New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Aw, just give me a cutting edge accessory EVF and a cutting edge processor and you'll have another sale.

[Brett Cambern]

Thanks Jaap.  I thought I recalled reading that 50 was actually native but I would be happy with 100.

 

I went back to try and find where I had read that 50 was the native ISO and I found Ming's article where he said that he believed it to be (but that was just his opinion).  I then looked at the technical spec sheets on Leica's website and interestingly for the M240 they show the base ISO as 200 with pull 100 being available.  On the spec sheet for the SL, however, they show the base ISO as 50 with no mention of it being a pull value.  Curious.

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

Stefan Daniel said in his interview that the base or native sensitivity of the SL was 100 ISO. 

[Brett Cambern]

Stefan Daniel said in his interview that the base or native sensitivity of the SL was 100 ISO. 

Thank you Philipp.

[IkarusJohn]

If you look at the test images, at ISO 50 it's a bit soft compared to ISO 100. Having said that, I like low ISOs - I need wider f stops in sunshine more than I need to take pictures in the dark ...

[algrove]

My next M wish list:

 

Q or better yet SL like clip on EVF

faster buffer-i.e. less lag

more than 60 seconds shutter

50 native ISO to 50,000

1/8000 shutter speed

 

WAIT this is starting to sound like a broken record or even an SL. I will stop right now.

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Resistance is futile.

 

It's uncanny how prophetic this is Jim.  Leica M owners DO seem to mimic the hive mind of the Borg Collective, don't they?

[jdlaing]

[likealot]

As far as I can tell, the video feature doesn't compromise the camera's stills performance in any way whatsoever.

 

So calls for its removal seem to be more to do with ideology than anything concerning photographic performance.  If we want to get into a new M designed on ideological grounds, fine, but maybe we should then start from scratch, no?

 

However the video components do take up considerable precious space in the camera body. That space can be used for other helpful features such as WiFi, etc. Plus it makes the camera more prone to overheating issues (which if I remember correctly was mentioned from one of teh Leica designers(?) when giving reasons why 4k HD technology wasn't included in the M). 

 

The M goes on the principle of less is better in terms of simplicity of its software functionality. Why not apply the same principle to its physical design? Everyone has the latest iPhone or Android nowadays which can take some pretty decent video. So having video taking option in an M does not make sense.

[Guest roey]

However the video components do take up considerable precious space in the camera body....

 

Not only that. It makes the firmware more complex and thus harder to maintain. Also, somebody has to test all that video functionality -- that somebody will not be testing other functions of the camera. Video doesn't come for free. Those of us that don't use it pay for it with a higher purchase price and/or lower quality.

[jaapv]

However the video components do take up considerable precious space in the camera body. That space can be used for other helpful features such as WiFi, etc. Plus it makes the camera more prone to overheating issues (which if I remember correctly was mentioned from one of teh Leica designers(?) when giving reasons why 4k HD technology wasn't included in the M). 

 

The M goes on the principle of less is better in terms of simplicity of its software functionality. Why not apply the same principle to its physical design? Everyone has the latest iPhone or Android nowadays which can take some pretty decent video. So having video taking option in an M does not make sense.

 

Well, if you can fit Video into an iPhone it cannot take up much space, now can it?

[jdlaing]

Well, if you can fit Video into an iPhone it cannot take up much space, now can it?

They read and see but they don't understand.

[mjh]

However the video components do take up considerable precious space in the camera body.

There are ‘video components’ in the camera? What would these components be I wonder?

[pop]

Microphones?

[Kastenfrosch]

Everyone has the latest iPhone or Android nowadays which can take some pretty decent video. So having video taking option in an M does not make sense.

Don't those phones take "pretty decent" photos, too?

[Joakim]

Well, if you can fit Video into an iPhone it cannot take up much space, now can it?

True but then again if you compare Apple's R&D budget to Leica's (I haven't seen any actual numbers, I'm just assuming) you realizes that Apple can probably spend much more money to make things small. The larger the budget the smaller the component...

[Peter H]

............... Also, somebody has to test all that video functionality -- that somebody will not be testing other functions of the camera. Video doesn't come for free. Those of us that don't use it pay for it with a higher purchase price and/or lower quality.

 

We don't know how much it costs. We don't know how many sales are generated by the features and how many lost (probably few of either, but I don't know), so the economic argument is guesswork for us.

 

I understand the argument against video in the M but I'm not happy about the way Leica and some users seem to want to push the M into the role of traditionalist or even the mistakenly named "purist" camera. I feel the M either has a valid role as a contemporary MF camera that is bang up to date, or it should be dropped.

 

I believe MF RF cameras have a valuable role in modern photography, but that role isn't as a historical or nostalgic curiosity.

[Mornnb]

True but then again if you compare Apple's R&D budget to Leica's (I haven't seen any actual numbers, I'm just assuming) you realizes that Apple can probably spend much more money to make things small. The larger the budget the smaller the component...

 

Apple wasn't always a big company (remember the 90s?), but they always gave extra attention to design and making compact equipment.

Apple has a minimalist and engineering perfection culture much like Leica. I think this quote from Steve Jobs is equally applicable to Leica :

Look at the design of a lot of consumer products — they're really complicated surfaces. We tried to make something much more holistic and simple. When you first start off trying to solve a problem, the first solutions you come up with are very complex, and most people stop there. But if you keep going, and live with the problem and peel more layers of the onion off, you can often times arrive at some very elegant and simple solutions. Most people just don't put in the time or energy to get there. We believe that customers are smart, and want objects which are well thought through.

 

Another quote from Jobs:

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that was the case, Microsoft would have great products.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Mornnb

[jaapv]

We don't know how much it costs. We don't know how many sales are generated by the features and how many lost (probably few of either, but I don't know), so the economic argument is guesswork for us.

 

I understand the argument against video in the M but I'm not happy about the way Leica and some users seem to want to push the M into the role of traditionalist or even the mistakenly named "purist" camera. I feel the M either has a valid role as a contemporary MF camera that is bang up to date, or it should be dropped.

 

I believe MF RF cameras have a valuable role in modern photography, but that role isn't as a historical or nostalgic curiosity.

As I understand it it comes practically "for free" with the functionality of the CMOS sensor.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mjh]

True but then again if you compare Apple's R&D budget to Leica's (I haven't seen any actual numbers, I'm just assuming) you realizes that Apple can probably spend much more money to make things small.

As there are no video-specific components inside an iPhone (or an M for that matter), even Apple cannot shrink those. A CMOS sensor, a CPU, and a buffer, all sufficiently fast, are all you need for video – i.e. the same components you need for still photography anyway.