The next speculation

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes there would be a classic M and a modern M this way. The latter would have a larger mount to fit AF/IS and an adapter for current M lenses but it would lack an optical rangefinder so it would be significantly less expensive and could perhaps gain market shares this way... 

 

 

It would not be an M … we need to think non-M FF … but M compatible … and R compatible … has to be called something other than M … and prototypes probably already exist … probably already has an 'in development' nickname e.g. Basil or Marmaduke   … inevitable it's already doing the rounds … tested in the field by 'you know who'  

 

dunk

[dkCambridgeshire]

I don't think so. The short register of the M lenses makes them - the shorter focal lengths, in any event - perform at less than their optimum on most sensors. Even with the M's sensors you have to accept some compromises, such as digital in-camera corrections. The sensor of a newly designed fully digital camera system most probably will be designed for another lens geometry.

 

 

Yes a new platform will require new 'digital' lenses … but there is no reason why the platform  should not be M compatible and R compatible  … just as the current digital M cameras are. And remember that the T's in-camera/in-adaptor connections have unused potential for image optimisation.

 

dunk

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Would be a new "M" for mirrorless as i see it. But there is no free lunch indeed. The new sensor would not be designed specifically for current M wides of course but one could expect better results from it than from the Sony sensor hopefully... Hence the idea of a "classic" and a "modern" M which could be accompanied by new wides to fit the new sensor. Other than remaining stuck in the past, i'm not sure that Leica has a lot of other choices anyway.

[AlanJW]

The new sensor would not be designed specifically for current M wides of course but one could expect better results from it than from the Sony sensor hopefully...

Why would Leica not use a sensor designed for M lenses including wides, as they did with the M240 sensor?

[lct]

Because it would be designed for a new mount and new AF lenses i guess. Same issue as the T which could not be optimized for M and T lenses in the same time. But M lenses could be used with some compromises on the "new" M and again this would not concern the "classic" M in my admittedly totally speculative but hopefully not completely stupid idea.

[algrove]

Non of the Leica M models have a flash off-take jack. No viewfinders can be used on the M cameras, if you want to use a flash.

It seems almost like a conspiracy M owners have not asked for better flash control.

I have raised this before and got no takers... ...the conspiracy continues...

cheers Dave S

Not true. I use my EVF on the M240 and then with MF grip and SCA adapter I can use flash if desired. I often use a Pocket Wizard on the SCA hot shoe to signal to my studio stobes (or what ever else someone wants to use as a flash). 

Edited May 18, 2015 by algrove

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to shoot with a Canon 5d before the M8 was released. After shooting with the M8 for a couple of months, I went back and printed a project I had shot with the 5d. I realized then that what I had considered sharp had been redefined.

[CheshireCat]

I used to shoot with a Canon 5d before the M8 was released. After shooting with the M8 for a couple of months, I went back and printed a project I had shot with the 5d. I realized then that what I had considered sharp had been redefined.

 

The information is not complete, as you forgot to mention which lenses were you using on the 5D and the M8.

[AlanJW]

Because it would be designed for a new mount and new AF lenses i guess. Same issue as the T which could not be optimized for M and T lenses in the same time. But M lenses could be used with some compromises on the "new" M and again this would not concern the "classic" M in my admittedly totally speculative but hopefully not completely stupid idea.

My own speculative and hopefully not completely stupid idea is that there would not be a new mount.   I would hope they use the M mount with electronic modifications and the camera will take a new line of AF as well as M lenses.  There is no reason the M sensor could not handle both if flange distances etc are the same.  I know this is probably wishful thinking but isn't that what we do here?

[lct]

I wish you were right.

[bocaburger]

I used to shoot with a Canon 5d before the M8 was released. After shooting with the M8 for a couple of months, I went back and printed a project I had shot with the 5d. I realized then that what I had considered sharp had been redefined.

I still shoot with a 5D (classic, original, 12mp).  Despite being 11 yrs old the image quality holds up extremely well.  Especially compared to an M8 (I had one).  Maybe you were relying on AF and your 5D was slightly miscalibrated, or if you were manually focusing your eyepiece was not set optimally, or there was camera shake, or the lenses were of completely different specifications and therefore unfair to compare. 

[jaapv]

You're right about the limited validity of the comparison, but about the 5D and M8 I have to disagree. The 5D did have a more user-friendly high-ISO, lost out on detail and colour fidelity, but I can see how one would prefer the files, However at base ISO it could not keep up with the M8. (and yes, I compared extensively in 2007) With the same caveat you mention here - Summicron against 1.8/50.

[Echo63]

You're right about the limited validity of the  comparison, but about the 5D and M8 I have to disagree. The 5D did have a more user-friendly high-ISO, lost out on detail and colour fidelity, but I can see how one would prefer the files, However at base ISO it could not keep up with the M8. (and yes, I compared extensively in 2007) With the same caveat you mention here - Summicron against 1.8/50.

Summicron vs Canon's 50mm f1.8 isn't really a fair comparison though is it ? 

that 50mm is the cheapest lens in Canons lineup, and while good for the price, isn't what i would call a great lens.

the 1.4 would have been a better comparison, and the 1.2 better still.

unlike Leica, Canons lenses aren't all built to the same standards, with excellent optics - the optical quality and build quality goes up along with the price and speed.

 

 

My M240/50 Summarit is sharper than my work issued 1DX bodies  with canon L lenses.

there isn't much in it, vs the 50 f2.5 compact macro or 70-200 f2.8 on a good day, but definitely when compared to the 16-35 or 24-70

 

but sharpness isn't everything - my favorite photo of my 6mth old daughter is from an old OM mount "Unitor" brand 75-150 f3.9 

its the softest lens i have used, but at 150mm and f5.6 it has a beautiful glow that i really like (pity its such a pain to focus)

Edited May 19, 2015 by Echo63

[jaapv]

You're right about the limited validity of the comparison, [....] With the same caveat you mention here

[lct]

With similar M and R Leica lenses (non asph 35/2, 50/2, 90/2 & 135/2.8), my 5D1 needs more sharpening than my M8.2 to get similar results. The lack of AA filter and perhaps the "weakness" of the Leica's IR filter are perceptible there IMHO.

Edited May 19, 2015 by lct

[BerndReini]

I used to shoot my original 5D with a 35mm 1.4L series lens. I switched to the M8 with a 35mm summilux aspherical. The lux smokes the 35 Canon wide open, and the autofocus is not always as precise as we assume it to be.

[Voigt]

My input is quite simple. I'd like it to be thinner, lighter and more reliable.

[Peter Kilmister]

My input is quite simple. I'd like it to be thinner, lighter and more reliable.

OK, thread back on target.

My requirements would include a built in MF handgrip and built in EVF. These are currently two extras that make life easier but add to the bulk and weight.

If they were integrated they would add little to the present shape and size. With miniaturisation of components it might still be possible to make it thinner and lighter.

Reliability has not been a problem for me.

 

Nice to haves: Bluetooth wireless connection to transfer files without removing the base plate and extracting the SD card (or cable connect from MF handgrip).

[jmahto]

My input is quite simple. I'd like it to be thinner, lighter and more reliable.

My needs are simple too. I would like to be thinner, lighter and more likable. Edited May 20, 2015 by jmahto

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

... and more bankable.