M10? - Sorry, no!

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Honestly, it also seems consistent with the design and expected use of the two cameras. The SL is well-designed to work as a studio camera. The M10 is well-designed to work as a compact field camera. The problem is that Paul wants the features of a studio camera in the body of a compact field camera. Leica doesn't seem inclined to provide that, and is differentiating between the two products moving forward: an M system for all the traditional uses for a rangefinder camera, and the SL system for studio work, video, or SLR type work where autofocus is necessary. Time will tell whether this strategy works out for them or whether they choose to alter their course at some point.

 

Just for the record, Paul has provided no information about what Leica told him. That statement about no concrete plans and to look for the SL was a hypothetical that I made up. I do think it is likely the sort of thing that Leica said, but we have no information about what Leica actually told Paul. 

[Steve Spencer]

I might also add that in the Leica line up of cameras, it is the S cameras that are the clear example of a studio camera. I agree that the M line is a great field camera, but I see the SL as a jack of all trades professional camera. It does studio well. It does video well, but it can do field work well too, but that is really neither here nor there. I think it will be interesting to see how the M line evolves with the M10 generation of cameras. The base camera is exactly what I want, so I am quite happy, but it is hard to know how many variants Leica will make. In the past, however, Leica has shown a strong propensity to offer variants that cater even to a pretty small subset of users, so I expect them to offer a number of variants that will be interesting to different folks. I think it is way to early to draw any conclusion about who if anyone will be left behind.

[Dirk Mandeville]

Just for the record, Paul has provided no information about what Leica told him. That statement about no concrete plans and to look for the SL was a hypothetical that I made up. I do think it is likely the sort of thing that Leica said, but we have no information about what Leica actually told Paul.

 

Oh, I agree with you. It just makes sense given Leica's statement regarding removing video, to paraphrase: "and for those who want video, we have the SL."

 

And I agree with your suggestion that the S is their true studio camera and the SL more a jack-of-all-trades professional camera.

[LocalHero1953]

Perhaps....

 

But according to Leica, their own customer feedback response regarding video in the M showed that the majority of M users either specifically preferred video be omitted, or had no preference either way. Only a few showed a preference for wanting video in the M. Sure, of M users. That doesn't cover potential new users. I am not convinced that these comments are Leica's last word on the subject, or amount to more than marketing justification for an immediate necessity. Still guesswork. Considering that, their decision makes perfect sense. Why continue to put resources into developing a feature that is not really wanted by the majority of your customer base, especially when you have a better platform on which to develop said feature? As I've commented before, the SL is not an alternative for those who want a single compact stills and occasional video package. And if those aren't your criteria, then I would be considering other video platforms than the the SL, either cheaper or more technically capable, depending how "occasional" my needs were. Sure, you are going to anger a few, as evidenced by this thread. But it is not likely to make a dent in sales, and you move forward with two distinct platforms which are ideally designed to capture different segments of the market. Leica are not thinking of the M10 in isolation like we tend to do. I'm not - I have the M240 and SL. They are thinking of their entire portfolio of products and how to distinguish them and develop them into the future to capture larger overall market share. I think video on the M was a dead-end the moment of its introduction. Certainly, as a pro/ advanced video tool. But I don't think anyone here at least is asking for that. It was pretty good on the M240 for occasional contextual and supplementary PJ/documentary use. The platform is just not really suited for development of video over time, and trying to do so would inevitably impact the desirability of the camera for still photography (which has always been the hallmark of the M line).

Too many comments to make, so I've injected them in bold.

 

Dammit, I don't know why I'm making these arguments - I have disabled video on my M240, have hardly ever used it, and had almost forgotten it was there. Which is why I can't get inside the heads of those who can't take the same approach.   We're all different!

[AAK]

In the past, however, Leica has shown a strong propensity to offer variants that cater even to a pretty small subset of users, so I expect them to offer a number of variants that will be interesting to different folks. I think it is way to early to draw any conclusion about who if anyone will be left behind.

 

I agree. Correct me if I'm wrong however, but the variants within the same model number have tended to remove features, not add them. I'm thinking of the M-D and M-E, and the M-60 (although the latter is more for the collector's market). Depending on how sales of the M-D are going, I would expect an M10-D without the LCD screen. Adding video or new ports to the M10 would seem unlikely to me. I would expect the monochrome version to have a different model number.

[Dirk Mandeville]

Too many comments to make, so I've injected them in bold.

 

Dammit, I don't know why I'm making these arguments - I have disabled video on my M240, have hardly ever used it, and had almost forgotten it was there. Which is why I can't get inside the heads of those who can't take the same approach.   We're all different!

For the record, I laughed out loud reading your final paragraph. Thanks for injecting a little humor into the discussion.

 

I will give you my personal reasons for not wanting video on the M. It allows the designers to focus on making it the best camera it can be for stills photography, which is what I care about. Simple as that. In my experience with video coming to SLR's, video aficionados were constantly asking for more. More ports. More resolution. More frame rates. Bigger battery. Multiple card slots. More more more. The cameras became bloated and every firmware update featured a host of new video features while the needs of still photographers were often ignored. I don't want to see that happen to the M line.

 

Some will say "but I don't want all that stuff; I just want to shoot a simple video clip like on the M240." Doesn't matter. If video is there, others will ask for more. Just look at how much the M240 video has been criticized. The pressure would be on Leica to deliver more. They wisely decided the SL was a better platform for that and I, for one, am glad they did.

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree. Correct me if I'm wrong however, but the variants within the same model number have tended to remove features, not add them. I'm thinking of the M-D and M-E, and the M-60 (although the latter is more for the collector's market). Depending on how sales of the M-D are going, I would expect an M10-D without the LCD screen. Adding video or new ports to the M10 would seem unlikely to me. I would expect the monochrome version to have a different model number.

 

The P versions of course add features. I expect the monochrome version to be an M10M as well, so no I don't think variants only subtracts features. In fact I think it might make sense for the base camera to only be different from the variants by adding or subtracting as few of features as possible. It would be the central tendency of that generation of cameras with some adding features and some subtracting features.

[IkarusJohn]

Dammit, I don't know why I'm making these arguments - I have disabled video on my M240, have hardly ever used it, and had almost forgotten it was there. Which is why I can't get inside the heads of those who can't take the same approach.   We're all different!

 

 

It seems to me that there are a number of different groups of people:

• those who want it, use it and are annoyed it has been removed

• those who don't care about it one way or the other provided it doesn't get in the way of the M stills camera being the best it can be

• those who don't want their M camera to have video, but don't really care if another variant is released with video

• those who don't want video in any M camera

This thread (and the other thread about when video would be included in the M10) was started, or at least hijacked, by those in the first bullet.  There has been an assumption that everyone else (or at least those taking a different view) fall into the last bullet.  I think both groups highlighted above are in a very small minority.  Most M users would, I suspect, fall into the middle two, perhaps favouring the third bullet.

 

Cheers

John

[Dirk Mandeville]

There has been an assumption that everyone else (or at least those taking a different view) fall into the last bullet. I think both groups highlighted above are in a very small minority. Most M users would, I suspect, fall into the middle two, perhaps favouring the third bullet.

Honestly, I think the group in the last bullet was simply created as a straw man to rail against. In this 24 page thread, I don't recall one person taking that stance. Maybe I missed it. I know I want the M10 exactly as it is, but I could care less if they put out a successor to the M240 or some other variant with video. I'm just sceptical that there is enough potential market for Leica to do it. But then, they put out a digital camera without an LCD screen, so who knows? I suspect you are correct about most Leica users falling into the middle two groups, perhaps favoring the third.

[Lord Lucan]

Steve,Dirk Paul,

I dont think its important what Leica told Paul.

But, if Leica stated that they had no intention to add extra features to M10 line, it could be true as far as M10 goes.

Leica can bring out another M camera with all singing all dancing features and give it 11.12,13 whatever number after M.

All companies reserve rights to discontinue,modify etc without prior notice.

[Lord Lucan]

I will give you my personal reasons for not wanting video on the M. It allows the designers to focus on making it the best camera it can be for stills photography, which is what I care about. Simple as that. In my experience with video coming to SLR's, video aficionados were constantly asking for more. More ports. More resolution. More frame rates. Bigger battery. Multiple card slots. More more more. The cameras became bloated and every firmware update featured a host of new video features while the needs of still photographers were often ignored. I don't want to see that happen to the M line.

 

Some will say "but I don't want all that stuff; I just want to shoot a simple video clip like on the M240." Doesn't matter. If video is there, others will ask for more. Just look at how much the M240 video has been criticized. The pressure would be on Leica to deliver more. They wisely decided the SL was a better platform for that and I, for one, am glad they did.

Dirk, Sorry but Its just assumptions. Look at Canon 5D,that had no video. And look at the incanations like 5D Mark 2.3 4 etc.

Do we say that 5D which had novideo is a better still camera that those bearing higher mark numbers?

[IkarusJohn]

Honestly, I think the group in the last bullet was simply created as a straw man to rail against. In this 24 page thread, I don't recall one person taking that stance. Maybe I missed it. I know I want the M10 exactly as it is, but I could care less if they put out a successor to the M240 or some other variant with video. I'm just sceptical that there is enough potential market for Leica to do it. But then, they put out a digital camera without an LCD screen, so who knows? I suspect you are correct about most Leica users falling into the middle two groups, perhaps favoring the third.

 

 

Very true.  I suspect the numbers in the first bullet can probably be counted on one hand, and there are none in the last bullet ... though we need to ask Pico.  I can't be sure exactly what his view is!

[Dirk Mandeville]

Dirk, Sorry but Its just assumptions. Look at Canon 5D,that had no video. And look at the incanations like 5D Mark 2.3 4 etc.

Do we say that 5D which had novideo is a better still camera that those bearing higher mark numbers?

Actually, yes, if you ignore the technological advances such as better sensors, etc., I think in a lot of ways the 5d was a better camera for stills photography. Photographers loved it. It was small, too, not much bigger than the 20d. The current iteration is huge by comparison. I lived through this upgrade cycle and the addition of video to the Mark II, and that is partly why I'm so sour on the concept -- my experience with Canon. Now I love my Mark iii and it does everything I need a DSLR to do. Jack of all trades. But it is big and heavy and I don't carry it around much anymore. And I don't need the video function, though I have certainly helped pay for its development. And suffered through firmware update after firmware update dedicated primarily to upgrading video functions. I literally had to wait years and buy the next model to get some advanced auto-bracketing features that should have been a simple firmware update for the Mark II. Don't get me started on Canon.

 

Seriously, is it that hard to understand why a stills photographer might want a camera model (just one, mind you, out of the hundreds of models out there) that is developed solely for and dedicated solely to, still photography? You know, like the M8 and M9. Like every single camera ever was before digital came along. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. I'm just glad Leica seems to understand.

[jmahto]

In they case Leica should address LENR off option and long exposure too. IBIS also goes a long way in helping still photography. I don't see Leica working on these. Instead they are trying to appeal to nostalgic crowd by focusing on external dimension. And don't point out sensor upgrade. It is expected after 4 years.

[harmen]

Paul, if I may ask, what of the M10 features do you miss in the M (240)? Would you have bought it if it had had tethering? Just trying to understand your perspective. I've never taken photos in a studio and would expect that high ISO doesn't matter. DR did not extend much or did it? Is it the ability to shoot more frames per second? Thanks in advance.

[Dirk Mandeville]

In they case Leica should address LENR off option and long exposure too. IBIS also goes a long way in helping still photography. I don't see Leica working on these.

I expect we will see upgrades in both of these areas over time. As well as in other areas.

[jaapv]

LENR? We have been requesting to make it optional since 2006...   IBIS? Space constraints.  Either of these would be a small miracle.

[Steve Spencer]

LENR? We have been requesting to make it optional since 2006...   IBIS? Space constraints.  Either of these would be a small miracle.

 

It is a mystery why Leica, which is often responsive to its customers, remains so stubborn about LENR. Their failure to address this issue makes no sense. They should do it, but they should have done it 10 years ago, so it is hard to even hope that they will, but perhaps they will wake up at some point. I don't see IBIS being implemented. It would make the camera bigger and heavier and it is most useful with longer lenses. I think it is a poor fit with a rangefinder based camera. 

I do expect advances, however. A silent electronic shutter should be implemented and it could be even before the next generation of cameras with a firmware upgrade. Higher shutter speeds with an electronic shutter should also be possible. 

[jaapv]

Yes, an electronic (option) shutter would be nice to be able to use Noctiluxes etc. wide open without ND filters.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stef63]

It is a mystery why Leica, which is often responsive to its customers, remains so stubborn about LENR. Their failure to address this issue makes no sense. 

 

Could the reason be that with LENR they mask the imperfections or the variations of different batches of sensors that might be more visible using the sensor in an edge case like long exposures?  Leica is rather flexible regarding user complaints in replacing a sensor.  They could face more sensor quality related complaints when making LENR available.  It might also be a cultural thing, I don't now.  Leica is a German company and Germans like to focus on quality rather than capabilities or use in edge or extreme cases.