New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yeah, pretty much. From a technical view, quite mediocre for a supposedly top flight company. The M9 was a greater innovation.

 

Ok, let me ask you. What absolutely new innovation the M brought to the table?

I don't buy cameras based on degree of innovation; they either suit my needs and preferences or not.  FWIW, the M9 did not (I preferred the M8.2 for various reasons), while the M240 did.  And this had nothing to do with LV, EVF or video....I use it primarily as a 'traditional' RF machine.

 

For me, the M240 is the most refined digital RF camera Leica has produced to date....better RF, smoother shutter release, quiet without obnoxious re-cock noise, longer battery life, faster processor, better weather sealing, better build (tripod socket, etc), return to 2m optimized frame lines like the M8.2...and more, with equal or better IQ for my needs.  Plus, so far, it's proven to be reliable (the M9, with its innovation, was subject to various issues....sensor cracks, corrosion, buffer issues, etc).

 

Different strokes.  As others have said, we each make choices based on personal preferences; buy or not. Leica survives or not based on those collective decisions.  I'd say that the M, in its various digital iterations, has held more than held its own in Leica's arsenal.  The next iteration will either appeal or not to me....for Leica's sake, one hopes it continues to appeal to many.

 

Jeff

[lct]

Then when Olympus upgraded the V-F2 to the V-F3 for existing cameras...

 

The V-F3 had less resolution than the V-F2 if memory serves. Why using the V-F3 then if ever this was possible? 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Correct. It was a low-res budget EVF for the Olympus PEN.

[lct]

I don't understand Soden's objections then...

[jaapv]

Just working off some excess energy by having a snarl..

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Yes, that is the point. Does more features mean more and newer buyers or is the opposite actually the case?

 

Well, I can only answer for myself.  I wouldn't have bought into the M system without the additional features.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me the EVF was essential.

[likealot]

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

 

If the video quality of a Leica is the same as that of an iPhone then what is the point? I'm not an expert and granted, may be wrong when it comes to space, but it sure as hell does cause overheating issues, software bugs and battery drainage issues.

 

They read and see but they don't understand.

 

Ah, now I am clearer.

 

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

 

Not by my standards. The video quality of the iPhone is a lot better than that of its photos. Are you saying that the video quality of an M is better than that of an iPhone?

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I should perhaps add, my decision to buy any camera is based on whether it meets my needs and not on whether it exceeds my needs.

[pgk]

Out of curiosity does anyone think that a dSLR should also be fitted with the facility for an EVF and if so would it help take better photographs?

[Rick]

I just love how these threads disintegrate from Hope       for the future M, to Despair & Disappointment        over what a complete failure the 3-year old M is compared to present day camera technology.  

 

Handbags at dawn!  

 

Rick

[Rick]

Out of curiosity does anyone think that a dSLR should also be fitted with the facility for an EVF and if so would it help take better photographs?

 

It would add versatility and value to a dSLR for some users and someday may even be a competing technology for many users, compared to the OVF found in dSLRs today.*

 

I'll ask back:  Do you think that the Leica Q should be fitted with the facility for a RF? 

 

 

Rick

 

*Feel free to substitute RF for dSLR.

[pgk]

It would add versatility and value to a dSLR for some users and someday may even be a competing technology for many users, compared to the OVF found in dSLRs today.*

 

I'll ask back:  Do you think that the Leica Q should be fitted with the facility for a RF? 

 

 

Rick

 

*Feel free to substitute RF for dSLR.

Are you going to answer the second part of the question?

 

The thing is that I can see no need for an EVF with an RF camera given its constraints. And nor can I see any need with a dSLR. We've discussed bloat before and yet its still seen by many as evolution.

 

And no I see no need for a rangefinder on the Q - simply because its not a camera which holds any interest for me - along with many, many others. What does interest me is a simple RF........

 

RF is what it is - a constrained system which does what it does very well. Adding tack-ons won't help it do what it already does any better and nothing in this, or any other threads, have convinced me otherwise. Sometimes innovation might be about doing less not more.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

 

The thing is that I can see no need for an EVF with an RF camera given its constraints.

 

Why constrain the camera to RF?

 

If you really need a constrained RF camera then use an M9.

 

I use cameras as a means to an end, they need to do what I want them to do and not what you want them to do. If they do what I want them to do then I'll buy, if they don't I won't.

[pico]

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

 

Actually they do not take considerable space. The video button is larger than the video component.

[Rick]

Are you going to answer the second part of the question?

 

The thing is that I can see no need for an EVF with an RF camera given its constraints. And nor can I see any need with a dSLR. We've discussed bloat before and yet its still seen by many as evolution.

 

And no I see no need for a rangefinder on the Q - simply because its not a camera which holds any interest for me - along with many, many others. What does interest me is a simple RF........

 

RF is what it is - a constrained system which does what it does very well. Adding tack-ons won't help it do what it already does any better and nothing in this, or any other threads, have convinced me otherwise. Sometimes innovation might be about doing less not more.

 

You mean the part where you ask if it would help take better photographs?  Honestly, that is way out my area of expertise.  After more than 40 years of taking pictures, my "better" photographs seem to occur out of what I can only describe as;  somewhat random creativity.  To this day I'm really not completely sure what a specific camera and its features have to do with the nature of creativity.  

 

Rick

[flyalf]

I see that a few forum members have done extensive market research...

Thank you, but it was just a small survey. There have also been a few others. I assume Leica has some figures.

[IkarusJohn]

OK, so the M failed....

 

Come on Jaap, that's terrible logic.

 

The EVF2 was inexcusable, but that doesn't make the M a failure, in the same way the IR problems with the M* didn't make it a failure, or cracking/corroding sensor glass made the M9 a failure, or colour balance issues with the M(240) a failure.  Criticising the M(240) EVF2 is entirely valid, and it was a cock-up by Leica.  Not fatal, but a cock-up.

 

You're coming across as a fanboy (again).

[pgk]

Why constrain the camera to RF?

 

If you really need a constrained RF camera then use an M9.

 

I use cameras as a means to an end, they need to do what I want them to do and not what you want them to do. If they do what I want them to do then I'll buy, if they don't I won't.

Well, because its an RF camera and as such its fundamentally constrained by its lens range and their minimum focus. Add ons can help but there are better cameras available for work outside these constraints.

 

I do use an M9 (and M8-2). And I'd happily buy another M9 - greater MPixel might be nice on occasion but I don't really need or want anything else.

 

So do I.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

I still don't understand why M(240) owners are so sensitive to what is fair criticism.

 

Sure, the M is what it is, buy it or don't, pour scorn on anyone daring to be critical, or just reinvent history (Jaap).  The truth is the M(240) was a switch from CCD to CMOS, and Leica included what CMOS offered - primarily, live view.  That of itself was contentious, if you recall.

 

But, Live view brought something very significant to what had been a purely optical rangefinder - the ability to focus and frame a wider range of lenses through the lens.  The was a huge first for the M camera, and many people liked it.  However, it is a huge stretch to even suggest that Leica did a good job of it.  The processor was limited to the pretty average EVF2, and when Olympus released an upgrade to the EVF a matter of months later, the M processor couldn't cope.  That was pretty bloody poor for a $7,000 camera still marketed by Leica as  life time camera.

 

So, a bit of honesty would be good - yes, the rangefinder on the M(240) was an improvement, so was the sensor (once colour balance was sorted), and comparing the base elements of the M(240) to the M9 it was a significant improvement.  But if anyone was actually interested in video, it was largely irrelevant due to its significant shortcomings for video (compare the video specs of the SL if you want an indication).  Sure, you can make short clips, and that is fine, but no one is buying the M(240) for its video capability or for the quality of its EVF.

 

The complaint that the M(240) appeared to dilute its strengths because of its mediocre attempts to be all things to all people is entirely valid - might not bother some people, but it certainly bothered me.  I kept my M9P till it died, I've kept my Monochrom and I bought the M Edition 60 for all the reasons debated before.

 

The issue is, what should the next iteration offer?  Of course it will offer an upgrade to the Visoflex, I doubt video will be implemented any better, but I rather hope so.  More critically, I hope that it looks less Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg, and more like a well thought out, well implemented camera, with the optical rangefinder at its core.

 

A little criticism is okay, you know.  Saying the EVF2 was the best available technology when the M(240) was released it just dishonest - I don't believe for a moment you really believe that, Jaap.  I appreciate you're happy with it, and you hate to think this is true, but seriously?

 

Cheers

John

Edited November 12, 2015 by IkarusJohn