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

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the size of the M or M9 is great. It's tiny. If anything I would like a larger grip to make it bigger because of my big hands.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

That is not possible. High performance AF lenses have to be large, and the supporting body has to be large as well.

 

A compact SL does not make sense, because of the size of the SL lenses... look at the zooms, or that Summilux 50mm.

 

A second body with M mount, for M lenses, but with EVF is not a bad idea (lets call it ML), but I don't know if it makes economic sense... for Leica.

 

Really I'm not expecting AF lenses to be the size of the M lenses but they don't have to be as gargantuan as the SL lenses and the bodies can be relatively compact. Leica, after all, are the masters of quality in compact form.

[luigi bertolotti]

... I keep my idea that AF is out of the M concept... they have other possibilities to give a better focusing action maintaining the M legacy (electronic RF... EVF with some smart focus peaking)

Maybe I have a limited vision (which is possible, having never used AF, and very little SLR...) but in my mind AF is tied to Zooming... work on one adjustemnt (focal) and forget the other (focus), and this is not M photography.

(of course, using/adapting M lenses on other systems, natively AF, EVIL or so.. is a different question)

[lct]

... I keep my idea that AF is out of the M concept [...]

 

If M means rangefinder everybody will agree with you i guess.

If M means M mount this is another story though.

Now i suspect that a compact mirrorless camera with interchangeable lenses won't have an M mount anyway so the meaning of the M appellation sounds rather academic from this standpoint.

[Bill Livingston]

M meaning 'rangefinder' is fine.

 

But a digital rangefinder, or a hybrid, would still be a rangefinder, wouldn't it?

 

An M camera the size of an M4 with a digital rangefinder in an EVF and an alternative version, with an optical rangefinder, screenless, similar to the M-D, would probably give enough choice for the traditional Leica users and the draw new customers into the brand who want real quality, longevity and a serious long term investment in something really worthwhile.

 

I would make them both with the traditional Leica script on top, no red dot and maybe offer a Monochrome version of one or both of them and then ensure they are launched at the same time. Black Paint and Chrome versions available from launch of course... and 'a la carte' (if they must) also available from launch. The corresponding film cameras would look the same. Consistency and simplicity. Surely they are the core values of the M. Just because the M has an EVF version, it doesn't make the whole range no longer a true 'M'. Thats just nonsense.

 

It would mean customers could buy the camera they wanted right away, add a second body (of probably the 'other version') so you have the best of both worlds and they would then be available on the market for longer... making the depreciation much less and therefore encourage more customers to buy new.

 

They could still make collector versions for those that like to collect, or special versions for anniversaries etc., but it would make the M series a much more serious, much 'quieter' camera than it is at the moment.

 

From then on, incremental changes or upgrades as technology moves forward can be added, either as a new model (or via modular upgrades to retain long term value). I don't think the M needs to be 'cutting edge'... it just needs to be excellent at what it does and a simple proposition, for a new customer or old...

 

The current M range must look unfathomable to the uninitiated, with all the different versions and 'typ' numbers... another reason it scares off potential new users. Madness. 

 

As they say.... KISS

[rosuna]

Really I'm not expecting AF lenses to be the size of the M lenses but they don't have to be as gargantuan as the SL lenses and the bodies can be relatively compact. Leica, after all, are the masters of quality in compact form.

 

 

They are, for a particular type of lenses, in the M system. The viewfinder and rangefinder explain this to a large extent. They have to be small.

 

Remember many R lenses (the 80-200, for instance). They were very large, compared to lenses of similar specifications by the competition. Many others were standard in size.

 

The S and SL lenses are large, because there is a causal relation between size and potential quality. 

 

The main limitation of the M system (manual focus lenses) is its more important strong point (size of the system). Leica should make the most of it.

[Tmuussoni]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 upwards in the future as sensor manufacturing technology progresses, maybe with the newest Panasonic technology which allows for larger pixel surfaces. Leica will always go for the optimum result, not for the highest possible resolution.

 

I know you have written this many times. The importance of pixel size and the image quality. I have to say I (mostly) disagree with this. The truth is much more complicated than this. There is no such thing as sweet spot for megapixels or pixel size width. Perhaps in the past it was somewhat true but not quite anymore. Why? Because sensors and technology moves forward all the time. Take a look how Sony Exmor sensor generations have evolved after each generation. Latest step is 6th generation with Exmor RS with both back side illumination and stacked sensor architecture and deeper wells. This greatly improves dynamic range and light gathering in sensors with much smaller pixel size (and more MP).  Sony A7r II has 5th Generation Exmor R and it has better dynamic range/high ISO than Leica SL despite having 42 MP. Remember to compare the files at equal size. I have. Another myth is when people think higher ISO automatically performs worse on a higher megapixel body than lower megapixel one. Again comparison has to be done at equal image size. Higher MP always looks better for the simple fact of having more details. And third the myth about higher megapixel body being automatically worse as a hand held camera. Again I disagree. Sony A7r is bad comparison as it had the well known shutter shock issue which A7r II does not suffer from. Yet I always felt A7r was no worse than my M 240 in that regard. By the way I had no trouble using X1D with 45mm lens with shutter speeds as low as 1/30. Then again X1D has an amazing, amazing grip!

 

In the future even more interesting things to come. Organic sensors. 7th generation Exmor. Global shutter. Such interesting times we live on. Now it's a different matter if CMOSIS, or whoever is the Leica sensor provider, can keep up with the pace. I really hope they do. It's not easy. I don't think their latest CMOSIS 48 MP sensor is the answer for this. It seems to be more optimized for video Surveillance and fast read out speed (8K video).. In other words it's probably going to suffer in terms of dynamic range for still photography. So I am not entirely convinced that Leica would automatically always go for the optimum result. What I mean is they clearly do not want to step above the S007 which is at the moment stuck at 37.50 MP. So staying at 24 MP for M10  can also be because of these reasons:

 

1) Marketing (S007 MP issue)

2) CMOSIS/other manufacturers does not yet have a higher megapixel sensor available

3) I guess they clearly don't want to go mainstream and use Sony sensors. Sadly. I can only imagine how amazing the Leica M10 would perform with 6th generation Exmor RS. It would also eliminate the need for software correction as BSI sensors pretty much eliminate color shading and vignetting. Well, almost. One can dream

 

So I guess I have to admit I am one of those people who is slightly disappointed with M10 sticking with the same SL sensor with same resolution. I am not sure I feel the need to upgrade at this moment.  So for now I will stay with M 240 and start saving up for X1D/Fuji GFX as a second system. For clarification I still love rangefinder photography and I am sure M10 will be an amazing camera. I also hope it would improve the reliability of RF alignment. For me M 240 has gone out of alignment on average once per year. And I really hate sending the camera for Leica as it will always take at least one month. It's still the biggest issue of owning a Leica...

 

[rosuna]

... I keep my idea that AF is out of the M concept...

 

 

I agree with that.

[Tmuussoni]

There is a serious drawback with very large images: the size of the files. They require more storing capacity and more processing power. 

 

I don't need larger images than 24MP. A reportage camera doesn't need this. I would prefer wider dynamic range and lower noise (both narrowly related).

 

Moreover, 24MP versus 36MP does not make a great difference in linear resolution.

 

 I just bought a 5 Tb hard drive for less than 100 €. It's big enough to store about 62500 80 Mb RAW files. Or over 200 000 M240 RAW files. My point being: if you can afford 7000-8000 € Leica body I'm sure you can afford an extra 100 € hard drive. By the way my 5 old PC had absolutely no trouble opening the 51 MP Hasselblad X1D files. I would be in trouble if I would do some kind of extreme photo editing such as having ~50 layers open at same time. But let's face it, 99 % of us don't do that. And again, wider dynamic range and lower noise greatly depends on which sensor we are talking about.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

They are, for a particular type of lenses, in the M system. The viewfinder and rangefinder explain this to a large extent. They have to be small.

 

Remember many R lenses (the 80-200, for instance). They were very large, compared to lenses of similar specifications by the competition. Many others were standard in size.

 

The S and SL lenses are large, because there is a causal relation between size and potential quality. 

 

The main limitation of the M system (manual focus lenses) is its more important strong point (size of the system). Leica should make the most of it.

 

The Q 28mm is relatively compact, with leaf shutter lens - which coming from Hasselblad and given the choice - I actually prefer. Other versions of the Q could be seductive. 

[colint544]

Leica Rumours reporting only three buttons on the back of the new M10, no provision for video, and the body to be the size of the M7. 

 

http://leicarumors.com/2016/12/15/more-leica-m10-specifications-and-rumors-no-video-only-three-buttons-on-the-back-m7-size.aspx/

 

Very interesting indeed.

[ianman]

I don't think the M needs to be 'cutting edge'... 

 

In a nutshell !

[lct]

[...] There is no such thing as sweet spot for megapixels or pixel size width. Perhaps in the past it was somewhat true but not quite anymore. [...]

 

The fact remains that less pixels are better to get more dynamic range and cleaner high isos i guess otherwise my A7s mod would have more than 12MP i suspect.

[rosuna]

The Q 28mm is relatively compact, with leaf shutter lens - which coming from Hasselblad and given the choice - I actually prefer. Other versions of the Q could be seductive. 

 

 

The Q is a camera without a mount. The diameter of the mount is a constrain for the lens designers. Without any mount, you can place the lens as near the sensor as you want, and make the back lens element as larga as you need. 

 

That camera is not a good indication of the possibilities of a camera system.

[pgk]

If M means rangefinder everybody will agree with you i guess.

If M means M mount this is another story though.

 

There have been other cameras built with an "M' type mount - a Swedish video camera for instance. But the mount does not make them an M camera, it merely gives them the ability to use M lenses. 

[lct]

The Epson R-D1 as well but i can't exclude any paradigm shift in a prospective reasoning, or can i?

[IkarusJohn]

M is for ... marketing.

 

If we ditch the sophistry about frame lines and rangefinders, what do we have? Fantastic M lenses and the coupled rangefinder mount. Leica has the L mount for AF, M means manual. It all comes back to those lenses and that mount.

 

There is a lot Leica can do with the M that won't stand on the toes of the S, SL & TL. Whether they will or not is another question - we haven't seen a digital M camera yet without the pointless baseplate ...

[jaapv]

Whatever else, if Leicarumours has it right that there is no Video, that is a deal-breaker for me.

[IkarusJohn]

Whatever else, if Leicarumours has it right that there is no Video, that is a deal-breaker for me.

Stop the press!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[elmars]

Whatever else, if Leicarumours has it right that there is no Video, that is a deal-breaker for me.

 

 

For me it is a deal maker - together with the M7 size.

 

Elmar