's view of the subject like on an SLR, 2) area outside picture frame is visible so that you can readily see what's happening around the subject, 3) clarity - the glass on the viewfinder is so clean and so clear and the way in which the rangefinder patch works is so elegant and so intuitive and so fast it's difficult to understand without having an M 240 for a period of time to utilize, and 4) increased focus accuracy - unlike auto focus, one can focus on an object using the rangefinder even though intervening objects might be in place (e.g. a subject partially obscured by brush, a person in a crowd, etc.

 

Next, the lenses.  All have detailed depth of field markings.  All have aperture rings with well-defined detents.  Once an M 240 is set up, it is very, very fast (as long as LV mode is not being used).  Raise camera to eye, compose, shoot.  Done.  Much faster than my Nikons or Fujifilm cameras that have autofocus.  This assumes, of course, that the subject is not moving quickly or erratically.  Thus, the M 240 would likely not be a good choice for sports when using long lenses having razor-thin depth of field.  However, if the sport is at all predictable (e.g. track and field) then it's not so bad.

 

Because Aperture, Focus and Shutter Speed are all readily accessible by touch and because the viewfinder has an arrow telling you which way to move the shutter speed dial and/or the Aperture ring, making manual adjustments is faster than anything else out there - all with the camera at your eye and without ever breaking contact with the subject.  ISO can also be changed in a similar way, using the rear dial, though as a safeguard against accidental modification you must simultaneously press the ISO button (left thumb to push ISO button, right thumb to manipulate dial).  Same thing with the exposure arrow - move the ISO dial in the direction indicated to bring the camera to the desired exposure setting.  And, you can change the desired exposure setting without removing your eye from the viewfinder.  Just push the button top front of camera and rotate rear dial.  That can take a bit of practice.  I mostly keep mine at -0.3EV to protect the highlights.

 

The elegant, understated simplicity of this camera cannot be overemphasized.

 

If I were to sum up the M 240 in as few words as possible, I would say, "Connection to the subject."

 

One last upside item - the optics of the viewfinder are so clear that you can see the subject blinking and time your capture appropriately.

 

There are a few attributes which some may see as a downside to the M 240.  First, already mentioned above, the M 240 is slooooooow when the EVF is on.  The initial capture goes quickly but the recovery time is over a second.  Screen is black during multiple shots.  And, most annoyingly, the screen goes black when using the timer.  Or, if the EVF is attached the back display *lights up* with the countdown, making use of the 2-second timer in candid lowlight conditions infeasible.  I like to use the 2-second self-timer when taking lowlight shots since neither camera nor any Leica lens has stabilization.  Really messes with the framing.

 

Next, the M 240 is, unabashedly, a camera for professionals, meaning you can control as much or as little as you want, up to a point.  I say up to a point because all Leica M lenses are manual focus.  Once you figure out the camera, however, I think you'll find it to be the quickest, easiest and most intuitive to use camera out there.  One gotcha is that that the camera, when in Manual mode, will use the last ISO manually specified.  So, if you were out night shooting and were using 3200 ISO but are out the next day shooting in manual mode that's the ISO that will be used.  By habit I *always* reset manual ISO to 400 as it's a nice "safe" ISO I have found.

 

Back to manual focus.  It takes a bit of getting used to, but once you get it dialed in, I doubt you'll ever want to go back to autofocus again.  I'm a bit of a control freak, and I appreciate that with manual focus (and aperture setting) I can get exactly what I want in focus and the "look" that I want.  The EVF can be very useful for this purpose.  Bracketing by aperture can be done fairly quickly but is not automatic as the camera has no direct connection to aperture.

 

Speaking of aperture and lenses, it's important to realize that the M 240 estimates what aperture is in use and puts the info in the metadata.  Sometimes it's dead on, sometimes not so much.  Also, unless your lens is six-bit coded, you will need to manually set which lens is attached to the camera for in-camera corrections and so the metadata is tagged correctly.  Lightroom also has lens adjustments which are available when shooting in RAW, so that's the way to go.  If the camera gets reset somehow (the reset setting is conveniently just above the oft-used format setting on the menu), the capture format will default back to JPEG a huge limitation after one gets used to shooting RAW.

 

Anyhow, that's it.  Hope this helps.  I have found the Leica M 240 to be refreshingly simple and elegant but at the same time to have many nuances which can prove disastrous until one gets to know the camera.  I bought one new from B&H and have never looked back.  By far the best camera I have ever owned and, key to my own outlook, I find the Leica M 240 to be a camera that inspires me to take each capture seriously as no other camera ever has.  Best wishes.

[Exodies]

One word stops that from happening.

 

Nope, I can't figure out what you are thinking. I give up.

[jdlaing]

Nope, I can't figure out what you are thinking. I give up.

HEAT

[JonPB]

...

The posts I recall were within a D2 thread where it was suggested that a new sensor for the D2 would give the camera a new lease of life. But cameras are now manufactured very differently … design, technology, and production techniques 'move on'  and the associated parts and software required for a new D2 sensor would not make it a cost effective proposition … apart from the fact that demand would be relatively limited. Any new camera must have volume production potential. 

...

 

Thanks for looking for that, dunk. Yes, I can definitely see how simply dropping in a new sensor would be quite an undertaking. It would make sense that the entire analog-to-digital conversion chain would be tuned to work with the original sensor's characteristics, meaning that a replacement would have to be identical...in other words, not an upgrade at all, just a different production run of the same thing.

 

...

I really don't like the throw away society, but I don't see how you can put that genie back in the bottle. Opportunities for very small privately held businesses to service some niches perhaps, but VC funded companies with a short term vision? No way.

 

Jonathan 

 

My hope is that the rise of 3D printing (and similarly controlled milling and cutting tools) will fundamentally shift the disposable economy that has been dominant since maybe the late 1970's. It might take 20 years to get there, but I can imagine a community like this one designing and building an open-source camera that uses entirely off-the-shelf and make-at-home components, with specialty items (like sensors that are compatible with steep-angle light) offered on a crowdfunded model (where they aren't manufactured until enough people have agreed to buy one to make the production run profitable). It wouldn't be as affordable as a factory-made machine if what's offered is what the consumer wants, but if the customer wants something else they will be able to make it rather than compromising with what a manufacturer decides to offer.

 

All that said, the M 240 isn't that camera, and I agree that the next two or three generations aren't likely to be built with that kind of flexibility in mind, either. The M strikes me as a well-defined concept, and improving it in a variety of ways but not deviating from the fundamental concept is critical for Leica. Even in an ideal maker economy, Leica might still stick to being a luxury brand where they see offering the whole package as more profitable than offering the constituent parts. The T and, to a lesser extent, S systems are where the innovation is, so those are more fun to watch from a techno-photo-geek hobbyist point of view.

 

The reason I'm interested in the M isn't because it is affordable or a camera for the next generation, but because it is the only camera that meets my desires (specifically, compatibility with film-era lenses and color accuracy prioritized over high sensitivity). Once I realized that, it just became a matter of saving up the necessary funds to buy into the system. My budget is designed for me to be able to buy a used M 240 around the time that the next generation is announced, giving me access to cheaper used cameras while also offering the opportunity to continue saving and buy the next version if its features would be significantly more useful to me.

 

Anyhow, with the number of people named John and Jonathan on the forum, I must be in the right place.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[Mornnb]

Thanks for looking for that, dunk. Yes, I can definitely see how simply dropping in a new sensor would be quite an undertaking. It would make sense that the entire analog-to-digital conversion chain would be tuned to work with the original sensor's characteristics, meaning that a replacement would have to be identical...in other words, not an upgrade at all, just a different production run of the same thing.

 

Actually the M240 does ADC on sensor. So the entire analog chain is contained within the sensor.

This is also what Sony and Nikon do, but Canon does not and is still doing ADC off sensor. The advantage is noise at low ISO and dynamic range.

[bencoyote]

Here are a couple of my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

The way that the Japanese manufacturers justified new cameras was by overcoming deficiencies in their previous line of products and adding new features.

What deficiencies does the M240 have? Without a clear personal understanding of this as it applies to your photography and your art, then it is impossible to know if the next model and of camera will be any better for you.

 

at 24MP the M is about on par with 35mm film. There is some question if a 36MP sensor in a 35x24mm size really exceeds the capabilities of current lenses for resolving detail. At that point, maybe you really do need medium format. Or maybe every lens needs to be built to the same standards as the APO-Summicron 50mm? 

 

In comparison to the current generation of sensors it lags a little behind in sensor read out speed (needed for video) and low light performance. Is this holding back your art? What are the cases where this matters: night, low light indoors, and high shutter speeds.

 

The biggest weakness that I see is digital has yet to fully match the dynamic range of film.  Once again is this a factor limiting your art?

 

Maybe the processor speed and or the power consumption in the M can be improved some so that it boots up faster or unsleeps faster or you can get more shots out of the battery. If you don't use the EVF or live view you already can get about 800 shots per charge.

 

The thing with the Leica M is the form factor and much of the UI is fixed and when one of the most sacred design elements is the minimalistism of operation then you really can't really just chuck in features. So what will they improve with the next M which will matter to you and your art?

 

Here is my personal Leica M wish list:

Thinner and lighter. More like the M3

Lower ISO and maybe higher ISO (not so much really but I kind of expect it)

Deeper dynamic range at low ISO or broader coverage of the gamut of colors. 

A touch screen UI like the T. Built on a higher resolution LCD.

An even quieter shutter. 

Slightly faster bootup and unsleep.

Heh I just about nailed the M10 a year and a half before it came out. Except for the touchscreen part.