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

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems you could summarise that there are people who want more pixels and really want to upgrade to a 40MP M10.

Then there are the people that don't want more pixels and have generally expressed their lack of interest in upgrading to a new 24MP M10 because their M240 is already so complete and refined.

 

lol, too funny.

First line correct.

Second line incorrect: some people say this, some say "it's complicated".

 

I'm not sure why it's funny, apart from just noting the wide variety of human nature and photographic practice.

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

...Simplicity is paramount.  ...

This is a simple statement, but it has trap built into it.

 

Using a rangefinder camera is simplicity itself for some of us. However, the rangefinder is not unlike a Rube Goldberg machine with its levers and gears, and adjusting it is not without a number of issues. 

 

A digital camera, on the other hand, relies on the use of semiconducters which are not per se simple devices. However, what could be structurally more simple than a solid state sensor capturing the image, a signal processor and a display screen? And yet,  using that kind of device does not seem as simple as using the optomechanical contraption.

[Paul J]

First line correct.

Second line incorrect: some people say this, some say "it's complicated".

 

I'm not sure why it's funny, apart from just noting the wide variety of human nature and photographic practice.

OK, well it's more nuanced than that of corse, but the fact you don't see it is funny is what I find funny.

 

If you think the M240 is close to perfect, and have no need or intention of upgrading it, then by all means don't upgrade it and keep using it. But Leica won't get very far making new cameras for people who have no intention of buying them, so arguing to keep the camera that way is funny. Even more funny when people who will buy it need what you are arguing against.

[IkarusJohn]

... One of the reasons I have used M cameras for over thirty years is exactly because I am not a "gizmo geek". I love manual focus cameras and the simplicity and directness of the controls of an M, which make it the most rapid camera to use in most of the photographic situations that interest me. On top of which its lenses are magnificent little things.

 

Nevertheless I want it to be an exercise in modernity, not nostalgia. I want it to be a contemporary and up-to-date alternative to the Sony approach to usability. I have no interest in a Sony-type camera so I need Leica to be the alternative, offering all the real benefits to photography that new technology has to offer in a camera that embodies the simple principles of photography in a way that an M camera has always done best.

 

 

It is odd, people posting and queuing up for a camera not yet announced, let alone released.  Why?  Because Leica arouses passion and, of course, at some stage there will be a new camera.  But why do we need a new one?  In the days of film, provided the film advanced and the shutter fired, I used my film cameras till they broke.  Tech advances in film cameras didn't really interest me, and the tech did make them somewhat bloated - compare the much loved F3/FE/FM series with the F5.

 

I fell back in love with photography when the M9 offered a full frame field of view (I knew what I would get from the focal length of the lens), the aperture was on the lens barrel, it was manual focus, and the shutter dial was where it belonged.  For still photography, the M9 was perfect, until the sensor corroded.

 

The limitations of the camera actually weren't that flash - focus shift (because it's a rangefinder) is a pain, not being able to move the focal point archaic and the baseplate beyond quaint (antediluvian would be a better description).  Adding the EVF and other things (video?) to the M(240) didn't help - it just cluttered up the camera (hence the M(262) and M-D); the M(240) was becoming an expensive alternative to what other cameras did better.  Where Peter feels that the SL is a dent in the M's future, I feel the same way about the M(240) - the Homer Simpson car of the future.

 

So what would an ideal M look like (if we take as read that the sensor will be Leica's idea of the best for the camera)?  Well, I still go back to using M lenses, setting the aperture on the barrel, manual focus, shutter dial where it should be, perhaps ISO dial and a stills camera.  Get rid of the baseplate (it was silly keeping it on the M8) and rethink the rangefinder/EVF clip-on arrangement.  Leica, you can do better.  People like the M form factor and look, and fabulous lenses; it's time to find a way of including focus magnification (it is the best of the focussing options on the SL) and find a way of moving the focus/ metering spot (it's bizarre that Leica hasn't sorted this out on the SL - you move the meter spot with the joystick, then hit the joystick for magnification and it's in the centre of the viewfinder - daft).  A Q camera with an M mount?

 

I love my M cameras; they are great in the 28-90mm range, but I won't buy another.  The heart of the camera is the rangefinder, and you will never be able to relocate the focusing/metering patch, nor will you be entirely sure that you have nailed your focus at all apertures for so long as the rangefinder is at its heart, unless you get the cameras and lenses carefully and accurately calibrated frequently.  The system is fine for film, but digital has shown up the flaws in a 60 year old focusing system ...

 

I suspect the L mount is Leica's future - it's on the TL (APS-C sensor and smaller lenses) and the SL (full blown).  I think we will see Leica trying to make their SL lenses "reference" lenses at all focal lengths, to take on the Otus lenses, and anything else Zeiss may throw at them.  Looking at the M camera options, I see no reason for Leica not to make an M sized camera in L mount.  Sure, the M will go on, and M lenses will be released, but the company will be thinking about the L mount (and will assume people will be happy using the M-L adapter - I know I am).

 

Cheers

John

[steveBK]

I'm right with you here, What I'd like to see is:

 

1. The SL

2. A proper, rangefinder based M as simple as possible (here's hoping)

3. A Q body with an SL mount on it - no need for no hybrid viewfinder - this would make a great companion to either an SL or to an M

    You can use as a kind of modern day CL with EVF with M lenses, and as a backup to the SL with SL lenses.

4. A nicely sped up and higher resolution T range. 

 

Best

 

 

Precisely what many of us would love to see!

 

I played in person with an SL again, at a RFF meetup.

In the dimly lit, but near-windows bar (say f1.4 @ 1/50 & ISO 1600 kind of light) I found the SL easier to focus than the M240.. even without jumping into magnification.

The EVF is a pure joy.  The ergonomics are quite good, though not perfect.

I won't discuss the price, as it's Leica.. it is what it is, and I won't split hairs on it.

BUT THE SIZE/WEIGHT.  Why...

 

I've heavily considered the SL for using exclusively with M lenses, but.. it felt a little awkward with "small" M lenses like the 50/1.4 to be honest.

 

And the AF lenses are so huge/heavy I'd never buy them anyway.. so again I ask why I'd buy into the system at all.

 

I'm going to have to wait on the January announcement (if there really is one) to see what direction Leica is taking the M for the next 2-3 years.

So I stick with my Q and my M gathers dust..

[rrdiaz30]

I'm right with you here, What I'd like to see is:

 

1. The SL

2. A proper, rangefinder based M as simple as possible (here's hoping)

3. A Q body with an SL mount on it - no need for no hybrid viewfinder - this would make a great companion to either an SL or to an M

    You can use as a kind of modern day CL with EVF with M lenses, and as a backup to the SL with SL lenses.

4. A nicely sped up and higher resolution T range. 

 

Best

 

Yes #3.  The "QL" would sell very well.  

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK, well it's more nuanced than that of corse, but the fact you don't see it is funny is what I find funny.

 

If you think the M240 is close to perfect, and have no need or intention of upgrading it, then by all means don't upgrade it and keep using it. But Leica won't get very far making new cameras for people who have no intention of buying them, so arguing to keep the camera that way is funny. Even more funny when people who will buy it need what you are arguing against.

I think you miss nuances, and see things in black and white terms, which is not how the real world works.

 

I find it funny (amusing and entertaining, and so a good thing) that human nature and photographic practices are diverse, including your own. I don't find that a problem. I can fully understand why you wish an upgrade (more pixels particularly).

 

You place people in just two categories, one of which (not your own) you find funny - so be it.

 

And I think you have misread my posts if you think that I am arguing that the M240 "is close to perfect and have no intention of upgrading". I have argued (not on this thread, I think) that there are downsides to more pixels*, but I don't see this as an "over my dead body" issue, nor a "I'll never buy a Leica like that" issue.

 

Nuances.

 

*Edit: summarised here, for convenience:

- I'd have to upgrade hard disks, SD cards and RAM to cope.

- Higher demand on broadband for shifting files to other people and for backup.

And I don't need more pixels because:

- I don't print, display or crop big enough.

- I doubt that the benefits would be visible for my typical use with using optomechanical focusing and hand held, often in low light.

BUT I fully accept others have different needs.

-

[ianman]

So I stick with my Q and my M gathers dust..

 

 

Why is your M gathering dust ?

[pgk]

It seems you could summarise that there are people who want more pixels and really want to upgrade to a 40MP M10.

Then there are the people that don't want more pixels and have generally expressed their lack of interest in upgrading to a new 24MP M10 because their M240 is already so complete and refined.

 

lol, too funny.

 

You are missing the point entirely. There are those of us who think that we are near the limit of the M camera's technical ability without a substantial redesign. Its fundamental raison d'être is its rangefinder. It is also its limiting factor. As is its lack of communication with M lenses. Increasing MPixels will require, as many say here, better, more precise control of focus, and also more understanding of file/lens interactions. Possible, yes - but at what cost to the original design and what increase in complexity.

 

FWIW, I would prefer to see much more sensitive sensors at current MPixel size together with (if feasible) higher DR. in other words play to the M rangefinder's strengths of superlative fast lenses in a small, portable package.

[LocalHero1953]

The logical consequence of this (unless Leica has a M-shaped rabbit up its sleeve) is that neither of the two categories Paul J defines will buy a new M. In other words the M240 and its successors will become like the M7, a model on a care and maintenance basis that is cheapish to produce (no more R&D, no new tooling), that is bought by newcomers to the RF experience and those seeking the traditional M experience. We here will keep our Ms and/or switch to the new QL or whatever Leica has in mind for us.

[Paul J]

I think you miss nuances, and see things in black and white terms, which is not how the real world works.

 

I find it funny (amusing and entertaining, and so a good thing) that human nature and photographic practices are diverse, including your own. I don't find that a problem. I can fully understand why you wish an upgrade (more pixels particularly).

 

You place people in just two categories, one of which (not your own) you find funny - so be it.

 

And I think you have misread my posts if you think that I am arguing that the M240 "is close to perfect and have no intention of upgrading". I have argued (not on this thread, I think) that there are downsides to more pixels*, but I don't see this as an "over my dead body" issue, nor a "I'll never buy a Leica like that" issue.

 

Nuances.

 

*Edit: summarised here, for convenience:

- I'd have to upgrade hard disks, SD cards and RAM to cope.

- Higher demand on broadband for shifting files to other people and for backup.

And I don't need more pixels because:

- I don't print, display or crop big enough.

- I doubt that the benefits would be visible for my typical use with using optomechanical focusing and hand held, often in low light.

BUT I fully accept others have different needs.

-

 

in your hasty attempt to trip me up, again, you missed or ignored this bit...

 

 

well it's more nuanced than that of corse

Catch up will you?

[EdwardM]

No. Period. I am happy with M9 and M-P -240.
I would rather spend this money for trip to Peru or  Chili  or any other place i have never been and shoot with the gear I already have. 

[LocalHero1953]

in your hasty attempt to trip me up, again, you missed or ignored this bit...

 

 

 

Catch up will you?

Hey ho

[ianman]

The logical consequence of this (unless Leica has a M-shaped rabbit up its sleeve) is that neither of the two categories Paul J defines will buy a new M. In other words the M240 and its successors will become like the M7, a model on a care and maintenance basis that is cheapish to produce (no more R&D, no new tooling), that is bought by newcomers to the RF experience and those seeking the traditional M experience. We here will keep our Ms and/or switch to the new QL or whatever Leica has in mind for us.

 

 

I thought that's what they were doing with the M-D. Making it the digital equivalent of the MP.

[Paul J]

neither of the two categories Paul J defines will buy a new M.

Um....yes they will and that is my point. I will buy a 40MP M. It seems the people wanting more MP are ready to buy. The people who don't want more MP won't buy a new 24MP anyway.

 

This is getting funnier now.

[lct]

[...] The people who don't want more MP won't buy a new 24MP anyway. [...]

 

You lost me here. I don't need more than 24MP but i do need a faster body, a larger dynamic range, cleaner high isos and of course a competitive EVF. Hardly a minor upgrade to me.

[LocalHero1953]

Um....yes they will and that is my point. I will buy a 40MP M. It seems the people wanting more MP are ready to buy. The people who don't want more MP won't buy a new 24MP anyway.

 

This is getting funnier now.

I should have been clearer. What I meant was that neither group would buy a new M that had only a minor upgrade (i.e. no increase in pixels). You wouldn't want it and others see no need to change.

 

Edit: Leica may give the M more pixels. I'd be surprised if they did (I'm ready to be surprised) simply because I think the M is approaching reached a technical limit: For handheld/OVF/RF use the benefits of more pixels are difficult to exploit, though I am sure some can. So, I expect Leica to put their investment into a body/mount with more potential.

[jaapv]

I doubt that many photographers that need a higher pixel count would be interested in an increase to 40 MP, once they do the math about the  increase in linear resolution.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

I doubt that many photographers that need a higher pixel count would be interested in an increase to 40 MP, once they do the math about the  increase in linear resolution.

 

Trouble is that they don't - bigger is better still persists as a belief system despite all the arguments that illustrate that its not that simple .

[Paul J]

 ok, sure guys

 

Well I would rather 50 or 60 but 40 will do OK for now.