Leica M 10

[imants]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M lens line is state of the art, aside from AF and CF. Both of those options are possible already on the Sony bodies, so why not on any Leica? Maybe the L mount would give room for this in the form of a special adapter. Let the camera be ugly, if it is light, small, tough, and versatile.

 

Such a body would put M back in the bags of many a war corespondent.

 

 Sorry the iPhone/smartphone has  a stranglehold of that market and the new war correspondent is the average citizen who is in the right place at the right time

[derleicaman]

Exactly.

 

The idea a EVF M body must be the size of the SL is preposterous. The SL is a beautiful camera. Useless to me because of it's size. M9 and A7.mod are really too big too, but I can just manage.

 

What I would like and I KNOW would be a hit is to take that technical savvy which went into to the SL and turn to this: 21st century Barnack. A ergonomic technical body for the M, small as any iPhone will tell you it can be (nex-5 could be FF), with no allegiance to tradition, only to practical function as a "mountain" camera like the Barnack. Of course the camera must be a certain thickness right at the mount, but the rest of the body can be thinned and thickened for function. The LCD can tilt. The EVF can pop up, or be in the body. Even a optical RF with M240 base could go in a much smaller body, if all engineering stops were pulled out.

 

The M lens line is state of the art, aside from AF and CF. Both of those options are possible already on the Sony bodies, so why not on any Leica? Maybe the L mount would give room for this in the form of a special adapter. Let the camera be ugly, if it is light, small, tough, and versatile.

 

Such a body would put M back in the bags of many a war corespondent. In fact the M to L AF adapter would also let him use the small back on many other lenses. The E-mount is 18mm and the L is 19mm, so there is certainly space. I don't suggest this because I'm a big fan of AF, but most of the world is. Look at how the A7 has "saved" sony. It is carrying the company right now. In 2011 when I told my friends at FM Sony should make a FF Nex, they fell over laughing. Niche camera, they cried. Who would buy it?

 

Make the camera above in addition to the great traditional options, like M10, and Leica would have more business than they can imagine. Of course most here don't care so much, we are already "converted". But there is nothing stopping Leica from getting a much bigger market footprint, except vision.

 

And a few old men guarding their lawns with hoses,

My thoughts exactly. I don't want an SL, but I would be in the market for a FF NEX or XE-2 type camera. I was very disappointed when Sony went down the faux DSLR path with the A7. I much preferred the form factor of the NEX. Same for the XE-2. I usually have the XE-2 with the Fuji 23/1.4, X mount to M adapter and my M9 or MM and M lenses with when I travel. There is no way I would ever have an SL with me. When I had the SL on loan I was out of town in Massachusetts for my son's wedding. I used the SL for formal pictures, and I used the XE-2 and M9 and MM for everything else. I had a pro shoot the event and two other friends covering things as well. There is just no way I would have schlepped the SL and 24-90 along with my M cameras. Unless I had a sherpa along, and my wife won't carry my bag either! Something along the lines of a FF NEX size wise would be perfect. I don't need or want T or TL lenses, but to do something in M mount only would be too limiting, so L mount with M adapter makes sense.

[Joakim]

Could some kind soul enlighten me as to the lenses and adapters that are compatible with an L mount - excluding of course the obvious SL lenses?

 

TIA

 

There are many adapters available for the L mount, looking at what Leica and Novoflex has I counted adapters for 15 mounts between the 2 of them. So you have the Leica mounts (M, S, R, LTM), Canon (EF, FD), Nikon, MF like Hasselblad V and Pentax and much more. And if you stack adapters I guess there are even more options.

[imants]

And a few old men guarding their lawns with hoses,

 

 The old men are guarding their identity not Leica

 

But there is nothing stopping Leica from getting a much bigger market footprint, except vision.

 

 The old men do not want Leica to expand they want it to be small so they can feel different and superior

 

 Most here are beyond that way of thinking

[EoinC]

If a person needs EVF, then he does not need a Leica M.

.

'Need' and 'want' are subjective terms, Pico. I'm not sure that anyone 'needs' a Leica M. I don't see how using an EVF is substantially different in concept to your use of an accessory viewfinder when shooting with your very nice 10mm Voigtlander.

I use both the rangefinder and EVF on my Monochrom. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, and I could survive with either / or, but I enjoy each for their own purpose.

 

No children or animals were harmed in this post.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

There are many adapters available for the L mount, looking at what Leica and Novoflex has I counted adapters for 15 mounts between the 2 of them. So you have the Leica mounts (M, S, R, LTM), Canon (EF, FD), Nikon, MF like Hasselblad V and Pentax and much more. And if you stack adapters I guess there are even more options.

 

Many thanks, much appreciated.

 

I only have experience of the M mount and have to admit I find the mounts that are now available to be rather confusing.

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Glad to hear it! IMHO, Leica has been successful by evolving the M camera, preserving those characteristics that make it special (body shape, ergonomic controls, big clear viewfinder an accurate rangefinder focusing), while successfully integrating digital components. That's quite an achievement!

 

Take away its basic shape and controls and it's no longer an M.

 

I foresee two lines: a stripped down version for the traditionalists and minimalists, and a super-duper version with the latest technology. No reason the two can't co-exist.

 

From a design point of view, the emphasis should be on factors like usability, size and shape, performance, robustness, and reliability, not merely how many features it has.  

[pico]

'Need' and 'want' are subjective terms, Pico. I'm not sure that anyone 'needs' a Leica M. I don't see how using an EVF is substantially different in concept to your use of an accessory viewfinder when shooting with your very nice 10mm Voigtlander.

I use both the rangefinder and EVF on my Monochrom. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, and I could survive with either / or, but I enjoy each for their own purpose.

 

I will not argue 'want' vs 'need' because it ends up in some kind of meta-morality argument. I hope you understand.

 

One difference of an EVF vs an optical viewfinder (not rangefinder), is the clarity and speed of the later. I am merely positing my preference. I have terrible vision and frankly the Leica OVF has been painful for so many years, but I have adapted for better or worse. My standard for framing is probably low.

 

So I have moved over the past 25 years to viewfinder cameras, the favored being one with an accessory laser RF, another with a big-ass RF.

 

Peace

.

[Tailwagger]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm utterly perplexed by the notion of a QL. If we look at the form factor of the Sony offerings, its pretty clear that the SL didn't need to be as large as it turned out to be.  AFAICT, the SL body weighs 840g, the Q, 640g with a lens.  The 24-90 is 1140g, the 90-280 is 1710g, the 50mm weighs in at 1065g.  The current Summilux-M is quoted at 335g.  A Noctilux-M is 700g.  What would a Q body weigh without its lens? 500g? 400g?, 300g? The M240 is 680g so lets guess that between the Q and M, 400g is a reasonable figure, sans optics. I fail to see the allure of mounting the standard zoom on a body that weighs 1/3 as much and I'd submit that Leica, for all the grousing about the dimensions and mass of the SL, sized its body appropriately for supporting the physical characteristics of the native lenses it planned to offer for it. 

 

My lightest M glass is a pre-ASPH Summilux 35mm at 135g, the heaviest, a Summilux 75mm at 560g. Carrying both for use with an EVF-based M-mount camera even at 450g would be essentially the equivalent of carrying the 24-90 on its own. While I sympathize with the desire for those interested in smaller FF/EVF/AF Leica, given what we've seen in terms of the size and weight of the optics to date, I fail to see any reason or advantage behind offering a smaller, lighter body for L-mount. OTOH, I think offering an alternative, [not replacement] to the M's RF/OVF by substituting EVF to create a more compact, lighter weight, native M glass package has appeal beyond current M users. It creates a new category of camera, wedding the simplicity of MF with the EVF advantages we've already discussed previously. And in the process eliminating the need for excess buttons, four point focus controllers, overlapping modes, touch screens, configurable this and that, all of which typically accompany AF designs. It opens the path to multiple generations of optics from a variety of manufacturers which, if properly executed, could wind up being the lightest, most compact FF digital IL camera to date.

[NZDavid]

I am not sure MF with EVF is necessarily faster or simpler than a good AF system or manual RF. But having it as a possibility, same as the Fuji X-Pro, makes sense. 

[jaapv]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm utterly perplexed by the notion of a QL. If we look at the form factor of the Sony offerings, its pretty clear that the SL didn't need to be as large as it turned out to be.  AFAICT, the SL body weighs 840g, the Q, 640g with a lens.  The 24-90 is 1140g, the 90-280 is 1710g, the 50mm weighs in at 1065g.  The current Summilux-M is quoted at 335g.  A Noctilux-M is 700g.  What would a Q body weigh without its lens? 500g? 400g?, 300g? The M240 is 680g so lets guess that between the Q and M, 400g is a reasonable figure, sans optics. I fail to see the allure of mounting the standard zoom on a body that weighs 1/3 as much and I'd submit that Leica, for all the grousing about the dimensions and mass of the SL, sized its body appropriately for supporting the physical characteristics of the native lenses it planned to offer for it. 

 

My lightest M glass is a pre-ASPH Summilux 35mm at 135g, the heaviest, a Summilux 75mm at 560g. Carrying both for use with an EVF-based M-mount camera even at 450g would be essentially the equivalent of carrying the 24-90 on its own. While I sympathize with the desire for those interested in smaller FF/EVF/AF Leica, given what we've seen in terms of the size and weight of the optics to date, I fail to see any reason or advantage behind offering a smaller, lighter body for L-mount. OTOH, I think offering an alternative, [not replacement] to the M's RF/OVF by substituting EVF to create a more compact, lighter weight, native M glass package has appeal beyond current M users. It creates a new category of camera, wedding the simplicity of MF with the EVF advantages we've already discussed previously. And in the process eliminating the need for excess buttons, four point focus controllers, overlapping modes, touch screens, configurable this and that, all of which typically accompany AF designs. It opens the path to multiple generations of optics from a variety of manufacturers which, if properly executed, could wind up being the lightest, most compact FF digital IL camera to date.

I'm not quite sure whether lighter is necessarily  a desirable property. I have always favoured substantial cameras for stability. Looking at the  weight I am prepared to carry, it maxes out at about a 10 Kg backpack for a full travel kit. A few hundred grams for a body is neither here nor there in that context.

For my use, with lenses ranging from an Elmar-M to substantial teles and telezooms, the present M dimensions and weight are a good compromise.

[Bill Livingston]

I am not sure MF with EVF is necessarily faster or simpler than a good AF system or manual RF. But having it as a possibility, same as the Fuji X-Pro, makes sense.

 

It is when you are using MF on a 90 or a 135... AF isn't actually faster for a lot of the sort of photography we do... and having a moveable focus point is fine if you are on a tripod... but for hand held? Even when I had an AF SLR I would focus and recompose, just as I do with my RF focussing on my M.

 

An M with an EVF of the standard of the SL or better would be a great addition. I think if you had a play with one for a few days, more than a few of you would buy one, or at least stop criticising those of us that do see the merit.

[Tailwagger]

I am not sure MF with EVF is necessarily faster or simpler than a good AF system or manual RF. But having it as a possibility, same as the Fuji X-Pro, makes sense. 

 

Never said faster.  As I own Fujis, theres no question in my mind that it is simpler if for no other reason than there are umpteen AF modes alone to contend with, the size and location of the AF box, no AE-L/AF-L, FD modes, etc, etc, etc. 

[IkarusJohn]

I don't understand the difference between these hypothetical cameras. What is the difference between:

A Q with exchangeable L mount lenses

A SL with the body shape and size of an M

A M with an L mount

As far as I can make out, what we are banging on about is made from pieces of the M and the SL. What exactly does the Q bring to the mix? Surely the fixed lens puts it furthest from the goal than the others.

The Q is slightly smaller than an M, I think; but otherwise the cameras you describe are the same. The mount is an L mount, used in the SL and TL cameras. A Q with an L mount would be a QL.

 

What many of us here are suggesting is an M mount M camera with an EVF instead of the coupled optical rangefinder as a further M camera option.

[DezFoto]

 

As a side note, man that 24-90 is a beast.  Seeing it being used in the flesh gives you a sense for just how big it is. 

 

Yeah, a friend just bought one and it is massive. He does most of his work on a tripod so it doesn't bother him. He bought an SL in lieu of a medium format system, so to him it's a more convenient and portable solution compared to the other cameras he was looking at. Compared to my Hasselblad 50-110mm though, it's small and lithe, lol. 

[Distagon]

So a  hybrid optical-digital lens is not a lens with a mediocre optical design saved by the computer, but it is a lens that is optimized  more effectively optically by shifting some aberrations into digital correction, where they can be corrected just as well or better, resulting in a better lens overall.

Yes, absolutely.

Image processing correction of well-characterised optical distortion is not free license to abandon fine optical engineering. It refines the final result from well designed optics manufactured to tight tolerances (hence optically predictable).

[Distagon]

Or perhaps insisted on a compromised design because modern alternatives are merely disapproved of (ie the M mount is essential instead of an L mount

 

I do wonder if people read and digest what's written.

 

Yes, indeed.

One can only write the same thing so many times without the message getting through, as it clearly hasn't.

[Tailwagger]

I'm not quite sure whether lighter is necessarily  a desirable property. I have always favoured substantial cameras for stability. Looking at the  weight I am prepared to carry, it maxes out at about a 10 Kg backpack for a full travel kit. A few hundred grams for a body is neither here nor there in that context.

 

In some dimensions yes, in others no. Certainly I've yet to meet anyone that enjoys hand holding when the lens substantially outweighs the body.  But as a complimentary, companion body to the M, I'd prefer to trend toward the diminutive, acknowledging that while others might, I've no strong desire to shoot with a Leica beyond 90 or 135mm.   

[Distagon]

Looking at the  weight I am prepared to carry, it maxes out at about a 10 Kg backpack for a full travel kit. A few hundred grams for a body is neither here nor there in that context.

For my use, with lenses ranging from an Elmar-M to substantial teles and telezooms, the present M dimensions and weight are a good compromise.

This issue of form factor is a strong driver for me to be in the M system, and has been part of the system's concept since inception.

It's not so much the weight of an isolated body that matters but the entire system weight, replete with one's selected lenses.

Even a well-equipped M kit must be one of (if not the) lightest, compact Full Frame interchangeable lens systems available, even if it is limited at the telephoto end compared to a DSLR equivalent.

I've travelled with a 10 kg DSLR kit and it can be a misery, a disincentive to one's photography.

So the benefit of the M's light total system weight ought not be under-estimated; it makes a material difference to the photography. (For me anyway, but I'm sure to others also.)

This is a significant factor in fitness of the SL and its lenses as a travel system. Its total system weight is equivalent to a comparable DSLR.

Of course, every trip is different, so horses for courses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Some of us have been used to use small SLRs in the past. Olympus OM1 or my dear old Leica R4s for example. Zero problem using my little A7s mod with taller M lenses like 90/2 v2 or 75/1.4 for instance. R lenses do fit as well but i still prefer my 5D1 size wise with R 280/4, 180/3.4 or 135/2.8. YMMV.