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

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

 

To be realistic, not everyone can afford multiple systems, or wants them.

 

But I also agree with you that it would be ridiculous to try to fit everything into an M, but again, I'm not sure anyone's asking for that.

 

It's really good that you are happy with your M just as it is but it's certainly not ridiculous for others to suggest improvements even though most will never happen.

[leica5]

To be realistic, not everyone can afford multiple systems, or wants them.

 

But I also agree with you that it would be ridiculous to try to fit everything into an M, but again, I'm not sure anyone's asking for that.

 

It's really good that you are happy with your M just as it is but it's certainly not ridiculous for others to suggest improvements even though most will never happen.

I wish  it have more automation stay staus quid pro and market would dictate the fate.

[Advertisement]

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

[ECohen]

My M tweaks would be:  thinner and lighter by a lot......I don't expect to ever see those.

I have multiple systems ....I prefer the M, even with its short comings. Yep my other systems do more stuff.
 I went with the M because it does less, beautifully....Didn't everyone?

 

l know Leica is listening to this thread. but I doubt they see the M the way that this forum does.

We are such a small part of the market.

Edited October 1, 2016 by ECohen

[marchyman]

 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.

 

The mechanical linkage is the only way that all existing M lenses have to communicate focus changes to the camera.

[Exodies]

The mechanical linkage is the only way that all existing M lenses have to communicate focus changes to the camera.

You missed one - the optical way to communicate focus changes to the camera.

[lct]

You missed one - the optical way to communicate focus changes to the camera.

 

Not sure to follow you here. 

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rather than speculate on what Leica is going to come up with next, or compiling a wish list, what is important to you in an M camera; or what would induce to buy another?

 

For me, it's not about MP or battery life, or the baseplate (though I really don't see the point).

 

First up, M lenses (so an M mount), next simple direct controls (shutter dial, Aperture priority and preferably an ISO dial or EC compensation).

 

I like the optical viewfinder, but to be honest it is inherently flawed. Focus conifrmation (better than the calibration currently offered), movable focus point, and parallax errors in framing are really a bit archaic. As I say, I love the optical viewfinder, but in this day and age, uncertainty about what you're framing and whether or not it is in focus is getting a bit old.

 

The rest? Well, I don't need an LCD (already established that for myself with the M60), but if it has one, I don't particularly mind (the Monochrom has one, though I never use it), and I really don't need video on an M.

 

The M ethos for me is, less is more. I hope the next iteration of the M has a variant without the optical viewfnder, so the camera is no longer "hobbled" by the limitations in the coupled rangefinder - movable focus point, magnified focussing (at your option), framelines for your lens. Call it something other than M (just to keep Jaap happy), but keep the M mount and M form factor - how about AFT (for About F***ing Time).

 

I'll stick with what I have. It just seems to me that Leica is making all sorts of decisions, but dancing carefully about people whose big issue in life is that M stands for messucher. Great lenses, great camera, but limited by something which was revolutonary 60 years ago.

 

Cheers

John

Edited October 2, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[Exodies]

The mechanical linkage is the only way that all existing M lenses have to communicate focus changes to the camera.

Turning the focus ring on an M lens affects the camera in two ways, by mechanically moving the rangefinder mechanism and by optically altering the image on the sensor. Edited October 2, 2016 by Exodies

[edwardkaraa]

The only reasons I use an M and not something else are the rangefinder manual focusing, the optical viewfinder that shows outside of the frame, and the small size. Change any of the above and it would be pointless to use this system.

[Paulus]

My M tweaks would be:  thinner and lighter by a lot......I don't expect to ever see those.

I have multiple systems ....I prefer the M, even with its short comings. Yep my other systems do more stuff.

 I went with the M because it does less, beautifully....Didn't everyone?

 

l know Leica is listening to this thread. but I doubt they see the M the way that this forum does.

We are such a small part of the market.

Smal part? I thought that Leica was saved by the succes of the M9? It would be rather " ungrateful " to abolish this M, now that they we doing allright.

 

There would be nothing to distinguisch Leica from other brands. In this way Leica would surely be a small part of the market and in a few years a non existing part. Why should one buy M lenses if there is no M? There are alternatives,  and they are cheaper.

 

I would not buy into such system. If there are more people like me -  I bought 11 M's since I discovered this system- it would be a considerable part of Leica customers they would miss. To me and of course to Leica , the M is signficant enough to keep also in the future.

 

The only thing I wish for is an M with a sensor , which can keep up with the sensors of the mayor players. If the rest stayes the same one has one heck of a camera! I would buy it, so would the M9 owners, so would the M 240 owners. In revenue  that's a lot of market for Leica.

[Mike Rawcs]

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.

 

I've owned M6 (quite a few), MP (quite a few), M8, M9, M240 - the difference between film and digital Ms is like night and day, to me. No camera feels better in the hand (in my opinion) than a film M, I just can't take to the bloated digital M cameras; it's not just the increase in size but also the increase in weight. Tell me they are just the same and it's just a few millimetres here and there but ..... they are not the same. I suppose it's film M heart, digital M head, for me. I understand perfectly that others may see this as a non-issue, but inferring that those who are not satisfied with the current M are somehow not 'piano players' is rather silly. With respect.

 

Mike. 

 

Mike.

[Belle123]

I've owned M6 (quite a few), MP (quite a few), M8, M9, M240 - the difference between film and digital Ms is like night and day, to me. No camera feels better in the hand (in my opinion) than a film M, I just can't take to the bloated digital M cameras; it's not just the increase in size but also the increase in weight. Tell me they are just the same and it's just a few millimetres here and there but ..... they are not the same. I suppose it's film M heart, digital M head, for me. I understand perfectly that others may see this as a non-issue, but inferring that those who are not satisfied with the current M are somehow not 'piano players' is rather silly. With respect.

 

Mike.

 

Mike.

Sorry you didn't get it. Oh well. Not a big deal. I was referring mostly to those that want everything thrown into an M and never satisfied. But since you didn't get it, I wasn't referring to you as not a 'piano player'. You totally got that backwards. I also have had couple M6 cameras, R7, R8, Hasselblad...etc. in film. So what. To me, the M240 does great. I don't pick it apart. I get on with taking photos. Edited October 2, 2016 by billinghambaglady

[Mike Rawcs]

Sorry you didn't get it. Oh well. Not a big deal. I was referring mostly to those that want everything thrown into an M and never satisfied. But since you didn't get it, I wasn't referring to you as not a 'piano player'. You totally got that backwards. I also have had couple M6 cameras, R7, R8, Hasselblad...etc. in film. So what. To me, the M240 does great. I don't pick it apart. I get on with taking photos.

 

O.k. my mistake. I know from your posts here that you have wide experience with film and digital,  and I agree with you that adding to the M would ruin it, I just hope for a rangefinder digital M with the same dimensions as a film M. I'm probably going to be disappointed. Of course, I've looked at cameras from other manufacturers, but the complexity of menus and plethora of buttons are not for me either. I do like the simplicity and ease of use of Leica M digital cameras. 

 

Mike.

[pgk]

I like the optical viewfinder, but to be honest it is inherently flawed. Focus conifrmation (better than the calibration currently offered), movable focus point, and parallax errors in framing are really a bit archaic. As I say, I love the optical viewfinder, but in this day and age, uncertainty about what you're framing and whether or not it is in focus is getting a bit old.

 

I'd say that people have said this since the SLR became dominant. But the RF in the form of the M has survived despite its shortcomings.

 

Problem is that even if it has a built in EVF, its still 'hobbled' by the lack of communication between lens and body and cannot/will not 'compete' with purpose built systems which are designed from the ground up. The M RF camera is what it is and regardless of hopes and expectations trying to upgrade it will almost certainly simply reveal its limitations rather than deliver a 'competitive', state of the art camera. I suspect that its evolution has probably plateaued to some degree, which does not mean that it is not fit for purpose in the slightest. To move substantially forward Leica are going to have to address the lens/body communication problem - ROM lenses perhaps (its been done before  )?

[IkarusJohn]

I'd say that people have said this since the SLR became dominant. But the RF in the form of the M has survived despite its shortcomings.

 

Problem is that even if it has a built in EVF, its still 'hobbled' by the lack of communication between lens and body and cannot/will not 'compete' with purpose built systems which are designed from the ground up. The M RF camera is what it is and regardless of hopes and expectations trying to upgrade it will almost certainly simply reveal its limitations rather than deliver a 'competitive', state of the art camera. I suspect that its evolution has probably plateaued to some degree, which does not mean that it is not fit for purpose in the slightest. To move substantially forward Leica are going to have to address the lens/body communication problem - ROM lenses perhaps (its been done before )?

Hi Paul,

 

Yes, that's very true. If Leica sticks with the optical coupled rangefinder (in some variant of the future M), and why wouldn't they, then leave out the clutter of other options. That system works well 28-90. Don't spoil it.

 

But, if Leica wants the camera to do more (getting rid of parallax, calibration, fixed focal point etc), it can do that without an electronic link to the lens. Just read off the sensor. That would be a useful, and I'd guess very popular variant. The SL already does that, but with greater size and AF.

 

The thing is, the M(240) opened pandora's box. The traditional M has pretty much plateaued (no bad thing); what is a bad thing for me is pushing the camera beyond the limitations of the base functionality. The better option (to me) is to have an iteration which removes that limitation, while retaining the M's other strengths - lenses, size, simplicity ...

 

Cheers

John

Edited October 2, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[ECohen]

Can someone clarify where this thread is going?
 

Leica makes lots of different styles of cameras. If you want Leica you have choices already......Also there are better camera choices than the M ,outside of Leica too.
 

We choose Leica for what it doesn't do. Its a simple camera, user intuitive,has superb lenses, that creates a high quality file.  We also like/prefer that its focusing method is a manual rangefinder.
 

Aside from tweaking the firmware and keeping up with technology's sensors.....What else do you want? What else do you need?
 

Since 1950 this camera has not been "all things to all photographers" and to its credit it doesn't try to be.

Within its limitations its a wonderful tool and a joy to use.....That's why we use it.
 

If you want to go beyond the Ms current range there are better choices within Leica as well as  Nikon, Canon, Sony,.... whoever.
 

Seriously what else do you want the M to do, that wont ruin why we love it?

[IkarusJohn]

The topic will go wherever you would like it to. The best threads are those where posts are read and responded to respectfully and for what they actually say.

 

I agree entirely with your post - the M does what it does well, and it will only be spoiled by trying to make it do what it doesn't do. However, there's more to it than that, isn't there?

 

People (myself included) accumulating fabulous M lenses and trying to use them with Sonys and other cameras (with very limited success) suggests that there is a wider market for M lenses than the current M cameras meet. Better Leica capitalises on that market than someone else, don't you think?

 

It's only discussion herre. No one on this forum is actually designing or making the cameras - that's Leica's job. If you don't think this thread has any purpose, surely there are other threads that you think do?

Edited October 2, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[LocalHero1953]

 

Can someone clarify where this thread is going?

 

Leica makes lots of different styles of cameras. If you want Leica you have choices already......Also there are better camera choices than the M ,outside of Leica too.

 

We choose Leica for what it doesn't do. Its a simple camera, user intuitive,has superb lenses, that creates a high quality file.  We also like/prefer that its focusing method is a manual rangefinder.

 

Aside from tweaking the firmware and keeping up with technology's sensors.....What else do you want? What else do you need?

 

Since 1950 this camera has not been "all things to all photographers" and to its credit it doesn't try to be.

Within its limitations its a wonderful tool and a joy to use.....That's why we use it.

 

If you want to go beyond the Ms current range there are better choices within Leica as well as  Nikon, Canon, Sony,.... whoever.

 

Seriously what else do you want the M to do, that wont ruin why we love it?

 

Not everyone wants every tweak. Most people want the M plus just the particular tweak they "need" to make it perfect.

 

I agree with Paul (pgk) that the M is what it is, and there is a limit to how much more clever it can be made because of the simplicity of the M mount.

But Leica is a commercial company that will continue the M and its derivatives as long as, but only as long as it is profitable ( however they measure that internally). When the M, defined by the M-mount, is no longer profitable, they now have a ready made successor in the wings: the SL mount, which could be used as the basis for a small but digitally cleverer system. TBH, I'd be surprised if they introduced such a system while the M is viable, but is anyone willing to bet they haven't been through such a design exercise already?

 

Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, I am not hoping for the demise of the M, but suggesting what might happen if that comes about.

Edited October 2, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

People (myself included) accumulating fabulous M lenses and trying to use them with Sonys and other cameras (with very limited success) suggests that there is a wider market for M lenses than the current M cameras meet. Better Leica capitalises on that market than someone else, don't you think?

 

To answer your question - yes. But even with all the will in the world you can't get away from the huge number of viable legacy lenses which will always have limited compatibility with any digital system. It appears to me that Leica has the best answers to date: M, SL and T viability with old lenses.

 

However I would expect "higher image quality" (define as you will) to be available as fully electronically integrated optics are increasingly used with digital cameras especially as developments take place to fine tune the numerous variables that optimisation of images require. Not everyone will appreciate the fact that images will be adjusted electronically to optimise performance of lenses, but if a really fabulous lens is adjusted to boost its already excellent performance, the result may well be 'better' than any unadjusted lens. This will leave any legacy lens at a disadvantage - even if it is modified.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

That's the case already.