Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

Exactly, everyone gets a cookie. 
 

im guessing a full color version of the M10M, but  40++MP, no video, better battery, maestro 3, 2-4 GB buffer, UHS-2 slots and a sexy 6+MP clip on EVF that doesn't look like a Nuclear mushroom, more like the shape of the CL EVF as a clip on option

Edited by frame-it
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, frame-it said:

im guessing a full color version of the M10M, but  40++MP, no video, better battery, maestro 3, 2-4 GB buffer, UHS-2 slots and a sexy 6+MP clip on EVF that doesn't look like a Nuclear mushroom

just the sensor.... just the sensor..... nothing more will come

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Anika said:

just the sensor.... just the sensor..... nothing more will come

Agreed. Just the sensor. Possibly the buffer. Anything else Would require new chipsets, heating evaluations, or industrial designs. Too much work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2020 at 4:07 PM, dkmoore said:

Exactly, everyone gets a cookie. 
 

No, because the viewfinder/rangefinder is a expensive and delicate mechanism, and the clip-on EVF is very large on the hot shoe and adds to the cost. 

The idea is to replace the optical viewfinder and rangefinder with a less expensive EVF, changing the materials and total size and wight of the camera (and price).

Edited by rosuna
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rosuna said:

No, because the viewfinder/rangefinder is a expensive and delicate mechanism, and the clip-on EVF is very large on the hot shoe and adds to the cost. 

The idea is to replace the optical viewfinder and rangefinder with a less expensive EVF, changing the materials and total size and wight of the camera (and price).

leica would put a very high quality EVF into the M, and therefore the total size would not be reduced. In fact, it would probably get bigger and then we arrive at the SL. 
 

leica isn’t going to cheapen the M with a mediocre EVF the quality of the 020 and lesser materials because then the Fuji X Pro would eat it’s lunch cost wise. 

but, your goal of smaller, less expensive EVF, different materials already exists..Leica CL. Or, Fuji X pro. Both achieve your goals with no IQ loss. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lct said:

I would accept the CL's EVF in a digital M but thanks no thanks for another sluggish Visoflex.

I definitely would not accept the CLs EVF in an M. It would not be commiserate with the level of quality of an M. It is very much the level of quality of the CL pricing. The M in my view is Leica. The camera should use top most quality/technology and other camera (SL1 and 2) has a better EVF already.  This would put the M below the SL in capability while being priced higher. The CL EVF is fine but not leaps and bounds better than the 020. 
 

I definitely do not want another after thought Accessory EVF For the M11. The 020 should have been better. 

Edited by dkmoore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting indeed. Do you own a CL? Just asking as i don't feel its level of quality lesser than that of my M240. As for the 020, sorry but it does not play in the same league to me. A full frame CL with M mount would be almost perfect for me. Give it clean 6400 iso and i pay the same price as the SL2 on the dot. YMMV.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica cannot make a optical viewfinder-rangefinder based M using magnesium alloy, because those cameras have to be made of brass, etc. 

This constraint does not apply to an EVF based M. It could be made like the CL -with an even better EVF- and pricing it at a different point. 

Leica has to take risks and expand the user base of the M system. I don't think those different cameras will cannibalize each other. 

The SL2 + adapter is a solution, but the SL2 has to be designed for SL lenses... a totally different beast.

There is a tight relationship between bodies and lenses that form a coherent system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As one who has owned the M240 (and other previous Ms) and the TL2, both with their respective external EVFs, and now has the CL and SL.........
I would say the CL EVF is leaps and bounds ahead, in responsiveness and clarity. As responsive as the SL's EVF (the CL's is newer), if not as large/hi-res. If one like this, upgraded for latest tech, appeared in a full frame M-equivalent, I have no doubt it would fly off the shelves.

As for quality, yes, the CL is made of lighter materials, and is probably cheaper to make than the M, but that is a function of more modern design and manufacturing, not inherent quality. Think of all the camera failures that have been discussed on this forum in the last decade: how many of them have been a result of not using brass, or of using some other body material? A quick list might include: sensor corrosion, lug attachments, AF motors, RF alignment, camera freezing, ISO dial failure, IR sensitivity. And when you add to those all the reports from people who have dropped their cameras "I can see only a little impact damage, but it's not working". In the real world, camera quality is determined by (a) how well  the innards are designed and made and (b) quality control in manufacture*. Whether a camera is made of brass or cast alloy is neither here nor there.

*Sadly, neither of these can be tested by examination in a shop, or even in short term hire before buying.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, lct said:

Interesting indeed. Do you own a CL? Just asking as i don't feel its level of quality lesser than that of my M240. As for the 020, sorry but it does not play in the same league to me. A full frame CL with M mount would be almost perfect for me. Give it clean 6400 iso and i pay the same price as the SL2 on the dot. YMMV.

I have used the CL multiple times but do not currently own it. The comment of level of quality was aimed at the EVF, but also to the build materials. (Was not talking IQ, which I have commented multiple times is just as good as the full frame versions). 
 

As I indicated I am not a fan of the 020 and didn’t see much of an improvement in the CL EVF (not that it isn’t better). It has far less lag and is clearer but still a little muddier than the Q EVF if memory serves and not close to the SL1 and nowhere near as good as the SL2. 
 

the M is the flagship line along with the S. If they were going to put an EVF in the M, it would be the best EVF available and wouldn’t reduce size or cost. But, these are just my opinions. For the record, I don’t comment on cameras or lenses that I haven’t used. 
 

to re-iterate, I like the CL, and it wasn’t a knock. The CL is very clearly below the M in the pecking order. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

As one who has owned the M240 (and other previous Ms) and the TL2, both with their respective external EVFs, and now has the CL and SL.........
I would say the CL EVF is leaps and bounds ahead, in responsiveness and clarity. As responsive as the SL's EVF (the CL's is newer), if not as large/hi-res. If one like this, upgraded for latest tech, appeared in a full frame M-equivalent, I have no doubt it would fly off the shelves.

As for quality, yes, the CL is made of lighter materials, and is probably cheaper to make than the M, but that is a function of more modern design and manufacturing, not inherent quality. Think of all the camera failures that have been discussed on this forum in the last decade: how many of them have been a result of not using brass, or of using some other body material? A quick list might include: sensor corrosion, lug attachments, AF motors, RF alignment, camera freezing, ISO dial failure, IR sensitivity. And when you add to those all the reports from people who have dropped their cameras "I can see only a little impact damage, but it's not working". In the real world, camera quality is determined by (a) how well  the innards are designed and made and (b) quality control in manufacture*. Whether a camera is made of brass or cast alloy is neither here nor there.

*Sadly, neither of these can be tested by examination in a shop, or even in short term hire before buying.

Really the only part I don’t agree with is the CL EVF quality but that is solely opinion based as I personally didn’t like it. The only EVF I could see myself using to date is the one in the SL2. There is just nothing like the clarity of the M OVF to me. 

But, for full disclosure, if I am not using auto focus I still cannot subscribe to using an EVF full time as I FAR prefer the OVF of the M for manual focus as I think it is faster and much clearer. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

.....

to re-iterate, I like the CL, and it wasn’t a knock. The CL is very clearly below the M in the pecking order. 

My apologies - my own post was written from a slightly defensive standpoint vis-a-vis the CL!
My comments on what constitutes quality in a camera body were made in response to many other posts elsewhere that often equate weight/solidity/brass with quality, and forget that it is usually everything other than the camera body materials that fail.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, lct said:

Interesting indeed. Do you own a CL? Just asking as i don't feel its level of quality lesser than that of my M240. As for the 020, sorry but it does not play in the same league to me. A full frame CL with M mount would be almost perfect for me. Give it clean 6400 iso and i pay the same price as the SL2 on the dot. YMMV.

I could be game for what you are pitching but I don’t think they would call it an M. 

I think the M11 is probably 2 years out at this point since we are getting the M10R in March. what I am hoping/expecting for M11 is:

1. same body and haptics  

2. IBIS - would absolutely love ibis to help my crap technique  

3. I’m now on board with 40-47 MP because it hasn’t slowed my computer processing or storage as much as I thought 
 

4. High quality EVF clip on - isn’t huge and ugly but also really good  

that is really it for me  the M10 is really, really good.  


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

My apologies - my own post was written from a slightly defensive standpoint vis-a-vis the CL!
My comments on what constitutes quality in a camera body were made in response to many other posts elsewhere that often equate weight/solidity/brass with quality, and forget that it is usually everything other than the camera body materials that fail.

No apologies needed and I agree. I’ve had plenty of M failures unfortunately. 😢😢😢

like any company, Leica defines the levels of products, which pricing highlights but certainly doesn’t dictate quality of output. I’m what most would call a Leica fanboy and love pretty much all Leica cameras and lenses ever made, except for maybe the M5, (queue the arrows and stones) 😎🤣

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My wish is only ...please be better in sensor's quality control since I have heard about banding and other sensor issues on M10 and M10P recently. Honestly, I am quite panic that it would happen with mine.

 

I thought the M9 sensor issue would be the last major problem in the whole line of M cameras, but seems not.

 

The M10's system menus and buttons are perfectly designed. I would love to see more magnifier options on the OVF or integration of EVF/OVF like what Fuji does in their X-pro cameras. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...