Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do you think my ML prototype? [emoji4]

 

 

 

Tapatalk kullanarak iPad aracılığıyla gönderildi

I like the return to four-button SL type of back, but is that the joystick in the upper right?  It seems small and its position may be too high.  And how about ditching the ISO dial in favor of a serious but large even-better-than-the-SL viewfinder, placed extreme left as in the CL?

Edited April 23, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[Ozytripper]

This topic reminds me of the Porsche 911 (type 996) fiasco and debate

In 1998 when Porsche introduced the 996 to replace the 993 it introduced three major changes, water cooled engine instead of air cooled, Made the car more driveable and user friendly and a new look.

As usual the PURISTs (read as HINDRANCE to PROGRESS ) were up in arms. Their arguments?

-A water cooled engine is not a Porsche 911 (just like an EVF M is not an M)

-A Porsche 911 that is save and easy to drive is not a Porsche 911. (Loss of driver control and lack of feel) Basically means I can drive this car without killing myself and you can't. I am a better driver) in M speak I can focus a rangefinder and you can't - you need EVF - go buy something else)

-Its ugly (Fried Egg headlights - Yuck) (an M with EVF will be bigger etc etc)

 

Guess what? The Porsche 996 became their BIGGEST SELLER of all time 175,000 units sold (and saved the company from its financial woes). So who cares about the PURISTS who refused to buy. Did not hurt Porsche at all

 

Porsche had the guts to say "stuff the purist" we need new customers and more customers. If they had just surveyed ONLY existing users then the water cooled Porsche 911 would have never seen the light of day.

 

Unfortunately Leica keeps listening to the  M diehards and is too scared to produce an EVF M as an alternative (not to replace the OVF. (Less drastic than no Air Cooled engines for the Porsche Purist).

 

The argument that there is no market or a very small market for the EVF M is a totally flawed argument. Do a quick sampling exercise on this Forum. There have been many threads on this topic (EVF M) and take a count of all those in favor - lots and lots of new names over all the similar threads. Those against? Always the same few names (with thousands and thousands of posts - ageing members who is a diminishing crowd. Old age and bad eyesight is catching up.). In fact one member alone has dominated by about approximately 20% of this thread opposing the EVF M but he himself is now using a CL as a daily camera - interesting.

 

Leica needs to attract a new customer segment to survive long term. Don't hinder progress. Let others have a choice.   

Not everyone like the SL or the CL for their own reasons and prefer a Leica M with EVF. So please let others have a say and stop using the PATRONIZING statement Go buy an SL (or CL).

[thighslapper]

Mr Tripper .....

 

Most of us here are not remotely against progress, and I'm afraid the only similarity between Porsche and Leica is that they are both German. 

 

The M is an iconic camera and form factor ...... and every change Leica has made to it has tried to keep the look and functionality as close to the original as possible. 

 

There are three basic issues for Leica:

 

1. Is it technically possible to add an EVF of the quality required to the M body without losing the look, size and spirit of the original camera ?

 

2. Would the R&D, re-tooling and production costs be worth it in view of the potential sales ?

 

3. Would the new camera increase sales ..... or just take sales away from the M, CL and SL ?

 

I am sure Leica have looked at this and the fact that have put most of their efforts into improving the RF mechanism on the M suggests to me that an EVF will always remain a clip-on option. 

 

I would also point out that the Q, SL and CL were surprises...... and very few, if any, existing Leica users had voiced wishes for cameras similar to what finally appeared. An EVF M may seem a logical and desirable development but from past history Leica is probably working on something that few of us have thought about or think we want ..... 

[jaapv]

On a side note: Leica does use the services of Porsche design...

 

If we need to compare the Leica M to a car, I think that Morgan is a better example

[dfdann]

I own a 1987 Porsche 911 ,one of best air cooled and a Boxster,one of first water cooled Porsche’s. Both fantastic cars. I own

A M8 and a M7. Both fantastic cameras. However, at this time in life the CL meets my needs far better than a M10. Different

Strokes for Different Folks.

Cheers, Dan

[Einst_Stein]

Mr Tripper .....

 

Most of us here are not remotely against progress, and I'm afraid the only similarity between Porsche and Leica is that they are both German. 

 

The M is an iconic camera and form factor ...... and every change Leica has made to it has tried to keep the look and functionality as close to the original as possible. 

 

There are three basic issues for Leica:

 

1. Is it technically possible to add an EVF of the quality required to the M body without losing the look, size and spirit of the original camera ?

 

2. Would the R&D, re-tooling and production costs be worth it in view of the potential sales ?

 

3. Would the new camera increase sales ..... or just take sales away from the M, CL and SL ?

 

I am sure Leica have looked at this and the fact that have put most of their efforts into improving the RF mechanism on the M suggests to me that an EVF will always remain a clip-on option. 

 

I would also point out that the Q, SL and CL were surprises...... and very few, if any, existing Leica users had voiced wishes for cameras similar to what finally appeared. An EVF M may seem a logical and desirable development but from past history Leica is probably working on something that few of us have thought about or think we want ..... 

 

I agree most us here are not against progress, but those against EVF M clearly are.

 

-- Adding EVF will loss the look, size and spirit of original M? absolutely nonsense. What exactly is your "spirit of original M"? yeah, I can imaging it must use film!

-- Would it cost more to replace OVF with EVF? are you joking? Oh, my! 

--Would it really increase sales? You really think adding one more choice will not? For those "give me OVF or give me death" M-fans, do not worry, ML is not to replace OVF M, it is to complement. Of course, if eventually the market do mean ML should replace OVF M,  that's another story.

 

Oh, I get it. Maybe those against ML are worrying ML will be too good to keep the OVF M! 

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The prevailing view on progress is typically through a rear view mirror. Without cues and clues as to what the future might look like it's hard for people to react positively; so they cling to the past, even if they're open-minded. I think the analogy between Leica and Porsche is basically correct - in both cases form follows function - but both have incorporated technological change when it benefited the enjoyment of the user.

 

One of the challenges to user enjoyment is the increase in digital controls, rather than physical ones. The M10 and Q still have predominantly physical controls i.e. you can adjust settings without the camera being on. The CL is not like this and as a consequence loses that "tactility" that in my opinion enhances user enjoyment and makes a Leica a Leica. The challenge is balancing the role of the technology so that it makes for great enjoyment - either through greater involvement or through greater ease of use - rather than diminishes it. Compare this to the best PDK-style gearboxes where you can have enjoyment through both tactile gear changes via paddles or enjoyment through ease of use by putting it straight into D.

 

I wouldn't want to be Leica balancing progress with tradition, but I'm sure the at times frustratingly slow progress is to our benefit in the end.

[jaapv]

I agree most us here are not against progress, but those against EVF M clearly are.

 

-- Adding EVF will loss the look, size and spirit of original M? absolutely nonsense. What exactly is your "spirit of original M"? yeah, I can imaging it must use film!

-- Would it cost more to replace OVF with EVF? are you joking? Oh, my! 

--Would it really increase sales? You really think adding one more choice will not? For those "give me OVF or give me death" M-fans, do not worry, ML is not to replace OVF M, it is to complement. Of course, if eventually the market do mean ML should replace OVF M,  that's another story.

 

Oh, I get it. Maybe those against ML are worrying ML will be too good to keep the OVF M! 

I didn't see anybody on this thread arguing against an M-EVF camera as an addition to the system - just pointing out the concerns Leica might have about it cannibalizing the RF-type M - and some technical problems. We know that Leica has looked into a hybrid-viewfinder M and judged it lacking compared to the OVF-RF.

[oldwino]

Leica have already indicated that the L mount is their way forward, so I fully expect a SL inside of an M-shaped body at some point. Maybe that will be the Q2, maybe not. We shall soon see...

[jaapv]

I doubt whether such a body would be named Q2.

[thighslapper]

Leica have already indicated that the L mount is their way forward, so I fully expect a SL inside of an M-shaped body at some point. Maybe that will be the Q2, maybe not. We shall soon see...

 

...... to where, what and when are the obvious questions......

 

... and by this statement M Mount clearly isn't the way forward ......

 

Leica created the M8, M9, M240 and M10 as digital sensor version of the film M7 .... and photographers buy a digital M because they want a compact Rangefinder camera in the Leica M tradition.  An M without a rangefinder is not an M and never will be. 

 

Anyone wishing for an M mount camera with an EVF is whistling in the wind ..... there is no mileage in it. You may get a compact full frame interchangeable lens camera like the Q, but it won't be M mount and you will be using an adapter.....

 

...... and for that matter what is the issue with a small adapter on the front of a camera that completely emulates the M-Mount and its (lack of) functions anyway ? It gives you far more options and flexibility.

 

You can all wish for an M mount EVF camera but logic, history, Leica philosophy, economics and common sense are all against it. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by thighslapper

[oldwino]

I doubt whether such a body would be named Q2.

 

Me, too. But that's what a lot of people seem to wish for...a Q with interchangeable lenses.

[tgdinamo]

Me, too. But that's what a lot of people seem to wish for...a Q with interchangeable lenses.

 

X1D seems to be that type of camera already - and X2D will probably address most of the reported shortcomings of the first model (most seemed easily fixable by faster processor and/or SD card, which is a given in the new model).

[Guest VVJ]

The Leica M8 and M8.2 eventually morphed into the FF Leica M9.  Perhaps the CL will do the same?  Who knows?

 

The Leica SL will IMO never be commercially successful if Leica does not release any lighter lenses...

'

And when that happens a smaller L-mount body is IMO just a matter of time... 

[meerec]

X1D seems to be that type of camera already - and X2D will probably address most of the reported shortcomings of the first model (most seemed easily fixable by faster processor and/or SD card, which is a given in the new model).

Ugh? SD card? Can you pleas elaborate on this?

[helged]

 

The Leica SL will IMO never be commercially successful if Leica does not release any lighter lenses...

'

And when that happens a smaller L-mount body is IMO just a matter of time... 

 

 

But isn't this the CL-system?

[jaapv]

Yes; some people tend to regard the CL as Leica's answer to the desire for a small Leica M, and, as it has an EVF, as an example for a larger EVF M-type camera. Convoluted, I know, but such is the human mind... .

[jaapv]

X1D seems to be that type of camera already - and X2D will probably address most of the reported shortcomings of the first model (most seemed easily fixable by faster processor and/or SD card, which is a given in the new model).

I really struggle to see any comparison between an APSC EVIL camera, a fixed-lens  compact, a traditional rangefinder camera and a mid-format camera, The only thing they have in common is that one can take a digital photograph with any of them, sorry.

[meerec]

But isn't this the CL-system?

No it’s not. CL is a good step. The next camera, like CL, but full frame.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

Which would make it a small SL in a traditional Barnack shape...