Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

probably the M11?

[Einst_Stein]

The discussion is about the 4 combinations of mount and builti viewfinder, ignore the external viewfinder.

1. M + OVF

2. M + EVF

3. L + EVF

4. L + OVF

 

1 is going to be history, 3 is new and going to dominate the future.

 

The value if 2 is interesting. There could be enough market to make sense, although I doubt it.

 

4 is no brained a nonsense.

[Advertisement]

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

[saxo]

I would not be surprised if Leica offers a full frame L mount camera like CL, simply a M with EVF.and AF.

 

Maybe a full frame mirrorless M-mount camera will come, but pretty unshure: http://konost.com/mirrorless/

[jaapv]

The discussion is about the 4 combinations of mount and builti viewfinder, ignore the external viewfinder.

1. M + OVF

2. M + EVF

3. L + EVF

4. L + OVF

 

1 is going to be history, 3 is new and going to dominate the future.

Why? People still ride horses, don't they? Dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle, a bicycle is more convenient and modern... I wouldn't ride a horse, but I would not be so presumptuous to predict their demise as I don't have the illusion that my prejudices are applicable to others.

 

It is unlikely that a concept that has fascinated photographers for over sixty years will disappear before cameras disappear altogether.

 

And furthermore, I can assure you that the picture-taking machine that will dominate the future will be nothing like an L mount camera with an EVF (I presume you mean the SL). The masses will use a phone, or whatever will replace it over the next years, and the camera of choice will be something like the Lytro, possibly without a physical lens as we know it. Traditional cameras will be a niche, with the rangefinder cameras, optical SLRs and EVILs even smaller niches within it.

[Ecaton]

The discussion is about the 4 combinations of mount and builti viewfinder, ignore the external viewfinder.

1. M + OVF

2. M + EVF

3. L + EVF

4. L + OVF

 

1 is going to be history, 3 is new and going to dominate the future.

 

The value if 2 is interesting. There could be enough market to make sense, although I doubt it.

 

4 is no brained a nonsense.

 

Never trust a guy with crystal ball predictions. And definitely not when you want to place financial bets.

[rosuna]

Too bad, you have to change your habit. Not to change the camera's future.

 

 

Explain that to a potential customer and ask him 5.000 euros.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The discussion is about the 4 combinations of mount and built-in viewfinder [...]

1. M + OVF

2. M + EVF

3. L + EVF

4. L + OVF

(1) and (3) are here to stay; (2) and (4) will never happen (except with accessory finders).

 

Maybe we will see M + OVF + EVF some fine day, similar to the Fujifilm X100's hybrid viewfinder. Leica Camera analyzed this configuration for the M10 and found it technically infeasible. But maybe it will become feasible in the future. Until then, it's M + OVF + accessory EVF.

[rosuna]

An M mount camera that is not an M (i.e. a rangefinder) doesn’t make any sense. There is absolutely no advantage to a non-rangefinder M mount camera compared to an L mount camera with an M-to-L adapter.

 

 

That is the point of view of an engineer. It is correct, but there are more elements in this problem.

 

I repeat and resume: L-mount users would not buy the type of EVF 35mm camera a M user would buy. The M system is a small system, with small bodies and small lenses. The SL system cannot be a small system: huge zooms and fast primes require large bodies and special ergonomics. From a marketing point of view, it is difficult to make the current SL or something similar attractive for M users, and the same for making attractive for SL users a small brick-like camera, the type of camera M users want. Different systems, different type of lenses, different applications. 

 

And I know there are users that combine the monster SL zooms with the CL or TL. It is possible, technically. The problem here is not technical, it is a marketing problem. How much costs to develop and how many units you will sell and the price. Expanding the M system means 1, selling more M cameras (rangefinder + EVF) compared to the "only classic models" (rangefinder) situation, 2 and selling them to new users (many models would be sold to current M users but new ones would be attracted by a smaller, lighter and cheaper camera than a classic M). The EVF M may steal some buyers from the classic M, but it could get more sales for the M system in net terms.

 

It is a question of numbers. A marketing problem. I know the L mount + M adapter is technically similar to a M mount. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by rosuna

[jaapv]

I find this post very strange. At a point in time where EVF technology is such that there are few disadvantages, what is the benefit in retaining the optical rangefinder as the only focusing and framing option for the M? Or, put another way, we have the 020 EVF as a clip on option for the M; like the CL, why resist a built in version.

 

We’ve had pages and pages, and many threads of people explaining that they don’t want an SL, but they do want an M with an EVF.

 

Is the answer really “it’s an M mount that’s not an M”? That’s a philosophical answer to a practical demand. The practical reality of that response (M means ... you know the rest) is that actually the M system is doomed. Leica’s future is the L mount, and the M system’s future is the optical rangefinder from 1953 (updated, of course, but still a 64 year old concept of a coupled rangefinder).

Puzzled - you say the M=Messucher is invalid, the essence lies in the lenses, and then you argue that the future of the M is in the optical rangefinder and that the L (lens!) mount would doom it.

[thighslapper]

I’ve never noticed that. Does the L-M mount? And is it noticeable (bearing in mind depth of field)? Of course, you don’t have that adapter - I’ll check on the SL with the 28 Summilux.

 

 It's about 0.09mm shorter than it needs to be .... at least that is the shim thickness needed to make infinity on the lens scale and sensor coincide .... with most of my lenses ..... and the 'most' is why there is the built-in latitude ....

[lct]

An M mount camera that is not an M (i.e. a rangefinder) doesn’t make any sense. There is absolutely no advantage to a non-rangefinder M mount camera compared to an L mount camera with an M-to-L adapter.

 

Am i the only one to use auto image magnification (aka auto zoom) here? The only way to get it with M lenses is to keep the M mount for the next M (for mirrorless) FF camera. Unless i don't understand anything to auto zoom with M lenses that is but i will stand happily corrected.

[rosuna]

Puzzled - you say the M=Messucher is invalid, the essence lies in the lenses, and then you argue that the future of the M is in the optical rangefinder and that the L (lens!) mount would doom it.

 

 

Lets see this way: Leica may stop the development of M lenses and cameras, and develop instead a line of small manual focus lenses for L mount and 35mm format, and a CL-like full frame camera. 

 

In practical terms that does not make sense, and it would not provide the same result we would get complementing the M system with an EVF M camera. 

 

It does not make sense because there are many user that want a rangefinder camera with optical viewfinder, and this is the base that keep alive the M system. Not all those photographers would accept the CL-FF camera. For those inclined to renounce to the rangefinder and optical viewfinder there are two problems: first, there are alternatives outside Leica (for the moment, Sony E system), with adapters to M lenses and its own manual focus Zeiss lenses; second, the manual focus lenses for the L system would tend to get bigger, because the rangefinder and optical viewfinder is out (the OVF impose limits to the size of the M lenses). If you are free of constraints you tend to make use of the extra freedom. 

 

That would be the situation if the M users who want a rangefinder and optical viewfinder decrease in number or disappear. Leica would try to capture a fraction of M users with that CL-FF camera, but the target would be containing losses. 

 

Fortunately, M users willing rangefinder and OVF are enough to keep the M system alive and profitable, for the moment (maybe forever). The point is different: how to increase and reinforce that user base. You have two possibilities: attracting more people to the wonderful world of rangefinder/OVF cameras, reducing prices for instance; or offering a different product with specific unique characteristics (size/format ratio), close enough to the M system for complementing it (more sales of M lenses and compatible accessories). The first way has very limited possibilities of success. The second way is yet to be explored. A CL-FF camera with M mount and M lenses is attractive for current M users as complement or alternative (those old photographers with limited eyesight, or backup bodies, for instance), and for new potential users if the system is well presented to the public (super small, more affordable, even zooms tri-elmar type are possible).  

 

I think Leica is thinking on this and other possibilities, measuring risks and costs. I would bet Leica will try this CL-FF camera with M mount, or maybe a CL-FF with L mount. Many seem to consider the two possibilities as equivalent, but in my opinion they are totally different, with different impact on sales. The CL-FF with L mount seems to be less risky, but I think it is more risky for Leica. It might be unattractive for SL lenses owners and unattractive for M lenses owners, for different reasons. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by rosuna

[Jared]

You all do realize none of this is going to happen, right? The CL is Leica’s response to those who wanted a smaller SL. They are clearly betting on APSC as the solution for a compact, interchangeable lens (system) camera. That’s actually a pretty reasonable response when you think about it. We have reached the point that you can get high resolution, good high ISO performance results out of the format, and you don’t even need ultra-thin filter stacks since adapted ‘M’ lenses won’t be using the corners. Thus, mainstream chip manufacturers are open to you without high R&D costs.

 

The CL simply IS Leica’s answer to a smaller SL-like body that can take M lenses.

 

To those that say they have never gotten the issue of one camera’s sales canibalizing those from another camera... He economics are actually pretty simple. If you are selling one of two different cameras to the exact same buyer as you would have captured with just a single camera, hat’s bad. Twice the R&D costs plus a more complex supply chain with no additional sales volume? Not good at all. If, on the other hand, you are talking about something like the Monochrome where you can actually sell a SECOND camera to the same buyer and recoup that (presumably minimal) additional R&D, that’s good. A more highly differentiated body such as an M with an EVF must either capture new customers or must convince existing customers to buy additional cameras. I don’t see that happening with a high enough volume to help Leica.

[Einst_Stein]

(1) and (3) are here to stay; (2) and (4) will never happen (except with accessory finders).

 

Maybe we will see M + OVF + EVF some fine day, similar to the Fujifilm X100's hybrid viewfinder. Leica Camera analyzed this configuration for the M10 and found it technically infeasible. But maybe it will become feasible in the future. Until then, it's M + OVF + accessory EVF.

[Einst_Stein]

I believe an M form factor L + EVF will make M + OVF retire. It should be cheaper to build and make more sense for manufacturing.

[Bokeh]

Accountants will decide as is always the case. feasibility is the easy part profitability is much more complex. Porsche brought out the Boxster and it saved the company the 911 is the icon but the Boxster is the profit.

[IkarusJohn]

You all do realize none of this is going to happen, right? The CL is Leica’s response to those who wanted a smaller SL. They are clearly betting on APSC as the solution for a compact, interchangeable lens (system) camera. That’s actually a pretty reasonable response when you think about it. We have reached the point that you can get high resolution, good high ISO performance results out of the format, and you don’t even need ultra-thin filter stacks since adapted ‘M’ lenses won’t be using the corners. Thus, mainstream chip manufacturers are open to you without high R&D costs.

The CL simply IS Leica’s answer to a smaller SL-like body that can take M lenses.

To those that say they have never gotten the issue of one camera’s sales canibalizing those from another camera... He economics are actually pretty simple. If you are selling one of two different cameras to the exact same buyer as you would have captured with just a single camera, hat’s bad. Twice the R&D costs plus a more complex supply chain with no additional sales volume? Not good at all. If, on the other hand, you are talking about something like the Monochrome where you can actually sell a SECOND camera to the same buyer and recoup that (presumably minimal) additional R&D, that’s good. A more highly differentiated body such as an M with an EVF must either capture new customers or must convince existing customers to buy additional cameras. I don’t see that happening with a high enough volume to help Leica.

Ah, but the simple answer, like many simple answers, sounds good, but doesn’t stand up. If there is product differentiation, you’re not selling to just one buyer - you’re selling to your original buyer, plus the buyer who likes the camera, but not the ovf, AND you’re selling two cameras to buyer one.

 

There are so many examples of this - not only the 6 or so variants of the M camera currently on offer, but also cars, computers ... people like choice, provided the choice is coherent.

[Einst_Stein]

Of course, all these are speculation.

All opinions here are crystal balls.

 

It would be interesting to take a statistics of the topics in photography forum, such as this one. How many are for usage help, and how many are product speculation. Sure, there are marketing probe or intended preannouncement leak which are meant to trigger (it to satisfy) the speculation.

 

That is the fun part of internet forum.

[IkarusJohn]

You realise Leica does monitor this forrum, right?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

Good. M11 with hybrid viewfinder, please. Already one gets a sense that the CL may start to eat into M10 sales despite it being APS-C. If only the M10 sensor weren’t that good (high ISO performance, dynamic range, and exposure latitude)...