Jump to content

New Leica M 240 follow-up in 2017 : The speculations.


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because I don't believe in a new M 240 follow up in this year, we have to adjust.

 

Personally I think it will be March before anything is goin to happen.

 

On the orther hand. The M 240, because still being a great camera , who will really mis his follow-up.

 

The M6 lasted for decades. Will the M 240 still be there in the next decade? 

 

Another advantage: we don't need a faster computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 585
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hasselblad is a medium format camera. The problems with high MP sensors handheld have to do with pixel size, not directly with pixel number. A medium format sensor can hold a larger number of pixels as a 24x36 one for a given pixel size.   In general the larger the pixel (thus the lower the MP count) the better the image quality will be. So there is an optimum that balances resolution vs. acuity. At the moment that is someplace between 20 and 30 MP for a 24x36 sensor. Possible it will shift u

First, welcome!    From my own perspective, I'm not sure by any reasonable measure that they are not already there with the 240 and its siblings.  A brief scan of this forum would yield dozens upon dozens of personal wish lists and proposed improvements. And I would never suggest that the current M is perfect as it is, nor would I be unhappy if many of these suggestions were addressed by the upcoming generation. But while it is undeniable that there are many more advanced cameras, devices that

My M9 is 100% no regrets purchase. I will use the camera as much as I can and I've got no plans for selling it or buying another one. And I'm not alone for sure.     Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted Images

Hello Paulus,

 

One of the differences between an M6 & an M240 is that the M6 was designed & built at a time when it was incorporating mature technologies in terms of its components & its functions.

 

The M240 also contains a lot of mature technologies which are more or less carried thru each new generation of digital camera with some exceptions.

 

These exceptions are mostly in the categories of digital imaging which is still a developing field. With digital imaging there are also questions of component & image logevity which may not equal the longevity of their film counterparts.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paulus,

 

One of the differences between an M6 & an M240 is that the M6 was designed & built at a time when it was incorporating mature technologies in terms of its components & its functions.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

That is not true, Michael. The -then- revolutionary electronics for the TTL exposure meter were developed in cooperation with the University of Munich and, I might add, rather unreliable initially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Paulus,

 

One of the differences between an M6 & an M240 is that the M6 was designed & built at a time when it was incorporating mature technologies in terms of its components & its functions.

 

The M240 also contains a lot of mature technologies which are more or less carried thru each new generation of digital camera with some exceptions.

 

These exceptions are mostly in the categories of digital imaging which is still a developing field. With digital imaging there are also questions of component & image logevity which may not equal the longevity of their film counterparts.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Thinking about the fact that the Leica M-E still is made by Leica and the original design comes close to 10 years already in a few years (The M9 ) . It seems to me that the chance that the M 240 design will last for a decade will get bigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I don't believe in a new M 240 follow up in this year, we have to adjust.

 

Personally I think it will be March before anything is goin to happen.

 

On the orther hand. The M 240, because still being a great camera , who will really mis his follow-up.

 

The M6 lasted for decades. Will the M 240 still be there in the next decade? 

 

Another advantage: we don't need a faster computer.

Funny you believed in it when you made the first post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paulus,

 

What I was trying to say in my Post above is that the largest part of an "M" camera can pretty much stay the same for a very long time. 

It is the electronic components & their created images that have limitations to their longevity. Because of these limitations with digital components Leica might want to consider making a camera in which the digital components are modular & therefore replaceable or upgradeable as appropriate over time.

 

Sort of like a Hasselblad 500C with the digital components in a detachable back.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paulus,

 

What I was trying to say in my Post above is that the largest part of an "M" camera can pretty much stay the same for a very long time. 

 

It is the electronic components & their created images that have limitations to their longevity. Because of these limitations with digital components Leica might want to consider making a camera in which the digital components are modular & therefore replaceable or upgradeable as appropriate over time.

 

Sort of like a Hasselblad 500C with the digital components in a detachable back.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Sounds nice. is it possible, " like a space shuttle " you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jaap,

 

Leica's proprietary version of their behind the lens metering system might have been new for them but other 35mm camera makers like Alpa had been making equivalent metering systems for years.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

But not in the limited space of a rangefinder camera. The main problem they faced was miniaturization. Another less-than-successful innovation on the M6 was the use of Zinc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jaap,

 

As per space in the camera:

 

Unlike some other 35mm single lens reflex cameras of 1970 or so: The distance between the lens flange & the focal plane of an Alpa was not that much more than the flange to focal plane distance of a Leica "M". This is 1 of the reasons that Alpa had adapters to fit the lenses of many other single lens reflex cameras. Alpa was making exposure systems with little lights at the same time that Leitz was making M5's. 

 

It would be interesting to compare the space necessary for an M5 light meter with all of its necessary gear to the space necessary for the Alpa equivalent.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paulus,

 

Yes. Sort of like a "space shuttle".

 

In the 1980's when 35mm digital photography (A Kodak invention.) was being developed: There was a significant amount of research being done to make the digital replacement of film an as seamless as possible replacement for film in film cameras. There were early attempts to make digital modules to fit into the space that is taken up by film & the film's cartridge in already existant film cameras. A number of early 35mm digital cameras were built on re-engineered film camera bodies.

 

Hasselblads are not the only modular cameras.

 

Nikon has made a number of modular cameras over the years.

 

Contarex was a camera in the 1960's that had interchangable magazines like a Hasselblad even though the body layout of the camera was no different than other 35mm single reflex cameras.

 

There were people in the 1980's who were working on digital modules that would be inserted into existant cameras in the space used by the film cartridge & the film take up chamber with the sensor placed across the film chamber where the film would normally travel from cartridge to take up chamber.

 

In the 1980's there were technological problems in terms of miniaturization of components which may have been solved by today.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jim,

 

Alpa was originally "Pignons SA" who were a manufacturer of high quality pinions (pignons in French) for the Swiss Watch Industry. In terms of watch & clock gearing: Pinions are the small wheel (often steel) on an axle that the larger wheel (often brass) on an axle comes into contact with.

 

The mechanical construction of focal plane shutters was taken directly, with minor modifications, from previously existant clock mechanisms. Interestingly: 35mm camera mechanism parts tend to be larger than watch parts but smaller than clock parts. Even if they are the same or a similar part.

 

Pignons SA began making 35mm cameras around World War II. They built their cameras to the standard of Leitz & Zeiss. Alpa's lenses came from a variety of sources including some that were the equivalent of the best from Leitz & Zeiss.

 

Example:  In the 1970's they provided, among others: A Kinoptic of Paris 100mm F2 lens that focused from infinity to 1 : 1 without add on tubes and which resolved 120 lines per millimeter in the center of the image field at normal distances.

 

Like Leitz: Alpa tested & filed the results of the tests for each camera. They used to say that they had more people doing quality control than they had people building cameras. They also routinely made different formats in their basic camera body, such as 1/2 frame, etc. They also made motors & all types of accessories.

 

Alpa Made the 9D which was an early (Possibly the first) behind the lens meter 35mm camera. Altho you had to take the behind the lens meter reading from behind the lens & then transfer the reading to the camera's settings.

 

An Alpa was always priced about the same as Leicas & Contarex's.

 

Later Alpa became involved in other types of manufacturing.

 

Things did not go smoothly.

 

Alpa ceased production.

 

Things happened.

 

The current Company using the same logo began using it.

 

The current Company makes a medium format camera of high precision that does many things well.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paulus,

 

What I was trying to say in my Post above is that the largest part of an "M" camera can pretty much stay the same for a very long time. 

It is the electronic components & their created images that have limitations to their longevity. Because of these limitations with digital components Leica might want to consider making a camera in which the digital components are modular & therefore replaceable or upgradeable as appropriate over time.

 

Sort of like a Hasselblad 500C with the digital components in a detachable back.

 

They already do this to one extent or another:

M240 base model

M-P the same as the 240 but with an upgraded processor and some cosmetic changes.

M Monochrom the same as the 240 but with a slightly different sensor and a different firmware load.

M262 same as the 240 but with a slightly different firmware load and some unconnected switches and IO ports e.g. Speaker and microphone and some cosmetic changes

M-D the same as a 240 but even fewer switches and IO ports connected plus yet another different firmware load.

 

So while it is impossible to replace the sensor on the logic board it is fairly easy to make a new logic board with the same dimensions IO flex cable header locations and mounting screw positions and connect up the IO pins of this new logic board to the same old flex cables that route the previous generation used. Therefore Leica could conceivably make a CLAU service, Clean lubricate adjust and upgrade.

 

There are several decent business reasons to do this:

1) it makes a camera a long term investment again rather than a disposable commodity helping to justify their high prices. Leica has a hard time competing with cheaper throw away mass produced cameras

2) it decreases competition on the used market. They don't have to compete with their previous model when the new version comes out. 3)There wouldn't be a sudden drop in the value of unsold inventory.

4) it shifts people's spending from buying the next body more toward buying more lenses where their real expertise and value lies

5) the unit cost of circuit boards and semiconductors is cheaper as the volume goes up. All these upgrades would boost their volume buying leverage.

6) it creates a point of touch between Leica and their customers this continuing relationship is highly valued and opens an opportunity for follow on sales

7) it emphasizes the old world value of good quality and repairability which is in line with the Leica legacy and deep history and is baked deeply into the design of the M. The M is a hard to manufacture high precision device which is part of why it is so expensive but by virtue of the way it was designed and built it is easier to repair.

8) it would be a unique brand feature

9) it would allow them to work around component obsolescence in their supply chain. i.e. Never having to tell someone that their camera can't be repaired. They just say we need to do the upgrade which replaces the guts of the camera with new currently in production parts.

10) users love their current UI, it has been almost the same for 60 years. They have different models like the 240 vs the 262 vs the M-D to address different user preferences with regards to UI then they can march the the specs forward as needed to stay in step with their competitors.

11) it is green

 

By the way did anyone else notice that Leica announced a new services organization today? Yeah it is clearly geared at addressing the needs of professional photographers and probably has more to do with the SL and the S but an enhanced service organization could execute something like my hypothetical CLAU service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the different models have different electronics; some have connectors missed out. The M-P has a double density RAM chip. The M-D has an extra rotary switch controller. None has had a processor upgrade.

The designers will always want to go further than tweaking an old pattern and it is unlikely that in the cramped space inside a camera a new set of electronics will have the same shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Hasselblads are not the only modular cameras.

 

Nikon has made a number of modular cameras over the years.

 

Contarex was a camera in the 1960's that had interchangable magazines like a Hasselblad even though the body layout of the camera was no different than other 35mm single reflex cameras.

 

There were people in the 1980's who were working on digital modules that would be inserted into existant cameras in the space used by the film cartridge & the film take up chamber with the sensor placed across the film chamber where the film would normally travel from cartridge to take up chamber.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

And Leica was the only maker of non-MF cameras to actually make such a thing, the DMR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...