Leica M 10

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ok, so we can both be clear on our respective positions:

 

Clearly not... I thought you believed that I wanted the M to change from an OVF to an EVF... it seemed to me to be what you were saying in a post a couple of pages back.

 

No, by your answer, clearly you misunderstood my comment there. I responded to the fact that you wrote "I think people need to let go of the fact the M is a 'rangefinder'". To me, this implied that you wanted to get rid of the RF completely, be it optical or electronic.

 

Where in reality, I WANT the M to stay as an OVF/Rangefinder/Messsucher for all the reasons you (and I) have already stated. But I would also like an M body with the EVF and sensor from the SL as an option - just as there are monochrome options and screenless options currently. I would certainly buy one to use alongside my M-P 240... 

 

ok, so I possibly got this wrong because not too long ago you wrote something about having an M with EVF, AF and SL mount. I don't have any objection to that whatsoever, why would I ? But it's not an "M" or even a variation of an "M". It's a new family within the Leica lineup. That's all I'm trying (badly it seems) to say.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

Had the Leica Forum existed when the original Visoflex had been introduced I suspect that many would have thought that it would allow them to shoot their M Rangefinder Camera just like an SLR and that future iterations would feature more useful innovations too. The truth was that whilst it was usable it could not and more importantly did not enable M cameras to be as viable as purpose built SLRs. So we shall have to wait and see what the future brings this time; history should tell us something although I absolutely accept that we rarely take any notice of it   .

[DezFoto]

 

Where in reality, I WANT the M to stay as an OVF/Rangefinder/Messsucher for all the reasons you (and I) have already stated. But I would also like an M body with the EVF and sensor from the SL as an option - just as there are monochrome options and screenless options currently. I would certainly buy one to use alongside my M-P 240... 

 

I would like this as well and I know several other people would like an EVF M body to go along side the rangefinder cameras. For a lot of people, especially as we get older, the rangefinder gets more and more difficult to use and an EVF becomes more appealing. It would also give photographers who do a lot of closeup or long lens work a viable alternative to the much larger and heavier SL. 

[Bill Livingston]

ok, so we can both be clear on our respective positions:

 

 

No, by your answer, clearly you misunderstood my comment there. I responded to the fact that you wrote "I think people need to let go of the fact the M is a 'rangefinder'". To me, this implied that you wanted to get rid of the RF completely, be it optical or electronic.

 

 

 

What I said was what I meant. I think the 'rangefinder' is only one element of the M... the mount, the layout and so on all go into making the M an 'M'. As 'xrogers' pointed out a page ago, the M1 was still an M, as was the MD/MDa and no-one complained at the M model designation. Why? Because it was an M mount in an M body and no-one had an axe to grind at the time.

 

I think the same should be true today. That way, an 'SL like' EVF and sensor could be fitted, and we would have exactly the same camera layout and same haptics in a body we can use alongside other M's without compromising familiarity. The only thing that seems to be stopping it being accepted is those who seem to think this means the conventional OVF would have to go... It doesn't... They could both be M's... one an OVF M and the other an EVF M.

 

As far as the second point was concerned... just to clear it up... I would prefer an EVF version of the M to be just that, an M mount, same layout, manual focus and so on... then it would be an M. But that's just me.

 

If Leica ended up producing an 'M' type camera with an SL mount with the provision for AF and IS etc... then maybe it wouldn't be an M, I might agree with you... but does it matter?

 

Its also likely to be the option Leica is more likely to choose... and I would absolutely buy one regardless, assuming it was the same size and layout of the current M, as it would resolve an issue of use that should be so easy to overcome... if people were not so wedded to the past

[chris_tribble]

Bill, I tend to agree. I've no idea if it's possible. I certainly wouldn't want a hump on the top or a huge eyepiece sticking out of the back. These were all part of the reason why I couldn't get on with the SL. I need a camera that slips in and out of a slim camera bag and which doesn't stick me in the ribs if I carry out across my body on a strap. I found the SL to be so inconvenient and clumsy with the grip and all the other sticking out bits... So if there ever is an EVF M you're absolutely right about it having to have the same form factor as other Ms.

[Tailwagger]

I view it this way. The SL takes care of those committed Leica owners wishing to have a more modern, EVF based Leica that acts as a bridge to AF and provides support through adapters for M glass.  Fine for some, but, as I said earlier, I hate adapters.  Moreover, and likely a view shared by more users, the addition of AF means a lot more menu options, controls, etc. For those committed to shooting with Leitz glass, all the added, unnecessary, interface complexity is unwelcome. And then there's the shear size and heft of the thing, likely dictated by the mass of the L- mount zooms.  Despite a world class EVF, all that, and a bit more, makes the SL unsuitable for my needs.

 

Given the SL exists, there is little point to producing a Q-sized product that supports those zooms.  But as has been often discussed, a Q style MF-only, M-Mount camera could neatly slot in and bridge the gap between the M and SL series, providing EVF for one, native M for the other.  The continued demand for the M lenses from those shooting with Sony, Fuji, etc equipment, suggests that there is a market for a small, light, manual focus EVF-based Leica camera. If priced similarly to the Q, I'd almost certainly buy one and eventually replace my 240 with a next gen 262, given no further pressing need for live view.  My hope is that if the M zoom rumor is to be believed, we will be seeing a QM at some point. 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If Leica ended up producing an 'M' type camera with an SL mount with the provision for AF and IS etc... then maybe it wouldn't be an M, I might agree with you... but does it matter?

A full frame T would fit this description ..... (but it wouldn't be an M  ).

[jrp]

I occasionally shoot the M240 and SL side-by-side (to avoid having to change lenses).  As I wear glasses, the rangefinder is harder work, as is the fact that you can only focus on the centre with the M240 and not all M lenses have the field of focus shaped that would allow focus+recompose to work well.  I also find that the SL's metering is more accurate (in the presence of bright spots).  So unless Leica takes us by surprise, I'll pass on the M10 and use the M lenses on the SL, where I can, despite the size (which is not that much worse than an M240+grip).

[tom0511]

I find the M faster to use for M lenses since I can focus and frame between having to switch back and forth to magnification.

Its different with very fast lenses or longer lenses, where I do not allways achieve the desired focus accurancy with the M.

 

I am not totally sure what should be impoved over current M models, but I bet I will upgrade anyways one day.

[Bill Livingston]

A full frame T would fit this description ..... (but it wouldn't be an M  ).

 

 

LOL!!! Brilliant response

 

 

 

(If it looks exactly like an M, feels like and M and works like an M... then its an M to me... regardless of what Leica call it!!! )

[imants]

For now we will have a m similar to the m we have , even though m looks like a long n it is not a n although some mistake a m for a upside down w...............

[pico]

I believe what he is saying is that Leica will continue to sell film versions regardless of return on investment, whereas on the digital side, resources devoted to an M must be as profitable as they would have been had they been devoted to a non-RF camera instead. 

 

So, we are considering film Leicas as loss leaders? I find that difficult to understand since the M7 line is paid off, therefore profitable if production constraints are rational.

.

[pico]

Rangefinders are not necessarily optical. Laser rangefinders are rangefinders as well. Electronic rangefinders are rangefinders also. All measure the distance outside the lens. The same way as RF cameras allow to compose outside the lens. A different way of seing the world. Not better, not worse, just different. Just the opposite than TTL cameras. Nothing new since the first SLR cameras.

 

I have incorporated a laser rangefinder next to my Plaubel Veriwide which has a focusing scale on the lens. Bulky, but it yields honest 90mm x 56mm images. Entirely worthwhile. Should I post pictures of it?

[Distagon]

...what you call limitations are just the features of the rangefinder.

I've heard that line from many a software engineer!

A design limitation is not a feature, in the sense of a functional selling point.

But I think the sense you intended was that the limitations are a characteristic of the viewfinder-rangefinder.

Yes, of course they are.

The viewfinder-rangefinder is great at what it does, but it does not do everything great.

 

Those features are just what makes the M an M. Remove them and it becomes a TTL camera as others.

Of course historically the system was named for a focus and framing technology developed for the body in the 1950s.

So there is a linguistic sense in which removing a viewfinder-rangefinder would mean it is no longer a M.

The problem with that logic is that it forbids there ever being a dedicated M-mount camera, with a sensor optimised for M lenses, in the form factor of say a Leica MP, but with a novel manual focus aid and framing technology.

 

Nothing new under the sun .

Yes, it has been a discussion going back to the seventies, and with good reason.

I really like using the viewfinder-rangefinder within its operating limits.

What I want is to use that wonderful glass and wonderful camera outside of those limits, with a solution that doesn't feel like an after-thought. That means integrated TTL for those situations where the current viewfinder-rangefinder is not useful.

There a lots of smart engineers and great technology that ought to make an intelligent hybrid practicable.

Nothing new under the sun until Leica develop... something new.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Distagon]

Should I post pictures of it?

I'd love to see that, thanks!

[Peter H]

Had the Leica Forum existed when the original Visoflex had been introduced I suspect that many would have thought that it would allow them to shoot their M Rangefinder Camera just like an SLR and that future iterations would feature more useful innovations too. The truth was that whilst it was usable it could not and more importantly did not enable M cameras to be as viable as purpose built SLRs. So we shall have to wait and see what the future brings this time; history should tell us something although I absolutely accept that we rarely take any notice of it   .

 

 

I certainly don't want an improved EVF so I can pretend my M can do what a DSLR can do.

 

Why is it proving so awkward to accept that there are people who like all the good things about M cameras, don't want anything else instead,  but would a little extra add-on to make life easier occasionally?

[Tailwagger]

So, we are considering film Leicas as loss leaders? I find that difficult to understand since the M7 line is paid off, therefore profitable if production constraints are rational.

.

Jaap's words not mine, I was just translating. But permit me to do so again.  Even if all there is no further R&D, distribution, supply parts, manufacturing,  all costs money and that money could, potentially, be put to better, read more profitable, use elsewhere. I've seen plenty of profitable endeavors scrapped, not because they weren't making money, but because they weren't making enough of it and had little to no chance for future growth.  Despite paying for themselves, these products were killed or EOL'd to free up the investment dollars for funding other endeavors that upper management believed, often incorrectly, would result  in a far greater return by serving a newer, growing market.   All Leica seems to be saying is that even if they found more profitable places to spend the money currently committed to the film business, as long as there is demand for film cameras, they wont yield to any similar temptations.

[Distagon]

I need a camera that slips in and out of a slim camera bag and which doesn't stick me in the ribs if I carry out across my body on a strap. I found the SL to be so inconvenient and clumsy with the grip and all the other sticking out bits... So if there ever is an EVF M you're absolutely right about it having to have the same form factor as other Ms.

Yes, indeed.

And that is even more a problem for the (rather delicate) Visoflex solution.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[imants]

Historically the m is a film camera  with it being digital anything goes

[Distagon]

All Leica seems to be saying is that even if they found more profitable places to spend the money currently committed to the film business, as long as there is demand for film cameras, they wont yield to any similar temptations.

For given fixed costs, profit is maximised along the production "volume versus cost" curve when unit marginal cost of production = unit marginal revenue.

While M cameras (digital + film) are in production, there is so much commonality between them that the additional fixed costs of retaining a film M production and distribution capability are probably trivially low.

So long as the total volume of Ms is sufficient to warrant the fixed costs, film Ms are likely to be commercially viable.

Any heritage commitment to film Ms is just a marketing bonus although, as Jaap correctly pointed out, that also has its own commercial value.

As total fixed costs must include the cost of capital tied up in the production facility, tooling, warehousing et cetera, any M production that is truly profitable should not be cannibalising capital from other product lines. Access to additional capital for new investment is what capital management and debt is all about.

That all depends on some useful accounting work for managerial decision-making, though, and many companies get that badly wrong.

In short, I reckon film Ms will be around while there is high commonality of production across film and digital bodies, and the total M production capability is profitable.