Leica's M camera naming protocol??

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When in the past Leica have been asked about the possible (foreseeable) confusions in their 'new' naming policy (M240, etc.) have said it would all be fine and they knew what they were doing. So should the next camera be called the M10 the question is what about the one after that? I vote for the M102mm3, followed by maybe an M101a , then the M103m-d2, and before you know it there will be a camera range back on track and happy we all know what the numbering means, except the public won't, but who cares about them?

But if the speculation about two M lines is correct, it will become clear.

 

You'd have one line, the more traditional line, following the M9, M10, M11 convention, and the other more advanced technological line following the M (typ) convention.

 

Not really confusing is it?

[LocalHero1953]

Kamera (German) is feminine. Leica's are girlie cameras?

Fortunately Objektiv is neuter. Otherwise you might have to keep them in separate cupboards.

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

The new M will be called the ML following the house style of the other systems.

 

Of course there is the problem of what to call the S, but it will shortly be dropped as it uses old SLR technology.

[Herr Barnack]

Do you all think of your cameras as masculine?

 

Vera or Ethel sound quite appropriate to me.

 

May I refer you to post #68 here:  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266791-next-generation-m-will-be-the-m11-not-the-m10/page-4?do=findComment&comment=3163822

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Carlos Danger

[pico]

It appears to me that Leica's recent digital camera naming convention was an attempt to create a family tree of models rather than risk a linear line which suggests a certain progress rather than differentiation of features.

.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Actually, There has always been a coherent system for naming & numbering both screw mount & bayonet mount cameras from the beginning until at least thru the M9.

 

The M system began, quite properly, with the M3 because it was the bayonet equivalent of its full featured screw mount predecessors.

 

Just as a full featured screw mount camera was a IIIa or a IIIb or a IIIc or a IIId  (there was no e series) or a IIIf or a IIIg:

A full featured M was an M3.

 

And just as a less featured f model was a IIf instead of a IIIf:

 

A less featured M was an M2

 

And just as a least featured f model was a If:

 

A least feature M was an M1.

 

An M4 was an improvement over an M3 because it added a quick load, an angled rewind crank & an additional frame for 1 added focal length.

 

An M5 added a behind the lens meter, a better shutter speed dial, shutter speed visible in the range/viewfinder window & a hot shoe with a 3rd independently accessible flash circuit.

 

An M4-2 was a 2nd version of the M4.

 

An M4-P was was a 3rd version of the M4 with 2 additional lens frames.

 

An M6 was an M3 sized behind the lens metered M camera.

 

An M7 is an M6 with an electro-mechanical shutter.

 

And so on.

 

There are some others that I left out which are equally easy to explain.

 

At least thru the M9 all of the M camera nomenclature makes sense based on the equivalent nomenclature (expanded) of the previous screw mount models.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited December 12, 2016 by Michael Geschlecht

[steamboat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great explanation, Michael. Thanks for that. Any idea on why they (apparently) have not followed that numbering and have gone to a system which mimics German automobiles - three numbers.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello John,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

I can't write for all of them but I think that M240 is a retrospectivly constructed identification that came about when that specific camera was introduced simply as the model M. There was a degree of confusion at that time because M is also the way in which some people refer to models M1 thru M9 in an all inclusive manner.

 

During the ensuing discussion on this Forum & elsewhere it became known that the (supposed) internal designation for that specific model during its developmental process was the model 240.

 

People on this Forum & elsewhere began using M240 as a way to avoid confusion when writing about that specific latest model so that it could be more easily differentiated from the other cameras from M1 to M9.

 

By the way, it is not only German auto makers who use 3 digit numbers.

 

The Porche 911 of everlasting fame began life as a Porche 901. Because of complexities with the French auto manufacture Peugeot which uses a 0 in the middle of its car designation numbers, ie: 304, 404, 504: Porche changed their car designation number to 911 which it still is today.  

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael     

[pop]

Hello John,

 

....During the ensuing discussion on this Forum & elsewhere it became known that the (supposed) internal designation for that specific model during its developmental process was the model 240.....

 

Michael, it was even more simple than that. The data sheet explicitly calls that camera LEICA M (Typ 240), even now.

[derleicaman]

When I asked about the new naming convention of the M Typ 240 when it was introduced, my friends at Leica explained that Alfred Schopf the then CEO at Leica, had come up with it. He was a big Porsche fan and owned at least one Porsche. Being a fan of the marque, he adopted their Typ XXX designation for Leica.

 

Before the introduction of the M8, some enterprising fellow in Germany copyrighted that name. He rightly deduced that that was the next number to be used. Well, Leica had a bit of a problem with this to say the least. They contacted me to confirm that the designation M8 had been used in correspondence with me and others on the pending new model. I believe Leica won that case, as they had no issue with using M8 and M9.

[jaapv]

Hello Everybody,

 

Actually, There has always been a coherent system for naming & numbering both screw mount & bayonet mount cameras from the beginning until at least thru the M9.

 

The M system began, quite properly, with the M3 because it was the bayonet equivalent of its full featured screw mount predecessors.

 

Just as a full featured screw mount camera was a IIIa or a IIIb or a IIIc or a IIId  (there was no e series) or a IIIf or a IIIg:

 

A full featured M was an M3.

 

And just as a less featured f model was a IIf instead of a IIIf:

 

A less featured M was an M2

 

And just as a least featured f model was a If:

 

A least feature M was an M1.

 

An M4 was an improvement over an M3 because it added a quick load, an angled rewind crank & an additional frame for 1 added focal length.

 

An M5 added a behind the lens meter, a better shutter speed dial, shutter speed visible in the range/viewfinder window & a hot shoe with a 3rd independently accessible flash circuit.

 

An M4-2 was a 2nd version of the M4.

 

An M4-P was was a 3rd version of the M4 with 2 additional lens frames.

 

An M6 was an M3 sized behind the lens metered M camera.

 

An M7 is an M6 with an electro-mechanical shutter.

 

And so on.

 

There are some others that I left out which are equally easy to explain.

 

At least thru the M9 all of the M camera nomenclature makes sense based on the equivalent nomenclature (expanded) of the previous screw mount models.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

I always thought that the M4 was called M4 because of the number of framelines. I think all systematic explanations are apocryphal.

[Peter H]

Leica did explain the new naming system when the M was launched. We don't need to speculate.

[Michael Geschlecht]

I always thought that the M4 was called M4 because of the number of framelines. I think all systematic explanations are apocryphal.

 

Leica did explain the new naming system when the M was launched. We don't need to speculate.

 

 

Hello Jaap,

 

The 4th frame line was a part of the differences between an M4 & its M3 & M2 & M1 predecessors BUT:

 

That was not quite all of what there was in the way of improvements. Think of the M4-P with 6 frame lines in my Post that you quote.

 

The M4 also has the added quick loading capability & faster crank rewind & easier compatability with most flash equipment.

 

When the camera was introduced (1967) these 3 were more of what Leitz wrote about when advertising the new camera.

 

These were also 3 important factors, at that time (1967) when people were comparing available options when deciding which Brand of camera to choose.

 

Beside that, as I wrote above: The numbers FOLLOWING the M in bayonet cameras were like the roman numerals PRECEDING the lower case letters in screw mount cameras: They signify the levels of add on's to the basic camera bodies in the Leitz/Leica camera naming system at least thru the M9.

 

Hello Peter,

 

Could you please point out what it is that I have written that is either "speculation" or incorrect?

 

Best Regards Both,

 

Michael

[Peter H]

..........................

 

Hello Peter,

 

Could you please point out what it is that I have written that is either "speculation" or incorrect?

 

............................

 

 

 

There are other people contributing to this conversation across several threads in this forum besides you Michael!

Edited December 13, 2016 by Peter H

[steveclem]

Do you all think of your cameras as masculine?

Vera or Ethel sound quite appropriate to me.

Myrtle.

Or Aunt Hettie for one of the earlier generations.

Edited December 13, 2016 by steveclem

[pop]

None of my cameras have laid any eggs, so far. 

[Paul J]

Well, we'll see how things pan out, but just as the naming protocol was starting to make sense and, IMO, really making a solid statement about the brand, it's simplicity, timelessness, purity etc. Now it looks like it has the potential to resemble a dogs breakfast in years to come.

 

It used to be:

C, M, Q, S, T, X

 

Now it's

C, M10, SL, Q, S, TL, X

 

I'm sure they have their reasons for doing so, which may become more apparent with time (one of which is killing off the M and seperating it as their heritage piece), but at least to me and at this point in time it's quite possibly further evidence that the company has been over run by monkeys. IMO, they could have named the SL, another single letter and kept the T the way it was.

 

But then again, it probably doesn't even really matter. It's only crazy fanatics like us on forum boards that would ever list them like this. And it probably gives collectors something to do and talk about.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Paul J

[Exodies]

Interesting article in last week's Economist about how companies should treat their most enthusiastic customers. (Not sure if the link will work without a subscription) http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21711011-research-shows-firms-ignore-passionate-consumers-their-peril-how-companies-should

[willeica]

Hello Everybody,

 

Actually, There has always been a coherent system for naming & numbering both screw mount & bayonet mount cameras from the beginning until at least thru the M9.

 

The M system began, quite properly, with the M3 because it was the bayonet equivalent of its full featured screw mount predecessors.

 

Just as a full featured screw mount camera was a IIIa or a IIIb or a IIIc or a IIId  (there was no e series) or a IIIf or a IIIg:

 

A full featured M was an M3.

 

And just as a less featured f model was a IIf instead of a IIIf:

 

A less featured M was an M2

 

And just as a least featured f model was a If:

 

A least feature M was an M1.

 

An M4 was an improvement over an M3 because it added a quick load, an angled rewind crank & an additional frame for 1 added focal length.

 

An M5 added a behind the lens meter, a better shutter speed dial, shutter speed visible in the range/viewfinder window & a hot shoe with a 3rd independently accessible flash circuit.

 

An M4-2 was a 2nd version of the M4.

 

An M4-P was was a 3rd version of the M4 with 2 additional lens frames.

 

An M6 was an M3 sized behind the lens metered M camera.

 

An M7 is an M6 with an electro-mechanical shutter.

 

And so on.

 

There are some others that I left out which are equally easy to explain.

 

At least thru the M9 all of the M camera nomenclature makes sense based on the equivalent nomenclature (expanded) of the previous screw mount models.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Leica did change tack on names in the very early days.

 

The early models were described with capitals

 

The first Model I was the Model A

The second Model I (Compur) was the Model B

The next Model I with interchangeable lenses was the Model C

The Model II was the Model D

The Standard was the Model E

The Model III was the Model F

Technically, the IIIa was the Model G but from then on Leica went to small letters to describe models in the sequence IIIa, IIIb, IIId, I, II and IIIc (with K variant), I, II and IIIf (with black and red dial varieties), I and IIIg (rumours abound about the existence of a IIg and a few 'sightings' have been reported).

 

Some people find the above sequence difficult to follow, including one chap that I know who has been using Leicas since 1954!  Anyway, it is up to Leica to call their cameras whatever they want. Our 'job' is just to use them, whatever they might be called.

 

William

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

The S line appears even stranger - S2, then S006, S007 ...

 

Surely the point is for most users, the cameras are all designed as being S, SL, M, T, Q & X. There will be upgrades etc, but they will still be designated and marked with those letters. I don't have any problem with blending the designations (I drive an A4).

 

It's really only with the variants of the M that things get really confusing - currently on offer the M-P (the M without the dot, improved buffer etc), M (with LCD & video), M (with LCD but no video), M-D (no LCD, no JPegs etc), Monochrom, M7, MP & M-A. Then it gets very incoherent.

 

We might be stuck with the Typ designations, as these do accurately describe the model as it is allocated to each project by Leica - not very customer friendly, it has to be said.