M 11 will be around in less than 4 years. The speculations and facts.

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The most strange, outdated and illogical design element of the M10 is at the back of the camera.

 

Those buttons for menu operation makes no sense at this moment, after 10 years of touch sensitive screens. 

 

If you have a screen that accept touch as a control, does it make any sense to place those plastic buttons around?

 

The iPhone will eliminate the only physical button it has at the front this year.

 

The T camera is a really radical, functional and futuristic camera. Real wheels and buttons por controlling the photographic parameters, and a sensitive screen for "computer" control.

 

The M11 will be just like the M10, but the back of the camera like that of the T camera. This has to be the main design change.

Edited February 15, 2017 by rosuna

[Advertisement]

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

[Paulus]

The most strange, outdated and illogical design element of the M10 is at the back of the camera.

 

Those buttons for menu operation makes no sense at this moment, after 10 years of touch sensitive screens. 

 

If you have a screen that accept touch as a control, does it make any sense to place those plastic buttons around?

 

The iPhone will eliminate the only physical button it has at the front this year.

 

The T camera is a really radical, functional and futuristic camera. Real wheels and buttons por controlling the photographic parameters, and a sensitive screen for "computer" control.

 

The M11 will be just like the M10, but the back of the camera like that of the T camera. This has to be the main design change.

 

The big buttons make it possible to use them while an old M6 case is covering the back. No joke, it works. 

Who wants a touch sensitive screen anyway when your nose is pushing against it the whole time? 

[digitalfx]

The most strange, outdated and illogical design element of the M10 is at the back of the camera.

 

Those buttons for menu operation makes no sense at this moment, after 10 years of touch sensitive screens. 

 

If you have a screen that accept touch as a control, does it make any sense to place those plastic buttons around?

 

The iPhone will eliminate the only physical button it has at the front this year.

 

The T camera is a really radical, functional and futuristic camera. Real wheels and buttons por controlling the photographic parameters, and a sensitive screen for "computer" control.

 

The M11 will be just like the M10, but the back of the camera like that of the T camera. This has to be the main design change.

 

 

Nothing illogical about it...its the perfect design for a rangefinder.

I much prefer the buttons and think the current M10 design is exceptionally well done.

 

A touch screen could come in handy for focus aids- touch to select area of magnification. But I wouldn't want the buttons eliminated.

[henning]

I really, really, really don't like touchscreens on the back of cameras. Fortunately you can turn most of them off and still be left with a functional camera. But not without buttons.

[Jeff S]

I like the SL battery arrangement. Water resistant, secure plus very easy and super quick to change a battery. My brother who seems to change his preferred digital camera every month, was commenting that the SL had the neatest battery change mechanism he had seen on any camera. No need to re-invent the wheel for the M11.

Just as the SL didn't need to reinvent what was already elegantly designed for the S.

 

Jeff

[jmahto]

Just as the SL didn't need to reinvent what was already elegantly designed for the S.

 

Jeff

If Leica goes this way then it will mean three different types of battery in three successive models of M. They had the opportunity to do so for M10 but then it would have been departure from classical form factor. I wouldn't bet of different battery for M11.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If Leica goes this way then it will mean three different types of battery in three successive models of M. They had the opportunity to do so for M10 but then it would have been departure from classical form factor. I wouldn't bet of different battery for M11.

 

I wasn't making any comment about the M....just noting for Wilson that the SL battery design wasn't new; it came from the S.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

The battery from the SL would be quite good on an M camera, if they could make it fit.

[wlaidlaw]

The battery from the SL would be quite good on an M camera, if they could make it fit.

 

Even if they had to make a smaller/lower mAH version, the S/SL battery concept is excellent. My only beef with the SL is that with very little effort and another cable, it would have been possible to make the charger double up as the tethered power supply, rather than having to buy another over-priced power supply. This was what happened as far back as the Digilux 2, so when you have a good design, why change it?

[IkarusJohn]

My first Leica was an M9. Thankfully, my Monochrom takes the same batteries, though sadly in-camera charging through the USB isn't possible (one of the few things I liked about the A7r).

 

Since the M9 (only 7 1/2 years ago) each M iteration (we're on No 3) has had a different battery and charger. Similarly, the T, the SL and the Q have had different chargers and batteries. To be honest, I find this remarkable. It's almost as if Leica makes its profits from making absolutely sure that no accessory is compatible from one camera to the next!

 

Now, someone will say that each camera has different power requirements, etc, etc. All true, but it shows a complete lack of any environmental consideration. That's not counting the waste of resources with magnesium chasies, brass top and bottom decks, coated in nickel, then chromed, all apparently worthless once the electronics (disposable consumer items) become "uneconomic" to repair. Frankly, for a company with such high ethical aspirations, Leica's complete disregard for the environment and its attitude to wasting resources appals me.

 

Just imagine one small thing - the same click in / click out battery for all digital M cameras as the SL and the TL - even the S, and Q ... it's only a design issue, which Leica seems good at. Yet, the M10 design seems to have been driven by the critical need to make it ... thinner.

Edited February 16, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[digitalfx]

 but it shows a complete lack of any environmental consideration. T

 

 

I too wish they all used the same battery, although that means design limitations.

In the case of the M10, it means we have a smaller camera, which is one of its big improvements. Id rather have a new battery design than a fatter camera.

 

But curious, how does a new battery design show a complete lack of any environmental consideration? Is anyone throwing away there old battery when upgrading?

All my old batteries were sold with the old camera.

[IkarusJohn]

Designed obsolescence.

[pop]

I can see that the battery selection is driven by other considerations.

 

They chose a battery of some description for the M8, possibly because it was the largest they could fit into that form factor, but the decision could have been just as soon based on pricing, money being in short supply at the time. 

 

They then ran into problems with the weak power supply with the faster and more power hungry M9, resulting in striped pictures and needing much tweaking of the software without actually solving the problem.

 

For the M (Typ 240) they chose a battery with much larger capacity and - above all - with the capability of delivering larger currents, in order to avoid the problems introduced in the M9.

 

However, the lovely large-capacity battery of the M would not fit into the slimmer M10 and returning to the weak battery of the M8 and M9 was not an option. So there you are.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

All of these discussions for & against various battery sizes & capacities were discussed 20 years ago & 50 years ago & 100 years ago when discussing how, where, which, when & why a certain battery of a certain configuration should be manufactured or utilized.

 

Whether it is 100 years ago, in between, or now: It was/is better to standardize on a small, set number of varieties of batteries which are interchangeable brand to brand: Such as the "AA" battery from years past. 

 

Today's versions of which, whether rechargeable or disposable, are, themselves, significant improvements on their predecessors.

 

This type of standardization, in place of proprietary individualization, would most likely improve & advance the development & implementation of new versions of things powered by electricity:

 

Because this would take away 1 more necessity to: "Reinvent the wheel" in terms of developing an improved version of "something" when an improved "something" is being developed.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[fabior]

It's a question of numbers .... M11 will be available the 11th november of 2027 .. so ,buy safely the m10 !

[IkarusJohn]

I can see that the battery selection is driven by other considerations.

 

They chose a battery of some description for the M8, possibly because it was the largest they could fit into that form factor, but the decision could have been just as soon based on pricing, money being in short supply at the time.

 

They then ran into problems with the weak power supply with the faster and more power hungry M9, resulting in striped pictures and needing much tweaking of the software without actually solving the problem.

 

For the M (Typ 240) they chose a battery with much larger capacity and - above all - with the capability of delivering larger currents, in order to avoid the problems introduced in the M9.

 

However, the lovely large-capacity battery of the M would not fit into the slimmer M10 and returning to the weak battery of the M8 and M9 was not an option. So there you are.

Of course, but that's not the point. The point I was making is just that - zero regard for the fact that every camera has a different battery and charger.

 

Does it matter? That is another question. To me, it does. Whole of life cost, and whole of life environmental impact, is something Leica has studiously ignored. 30 years ago, my VW Golf was manufactured with those costs and recycling in mind. Meanwhile, Leica makes the bodies for the M cameras simply because that is the way they have always been made - zinc topdecks didn't go down so well with Leica cognisenti. Yet, it seems when it comes to the electronics parts bin, Leica is less diligent.

 

We now understand that a digital camera is only as good as its weakest link (M8 LCD, M9 sensor, M what? EVF?). My beef is when I go out with any Leica, some will observe it cost as much as a small family car, and it's true. We all pay over the odds for what we want in Leica, and we love it. We love it so much that we trade perfectly good cameras because the whole buying pleasure and discovering new features is far more enjoyable than making the most of what we have.

 

When I make this complaint, I'm told the Leica strapline "camera for life" is just marketing, you'd be stupid to believe it, it's a computer not a camera, it's a consumer product, electronics don't last that long etc etc

 

Well, at this price point, with lenses and every part of the camera (apart from the electronics) built to last more than a lifetime, I'd say bullshit to that.

 

Take the M9; many people happy with that. The camera cost me $10,000. I looked after it; like Jaap I paid for the M9P upgrade, and I added the Monochrom - very happy. But, the sensor failed. Yes, Leica has offered a solution (not without considerable pressure here - they denied the problem first). Pop says, blithely, the power supply for the M9 was weak, resulting in striped pictures, etc. Leica's solution? Rather than fix that through improved battery technology, release a new camera - and once a new camera is released, they're off the hook.

 

We pay a lot for the Leica brand - I expect more. First, reduce the environmental impact of Leica ownership. That's the impact of manufacture, ownership and disposal. Second, improve value for money in ownership by long term support and upgrading componentry (the M9 sensor is a good example of getting this right). Third, standardise the product as much as possible so that parts become more interchangeable - for example, stick with the M10 size, stick with the M10 battery and charger and the dimensions for electronic parts - require your suppliers to design the components to fit your standardised product. That way, we might eek out more life from the cameras we own.

 

While the experts line up to pooh pooh this suggestion, and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, consider one thing - at no stage has Leica given any priority, or even thought to these issues. Making the M10 thinner is evidence enough. The M(240) has a good sized battery, and a body good to take any advance in technology required for M still photography, but they made it thinner to silence a sqeaky door here. And to sell more cameras ...

 

The cost? no reverse compatibility with anything, except the lenses.

Edited February 17, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Cliff S]

The battery changes are not a big issue as I give them if I exchange the camera. I would however prefer having the same battery in say the M10, SL and Q to simplify having three chargers lined up instead of just one. I would need less spare battery but whatever. For travelling I bring 2 bodies. So I wouldn't need to bring spares. Which can be a concern on a flight.

[pop]

.... Pop says, blithely, the power supply for the M9 was weak, resulting in striped pictures, etc. Leica's solution? Rather than fix that through improved battery technology, release a new camera - and once a new camera is released, they're off the hook.....

Blithely or not, it's what Leica said, although they said it at a time when it had become obvious by simply analyzing the symptoms. You can rant all you want, but the simple fact seems to me that Leica was utterly inexperienced at that time in designing complex electronic goods. They did not improve the power logistics in that camera because they did not know how to do that and, perhaps, because the M9 was fundamentally incapable of such improvement. Anyway, they then started doing their own development with  the M and they have learned a lot in the meantime.

 

Yes, the ecological footprint of a Leica camera is not as small as it should be, and I thought twice about buying such a thing. But given the number of Leica cameras that exist worldwide, I don't think it's much of an issue. Early in my life I had decided to remain independent of automobiles and I managed to do so by carefully selecting dwellings and places of work. Not having owned an automobile all my life, I think my footprint will not suffer all that much by my use of a digital Leica.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IkarusJohn]

Lucky you.

 

It's "rants" and challenging "simple facts" which affect change; that, and understanding different points of view rather vthan being comfortable, complacent and dismissive.

[pop]

Challenge away; you don't need my permission for that.