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

[Belle123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

See http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/264784-for-four-years-i-have-waited-for-this-day-which-has-not-come/page-8 post 148 which seems to be pertinent to me.

Edited my first response reaction. Have no idea what you mean by this referral.

[pgk]

Edited my first response reaction. Have no idea what you mean by this referral.

 

It means that despite ALL the technical and associated discussion many still want the unattainable. There is still the misunderstanding that although the 'M' type camera is inherently a (mechanical) 'rangefinder' camera, moving away from this changes everything. Like in my link, if you don't understand why a rangefinder appeals there is no point trying to understand why it can't be modified  . I've tried repeatedly to illustrate why modifying any M type camera body away from its existing design is fraught with both technical and 'intrinsic appeal' problems, but for some this is all irrelevant - they want an SL in an M body, which of course would NOT be an 'M' camera and could not take any fuller advantage of M type lenses.

[Belle123]

It means that despite ALL the technical and associated discussion many still want the unattainable. There is still the misunderstanding that although the 'M' type camera is inherently a (mechanical) 'rangefinder' camera and moving away from this changes everything. Like in my link, if you don't understand why a rangefinder appeals there is no point trying to understand why it can't be modified  . I've tried repeatedly to illustrate why modifying any M type camera body away from its existing design is fraught with both technical and 'intrinsic appeal' problems, but for some this is all irrelevant - they want an SL in an M body, which of course would NOT be an 'M' camera and could not take any fuller advantage of M type lenses.

I must have read a different link. Or can't read between the lines that well....ha! I don't disagree though with your explanation. On the same page.

[sdk]

I know most people with Leica M Typ 240 derivatives are happy enough with their 24MP sensors. But as a landscape enthusiast whose other camera is a Nikon D800E with some good Nikon and Zeiss primes, I know I'd like a Leica M with a 36-50MP sensor even better than my Leica M-P. Many Leica M and Zeiss ZM lenses are not limited by the Typ 240 sensors, and they can show moire artifacts sometimes that would be less likely with higher resolution sensors. But I think Leica could market different resolution cameras for photographers with different needs like Sony is with their Alpha a7 series, with 12, 24, 36 and 42MP models available. There's no reason everyone should have to be limited to one resolution, when Leica would probably make money on all choices it were to make available (I'd go for 36 or 42MP personally, but to each his own).

Leica also could improve the EVF and Live View a lot. The current EVF is very horribly laggy, too slow to return to working state after an exposure is made, and has too low quality an image for critical focus even for the middle resolution 24MP sensor. The next iteration of the M system also needs to have the ability to magnify any part of the sensor when using EVF/Live View. Some subjects require this, and many Leica lenses are far from flat field, showing quirky field curvature that can cause trouble with focus and recompose shooting (which is a pain with a tripod mounted M, even with a flat field lens).

[pgk]

Leica also could improve the EVF and Live View a lot. 

 

I believe that they have - its called the SL. You are, like many others, missing the technology point. Boosting an M rangefinder's MPixels, adding an EVF and so on detracts from what it is - a mechanical rangefinder camera with very limited data transfer between lens and body. In other words (as I have said innumerable times before) you have a hobbled camera system for which there is no simple solution, and there are already better existent solutions. What the M does well, it already does really well. Move on please. As I've asked before, how many users want a rangefinder adding to the SL or T? Think about it!

[lct]

Rangefinders can evolve and remain rangefinders. Visoflexes were mechanical in the past and are electronic now. I see no reason why they could not evolve either.

[ECohen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know most people with Leica M Typ 240 derivatives are happy enough with their 24MP sensors. But as a landscape enthusiast whose other camera is a Nikon D800E with some good Nikon and Zeiss primes, I know I'd like a Leica M with a 36-50MP sensor even better than my Leica M-P. Many Leica M and Zeiss ZM lenses are not limited by the Typ 240 sensors, and they can show moire artifacts sometimes that would be less likely with higher resolution sensors. But I think Leica could market different resolution cameras for photographers with different needs like Sony is with their Alpha a7 series, with 12, 24, 36 and 42MP models available. There's no reason everyone should have to be limited to one resolution, when Leica would probably make money on all choices it were to make available (I'd go for 36 or 42MP personally, but to each his own).

 

Leica also could improve the EVF and Live View a lot. The current EVF is very horribly laggy, too slow to return to working state after an exposure is made, and has too low quality an image for critical focus even for the middle resolution 24MP sensor. The next iteration of the M system also needs to have the ability to magnify any part of the sensor when using EVF/Live View. Some subjects require this, and many Leica lenses are far from flat field, showing quirky field curvature that can cause trouble with focus and recompose shooting (which is a pain with a tripod mounted M, even with a flat field lens).

 

 

Doesn't the camera still have to make some financial sense?

Put a 50M sensor in and the price jumps 3K at least?

As much as I love the M I'd be looking elsewhere if the body was 10K

.......but I feel the same way about the 50mm APO Summicron

I suspect I'm in the minority equating a simple camera to a dollar figure ?

......somebody's gotta say it

[sdk]

Rangefinders can evolve and remain rangefinders. Visoflexes were mechanical in the past and are electronic now. I see no reason why they could not evolve either.

 

Exactly. I think compact RF cameras are wonderful and not hard to focus by RF except with lenses with focus shift.

 

I have zero interest in a 24MP SL or its gigantic lenses whatsoever. I have similar SL performance to weight ratio from the D800E and big Zeiss primes, and at higher resolution.

 

A 36MP or 42MP Leica M with better LV & EVF would be better for me, and no detraction whatsoever. But I see no reason Leica cannot make digital M cameras with 16-20MP for low light, 24MP for general purpose, and 36-42MP for landscape. There would be a market for each of resolution, and they could all share the same accessories like EVF, if designed and engineered together.

[LocalHero1953]

Paul, your premise is your own clear vision of what an M actually should be, and the view that any changes to that vision would make it no longer an M. The problem with that premise is that many others take a similar approach to you, but their vision is different. Ask anyone familiar with the M what the essence of it is, and they will come up with a different combination of size, weight, shape, viewfinder, rangefinder components, functionality, buttons, interface, use of the letter "M"........and that's before we get to lenses. (Leica has clearly decided that the baseplate is the essence of the M). 

 

Threads like this are interesting for revealing individuals' preferences and how they relate to their particular photography, but I suspect a consensus is unlikely to be reached.

[pgk]

Paul, your premise is your own clear vision of what an M actually should be, and the view that any changes to that vision would make it no longer an M.

 

Actually my premise is based upon two things.

 

Firstly that the M camera is actually and intrinsically a rangefinder camera (its in the (German) name). So just as an EVF camera is not a dSLR, changing from a rangefinder to an EVF to overcome rangefinder shortcomings fundamentally shifts the essential concept of a rangefinder camera. And on this note, the rangefinder as it stands has an accuracy level which can be increased only by changing its base length which is very tricky in an M sized body.

 

Secondly, to make best use of lenses in order to fully utilise greater MPixel sensors there will need to be data transfer between camera and lenses and this cannot happen unless a new body and lens system is produced. Doing so using the existing M mount may be possible but is a far from ideal solution especially if the rangefinder is to be retained and the lenses operate with it as they do now - an engineering and electronic nightmare much more easily dealt with using a new non-rf mount such as the SL and T use..

 

So I'm arguing that the original M3 concept of a rangefinder Leica was and is sound. Modifying it is fraught with difficulties and compromises.

 

As I keep saying, nobody seems interested in tacking a rangefinder onto a T or SL so why tack EVFs and suchlike onto an M? What many seem to want is an M shaped and sized SL, which is of course an entirely different proposition and one which might just be possible in time. What is not possible is to produce a rangefinder M camera true to the original simplicity in design with all the modern bells and whistles on it too - without severe compromises or unless its a dog's dinner of a design.

[lct]

All rangefinders are not optical. 

[douglas fry]

I can't see why Leica can't retain the M body (or slimmer), have an EVF only viewfinder with the superb augmented reality and clarity of the SL with a mini zoom in window while the lens barrel is rotating.

 

I used M6's for years and now the M240 and SL, I'm not so hung up on the OVF that I'd be sad to see it go if the quality of the SL viewfinder or better replaces it. Its the size and form of the M that is so appealing to me. 

 

24megapixels is fine too, in the past when a large file was required I used 'Genuine Fractals' to generate the correct size for the print required. Its now called ON1  https://www.on1.com/products/resize10/ its amazing software and saves a fortune on hi resolution cameras:-)

[LocalHero1953]

I understand where you're coming from (edit: responding to pgk), though I don't see an optical rangefinder based on coincident images projected from a short base as essential to any sort of photography: it's just the best solution of the moment. And it has real defects: poor framing, calibration errors in particular. If someone can come up with another means of focusing a lens that deals with these issues, and without raising others, then it will help my photography, not hinder it.

 

FWIW, the essence of the M for me is small size, largely manual operation, simple interface, optical VF (probably) and exceptional lenses & IQ. I know that back in 1953 M may have stood for the German word for rangefinder (does it have to mean only an optomechanical rangefinder??), but I don't see that as any more intrinsic to the M line as a base plate.

 

I expect others will chime in here with their own views of the essence of the M. Let's hope Leica can come up with something next time that keeps us all happy!

[Peter H]

Who said anything about Doomsday? Ha! Why can't people be content with the M? ....................

 

 

Because it is so good that one or two small improvements are all that is needed to make it ideal.

 

It's normal to want to tamper with the objects you most admire, which I think explains why so many people can't be content with their "perfect" M-cameras and dress them up in fancy half cases, soft shutters ladybird, thumbs-up thingies and all manner of leather baggage and strappage.

[pgk]

I can't see why Leica can't retain the M body (or slimmer), have an EVF only viewfinder with the superb augmented reality and clarity of the SL with a mini zoom in window while the lens barrel is rotating.

 

If you are talking about a digital version of the current viewfinder then all the existent limitations will still apply because the mechanical linkage to existing lenses has an limited accuracy (or is limited by its tolerance if you want to put it that way). So if I read what you say correctly, an M shaped 24 MPixel SL body  with EVF built into the body rather than sticking out and integral M adapter would be a solution - with which I fully agree - but its not an M .

[pgk]

Because it is so good that one or two small improvements are all that is needed to make it ideal.

 

It's normal to want to tamper with the objects you most admire, which I think explains why so many people can't be content with their "perfect" M-cameras and dress them up in fancy half cases, soft shutters ladybird, thumbs-up thingies and all manner of leather baggage and strappage.

 

Perhaps that's my problem? I use my cameras virtually 'naked' except for a Kirk 'Arca' adapter for occasional tripod use - and with their original strap too. Clearly I'm not really entering into the spirit of things am I?

[Mike Rawcs]

If you are talking about a digital version of the current viewfinder then all the existent limitations will still apply because the mechanical linkage to existing lenses has an limited accuracy (or is limited by its tolerance if you want to put it that way). So if I read what you say correctly, an M shaped 24 MPixel SL body  with EVF built into the body rather than sticking out and integral M adapter would be a solution - with which I fully agree - but its not an M .

 

I think that Douglas is talking about a slimmer digital M camera (same dimensions if possible as the film M) with an EVF viewfinder and the M lens mount. Focussing the lens will bring up the magnified area in the EVF; the mechanical linkages of the lens will not be used, but will still be present for when / if the lens is used on a traditional, rangefinder M. If this is what it takes to have a digital M camera with the same dimensions as a film M, I'd be content. For me, no other camera feels better in the hand that a film M. If the experience can be transferred to a digital M I'd be willing to sacrifice the rangefinder.

 

Mike.

 

Mike.

[Paulus]

I think that Douglas is talking about a slimmer digital M camera (same dimensions if possible as the film M) with an EVF viewfinder and the M lens mount. Focussing the lens will bring up the magnified area in the EVF; the mechanical linkages of the lens will not be used, but will still be present for when / if the lens is used on a traditional, rangefinder M. If this is what it takes to have a digital M camera with the same dimensions as a film M, I'd be content. For me, no other camera feels better in the hand that a film M. If the experience can be transferred to a digital M I'd be willing to sacrifice the rangefinder.

 

Mike.

 

Mike.

 

Just for the feeling, I took up my M 240 , then I took my MP, then again my M 240, then agian my MP. Wauw! They feel both great! Of course I notice the milimeter in size!! ...... or was it two? I don't know, let's look it up, because it must be so important!....

But that great viewfinder, wauw, still the same than the M6 even better, wauw, what a camera.

 

I took up the M 240, and then I took up the SL . oeps, that was a great diffence. IMHO I don't like the feeling of the SL. I don't like the " viewvinder " of the SL . Why?

 

Because it feels artificial to me. Not the view I like to see. I don't want to see a different view , enlarged , in the next M when I focus, or things like that.

 

My brains can fill in the blanks, if they cannot, I wil use a DSLR. Still looks more " real " to me.

 

 

I think, that's what the M is about. It's easy, not perfect, you have to think and act for yourself. Have a to have a little faith in you skills. In your "view". That's the M.

 

If I want to have a certain shot, there are cameras enough to use. I don't want that certain shot. I want to fail happily, knowing that it was my fault, for not knowing the camera well enough.

 

Analogies?

 

Do you know that feeling of hitting the target with an arrow, which has just left your bow?

 

I like a good bow, I like a perfect bow, but a bow is not an automatic gun with a lazer on it. 

[Belle123]

Just for the feeling, I took up my M 240 , then I took my MP, then again my M 240, then agian my MP. Wauw! They feel both great! Of course I notice the milimeter in size!! ...... or was it two? I don't know, let's look it up, because it must be so important!....

But that great viewfinder, wauw, still the same than the M6 even better, wauw, what a camera.

 

I took up the M 240, and then I took up the SL . oeps, that was a great diffence. IMHO I don't like the feeling of the SL. I don't like the " viewvinder " of the SL . Why?

 

Because it feels artificial to me. Not the view I like to see. I don't want to see a different view , enlarged , in the next M when I focus, or things like that.

 

My brains can fill in the blanks, if they cannot, I wil use a DSLR. Still looks more " real " to me.

 

 

I think, that's what the M is about. It's easy, not perfect, you have to think and act for yourself. Have a to have a little faith in you skills. In your "view". That's the M.

 

If I want to have a certain shot, there are cameras enough to use. I don't want that certain shot. I want to fail happily, knowing that it was my fault, for not knowing the camera well enough.

 

Analogies?

 

Do you know that feeling of hitting the target with an arrow, which has just left your bow?

 

I like a good bow, I like a perfect bow, but a bow is not an automatic gun with a lazer on it.

 

It is kind of like the difference between those that buy a player piano to hear piano music in their home versus those that actually learn to play and work at it. The later is more fulfilling and lasting. Of course, talent comes into play....but same can be said in any art form.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Belle123]

Because it is so good that one or two small improvements are all that is needed to make it ideal.

 

It's normal to want to tamper with the objects you most admire, which I think explains why so many people can't be content with their "perfect" M-cameras and dress them up in fancy half cases, soft shutters ladybird, thumbs-up thingies and all manner of leather baggage and strappage.

Some people never satisfied and will never be ideal for them. I choose to accept it is good enough and move on. For those that just want to see the M be like a Q or SL or a Sony or other, buy those cameras for C's sake! I for one have multiple systems, so why can't they also? Why continually whine about the M? To fit everything in an M body is ......ridiculous.