Whenever the new M arrives, who's going to buy one?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More pixels good. Have you never seen the film Blow-up?

 

Yes! The premier in London. A pigeon shit on my shoulder while I was in line. I should have taken it as an omen to save me from wasting 20 years of my life in photography.

.

[chris_tribble]

I hope Leica can reverse this trend because otherwise the M's future might start looking less interesting than it should be.

It's an interesting trend, if that's what it is. I sold the SL for precisely the reason that it felt like the wrong tool to use with M lenses.

[Peter Kilmister]

When I was a teenager I had a date in Birmingham (the original one in England). We met and queued up outside the ABC cinema in New Street. A starling dumped a huge load on my head and right shoulder.

I said goodnight and went home for a shower and change of clothes. I watched Blow Up on TV a few years later. It has always puzzled me why the starling did that but it did save me from a different future.

 

John Fowles (The Magus, French Lieutenant's Woman, the Collector, etc.) wrote about 'hazard'. That was a hazard moment. I could have ended up with a wife who wouldn't let me spend thousands of GBP on Leica kit and I'd have ended up with a Sofort.

 

Happy I am, happy I'll be.

[Rick]

I agree, except I still think it's a bit odd that the M is not clearly the best platform for M lenses anymore, with apparently a lot of people now preferring the SL. The M really should be the best choice for M lenses.

 

I hope Leica can reverse this trend because otherwise the M's future might start looking less interesting than it should be.

 

 

I also tried the SL with my M lenses and found that I still preferred the RF for manual lenses.  

 

I don't like magnified view for fast shooting.  Focus peeking is too wide (deep).  I did like low light focus on the SL and there is a sort of fast focus through the SL's wonderful EVF that is almost as good... maybe I could get used to that?

 

But, in the end I just seem to like a RF and optical view way of shooting.  

 

Rick

[Printmaker]

I will not be disappointed if there is no new M in January.  I'm fine with the M240. 

 

I'd probably be disappointed if it just had the same 24MP sensor as the SL with no other improvements. 

 

I can wait...

 

Like you, I'm fine with my M9 and Monochrom. I'm just thinking of replacing my S2 with another high MP camera. If there is no offering from Leica, I'll pick up an 810 and a few long lenses. But there is no rush.

[Peter H]

I also tried the SL with my M lenses and found that I still preferred the RF for manual lenses.  

 

I don't like magnified view for fast shooting.  Focus peeking is too wide (deep).  I did like low light focus on the SL and there is a sort of fast focus through the SL's wonderful EVF that is almost as good... maybe I could get used to that?

 

But, in the end I just seem to like a RF and optical view way of shooting.  

 

Rick

 

 

 

I've tried the SL for three extended sessions now, and I do like the viewfinder but I'd like it even more if it was detachable and there was a brilliant optical viewfinder in its stead.

 

A new M, in other words!

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've tried the SL for three extended sessions now, and I do like the viewfinder but I'd like it even more if it was detachable and there was a brilliant optical viewfinder in its stead.

 

A new M, in other words!

+1

[IkarusJohn]

I agree, except I still think it's a bit odd that the M is not clearly the best platform for M lenses anymore, with apparently a lot of people now preferring the SL. The M really should be the best choice for M lenses.

I hope Leica can reverse this trend because otherwise the M's future might start looking less interesting than it should be.

There's no reason to think that the next M will not perform at least as well as the SL with M lenses (ie, in terms of the sensor) - why wouldn't it? The rest is just functionality - the EVF on the SL provides more options (no additional viewfinders required, no frameline parallax and the ability to magnify), whereas the M offers the optical viewfinder in a smaller package, with a smaller range of lenses. But, it's core is the optical rangefinder.

 

I appreciate that others feel differently, but once you move away from the optical rangefinder (adding Swiss-Army knife adapters, clip-on viewfinders and grips) the benefits of using one of my M cameras evaporate - the SL is just so much better at it. The 135mm lens provides too small a framed area, and the patch too big for accurate focusing, and the 21 too wide. Whereas, I can comfortably use 28-90mm on the M with no additions (though I confess to using a 1.4x magnifier sometimes).

 

Strangely, sales of the SL, M(262) and M-D would suggest I'm not alone.

[pico]

If Leica offered a camera which was an M9 with a much faster CPU, and retained the USB port I would buy it, otherwise, I'm off the customer target forever.

 

.

[Peter H]

There's no reason to think that the next M will not perform at least as well as the SL with M lenses (ie, in terms of the sensor) - why wouldn't it? The rest is just functionality - the EVF on the SL provides more options (no additional viewfinders required, no frameline parallax and the ability to magnify), whereas the M offers the optical viewfinder in a smaller package, with a smaller range of lenses. But, it's core is the optical rangefinder.

 

I appreciate that others feel differently, but once you move away from the optical rangefinder (adding Swiss-Army knife adapters, clip-on viewfinders and grips) the benefits of using one of my M cameras evaporate - the SL is just so much better at it. The 135mm lens provides too small a framed area, and the patch too big for accurate focusing, and the 21 too wide. Whereas, I can comfortably use 28-90mm on the M with no additions (though I confess to using a 1.4x magnifier sometimes).

 

Strangely, sales of the SL, M(262) and M-D would suggest I'm not alone.

That "the SL is so much better at it" is to my mind an indictment if the lack of development of the M.

 

John, I'm sure you remember that my concern when the SL was announced was not so much it's own characteristics but that it would lend both credence and fuel to what in my mind is a mistaken notion that the M should become some sort of purist's time-capsule of a camera whilst the really valuable development resources would be diverted towards the new camera. This us exactly what is happening.

 

The new sensor has been kept away from the M for long enough to create more than just the impression that the SL is the better camera, and the EVF has many erstwhile M enthusiasts declaring that the Noctilux (and other tricky M lenses) and the SL were "made for each other". If M lenses are easier to use on a camera that is not an M, something is wrong.

 

The upshot is that there's a real divergence between traditionalists and modernists and an unnecessary ditching of the potential for a truly capable, highly advanced and, importantly, small MF camera. And we shouldn't assume that all advances need be of the Swiss Army knife variety, and the SL has proved they don't need to be.

 

This is all fine if it's the best way Leica can come up with to maximise their returns on investment but I think it's a shame that they seem to be lacking the imagination to think of a better plan.

[IkarusJohn]

No, the M isn't a purists camera - its core is the optical rangefinder. I love that and hope it remains state of the art.

[lct]

Not sure if Leica Ms have ever been state of the art since the M3 but M lenses are still sought after all over the world and so much the better if they can be used on different platforms like M, T and SL, let alone non Leica cameras. Big cameras like the SL will never threaten the M's survival anyway but a Q with interchangeable lenses or a Sony A7 with thin sensor stack would be more dangerous from this viewpoint. 

[jaapv]

What I am missing in this thread is the voice of the Asian market. We may want all we want in Europe, USA, Australia, etc., but Leica has a large number of customers to keep happy in places like China and Japan and their ideas may well differ from ours.

[pgk]

No, the M isn't a purists camera - its core is the optical rangefinder. I love that and hope it remains state of the art.

 

Can I start a thread about not buying an SL until a rangefinder fitted?     .

[pgk]

Actually a post by NB23 in this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/173284-75-summilux/page-20 made me think that I should repost why I don't see the point in more MPixels in an M camera (although I do anticipate that they may well appear).

 

In essence the M type rangefinder camera represents what is now probably the most distinct link to past film photography which still exists in modern cameras. Even now a digital M rangefinder could be used by someone familiar with an early M3 with minimal explanation. A digital M rangefinder has not fundamentally changed other than using a sensor instead of film. For many of us it remains a 'traditional' tool as capable now (well actually far more capable) as it was when launched as a film camera.

 

But the downside to this is that it carries all the obsolete baggage inherent to its design roots, the most obvious of which is the lack of information transfer between lens and body. And so far Leica have been able to overcome this by using micro-lenses on the sensor and by their use of absolutely superb optical lens design (as referred to in the post linked to above) which requires little software processing to correct distortions or aberrations. The problem with this is that as MPixels increase so too will the shortcomings of both, although obviously 'traditionally designed' superb optics can still improve lenses, as seen by the Apo-Summicron, but at a (very?) high cost.

 

So where does this leave us? Well with an incredibly good system, but one which may start to creak without some radical solutions. I'm especially thinking about wide-angle shooting - now far more ultra-wides are available for every camera system, and whilst lenses like the 21mm SEM are stunningly good they can still result in colour casts, corner smearing and so on at times.

 

Which is why I personally think that Leica should concentrate not on more MPixels but on sensors with greater sensitivity and dynamic range if both are viable cost-wise. In essence Leica lenses have been and are good enough to overcome much of the lack of data transfer, but can this continue? Perhaps we are seeing yet another area where digital manipulation of data will usurp 'traditional' design technology. Some won't be bothered by this, others will see it as another shift towards reliance on electronics which, to be fair, we are already totally reliant on with digital sensors.

[Martin B]

Which is why I personally think that Leica should concentrate not on more MPixels but on sensors with greater sensitivity and dynamic range if both are viable cost-wise. In essence Leica lenses have been and are good enough to overcome much of the lack of data transfer, but can this continue? Perhaps we are seeing yet another area where digital manipulation of data will usurp 'traditional' design technology.

 

Already available - called Sony Exmor full frame sensor in different versions and MP sizes. All of them have an outstanding dynamic range. Leica could simply plug them into their cameras - and make versions for lower and higher MP like Sony does with their mirrorless lines. Nikon currently also uses the same Sony full frame sensors in their D750/810 lines.

[Paul J]

Already available - called Sony Exmor full frame sensor in different versions and MP sizes. All of them have an outstanding dynamic range. Leica could simply plug them into their cameras - and make versions for lower and higher MP like Sony does with their mirrorless lines. Nikon currently also uses the same Sony full frame sensors in their D750/810 lines.

 

Not really, have you seen how average these sensors work with Leica lenses ray angles? it would take some serious adaptation and more likely probably better to start from scratch and make something similar.

 

Different cameras could be any option but I think in terms of cost for a smaller company like Leica it would probably make more sense to make one camera that is adjustable to requirements. i think the best implementation is by Canon so far - Raw (50MP) RawM (30MP) and RawS(12MP). All read off the full frame and it works very very well. With the sort of sensor advances and tech in current Sony sensors, I think it may only a matter of time before everything converges again. As these smaller psuedo movie cameras like the a7s move to 8K (probably soon) they are going to be 33MP anyway.

[pgk]

Not really, have you seen how average these sensors work with Leica lenses ray angles? it would take some serious adaptation and more likely probably better to start from scratch and make something similar.

 

Yes, its the wides and ultra-wides which pose the biggest problem. Building a camera which struggles to cope with these is simply not a viable option. Already older lenses such as the Hologon (deemed unusable by Leica) and Super-Angulon (usable if substantial correction is applied) show the problems of being back compatible with older lenses. A new camera which had problems with modern <20mm lenses would not go down well at all. Perhaps Leica will come up with a solution but I don't see it being a simple vast MPixel 'will do everything' sensor - I'd like to be proven wrong though.

[Martin B]

Not really, have you seen how average these sensors work with Leica lenses ray angles? it would take some serious adaptation and more likely probably better to start from scratch and make something similar.

 

Different cameras could be any option but I think in terms of cost for a smaller company like Leica it would probably make more sense to make one camera that is adjustable to requirements. i think the best implementation is by Canon so far - Raw (50MP) RawM (30MP) and RawS(12MP). All read off the full frame and it works very very well. With the sort of sensor advances and tech in current Sony sensors, I think it may only a matter of time before everything converges again.

 

I mentioned it in a post earlier, the issue which Sony sensors in Sony cameras currently have with wide angle M lenses does NOT derive from the sensor but from the applied sensor glass cover. Sony uses a fairly thick one optimized for the FE lenses whereas Leica lenses are optimized for a fairly thin glass cover. Kolarivision offers as external company to change the sensor glass cover in existing Sony E-mount cameras to allow better compatibility with rangefinder lenses. I use my M lenses on a regular A7R sensor which is unmodified which works very well for my 35, 50, and 90 mm lenses. Only for wider M lenses I need to apply post processing software tools like Adobe Flat Field Plugin to remove some purple color cast in the corners of the frame.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Martin B]

Yes, its the wides and ultra-wides which pose the biggest problem. Building a camera which struggles to cope with these is simply not a viable option. Already older lenses such as the Hologon (deemed unusable by Leica) and Super-Angulon (usable if substantial correction is applied) show the problems of being back compatible with older lenses. A new camera which had problems with modern <20mm lenses would not go down well at all. Perhaps Leica will come up with a solution but I don't see it being a simple vast MPixel 'will do everything' sensor - I'd like to be proven wrong though.

 

My above answer also applies here - any Sony Exmor FF sensor with thinner glass cover optimized for the M mount lenses will suffice. If the lens - sensor glass cover is optimized, you can use easily a 42 MP FF sensor with 10 mm lenses what Voigtlander just demonstrated with their new ultrawide E-mount lenses optimized for the sensor stack (with thicker glass) in the A7 series cameras.