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

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Patrickxyz said:

But I  imagine that an OVF-M would be available for a long time as (more expensive?) opion.

Sure. But Leica needs to keep the M line alive. A rangefinder-based manual system with $8.000 cameras will not last too much.

[rosuna]

6 hours ago, frame-it said:

i think the M10-R is a pre-cursor to the M11, high rez sensor, use other existing parts etc etc keep costs low..people buy and effectively beta-test it for Leica... the M11 could simply be a slightly slimmer M10-R + hybrid OVF/EVF

The total investment in the development of a 100% new M camera (sensor, motherboard, rangefinder, batteries) requires high margins and enough sales. It makes more sense an investment in a more mainstream camera (SL2, M EVF) and then an adaptation to the rangefinder M line. 

Adding more complexity or specific developments to the rangefinder M makes no sense at all.

The M EVF should be lighter and less expensive than the Rangefinder M. Something like the CL. The smaller, the better.

[frame-it]

9 minutes ago, rosuna said:

The total investment in the development of a 100% new M camera (sensor, motherboard, rangefinder, batteries) requires high margins and enough sales. It makes more sense an investment in a more mainstream camera (SL2, M EVF) and then an adaptation to the rangefinder M line. 

Adding more complexity or specific developments to the rangefinder M makes no sense at all.

The M EVF should be lighter and less expensive than the Rangefinder M. Something like the CL. The smaller, the better.

who said anything about a "100% new M camera (sensor, motherboard, rangefinder, batteries)"

[dickgillberg]

I think when Leica change the vf, it's over with the M line. It's the soul of the camera and it's the thing that's worth something when the electronics are absolute and old. Look att Epson RD-1. Who will use a 20 year old Sony in about ten years?

[wlaidlaw]

4 hours ago, Paulus said:

I would not say, deleting the M10R /Porsche 911 , but the developement could be stopped and this camera kept in productions for the next 10 years. I do not know anything of cars. Did de Porsche 911 change when the Panamera appeared, or is it still the same a 20 years ago? 

No the 911 is continually updated. As a long time 911 owner, as each generation arrives you think: "well they can't improve it much more or only by tiny fractions." I am then always blown away by how much better each new 911 is than the previous generation. If Leica can match this performance on the M series, they will retain their loyal clientele. I have not bought an SL2 to update my SL1, as I don't particularly like the new three button interface and I think the decision to move GPS geologging from the camera to an external phone is seriously flawed. I very much hope I can update my M240 to an 47MP M11 with an optical rangefinder or even a hybrid one, if they can solve the problems of such a device but at least a shoe mountable EVF of at least 3MP. IBIS would be really nice as well for me as I do not have steady hands. From experience I can say that focusing ultra fast lenses in low light is far easier on an EVF than it is with an OVF/RF. 

Wilson

[mmradman]

Only Leica know own sales figures and can estimate how much life is left in the 1950s M/RF platform. 

If and when sales of EVF based cameras (like SL/SL2/CL/Visoflex add on) exceed or start exceeding M/RF numbers and cost of development of keeping niche platform current becomes unprofitable we can expect major shift away form RF platform.  Currently new model of M10M camera is just announced and new sensor Ms are rumoured coming, so sales of RF cameras are most probably OK.  

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, even if the M platform became unprofitable, I am sure that Leica would keep it in the catalogue for corporate reasons. The whole company image and market position revolves around the M.

BTW, as long as we are comparing Porsches to Leicas, I think that Leica is more true to the Gestalt of the M3 than Porsche is to the original Karrmann design. Instead of bloating, bespoilering etc, they shrunk and moved closer to the original.

[rosuna]

2 hours ago, dickgillberg said:

I think when Leica change the vf, it's over with the M line. It's the soul of the camera and it's the thing that's worth something when the electronics are absolute and old. Look att Epson RD-1. Who will use a 20 year old Sony in about ten years?

It is not about changing a viewfinder for another, it is about offering two different types of cameras with the same mount.

Edited January 20, 2020 by rosuna

[rosuna]

1 hour ago, mmradman said:

Only Leica know own sales figures and can estimate how much life is left in the 1950s M/RF platform. 

Currently new model of M10M camera is just announced and new sensor Ms are rumoured coming, so sales of RF cameras are most probably OK.  

Or maybe just the contrary... many different types of M cameras for keeping sales at a reasonable number... look at how many M cameras are in the catalogue now (M240, M10 variants, M10R, M10M)... look at the shortened product cicles (the time between a model and the next model with substantial changes M10, vs M10M, vs M10R)... The last bullet is the EVF based M...

Not offering an EVF M is ilogical... there is no reason for that other than a cost-profit estimation. That is the reason I am surprised by the M10R (Is the market asking for this? More resolution, even higher prices?), and i would be surprised by not seeing an EVF M very soon.

The camera industry is sinking very quickly right now. What is the impact in Leica sales? How is Leica dealing with this trend in the whole industry? Is the multiplication of camera variants and price segments that we are seeing Leica's response to camera sales (at the company and the industry)?

In theory, you can keep profitable the line increasing the margins and prices, but that strategy has limits and Leica is doing something different as we can see it. I paid a little more than 3600€ for a M8 the year it was launched, and look at the prices nowadays (more than double!)...

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by rosuna

[dkmoore]

18 minutes ago, rosuna said:

It is not about changing a viewer for another, it is about offering two different types of cameras with the same mount.

Already done with CL, TL, SL. All share L mount. 

If Leica moved the M to L mount it would devalue all of our beautiful M lenses and I don’t think Leica would fair well. Sure, we can use an adapter but I personally wouldn’t want to always have to use one. I would just switch to SL. 

[jaapv]

I think Leica made the judgement that a market movement towards high resolution cameras is inevitable, despite the limited sense that it makes for the average user. The market for an M-EVF is probably extremely small, as it would bring the M down to the level of a host of other EVF cameras, not the least of which are the SL2 and CL, both optimized for the use of M lenses. It <might possibly> be a success at a price point between CL and SL, and would eat into the sales of both.

[dkmoore]

4 minutes ago, rosuna said:

Or maybe just the contrary... many different types of M cameras for keeping sales at a reasonable number... look at how many M cameras are in the catalogue now (M240, M10 variants, M10R, M10M)... look at the shortened product cicles (the time between a model and the next model with substantial changes M10, vs M10M, vs M10R)... The last bullet is the EVF based M...

Not offering an EVF M is ilogical... there is no reason for that other than a cost-profit estimation. That is the reason I am surprised by the M10R (Is the market asking for this? More resolution, even higher prices?), and i would be surprised by not seeing an EVF M very soon.

The camera industry is sinking very quickly right now. What is the impact in Leica sales? How is Leica dealing with this trend in the whole industry? Is the multiplication of camera variants and price segments that we are seeing Leica's response to camera sales (at the company and the industry)?

In theory, you can keep profitable the line increasing the margins and prices, but that strategy has limits and Leica is doing something different as we can see it. I paid a little more than 3600€ for a M8 the year it was launched, and look at the prices nowadays (more than double!)...

 

Well, if the camera market is sinking or falling off a cliff, why would Leica follow all of those jumping to their peril by changing the M (which marches to its own beat in an entirely different world) to be the same as all those cameras that are plunging to their doom?

In my opinion, that is the opposite of what they will do. They have the CL and SL for that. 

[lct]

2 hours ago, dickgillberg said:

I think when Leica change the vf, it's over with the M line. It's the soul of the camera and it's the thing that's worth something when the electronics are absolute and old. Look att Epson RD-1. 

Leica will keep rangefinders in its digital offer the same way as it does with film rangefinders i guess. Now, soon or late, high rez Ms like the M-R will need an EVF to fit those big sensors. Still using my R-D1 BTW. Never did such good pics thanks to modern raw converters .

[ianman]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Instead of bloating, bespoilering etc, they shrunk and moved closer to the original.

They had a good try though 😊

[LocalHero1953]

The M10 is Leica's Windows 10. Keep the name, but keep upgrading and offering variants.

IBIS in a M10 variant? IMO it's more likely to come first in the CL2, with a higher res sensor.

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, dkmoore said:

Already done with CL, TL, SL. All share L mount. 

If Leica moved the M to L mount it would devalue all of our beautiful M lenses and I don’t think Leica would fair well. Sure, we can use an adapter but I personally wouldn’t want to always have to use one. I would just switch to SL. 

The Q, CL/TL2 and SL2 all dance around the obvious - an EVF variant M.  The Q looks like an M, has full frame, but has a fixed lens; the CL looks like an M, but falls short and is APS-C; the SL is a fine universal platform, but it’s all singing, all dancing, too big and too much for some.  What this looks like is obstinacy, or crippling uncertainty, on the part of Leica; and I don’t think it’s serving them well.

A high resolution M is more likely to push me away from the M system if it was the only option.  I wouldn’t mind if I wasn’t concerned that a high resolution M would not be a retrograde step in other respects.  I loved the fact that the M10 was a more focussed camera, and I did not like the M(240) at all.  I also love that we have an M-E version, M10, M10-P, M10-D, M10-M and now apparently an M10-R (whatever that will be).

Why is Leica so scared of an M10-E (for EVF)?

I suspect they’re not.  I suspect there are two issues:

(1) the EVF technology isn’t quite there yet for of the quality to match the M system and to fit into the M body (look at the alternatives above - APS-C, large EVF in the large SL, and a fixed lens in the Q)

(2) users assuming (as Dustin appears to do) that offering an EVF version in addition to the traditional OVF will somehow kill the OVF (logic I can’t quite follow).

With higher resolution (41MP) and more demanding lenses (Noctiluxes and Summiluxes), an EVF version M is inevitable, if the battery, processor and heat management issues can be resolved.  The clip on EVF solution we currently have works, but is not ideal.  The best argument against such a camera is it should be L mount, but that leads us to the SL2, and is putting the cart before the horse.  We have fabulous M lenses, and new ones being released all the time.  An EVF based M isn’t a new system; it isn’t even a new camera - it’s just another variant to add to the fabulous options we already have.

It also shows commitment to the M system ...

[evikne]

20 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

(2) users assuming (as Dustin appears to do) that offering an EVF version in addition to the traditional OVF will somehow kill the OVF (logic I can’t quite follow).

If Leica will offer an additional EVF-M, it will be interesting to see how sales will be split between the different versions. I can't see why they shouldn't be able to live side by side as long as both are popular. Then time will eventually show which one has the right of life.

Edited January 20, 2020 by evikne

[dkmoore]

20 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The Q, CL/TL2 and SL2 all dance around the obvious - an EVF variant M.  The Q looks like an M, has full frame, but has a fixed lens; the CL looks like an M, but falls short and is APS-C; the SL is a fine universal platform, but it’s all singing, all dancing, too big and too much for some.  What this looks like is obstinacy, or crippling uncertainty, on the part of Leica; and I don’t think it’s serving them well.

A high resolution M is more likely to push me away from the M system if it was the only option.  I wouldn’t mind if I wasn’t concerned that a high resolution M would not be a retrograde step in other respects.  I loved the fact that the M10 was a more focussed camera, and I did not like the M(240) at all.  I also love that we have an M-E version, M10, M10-P, M10-D, M10-M and now apparently an M10-R (whatever that will be).

Why is Leica so scared of an M10-E (for EVF)?

I suspect they’re not.  I suspect there are two issues:

(1) the EVF technology isn’t quite there yet for of the quality to match the M system and to fit into the M body (look at the alternatives above - APS-C, large EVF in the large SL, and a fixed lens in the Q)

(2) users assuming (as Dustin appears to do) that offering an EVF version in addition to the traditional OVF will somehow kill the OVF (logic I can’t quite follow).

With higher resolution (41MP) and more demanding lenses (Noctiluxes and Summiluxes), an EVF version M is inevitable, if the battery, processor and heat management issues can be resolved.  The clip on EVF solution we currently have works, but is not ideal.  The best argument against such a camera is it should be L mount, but that leads us to the SL2, and is putting the cart before the horse.  We have fabulous M lenses, and new ones being released all the time.  An EVF based M isn’t a new system; it isn’t even a new camera - it’s just another variant to add to the fabulous options we already have.

It also shows commitment to the M system ...

Hard to get all points out. I’m actually not against a M with built in EVF and I do not think that doing so would wreck the M platform. 
 

The argument I was responding to (Rosuna’s comment) was the convergence of M cameras becoming L mount and getting rid of the OVF altogether. 
 

I would have no problem, and would be excited, if Leica produced a M10E alongside the other variants.

I just don’t want the M to become a tech chasing, high resolution, EVF only, L mount camera. If the ethos of the M follows that path, I do think it’s “off with the head.”  
 

I am more in line with WLaidlaw’s comment that I want the M to stay an M but with meaningful upgrades along the way that makes us say, “wow, the M10 was fantastic but Leica tweaked these couple of things and the M11 is a better all-around camera!” If Leica goes the EVF route, I do hope they keep the OVF because I still feel it is much faster to focus. 

Edited January 20, 2020 by dkmoore

[frame-it]

4 minutes ago, evikne said:

If Leica will offer an additional EVF-M, it will be interesting to see how sales will be split between the different versions. I can't see why they shouldn't be able to live side by side as long as both are popular. Then time will show which one has the right of life.

or it could simply be a high rez standard M, but a new clip on EVF thats 6MP or more and with a better design

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

10 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

With higher resolution (41MP) and more demanding lenses (Noctiluxes and Summiluxes), an EVF version M is inevitable [...]

+1 unless Leica consider that another sluggish Visoflex is "das Wesentliche" enough.