New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd guess modular systems put more demand on manufacturing tolerances, a problem especially given the perfectly flat nature of a digital sensor.

ALPA is arguably at the highest end of the spectrum when it comes to such precision manufacturing of cameras, and they reckon they see benefits of an adjustment of a 1/100th of a millimetre when it comes to shimming the digital sensor to the camera back.

[ski542002]

Hello:  To me, it's less about finding parts to fix an aging camera body, it's more about "if the repaired body is still viable given it's age".  There are those that say (although I'm not in complete agreement), the SL sensor was obsolete on it's release date, compared to the A7MKII Sony chip that is 1 year old.  What will we find in 2-5 years from now?  For the prosumer, that might be OK; for the working professional, it puts me at a competitive disadvantage.  I love my M240 and lenses, but I'm not convinced that I will stay with any future Leica body.  Because it's a rangefinder, there are many many situations that I can shoot that I could not with my DSMKIII.  But the image quality of the DSMKIII, with it's 8-year-old sensor, is pretty much equal to my M240.

[pico]

an adjustment of a 1/100th of a millimetre when it comes to shimming the digital sensor to the camera back.

 

1/1000th of a mm is more accurate.

[hexx]

modular system would be nice, something like we have in MF world, a back, body, finders and lenses

[IkarusJohn]

...

 

I don't think expecting a digital camera to remain in working order for several decades is reasonable. I'm trying to imagine a portable consumer device launched in - say - 1996 that could be upgraded with a new FF sensor, the whole support ecosystem and a new power supply (a.k.a. battery) in a manner which is not equivalent to scrapping the whole box and sending a new one. 

 

...

 

I think you're being way too narrow in your consideration.

 

Of course a 1996 digital would be difficult to maintain in 2016.  The future is rarely determined by looking only in the past and projecting forward.  IN 1996, digital had a long way to go to match what film had to offer.  Digital past film in terms of resolution and image quality (I'm trying to avoid subjective preferences which remain valid) some time ago.  That comparison is facile.  Digital, for practical amateur purposes, is reasonably mature.

 

You also conveniently overlook my comment on upgrades - no one is suggesting (I think) that this modularity (for want of a better word) would extend to turning a stills camera into a full on professional video unit.  The proposal would be, for example, substituting the most vulnerable parts (the electronics) to more recent offerings - e.g., increased MP, monochrome, IR, faster buffer etc.  That would not stymie further functionality in future models - it just reduces the risk that your beautifully made, still usable (part from cheap electronics), expensive camera does not become a paperweight.

 

As for other products, in industrial plant and plenty of professional equipment, exactly this sort of commitment to products is more the norm than this silly, 20th century idea of products being disposable.  That sort of thinking has to be on the way out (if we want the planet to continue to support a life we want to live).

 

It's okay to disagree, Pop - quite another to do so with the reasoning you offer.

 

Cheers

John

[pop]

It's okay to disagree, Pop - quite another to do so with the reasoning you offer.

I think you rather misrepresented the reasoning.

 

First, it's not unreasonable to presume that the changes in digital technology we can expect for the next ten years will be about as large if not larger than those we've experienced in the last twenty years. 

 

Even if we abstract from the merely "digital" part we can see that all the major camera manufacturers replaced their top of the line models after some time by newer boxes without  any options of a modular upgrade. The modular granularity understood the camera body to be one module.

 

I don't think it realistic to expect camera designers to foresee all parameters of the future technology, digital or not, over a longish length of time.

 

If any could do so, it would not be Leica, having just entered that market.

 

How, for instance, would Leica have been able to foresee that they needed to integrate a much larger battery in the M than they used for the M9? Had they known that then, they would have used batteries of that capacity right from the beginning and avoided a number of costly mistakes.

 

Where and why did full grown video units enter the discussion? I certainly did not mention or even imply such a thing.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, Pop. Poor justification. 

 

There is little reason to assume the same level of development over the next 20 years as over the last, and every reason to assume otherwise.  As I posted before, the gains become marginal once a certain plateau has been reached (arguably, Leica waited till an acceptable level had been reached before they released the M8, and then the M9).  If we are talking about handheld still photography (just to stay on topic) in the M camera form, then there is little to no reason to expect the exponential developments of the last 20 years, requiring a change in form factor that has endured for 60 years. 

 

Sure, something far more adventurous is almost certainly around the corner. But that is not what we're talking about. Let's start, and limit ourselves, to still photography in the M form factor, then we might have a productive discussion. In 1954, the development was a system with a coupled rangefinder, with images captured on film. In 2016, we're talking, um ... a system camera, using the same coupled rangefinder, with the same lenses, capturing still images on a sensor.

 

Unless you're anticipating flying to Mars on your 2076 M camera, I'm not sure that technology leaps are such that if the M camera still exists, the idea will still be capturing stills.

[pop]

It's just my opinion, of course, but I don't think still photography is going to go away any time soon, certainly not within the ten years's time frame I was speaking about. New ways of taking and viewing images may appear or become more widely used, but those most probably will exist in addition to traditional still photography, not instead of.

 

I don't agree about technology having reached a plateau. At the very least we should expect higher resolutions for the sensors, the LCDs (where present) and the EVF, and the resolution will grow in three dimensions, imposing increasing demands on the communication paths both within the camera and without. I think we ought to expect new storage media which may or may not need entirely different connections. Continuing advances in magnet and motor technologies might open new possibilities for controlling even the tiny M lenses. Measuring the distance between the imaging optics and the focal plane may make possible the construction of a solid state range finder such as the one that has been discussed here at lengths. They even might learn how to build a proper GPS receiver into the M. Not that I feel the need for any of those developments, but I am not the target for the camera market to come.

 

I don't think anyone here could predict how those things might influence the form factor. In any event, you're mistaken about the form factor having remained unchanged in sixty years.

 

Designing a modular body for an M camera within the same form factor capable of accommodating all or some of those changes I outlined above would be a formidable task, particularly when it's not even clear what a power system or the internal communication system of such a camera ought to look like.

 

I think one item to be quite noteworthy, and that's the price Leica initially wanted to charge for the replacement of a corroded M9 sensor. It was quoted at €1600 (or was it €1800), and that's suspiciously close to what I think could be the variable production costs for an M9 body.

[IkarusJohn]

All of which is, I'm sure, likely. But then, no one is suggesting what you're saying is unlikely and/or impossible. That wasn't even remotely the point. 

 

Back on topic, I see absolutely no reason why a stills camera, in M format, should not be capable of keeping pace with the technological expectations of an M camera owner. What that means is, if I buy a new M, Leica commits to maintaining that camera with the same functionality. That may mean different sensor options, but it's still an M camera. 

 

I'm not sure what EVF, or any of the rest of Pop's straw men have to do with anything. We are talking about an M camera. The state of development over the last 20 years isn't the point. Then, we had M film cameras which met enthusiastic photographers demands. Other brands at that time had motor winds, complex metering, AF and all sorts of things. Not the M in its base form.  It took photos. 

 

We now have the M in various guises, but primarily, it still takes photos.  For Leica to actually commit to future proofing that M camera by enabling upgrades and compatibility with future M developments is the point. It isn't actually that hard. 

[pop]

... That wasn't even remotely the point. ...

I understood this thread to address those issues:

• How long can I expect a digital M to remain within specifications, i.e. working?
• How long will Leica be able to repair digital M cameras?
• Will or could Leica be able to upgrade digital M cameras in a way such that old cameras will implement functions that have been introduced at a later time?
• Will or should Leica be able to implement the upgradability by designing the M body as a modular system?

The first two have been addressed. I maintain that you can reasonably expect the camera to be repairable within some fifteen years since initial launch. I also maintain that any expectation of the camera remaining functional for several decades is likely to meet with disappointment.

 

My last two or three postings concerned themselves with the third and fourth question. I understand you to be saying that it isn't hard. I maintain that it is hard.

[pgk]

Well, in theory the camera could be made modular. I.e., the mechanical parts retained, the electronics replaced as a module. It would be an expensive exercise though, even by Leica standards, and it would probably make the camera considerably larger.

 

Top & Front Section - mechanical components. Bottom & Back section - similar in design and concept to the DMR. I'm sure, with electronics shrinking all the time that this is a possibility in existing size constraints even if its tricky. Whether its an economic proposition is another question, but it would signal a desire to provide as long a life to the M 'product' as may be possible, something which would certainly appeal to a significant section of buyers (as shown here on the forum).

[Peter H]

I understood this thread to address those issues:

• How long can I expect a digital M to remain within specifications, i.e. working?
• How long will Leica be able to repair digital M cameras?
• Will or could Leica be able to upgrade digital M cameras in a way such that old cameras will implement functions that have been introduced at a later time?
• Will or should Leica be able to implement the upgradability by designing the M body as a modular system?

The first two have been addressed. I maintain that you can reasonably expect the camera to be repairable within some fifteen years since initial launch. I also maintain that any expectation of the camera remaining functional for several decades is likely to meet with disappointment.

 

My last two or three postings concerned themselves with the third and fourth question. I understand you to be saying that it isn't hard. I maintain that it is hard.

 

 

I think I agree with you, though reluctantly.

 

Whilst digital cameras can be maintained for a long time and conceivably work just as well on their 20th birthday as when they were new, the reality is that the advances made will make the vast majority of working 20-year old digital cameras feel clumsy and inadequate. We may rail against this, but when so many improvements, many incremental and benefitting from huge accumulated photographic experience, become easily accessible in successive new models, it is inevitable.

 

So it does feel a great shame that the bodies become effectively redundant despite being perfectly up to the job they were designed for. 

 

I have asked for modular bodies but I don't expect anyone to invent one that really does the job.

[pop]

I have asked for modular bodies but I don't expect anyone to invent one that really does the job.

I, too, think that a modular body would be a nice idea, even if I don't think it will happen.

 

Leica used to upgrade existing bodies, and part of this discussion certainly seems to be influenced by that. However, I am under the impression that some of those upgrades involved heavy moderations of the bodies and some were upgrades in name only and the only original part that came back to the user was the serial number.

[pgk]

Whilst digital cameras can be maintained for a long time and conceivably work just as well on their 20th birthday as when they were new, the reality is that the advances made will make the vast majority of working 20-year old digital cameras feel clumsy and inadequate.

 

Ummm. Not so sure on this. My M9 feels as clumsy and inadequate as my M4 does  . I would say that RF is a niche market for those of us who enjoy using our cameras in a rather offbeat sort of a way - we certainly aren't mainstream. Changing the base design has been tried (the M5 is still controversial with adherents and detractors still arguing it out today), and I don't see how such an iconic design can be significantly modified. Nor can I see how still images can be so much better than they are now for the vast majority of purposes (though substantially higher DR may shift this, perhaps, one day). So I can see RF cameras which are current today still being used 20 years on (much as I still use my M4 - not a lot but....) for roles in which they are as adequate as ever.

[IkarusJohn]

I think I agree with you, though reluctantly.

 

Whilst digital cameras can be maintained for a long time and conceivably work just as well on their 20th birthday as when they were new, the reality is that the advances made will make the vast majority of working 20-year old digital cameras feel clumsy and inadequate. We may rail against this, but when so many improvements, many incremental and benefitting from huge accumulated photographic experience, become easily accessible in successive new models, it is inevitable.

 

So it does feel a great shame that the bodies become effectively redundant despite being perfectly up to the job they were designed for. 

 

I have asked for modular bodies but I don't expect anyone to invent one that really does the job.

I'm not sure I agree with this, Peter. The fact that the M-A was released in 2014 (?) suggests otherwise. I'm not suggesting it would be cheap, but I do believe the technical difficulties are overstated. Price is the choice we make. What I object to is Leica making those decisions for us.

 

In the current environment, I believe it is something which Leica should seriously look at. Long term, it's current model of high quality components becoming obsolete because of crappy electronics isn't sustainable. Only an apologist would try to justify that. Pop's last two bullets aren't quite accurate - for so long as the M provides an optical viewfinder, compatibility with M lenses, shutter and ISO control, the M form factor will endure. Sure, there will be other cameras, but the M is the obvious choice for long term compatibility with its sensor, clip on EVF (if there must be one) and other essential componentry.

 

Pop keeps suggesting that Leica can't anticipate future functionality etc. no one has actually suggested that. Quite the opposite - that's just another half-baked straw man. Leica still makes effectively the same form factor for the M. Sure, the upgradable M would probably need to be M(240) size; the form factor of the componentry is up to Leica to specify. The fundamental requirements for still digital photography that the M always provided has plateaued. Further developments of the essential M camera are marginal.

 

Pops future of different storage media, 3D recording etc is all quite possible, I'm sure. But that is another red herring - that isn't an M camera. I think the reference to modularity has confused the discussion.

[pop]

John - 

 

Please take note that I said nothing about any 3D recording. I presume you confused my reference to image resolution in three dimensions with 3D recording; it is quite customary to refer to the color depth as the third dimension of a recorded picture.

 

Also: the digital M cameras are quite a bit thicker than a film M. You keep on stressing that the M form factor has been conserved. It has not.

 

I find your reference to the launch date of the M-A less than clear. What do you think this product launch suggests in terms of things discussed within this thread?

[Joshua Lowe]

re: megapixel counts

 

I remember when people ceaselessly quarreled over megahertz, too.  Eventually, people start to recognize that a particular metric has become obsolete.

[IkarusJohn]

John - 

 

Please take note that I said nothing about any 3D recording. I presume you confused my reference to image resolution in three dimensions with 3D recording; it is quite customary to refer to the color depth as the third dimension of a recorded picture.

 

Also: the digital M cameras are quite a bit thicker than a film M. You keep on stressing that the M form factor has been conserved. It has not.

 

I find your reference to the launch date of the M-A less than clear. What do you think this product launch suggests in terms of things discussed within this thread?

 

I don't think any of that has even the slightest bit to do with the point I am making, Pop.

 

The point is (sorry to have to repeat it), we have the M(240).  It is only as good as its weakest link - its electronics.  The rest of the camera is beautifully made.  It is entirely within Leica's capability to specify future essential componentry (sensor, processor, configuration of connections with EVF and anything else essential to taking a still digital image using an M rangefinder) to fit that existing form factor.  So, what I'm saying is that if (when) we have the next failure of an electronic component of the scale of the M8 LCD or the M9 sensor, the replacement components will continue to be available for as long as Leica makes a digital M.

 

Now, the issue of modularity arises if Leica standardises the M form with the current body, all future componentry for the M camera can be required to fit that standardised form factor.  We then get the situation (not dissimilar to the current one) where a person might have an M digital, and wants to switch out the current 24MP sensor with a monochrome sensor, a new 50MP sensor, or an 18MP sensor, video, no video, latest EVF.  The only constraint, and it is a constraint, is the form factor, which Leica fixes with the current body.

 

Now, against that we have comments like - the M form factor will not accommodate future functionality.  I say, that's a read herring.  There will be future cameras with other functionalities, but the fact that Leica has just released the M-A and continue the M7 and MP suggests that there are photographers who aren't interested in the latest functionality - enough to warrant producing what is effectively a stills camera, with control over focus, ISO, aperture and shutter.

 

Perhaps some (PeterH, maybe) would say that this is fixing the M camera in the past with no future innovation.  But that's not actually right either - Leica says it remains committed to the M rangefinder.  That rather dictates the form factor and limits the functionality - the camera will still need a sensor which fits inside the body.

 

Pop's reference to the M(240) being "quite a bit thicker" really isn't the point.  It's millimetres, and I'm not sure I see the point.  I don't think I have said at any stage the digital M should return to the thickness of a film M.  The launch date of the M-A shows that the traditional M endures, and Leica's offerings should not be limited to potential future possibilities as Pop suggests.

 

Sorry to have bored everyone with this.  Looking back, I think my point is reasonably clear.  The rest is an endeavour to deflect the discussion to the irrelevant without actually conceding that the proposal is possible.

 

Will Leica do it?  No, not for so long as they can get away with producing expensive cameras with cheap and fallible electronics; and buyers lamely accept that such cameras are "disposable" consumer electronics.  I find that a shame, as it lacks imagination, care for the environment and leadership.

[jaapv]

Slightly puzzled about the supposed reliability of mechanical gear over electronics. My experience is rather the opposite.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Slightly puzzled about the supposed reliability of mechanical gear over electronics. My experience is rather the opposite.

 

Depends whether you are referring to reliability or repairability. Mechanics can be repaired when electrons can't. I like repairability - its usually a cheaper option than replacement.

 

Also depends on the time period you are discussing, electronic cameras from a over a decade ago are already uneconomic to repair and batteries can be very expensive, if available, relative to value for such cameras. Many 50 year old mechanical cameras still run fine and can sometimes be repaired economically, or even simply serviced. In point of fact though I can't remember having actually had a mechanical breakdown on a camera in 35 years of professional photography. I have though seen numerous electronic failures though, again, no personal experience (if you don't include saltwater damage that is).

 

My favourite example of what was an excellent digital camera in its day, but which is now fading away due to its electronics is the Fuji S2Pro. £1800 new, now less than £100 and whilst it takes AA batteries, its sensor suffers delimitation, due to overheating I am told. Even if sensors are available, they will be thoroughly uneconomic to replace. A camera doomed by its electronics - although all that said some do still work fine 14 years after launch. And Canon 1DS and !DS2 cameras are no longer supported by Canon - and as we are aware, lack of digital spares means unrepairable.