Go Figure Posted May 25, 2016 Share #1 Posted May 25, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was wondering if the dear people at Leica are working on a solution to shrink back it's proportions to former Leica M normality? Slimmer batteries might be start ... and no, I do not need the luxury of illuminated frame-lines - do you ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 Hi Go Figure, Take a look here My 240 is too fat ... it needs to go on a diet. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter Kilmister Posted May 25, 2016 Share #2 Posted May 25, 2016 I'm sure that Jaapv will be along shortly to repeat what he has said many times already. The M240 is only a fraction bigger than the M9, mainly because of the thumbwheel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewDD Posted May 25, 2016 Share #3 Posted May 25, 2016 I'm amazed that so many people moan about the size of the M, and then promptly put a dirty great leather half-case on it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Figure Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share #4 Posted May 25, 2016 @AndrewDD you really made me smile. Likewise my Leica amazement does not cease ... I wonder how one could shoot all those years without additional handles or thumb grips. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo63 Posted May 25, 2016 Share #5 Posted May 25, 2016 if you look at the top view of the M240 vs the M9, and the specs of both, the thickness increase of the M240 matches the thickness of the little thumb scallop near the dial, that the M9 doesn't have. if you are referring to the thickness difference between the Film M bodies and the Digitals - that comes down to lens flange distance. for the RF to work properly (and the lenses to focus to infinity) the lens mount has to be 27.8mm from the film plane. on a film body (M3 - 33.5mm thick according to wikipedia) the film/pressure plate/back/iso reminder dial is 5.7mm thick (27.8mm from lens mount to film plane, plus 5.7mm for 33.5 total thickness) a digital M by comparison has a bit more going on. Sensor, sensor heatsink, mounting mechanism for sensor , LCD and LCD mounting mechanism. according to wikipedia, the M9 is 37mm thick, so the sensor, LCD and the actual body that holds it all in place, is 9.2mm thick. From experience with repairing digital cameras (not leicas) the sensor would be around 3mm thick, and the LCD a similar thickness - leaving a few mm for the metal to support it all. and the framelines need illuminating somehow, if its not LED then it will be the old style window on the front.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 25, 2016 Share #6 Posted May 25, 2016 This topic is too chewed to reply to anymore for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Figure Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share #7 Posted May 25, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) beats me why they couldn't make the MD wheelless then ... at least the LCD is gone ... so maybe there is hope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 25, 2016 Share #8 Posted May 25, 2016 Too fat indeed. Bottom plates are like trouser belts, they cannot lie . Now i prefer illuminated framelines by far. I'm lucky enough to have used M3, M4, M4-2 and M6J bodies and for me the M240's RF would be the best if it were not waisted by the 50+75 pair of framelines i've always hated since the M4-P. Give me electronic framelines Mr Leica please such as i can have at last a clean 50mm VF as i used to since the seventies. (for newbies only : none of the cameras quoted above has 75mm framelines, except M4-P and M240). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted May 25, 2016 Share #9 Posted May 25, 2016 If your M240 is too fat, buy a used Mamiya 7 II with the 43 mm lens and carry that combo around for a week. Problem solved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 25, 2016 Share #10 Posted May 25, 2016 Just a tall camera. Small and large is another story. I see one too often in my mirror, enough is enough! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
@McLeica Posted May 25, 2016 Share #11 Posted May 25, 2016 Bill Livingston has just thrown his monitor through the window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 25, 2016 Share #12 Posted May 25, 2016 I'm amazed that so many people moan about the size of the M, and then promptly put a dirty great leather half-case on it!I Size - I blame the case/cover, and my bulky leather jacket. I am so glad to have them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted May 25, 2016 Share #13 Posted May 25, 2016 a digital M by comparison has a bit more going on. Sensor, sensor heatsink, mounting mechanism for sensor , LCD and LCD mounting mechanism. according to wikipedia, the M9 is 37mm thick, so the sensor, LCD and the actual body that holds it all in place, is 9.2mm thick. From experience with repairing digital cameras (not leicas) the sensor would be around 3mm thick, and the LCD a similar thickness - leaving a few mm for the metal to support it all. I wonder if the next generation of screens which seem to be considerably thinner e.g. iPhone 6 could allow the next M to get a bit thinner. The heat sink might be another opportunity for increased thinness using some of the tricks used by the cell phone builders. I'm not ready to go the M-D route (I'm not a good enough photographer) but I'm kind of warming to the idea. A EVF for macro mode and ultrawides or when things get weird and I need to review my exposure between decisive moments (e.g. Fire spinning https://goo.gl/photos/D8LDU8PXTXnjpAsWA ) and WiFi with an App like the one for the T to review my shots before downloading them and then I think I'd be good and could be happy without a screen especially if it meant a thinner lighter more rugged camera. That might be the way to go. Any idea where the 27.8 came from? Why not a round number? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 25, 2016 Share #14 Posted May 25, 2016 If your M is too fat it does not get enough exercise... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted May 25, 2016 Share #15 Posted May 25, 2016 The difference in the thickness between the M240-series and M8/M9 is not significant to me. I would not spend money upgrading to a new body unless it was as thin as a film M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 25, 2016 Share #16 Posted May 25, 2016 Buy an SL...it's slimmer...and stick your M lenses on it. Smaller in feel? I bet not. Better yet, put the 24-90 on it for a while, then pick up your seemingly fat M. It's not really about the depth. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted May 25, 2016 Share #17 Posted May 25, 2016 I'm amazed that so many people moan about the size of the M, and then promptly put a dirty great leather half-case on it! It is so much easier to hold with half case then holding that cold brick without one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted May 25, 2016 Share #18 Posted May 25, 2016 @AndrewDD you really made me smile. Likewise my Leica amazement does not cease ... I wonder how one could shoot all those years without additional handles or thumb grips. Mark when shooting film M cameras did you possibly ever have your thumb at the ready on the tip of the film advance? Now your thumb has somewhere to rest on the M digital bodies instead, that tiny 2mm extension housing the thumb wheel at a more ergonomic operating position. At least my thumb was lost at first. Don't blame Leica Camera for any optional third party Thumbs Up or other accessories though. As far as a slimmer battery, I would be surprised if the illuminated framelines contribute much to the capacity needed. Much more the Liveview functionality I think. The battery for the M (Typ 240) is effectively two of the previous cells in one housing. I guess in theory you could make a case for a smaller battery for the M (Typ 262) but then you would have a logistical issue of different batteries for different current M's? Personally I adapted quickly to the very slight additional body depth from the M8 forward. However the additional weight of the M (Typ 240) battery is more noticeable to me after the M9. If using the optional Multi Function Grip the bulk when carrying is more significant for me too. Out of interest the S (Typ 007) necessitated a higher capacity battery (than for previous models) too albeit with same case dimensions. It's quite a bit taller than that for the M though. I'm guessing that customers wouldn't be pleased if the M body was 20mm taller to use that design! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 26, 2016 Share #19 Posted May 26, 2016 Out of interest the S (Typ 007) necessitated a higher capacity battery (than for previous models) too albeit with same case dimensions. It's quite a bit taller than that for the M though. I'm guessing that customers wouldn't be pleased if the M body was 20mm taller to use that design! And some of those same M fans are now also using an SL, which is 24mm taller....and providing descriptions like "not much different than the M". Funny how perspective changes....often with the next new thing. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted May 26, 2016 Share #20 Posted May 26, 2016 I am too fat. I wish I were thinner. My camera is fine. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.