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

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well said, NDOC. Leica built its reputation on being startlingly innovative. But in the 21st century it is held back by nostalgists who think that WW2 era technology is the summit of achievement and pooh-pooh anything new. The way some people on this forum react, it seems as if any technological progress is offensive to them.

 

Do you not misunderstand here? When you think of the rangefinder of the M10 compared to the previous models, then there was a big jump. As a matter of fact it was a clear development and improvement. Just not towards electronic VF. Before in this thread there were comparisons with watches. Thats exactly what it is. Think of the different parts of the watch movement that come along in new shapes and or materials to improve accuracy of a watch (i.e. a Rolex). That is what I expect from Leica. And this paired with the beautifull rendering of colors and the small lenses, this makes up a wonderful package. To me that is what Leica is about. If they gave that up they would become like a Fuji, Sony or whatever. They will then drown as they are much too small. Look at the Leica watch: What a poor attempt to go onto this matket without their own movement. How ridiculous.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

See my previous post. Leica is not limited to the M. It is their signature niche product, not their development platform. And how many reputed watch makers build their own movements? Very few.

[M11 for me]

. . .And how many reputed watch makers build their own movements? Very few.

That is not right at all. EVERY famous valuable brand has absolutely to have its own movement. Without the own movement you are a nobody resp. in low or at the best in the middle segment. You have absolutely to have your own movement when you want to belong to the top segment. And the pricing of the Leica watch is something that would like to be positioned on the top. But this is fully OT.

 

Still I appreciate what you say about Leica. Just their Mickey Mouse watch is a real pitty.

[jaapv]

I don't see it as a top segment product. Leica has been selling novelty watches for decades. This is just a step up, pricewise.

 

You cannot seriously suggest that they are competing with Blancpain?

[M11 for me]

Ah, I thought they want to. With € 10‘000 per timepiece they are well above Blancpain, Rolex, Jaeger le Coultre and many others. Very brave.

[jaapv]

Ah - but Blancpain uses Swatch (Frederique Piquet) movements  Jeagre Le Coultre: the Reverso has a Tavannes movement

[ELAN]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Optical viewfinders of all types are obsolete..

 

The optical viewfinder is the main reason I prefer the M over other cameras.  Personally I wouldn't buy an EVF-only M.

[pgk]

I wasn't joking at all. I was completely serious. I made that wishlist because I want the M11 to be the best camera possible. And it would not require a massive R&D effort by Leica. Nor would it require a big learning curve for present Leica shooters. On the contrary. Having a state-of-the-art EVF would make the M11 far easier to use because it will allow the photographer to nail the framing and exposure of every shot, on the fly, with no chimping whatsoever. And as for Leica's superb line of M lenses, an all-digital M11 would still be M-mount, of course. There's no reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be. And it would compete with Nikon, Canon and others on the same basis as Leica has always competed: the rock solid quality of the M system and the legendary "Leica look" of the images it produces.

 

Most of the features on my list are already in use in other cameras. The only one that would be truly cutting edge is the curved sensor. But we're almost there. And in less than four years a curved sensor will be a reality. It only requires Leica to have the vision to incorporate in their next M. There's absolutely no reason to have a mechanical rangefinder in a flagship digital camera. EVF technology is mature. Optical viewfinders of all types are obsolete. When the coupled rangefinder was introduced by Leica in 1932 it was hailed as a game-changing technological miracle. Your timid intellectual forebears condemned it for the same reason. It's time for Leica to be a game changer again with the M11.

 

OVFs are as obsolete as hydrocarbon fuelled cars - haven't you noticed ?

 

We have discussed and rediscussed the technical problems with trying to make the Leica M into a technical game changer, but without electronic coupling between lens and body it simply cannot compete (technically) with cameras that are built from the ground up with such information transfer incorporated into their base design.

 

And I'm sorry to have to repeat this but the magical 'Leica look' is a myth perpetuated but never defined. I use Leica M because I like using a OVF camera which is as simple as can be - I do not expect it to compete with all singing, all dancing, state-of-the-art models and nor can it do so. I do expect it to produce sound image quality which it does - now! Why is there this desire to achieve the unattainable by modifying a perfect good product and try to make it (hobbled as it is) compete with much more up to date designs? Its can't, won't and is fit for purpose now.

 

FWIW I recently started using a cheap Canon 10~18 zoom lens. Its extraordinarily effective and delivers technically excellent imagery - for a fraction of the price of a Leica lens. Trying to achieve the same technical quality on a Leica M is challenging but that's not the point of using an M is it? Optics are becoming incredibly good especially when allied to software in their design and implementation stages. Competing even against low cost lenses will be increasingly difficult for Leica. The M needs to survive on its different approach and IMO Leica should retain it as an OVF camera which is distinctively unique and not attempt to compete with it where it cannot do so.

[ianman]

Most of the features on my list are already in use in other cameras...

 

.... It's time for Leica to be a game changer again with the M11.

 

How could the M11 be a "game changer", if most of the features proposed are already used in other cameras, and have been use in those cameras for years.

The M remains unique precisely because it does have or need all those bells and whistles. This has already been discussed ad nauseam and it seems like the M management team agree. Take a look at the recent Luminous Landscape video with the M product manager. 

The conclusion is the same as ever, If you want a Leica with bells and whistles, the M is not o you. There are - more and more - other options.

[pgh]

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.

 

It's a combination of the two. It's not always the price outright, but what you don't get for that outlay. For that outlay you can buy a kit you can actually do a variety of assignment work with. Even the most specialized documentary photographers have a hard time justifying it - again not on price alone, but because of the value. If you want a small, unobtrusive camera you have other options, most of which will give you equal or superior IQ, have AF, work better in low light, etc etc. None of them are an M, but there are plenty of great solutions now.

 

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.

 

This is pretty much true, and it's pretty sad. I still love the experience of shooting them M - and it's why after having an M8 almost a decade ago I decided to give the digital M another go with the 10. It's my favorite digital ever, but it's also the first one I would get rid of if forced to whittle down my kit. It's a luxury, and a finicky one at that. Still, it is a unique tool and the only one that renders and functions the way it does, and I would hate to see that go. You could say it's nostalgia, but I'm barely old enough for that, and I really don't care about it's styling from an aesthetic point of view. It's nice, but it's not a selling point. 

 

 

 

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.

 

No comment on the M240 as I've never owned, only tinkered with them. I had an M9 on loan from Leica, did not like it, did not like how it felt.

 

If the future of Leica is the SL, CL, Q etc then I am worried for their future.

 

All of those cameras are very clearly beaten by other brands who have offerings that do almost the exact same things at noticeably lower price points, and usually do the job better, with better IQ. At this point I only see these purchases being motivated by brand loyalty or emotional attachment (which isn't gonna be enough), not by uniqueness or superiority of actual product. I mean, I'm not gonna spend thousands for a better menu.

 

The Q is easily beaten by Sony Rx1RII (smaller, higher IQ), which also has a more suitable focal length. If you MUST shoot 28mm I guess I can see the reason, but that's a high price for a 28mm lens.

The SL series is crazily priced for what you get - Sony easily beats these cameras in functional measures - again in IQ, lens selection, affordability etc. 

 

The CL is beaten by both Fuji and Sony crop sensor cameras - lower prices, equal to or better IQ, more affordable, wider lens selection etc.

I personally wouldn't buy any of them - can't find any logical reason.

 

I'm a price sensitive, working photographer - I can't, in any justifiable sense see a reason for any Leica but the M, and of course even that is a stretch.

 

But the one thing - the M is alone. It is unique. There are no other options, there's no other digital rangefinder. If you get rid of that, you get rid of the reason for the camera. It may be dated, but Leica is generally a generation or two behind when it comes normal tech you find in cameras. With the M, they mostly skirt this issue because it is unique. 

[pgk]

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.

 

The Leica M has always been a 'tool' of the affluent amateur for the most part - simply because it has been used by some of the most well-known and iconic photographers. But the vast, vast majority of cameras have always been amateur owned - camera manufacturers could not survive on 'professional' sales alone because they make up far too small a segment of the market.

 

Speaking as a 'less-affluent' professional , I use Leica rangefinder cameras and lenses because I work better with them - its a simply but extremely important reason for using any tool. And all cameras can be expensive - I shudder to think how most 'pro' photographers are able to make a new long lens pay for itself; they are a substantial investment for a single specialist item.

[jonatdonuts]

Some very important comments. 

 

Of course, we know Leica is a niche manufacturer and has arguably (and sadly) never really catered to the price-conscious working photographer, apart from maybe the Leica M2 and film version of the CL. It has usually sought to build what it views as the best, using the best materials, with price thrown out of the rational window. Although the price of the majority of M lenses can perhaps be justified, considering their image quality provides more than what most of us would need, and that, with a little care, they would last for 100 years. 

 

But I have been a little disorientated by Leica's marketing direction: Odd endorsement partnerships with pop star celebrities, and garish special editions with 'luxury' brands not known to be connected with photography. Leica do not seem to be fully capitalising on its rich and wonderful relationship with photojournalists and documentary photographers. 

 

But the reasons for that are very apparent. 1) Most of the old pros have sadly left us or retired and 2) most of the young pros are not using Leica, mainly due to technological and practical advancements of other brands and the fact that they are offered at cheaper prices. 

 

If the Leica marketing team isn't careful there could be, in the near future, a 3rd reason: young pros photographers do not want to be associated with cameras not regarded as being a serious and practical tool for the professional...

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the future of Leica is the SL, CL, Q etc then I am worried for their future.

 

...

 

I'm a price sensitive, working photographer - I can't, in any justifiable sense see a reason for any Leica but the M, and of course even that is a stretch.

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by jonatdonuts

[skanga]

How could the M11 be a "game changer", if most of the features proposed are already used in other cameras, and have been use in those cameras for years.

The M remains unique precisely because it does have or need all those bells and whistles. This has already been discussed ad nauseam and it seems like the M management team agree. Take a look at the recent Luminous Landscape video with the M product manager. 

The conclusion is the same as ever, If you want a Leica with bells and whistles, the M is not o you. There are - more and more - other options.

 

I agree, and to add to your Luminous Landscape video, here is an interview by David Farkas 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

[jaapv]

Some very important comments. 

 

Of course, we know Leica is a niche manufacturer and has arguably (and sadly) never really catered to the price-conscious working photographer, apart from maybe the Leica M2 and film version of the CL. It has usually sought to build what it views as the best, using the best materials, with price thrown out of the rational window. Although the price of the majority of M lenses can perhaps be justified, considering their image quality provides more than what most of us would need, and that, with a little care, they would last for 100 years. 

 

But I have been a little disorientated by Leica's marketing direction: Odd endorsement partnerships with pop star celebrities, and garish special editions with 'luxury' brands not known to be connected with photography. Leica do not seem to be fully capitalising on its rich and wonderful relationship with photojournalists and documentary photographers. 

 

But the reasons for that are very apparent. 1) Most of the old pros have sadly left us or retired and 2) most of the young pros are not using Leica, mainly due to technological and practical advancements of other brands and the fact that they are offered at cheaper prices. 

 

If the Leica marketing team isn't careful there could be, in the near future, a 3rd reason: young pros photographers do not want to be associated with cameras not regarded as being a serious and practical tool for the professional...

I think the marketing view you paint is slightly skewed. Yes, Leica does do special editions and caters to celebrities  - they always have.

But, on the other hand, they are close to Magnum, give out the Oscar Barnard Award, are the only brand on Photokina that dedicates a large part of their stand to photo exhibitions, have a gallery in in their headquarters, etc.

[jdlaing]

Some very important comments. 

 

Of course, we know Leica is a niche manufacturer and has arguably (and sadly) never really catered to the price-conscious working photographer, apart from maybe the Leica M2 and film version of the CL. It has usually sought to build what it views as the best, using the best materials, with price thrown out of the rational window. Although the price of the majority of M lenses can perhaps be justified, considering their image quality provides more than what most of us would need, and that, with a little care, they would last for 100 years. 

 

But I have been a little disorientated by Leica's marketing direction: Odd endorsement partnerships with pop star celebrities, and garish special editions with 'luxury' brands not known to be connected with photography. Leica do not seem to be fully capitalising on its rich and wonderful relationship with photojournalists and documentary photographers. 

 

But the reasons for that are very apparent. 1) Most of the old pros have sadly left us or retired and 2) most of the young pros are not using Leica, mainly due to technological and practical advancements of other brands and the fact that they are offered at cheaper prices. 

 

If the Leica marketing team isn't careful there could be, in the near future, a 3rd reason: young pros photographers do not want to be associated with cameras not regarded as being a serious and practical tool for the professional...

In the famous words of Captain Marko Ramius your assumptions are all wrong.

 

Leica is not a niche manufacturer. They have niche products.

Some of the best photographers in the world use Leica M cameras.

Being a “professional” photographer doesn’t mean you are a good one.

 

Leica cameras are what they are and you either buy them or you don’t.

[jaapv]

And the professional products of other brands are not that much cheaper any more...

[jonatdonuts]

A very relative statement.

 

An SL with 2 lenses could cost approximately USD 15k. A full frame Sony or DSLR kit with 2 top of the line lenses could fetch around USD 7k. 

 

USD 8k may be loose change to some, 1/3 of an annual salary to others. 

 

 

 

And the professional products of other brands are not that much cheaper any more...

[jaapv]

 A Canon 1DXii  is 6000 $.  A Leica SL 6500 $. Zeiss Otus for Canon 4500$, Summilux SL 5300 $

 

 

It depends on where you live, I suppose. I understand the average family income in San Francisco is 153.000 $, to name just one example.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

 A Canon 1DXii  is 6000 $.  A Leica SL 6500 $. Zeiss Otus for Canon 4500$, Summilux SL 5300 $

 

And even forgetting these, the Leica M range exhibits low depreciation relative to most other cameras - try getting a 'cheap' used M lens or even a cheap M series body. On the other hand its possible to get older bodies and lenses from other manufacturers at very good prices indeed. It remains to be seen how the SL system depreciates but I'd guess it will do so more than the M but less than its 'competitors'. Simplistic comparisons bound and are not very useful other than being a classically inaccurate 'headline'. Even a hard used ex-professionally owned M series body or lens gets good money, not so with a tatty Sony, Canon or Nikon. Investing in good gear is about looking at its overall cost, not necessarily its outlay.

[pgh]

A very relative statement.

 

An SL with 2 lenses could cost approximately USD 15k. A full frame Sony or DSLR kit with 2 top of the line lenses could fetch around USD 7k. 

 

USD 8k may be loose change to some, 1/3 of an annual salary to others. 

Exactly.

 

Again, I'm only drawing on what I know - but this is the thing. And the Sony/DSLR will have better IQ, by a decent stretch.

Most pros I know are in no way buying the 6k Canon/Nikon bodies. The common set ups are the 5D/D8xx/Sony A7xx with 2-4 lenses - and not Otus type lenses. We are talking functional, f/2 primes or 2.8 zooms being the average. You can make any brand set up cost what an M set up costs - but the M traffics in a certain type of photography - let's say minimal gear, prime lens photography. I know a lot of people who would be well serviced by an M because they never go wider than 28 or longer than 90, but never entertained it because of cost. Canon 5d with 3 primes, Fuji X pro with the same etc, that's what they're all using. They won't be going to SL's. 

 

The average income of SF family has nothing to do with the working photographer. The photographers there are usually holed up 3-4 in an apartment barely scraping by, or they've been driven out of the city and commute in for jobs, living an hour 2 outside. That city (the most expensive in the U.S.) is a terrible metric for what is normal by any stretch, especially amongst the type of photographers who do documentary work.