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

[Kwesi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a rational argument, which I understand. I have never heard the actual reasons why Leica omitted video, though I could understand if these constraints played a part.

 

My guess is that they didn't try too hard to deal with the heat issue in the M10 Size body given all the grumbling by Leica purists online about how video in an M is pure sacrilege.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

My guess is that they didn't try too hard to deal with the heat issue in the M10 Size body given all the grumbling by Leica purists online about how video in an M is pure sacrilege.

I'm convinced that an insurmountable heat issue was the real reason for omitting it and "our customers don't want it" just a mealy-mouthed marketing excuse.

[JAC]

If I could dream about a feature that would fit inside the M11 it would be an in-body lens stabilization system.  Aside from that, a silent shutter and better live view...oh, and better EVF too.

[skanga]

Here is a good article, for those who might not have seen it.: THE LEICA M10: A DISCUSSION WITH STEFAN DANIEL AND JESKO VON OEYNHAUSEN    http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2017/02/the-leica-m10-a-discussion-with-stefan-daniel-and-jesko-von-oeynhausen

 

Very nice interview, with lots of information. I hope this answers many people’s questions about EVF, touch screen, video etc.

 

I’m glad that although they are listening to their customers, they are trying to keep the M close to the original philosophy as much as possible. As an "M" user for many years, I don't need more than they offer on the M10. Going forward, I would prefer that they just keep improving on the original concept/philosophy. Keep improving the sensor, battery life, heat issues, locking up, service, and other issues that some users have been posting. There are so many other cameras available that can do amazing things: autofocus, video, many fps, etc. There is no need to monkey with the Leica M, and certainly if you need those features, you can get the other cameras - for a lot less.

When It was announced years ago that Leica was making an M digital camera, I looked at my M2 and thought "Just do that", and it seems like they are pretty much there.

Thanks

Sam

[roelv1]

Video because:  The M is primarily a photo journalist's and travel photographer's tool. Both disciplines have a need for simple, short video clips. Think: "talking heads", folkloristic documenting in a travelogue, etc. One can use a cellphone, but it is a lot better to use the same lenses and style as the accompanying photographs do.

 

No need for the more sophisticated video controls of the SL and CL, let alone the offerings by Panasonic and Cannon

There surely is a need for video in photojournalism, although until now I didn't need it that much. But there are not many photojournalists any longer who are using Leica M camera's. Too many limitations in a lot of cases, so they mostly use DSLR camera's or other systems with autofocus, the possibility of long lenses, etcetera. Besides of that Leicas are for most photojournalists too expensive. So the question rises if this argument of Jaapv is valid. Kind regards, Roel Visser. http://www.roelvisser.nl 

Edited July 5, 2018 by roelv1

[jaapv]

That is true - on the other hand the question is whether the reason that journalists don't use the M so much any more is a question of price. I think, that for professional use the question is more one of suitability, after all, after writeoff against taxes there is not much price difference to high-end DSLRs - and Leica has lost the connection to its reportage roots in the M series.

Nowadays it is a camera for affluent amateurs who want to buy into a "philosophy" or like to show off the retro styling, not because it is the superb tool that it could be and has been, and which was the reason I have used it for decades. As you say, there are better tools now, and my M cameras are gathering dust or are special-purpose, like the Monochrom for B&W, or the M9 for my SuperElmar 18.

 

I think the M240 was a d@mned good attempt to bring the M concept into the 21st century and it could have been a seminal camera, had they continued on that road.

With the M10, impressive as it is from an engineerig point of view, they have backed themselves into an ever shrinking niche. The only way they can go now is tinkering with incremental upgrades, and I'm sure they will.

 

The future for Leica, however,  are the SL and CL, even Q, the M will fade away over time.

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M8 was a far jump from the M7, the m240 from the M9, and yes; the M10 took a step backwards if the design philosophy was intended to be a "do it all camera."

 

I would say Leica is learning a lot from Panasonic, their own engineers, and whatever other partnerships they have built.

 

In 2-3 years when the new Leica M is due they could very easily make the OVF an EVF, and add 8k video in the same body. In fact, I don't even think they would need to do that.

 

If they could add 8k video and have a sleeker add on EVF with the SL EVF or hopefully better in 2-3 years, there you have it. These are still very small incremental upgrades, just in a different, albeit similarly easy direction. 

 

I also believe that the look of the Leica plays a huge part in its popularity, similar to a Rolex, whose technical aspects haven't changed much over time but popularity hasn't dwindled because of the great looks and timeless design.

[dkmoore]

That is true - on the other hand the question is whether the reason that journalists don't use the M so much any more is a question of price. I think, that for professional use the question is more one of suitability, after all, after writeoff against taxes there is not much price difference to high-end DSLRs - and Leica has lost the connection to its reportage roots in the M series.

Nowadays it is a camera for affluent amateurs who want to buy into a "philosophy" or like to show off the retro styling, not because it is the superb tool that it could be and has been, and which was the reason I have used it for decades. As you say, there are better tools now, and my M cameras are gathering dust or are special-purpose, like the Monochrom for B&W, or the M9 for my SuperElmar 18.

 

I think the M240 was a d@mned good attempt to bring the M concept into the 21st century and it could have been a seminal camera, had they continued on that road.

With the M10, impressive as it is from an engineerig point of view, they have backed themselves into an ever shrinking niche. The only way they can go now is tinkering with incremental upgrades, and I'm sure they will.

 

The future for Leica, however,  are the SL and CL, even Q, the M will fade away over time.

 

I just re-read my post and it comes off as arguing your point, which wasn't my intention, as I agree with 95% of what you wrote.

 

What would make sense to me is to make two M cameras instead of one. Both advanced but one with the tech of the SL and one similar to what we have now. And continue to improving upon both. 

 

The allure for me is the look and feel of the M, similar I guess to what you wrote above. 

[cp995]

That is true - on the other hand the question is whether the reason that journalists don't use the M so much any more is a question of price. I think, that for professional use the question is more one of suitability, after all, after writeoff ... the M will fade away over time...

 

Maybe!

But people telliing this since decades ...

[jaapv]

And the market share of the Leica M, as percentage of photographs taken,  has been shrinking for decades...

[LocalHero1953]

If you charge enough, and enough people pay, there will always be a market for the M.

So if you ask for an M that appeals to a more limited (more conservative) market of those who don't want the benefits that new technology* can bring, please don't complain about high prices    !

 

 

* I'm not talking about AF, IS or built in EVF. In my opinion the essence of the M, which is always likely to be retained, is represented by MF, OVF (probably not hybrid) and simple direct manual controls. It's likely to include a rangefinder because I don't see an alternative focusing system on the horizon, but I don't doubt that some potential buyers are put off by a focusing system that is an acquired taste, is limited by necessary compromises, and is unsuitable for those with eyesight problems.

Edited July 6, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[strohscw]

If I could dream about a feature that would fit inside the M11 it would be an in-body lens stabilization system.  Aside from that, a silent shutter and better live view...oh, and better EVF too.

 

+1

[thrid]

Well, not really trying to argue (every one does have different needs and have different workflow), however your comparison with film is not accurate. In reversal film only the highlights have better roll off but dark areas are lost quite abruptly if you are not careful. On the other hand, you got to be careful of highlights in digital (and same with film slides). What I like about M’s simple metering is that it errs on the side of protecting highlights if there are bright lights. No denying that an evaluative metering will be better but that will require metering off the sensor which has own issues (slower, shutter shock etc). With this simplified metering, and with better than film’s dynamic range, digital M’s metering improvement is low on my priority list.

 

 

Slide film has poor latitude, coming in around 8 stops. Maybe 10 on a good day. You can't have both shadow detail and highlight detail with slide film, unless the subject has a low contrast ratio that fits within the exposure latitude of the stock. Therefore you need to expose for one or the other, because you only have about 8-10 stops at your disposal. An exposure error of 1 stop or less can make a big difference when shooting slides. It's like shooting jpeg instead of RAW.

 

Color negative film has about 14-15 stops of latitude and most important a distinct non-linear shoulder roll off in the highlights that can absorb a few stops of overexposure and still deliver useable results. Digital does not perform the same in the highlights. With digital the roll off in the highlights is all software magic. Hence the need for accurate metering.

 

The digital M does not have better dynamic range than negative film. (it does have better noise performance) I have yet to see a test of any digital M that hits 14-15 stops. And more important digital does not roll off highlights like film does. For that you would need a sensor with a dual gain readout to match the highlight performance of film. A sensor with a dual gain architecture takes two simultaneous bracketed gain readings for each exposure. One for general exposure and the other for the highlights. These two readings are combined on the fly resulting in an extremely smooth roll off in the highlights while maintaining full shadow detail. The resulting RAW file is essentially a combined bracketed HDR exposure. 

 

The current M meter is dumb and easily fooled. It will exposure for the highlights if they are the most prominent feature in the shot, but one large dark object in a scene will fool it or if if the highlights exceed the latitude above the middle gray value you are aiming at. 

 

I am pretty certain that you would not have to meter off the sensor to add matrix metering to the M series. Instead I think it is possible to redesign the optical rangefinder to allow a metering sensor to take a reading from a prism block, where the bright line are projected.

[thrid]

There surely is a need for video in photojournalism, although until now I didn't need it that much. But there are not many photojournalists any longer who are using Leica M camera's. Too many limitations in a lot of cases, so they mostly use DSLR camera's or other systems with autofocus, the possibility of long lenses, etcetera. Besides of that Leicas are for most photojournalists too expensive. So the question rises if this argument of Jaapv is valid. Kind regards, Roel Visser. http://www.roelvisser.nl 

 

 

 

Very, very few photojournalists use the M series these days. They are far too expensive, it's an inflexible system, the metering system is not sophisticated enough, frame rates are too low and the M doesn't really support long glass (the press is kept a lot further away these days). Compared to something like a Nikon D5 the M series is pretty delicate. That's besides the point that most people can't and won't live without AF these days.

 

Interestingly you see a lot of Magnum shooters with Fuji cameras these days...

Edited July 6, 2018 by thrid

[AdamSinger]

 

 

 

"A proper Leica should either be too young to attend kindergarten or old enough to have earned its MD-PhD. Shepherding them through the

interim years is an act of love, not of volition."

 

Cheers,

Jon

 

What a wonderful whimsical line loved it!

[jaapv]

Very, very few photojournalists use the M series these days. They are far too expensive, it's an inflexible system, the metering system is not sophisticated enough, frame rates are too low and the M doesn't really support long glass (the press is kept a lot further away these days). Compared to something like a Nikon D5 the M series is pretty delicate. That's besides the point that most people can't and won't live without AF these days.

 

Interestingly you see a lot of Magnum shooters with Fuji cameras these days...

I don't buy into the "expensive" bit. Firstly they are a professional tool, which means that they are a business expense written off against taxes. Secondly they are in the same price bracket as other high-end cameras by Nikon and Canon, that are regularly used by professional photographers. Thirdly they fetch more money when sold off than other cameras. As a net cost it won't make much difference to the bottom line.

 

I don't think an M camera is delicate at all. I have used them in conditions that break cameras and the survival rate was as good or better than the Canons and Nikons used by others. Nor is all PJ  work that hard on man and machine.

 

The point is really the lack of functionality. They simply lack many features that professionals need in present-day photography,  not just long lenses. And Leica has thrown the towel in that respect.

[Adrian Lord]

I'd like it to use an innovative ribbon of sensors - say 24, or even 36 - and the ribbons are changeable and each will have variable, bespoke sensitivity to colour and light depending on the subject matter.

 

They'll never do it though...

[MarkP]

I have only a few requests of the next M:

 

1.  Improved sensor dynamic range

2.  Maybe slight increase sensor MP

3.  Virtual horizon reinstated

4.  Optional display of shutter speed in the viewfinder 

5.  Improved battery life (preferred but not essential)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[roelv1]

I don't buy into the "expensive" bit. Firstly they are a professional tool, which means that they are a business expense written off against taxes. Secondly they are in the same price bracket as other high-end cameras by Nikon and Canon, that are regularly used by professional photographers. Thirdly they fetch more money when sold off than other cameras. As a net cost it won't make much difference to the bottom line.

 

I don't think an M camera is delicate at all. I have used them in conditions that break cameras and the survival rate was as good or better than the Canons and Nikons used by others. Nor is all PJ  work that hard on man and machine.

 

The point is really the lack of functionality. They simply lack many features that professionals need in present-day photography,  not just long lenses. And Leica has thrown the towel in that respect.

 

A lot of professional press and documentary photographers work with a Canon D5 body and that camera is a lot cheaper than a Leica M. (And what about the lenses?)  Plus a Leica M cannot have a zoom, so in fact one has to have at least two M's .And than another system for long lenses. All together Leica is just too expensive for many pro's and certainly in the current market which is a lot more difficult than it used to be. I asked from time to time colleagues Why not a Leica M and the price argument was always there.( besides the other reasons).  http://www.roelvisser.nl

Edited July 7, 2018 by roelv1

[jaapv]

Less of an initial investment, certainly. But cheaper long-term? I'm not so sure.

The point is that the camera should be better at getting that shot that will put food on your table and pay the mortgage. Which Leica M is not in many cases; rather the opposite.

A taxi-driver will use a Mercedes or Tesla, not a Dacia, for exactly the same reason.