no rumors

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..............

then why don't you shoot only films then ?

 

 

That question doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Why should someone who likes rangefinder cameras have to shoot only film?

[Advertisement]

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

[Gregm61]

No there are not plenty of cameras with so many good and  small and  1.4 lenses , there is only one, and I  want to use these lenses on a M with EVF or ERF

 

then why don't you shoot only films then ?

That's a bit silly, when they make what I want.

 

Why don't you buy a Sony A7 and get an adapter?

[Paul J]

The problem is not that it does not matter. The problem is that in many cases too high a pixel count will negatively impact handheld photography. For my use a 50 MP M camera would be a nono to replace my M240.

Should Leica decide to bring out a 50 MP M to keep up with the Joneses they must have a camera in the 20 MP class as well to maintain quality with the intended use of this type of camera

This is a real need Jaap, it's not a superficial gimmick. If the Joneses had an old computer that couldn't allow them to do what they needed then that might be an accurate statement.

 

So keep a 24MP option for the M, or create a higher resolution S, at least - that is what that camera is suppose to be for. 37MP as their highest offering is the elephant in the room, it is not enough.

 

But I can't agree this is an issue - I am not a tripod user. I've personally not had a problem hand holding 50MP in the Canon 5DS R, the 40MP in the a7r2 I tried, or the 60MP Phase One I use. I very much doubt I will have a problem hand holding the Hasselblad X1 if Leica don't catch up - it could replace the need for a small camera for me.

[cirke]

That question doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Why should someone who likes rangefinder cameras have to shoot only film?

 

then why RF has to be only optic if it can be Electronic today with  huge advantages 

[cirke]

 

 

Why don't you buy a Sony A7 and get an adapter?

because they are going to make a M with Electronic RF , it will come in any case 

[keithlaban.co.uk]

The M system is this, the M system is that...

 

The M system is anything I want to use it for and any in way I want to use it.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a real need Jaap, it's not a superficial gimmick. If the Joneses had an old computer that couldn't allow them to do what they needed then that might be an accurate statement.

 

So keep a 24MP option for the M, or create a higher resolution S, at least - that is what that camera is suppose to be for. 37MP as their highest offering is the elephant in the room, it is not enough.

 

But I can't agree this is an issue - I am not a tripod user. I've personally not had a problem hand holding 50MP in the Canon 5DS R, the 40MP in the a7r2 I tried, or the 60MP Phase One I use. I very much doubt I will have a problem hand holding the Hasselblad X1 if Leica don't catch up - it could replace the need for a small camera for me.

If I felt a need for 50 MP (or more) I would go for the Hasselblad. I would never buy a 135 camera with that spec.

 

I am a firm believer in using the right tools.

[Paul J]

If I felt a need for 50 MP (or more) I would go for the Hasselblad. I would never buy a 135 camera with that spec.

Never, ever? or you would never do it based on current camera design?

 

Have you tried the 50MP Canon? It really is not significantly different in use than the 24MP one. More significant is the amount of people downing medium format for these high res 135 cameras.

[edwardkaraa]

I'm pretty sure Erick will eventually get what he wants, and the wait is not long now. Probably not more than 10-15 years max.

[jaapv]

Based on current camera design. If they were able to incorporate stabilisation in an M I might be convinced, but as it is I would be surprised if they could.

[Paul J]

Here is an article comparing S2 with the 5DS R. While it is the S2 and not the 007, it still goes to show you how good these cameras are, relatively speaking.

 

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2274/reflex-canon-5DSR-test-terrain-18.html&prev=search

 

S2:

http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/articles/2274/antoine-schneck-leica-s2-f16.jpg

 

5DS R:

http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/articles/2274/antoine-schneck-canon-5ds-r-f16.jpg

 

I am not for one moment suggesting Leica should wipe out one need to replace it for another, but IMO, they need to get with the program and offer something else.

[michaelwj]

I am very curious too,   I shall sell all my M gear (and maybe all Leica gear) or upgrade  , depending on the next M  , I shall not go on with optical RF

 

 

This has to be the most bizarre post I've ever read on this forum. Why did you get an M in the first place if it was in spite of the viewfinder? Most people get an M because of the viewfinder.

 

If you want only an EVF, then you don't want an M.

 

If you want to use M lenses with an EVF, get an SL or a Sony. End of story, move on already.

 

I think it is highly unlikely that the M will have an EVF ever. The last model removed all possibility of using an EVF. The M is the heritage of the brand, it will always be what it is: optical viewfinder with mechanical rangefinder coupling.

 

If you must have an EVF on your M, then buy one. They make it. No one is forcing you to use the optical viewfinder. If that's not good enough, get an SL. If that's too big, get an M.

[michaelwj]

Based on current camera design. If they were able to incorporate stabilisation in an M I might be convinced, but as it is I would be surprised if they could.

 

 

It would make it very big. At least an extra 1-2 mm thick

[cirke]

The last model removed all possibility of using an EVF.

 

I would not call it the latest model , but the latest vintage model

[keithlaban.co.uk]

This has to be the most bizarre post I've ever read on this forum. Why did you get an M in the first place if it was in spite of the viewfinder? Most people get an M because of the viewfinder.

 

If you want only an EVF, then you don't want an M.

 

If you want to use M lenses with an EVF, get an SL or a Sony. End of story, move on already.

 

I think it is highly unlikely that the M will have an EVF ever. The last model removed all possibility of using an EVF. The M is the heritage of the brand, it will always be what it is: optical viewfinder with mechanical rangefinder coupling.

 

If you must have an EVF on your M, then buy one. They make it. No one is forcing you to use the optical viewfinder. If that's not good enough, get an SL. If that's too big, get an M.

 

There we go again, people telling me how I should choose and use a camera.

 

I chose the M specifically because I could use a rangefinder or EVF, use it on a tripod or handheld, for architectural work or travel or street...in short to use it how I bloody well please.

[helged]

I don't know too much about the S-line, but the triple Q, M and SL is nothing but an excellent departure point for Leica (T as well, likely, but I don't know that system either). It is quite obvious, for me at least, that some of the systems, presumably S and SL, need/will get higher resolution sensors. There are of course arguments against higher resolution - as stated earlier in this thread and repeated ad nauseam on this site over the years - but Leica is dependent on customers, and customers know what is offered by other brands. Ignorance to the pixel race doesn't seem as the optimal strategy. The challenge is to balance resolution with sensor characteristics like dynamic range and high iso - without loosing the competitors of sight.

 

Few of us expect Leica to be first on the technology wagon - take the brilliant EVF of the SL as an exception to this rule  - but we all know what happened to Kodak. Ignorance to the pixel race doesn't seem as the most forward-looking strategy for me...

[Gregm61]

_{I was not ignorance of the pixel race that killed Kodak. It was ignorance to digital photography as a whole and not moving away from analog film faster.}

 

_{To think the M system is trying to compete on an equal footing with the Sony and Nikons of the world is being blind to what Leica is, and that is not a mega-unit seller. They never have been, but they do seem to sell what they can make, and what they make is unique compared to what the competition offers, which is why many of us own both.}

[mirekti]

No more MP, please. Are some of you guys really developing such huge photos so you need it? Or you want to zoom into a tiny bit of the photo and develop that? I am really confused here.
As already stated few months ago, I'd rather see more dynamic range and in-body image stabilization.
The other thing is, if there is not much new to offer why would Leica go with a new M and be ridiculed for not offering anything spectacular.  Also, to follow Sony's production line road map (every 3 years a new camera) might not be so smart. 
 

I could wait another year or two and be wowed with the everything new M would offer.
As of now, M240 is more than a perfect camera for my needs. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ralphh]

I really feel like the only reason to produce a new M every 3 to 4 years was to get to the point we are at now.

 

I don't see a huge need for the M to move forwards quickly from this point. Sure there's electronic bells and whistles you could add, and there's always a better sensor you could put in, but with the typ 240, digital Leica's got good enough that it made sense to a large variety of photographers and I jumped onboard at that point.

 

Not that the M8 and M9 weren't good cameras, but the M8 had a smaller sensor, and the M9 couldn't do liveview, movies, shoot indoors in the evening etc. Stuff that all other compatible cameras could do. There's nothing the new generation of DSLRs can do that the current M can't. Sure they can do more - more ISO, more resolution, etc, but that's not the same as actual missing features.

 

I feel like we're approaching a point with digital where we were at with film where current models can be current for 5 years to a decade with no problem. 

 

I make prints up to a meter wide, but my requirements are unlikely to grow from here, so I am done until this camera is I repairable, same as I feel about my 5DIII. It's quite a nice feeling 

[jaapv]

Improving the rangefinder in the light of modern technology might be interesting - plus more computing power to enable the most obsolescence-prone part - the EVF to be upgraded from time to time.