Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

 

 

No, it is not. Because the CL is APS-C. it can take M lenses, but with crop factor. If I paid for a 21mm, I want the field of view of a 21mm lens. 

[Advertisement]

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

[rosuna]

This is why SL lenses need a large body, and M lenses a small body, and why a SL solution will not work as M solution:

 

 

[jonoslack]

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)...

 

Sigh

this one goes around and around - The hybrid viewfinder on the X-Pro2 is a miracle of technology but it isn't a rangefinder and it's rather small.

Leica apparently looked into it and found that it was unfeasible (especially because M lenses can send no aperture information back to the camera)

 

But the real point is that it isn't a rangefinder and it definitely compromises an EVF.

[jonoslack]

This is why SL lenses need a large body, and M lenses a small body, and why a SL solution will not work as M solution:

 

 

 

 

 

Good images, but surely the 'why' is because of the AF, not because of the difference between M and SL mount.

 

1. You could easily make an "M" with an EVF and an SL mount, and you could pop on all those nice tiny lenses . . with the option to put on the behemoths.

2. You could easily make an "M" with an EVF and an M mount, and you could pop on all those nice tiny lenses . . without the option to put on the behemoths.

 

I understand that there are lots of people who would prefer 2 . . . . but a limitation with no benefits (there would be none) is not a fantastic proposition.

[LocalHero1953]

So there's scope for Leica to develop a series of M lenses in a new L mount: either a simple dumb mount, or one that passes on the true aperture. Low R&D costs because they are simply M lenses with an M-L adapter. Strictly they're not needed (just buy the adapter), but it would give such a hypothetical camera (M-sized, EVF, L-mount)  a head start in lenses.

[FrozenInTime]

Let the market decide if the comprises are acceptable.

 

I would never give up the OVF/RF M cameras, but a second body with EVF that feels the same will get my money.

 

An interesting halfway house would be compact APS-C TL optimized manual focus lenses e.g. 18 and 35 f/2.

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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)...

Why do you think that?

[IkarusJohn]

Good images, but surely the 'why' is because of the AF, not because of the difference between M and SL mount.

 

1. You could easily make an "M" with an EVF and an SL mount, and you could pop on all those nice tiny lenses . . with the option to put on the behemoths.

2. You could easily make an "M" with an EVF and an M mount, and you could pop on all those nice tiny lenses . . without the option to put on the behemoths.

 

I understand that there are lots of people who would prefer 2 . . . . but a limitation with no benefits (there would be none) is not a fantastic proposition.

 

 

Interesting comment, Jono; and yet, Leica is all about leaving things out and limitations, or at least the M system is.

 

I fully understand the rationale for an EVF M body, with L mount.  As you say, why limit yourself?  But then, it's just not quite the same thing, is it.  An EVF M will be full frame - that's what people want.  For APS-C, there's the CL and TL2.  If it has an L mount, then it will need to take SL and TL lenses - then it would need aperture and shutter wheels to control the lens (at a minimum).  For purely stills photography, you've moved to a menu based camera - basically, all you're doing is shrinking an SL and adding a whole lot of extra stuff to an M.  The price would be about the same as an SL, which leaves it in a very odd place.

 

Conversely, if you just stick with that lovely M10 you already own, but just add an EVF  (as another alternative) and the minimum you need for that (diopter adjustment), you don't have all that SL stuff. The camera would be priced at the same level as the SL and other M variants, and it would, in my view, further expand the M market.

 

Why limit it by keeping the M mount?  Well, because some of us just love the M and the M lenses, but want the benefit of just the EVF added.  If you want to use your lovely AF SL & TL lenses, you have three L mount cameras.  Making those lenses work with an M body creates a whole different beast which, frankly, holds no interest to me at all.  I really like my SL, and it feels right with the SL lenses on it, and the larger M lenses.

 

The interesting thing is that an EVF based M isn't actually eating into any other market segment, in the sense that if you're interested in the M because of the ovf (because, you know, M means ...), you'll buy an M10 and view the EVF based option with the same contempt and suspicion which greeted the idea of shoehorning a digital sensor into an M where the film should go.  Conversely, if you like manual lenses, you like the traditional approach of cameras with just the dials they need, but you find the ovf to be less than optimal (for whatever reason), then you will sell your A7 and adapter, and buy one of these.

 

What I find interesting about this hypothetical discussion is the logic and rationale of the opposing views.  It's interesting (to me, anyway).  Technically, I really don't think this camera is difficult at all - not in a heartbeat.  I do understand Leica's sensitivity over the M system - it saved the company.  They don't want to mess with it, and the M10 shows that sticking to the pure concept works for them.  But then, so did the Monochrom version (what on earth is the point in removing the CFA - why limit yourself?), and the M-D.  Interestingly, the M(240) tried to do more than it should have, and suffered for it.

 

IF Leica builds an EVF into an M (I think it's actually inevitable, if they want a long term future for the M system), I think they need to be very careful about retaining the purity of the concept - dials, everything manual and any addition ONLY adding to that fundamental concept of only 4 physical adjustments and any menu adjustment being as unobtrusive as possible.  As it is, I think Leica needs to look very closely at what they're doing with the L system - it's looking incoherent to me; but then, I'll be sticking with what I have in that system.

[Jeff S]

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.

Actually the Cayenne (and Macan) SUVs are the current profit drivers.

 

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/13/how-suvs-are-powering-massive-profits-for-porsche.aspx

 

I don't much like car analogies, but as long as we're at, remember all the loud and angry naysayers when Porsche entered the SUV market with a silly 911 on steroids.

 

Customers often get it wrong initially, only to put their money where their mouths weren't.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

I heard it was the 993 that saved the company, or was it the one before?

 

I'm not sure the long term bulk camera sales will be in an optical rangefinder.  It would be interesting to know why people bought the M9 - that is the camera which saved Leica.  I know for myself, it wasn't the OVF - I thought that was quaint, but EVF technology then wasn't what it is today.

[Peter H]

I heard it was the 993 that saved the company, or was it the one before?

 

I'm not sure the long term bulk camera sales will be in an optical rangefinder.  It would be interesting to know why people bought the M9 - that is the camera which saved Leica.  I know for myself, it wasn't the OVF - I thought that was quaint, but EVF technology then wasn't what it is today.

 

 

I'm sure that very many people bought the M9 because it meant they could finally use their M lenses on a camera with a full-frame digital sensor. That is why it was considered the holy grail by M fans, and had been declared by many to be impossible, for a host of reasons that seem to have been proved as wrong as most guesses in this thread will be.

[Chaemono]

Why do you think that?

Simply because availability of the M10 seems to be slowly increasing. Judging by recent posts in that threat waiting period is reduced from two to three months to about one month now.

[timde]

No... that does not work. 

 

A SL camera with M/CL handling is not possible... the reason is the lenses. SL lenses are huge, and they need a big camera....

 

 

 

Leica can just make some smaller SL lenses. Since Sony and Zeiss can do that, we can assume that Leica can too.

 

An M/L would be immensely flexible w.r.t. lens choice, and would eat into sales of the M's and SL's. But so what, it would likely also be a high margin camera, bring in new customers, and offer new and expensive compact SL Autofocus lenses.

[mmradman]

No idea what sale figures and profit and loss per model may be but in one respect SL must have been success for Leica compared to M8-M9-M240-M10-S2-S digital offerings; reduced warranty repairs - as various threads on LUF can make us believe.

 

So maybe M body & M mount with EVF could be the ticket providing no falling strap lugs or jammed ISO dials.

[jaapv]

I heard it was the 993 that saved the company, or was it the one before?

 

I'm not sure the long term bulk camera sales will be in an optical rangefinder.  It would be interesting to know why people bought the M9 - that is the camera which saved Leica.  I know for myself, it wasn't the OVF - I thought that was quaint, but EVF technology then wasn't what it is today.

Actually, the M8 saved the company - along with the capital injection by Dr Kaufmann in 2006.

[Stealth3kpl]

I'm surprised that so many M users seem to want an EVF camera. I often read comments from people about how they prefer the rangefinder and the ability to see 'around' the field of view etc., but then they want to throw that away for an EVF. 

 

That said it's not difficult to imagine that Leica could make an M mount Q style of camera if they wanted to. I guess they just don't think there's enough demand to warrant it. 

I certainly would've put myself in the optical viewfinder and manual focus camp, but then I bought a Q. Full frame 50 Q with the ability to put exciting/interesting older glass on it when desired? Heaven!

Pete

[pgk]

Fortunately, M users willing rangefinder and OVF are enough to keep the M system alive and profitable, for the moment (maybe forever).

 

Surely the point about the M OVF rangefinder camera is that its a different approach and different approaches will always have their adherents. Change that and you simply have just another camera and one with imposed limitations due to legacy lenses. Personally I've tried a T and won't go down that route again. I use a variety of cameras including M rangefinders, I wouldn't buy an M camera with an EVF as I have no interest in such a camera.

[djs]

I have five M lenses, but currently no M bodies. I have owned the M8 and the M9. I am unlikely to own another conventional M with OVF/rangefinder.

I really enjoy using the lovely small manual M lenses, but find the OVF/rangefinder frustrating. The frame lines are a clutter and in the heat of the moment I can forget which set to frame with.

We also often hear about being able to see outside the frame with the OVF. What I find frustrating is that, dependant on which lens is mounted, it is often impossible to see everything within the frame due to the lens blocking part of the viewfinder.

 

An ideal solution, for me, would be a variant of the M with an evf only. Not to replace the OVF/rangefinder M, but to supplement it.

There is an excellent range of M lenses to choose from - why overlook that. Also, the sensor in the existing M's have been optimised for M lenses, why waste that opportunity as well.

 

 

Just my viewpoint - YMMV.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jmahto]

Simply because availability of the M10 seems to be slowly increasing. Judging by recent posts in that threat waiting period is reduced from two to three months to about one month now.

It could be production volume related as well.

[IkarusJohn]

I'm sure that very many people bought the M9 because it meant they could finally use their M lenses on a camera with a full-frame digital sensor. That is why it was considered the holy grail by M fans, and had been declared by many to be impossible, for a host of reasons that seem to have been proved as wrong as most guesses in this thread will be.

 

 

What it also did was to attract people to Leica who didn't have M lenses.  It was full frame, and it felt like a camera, rather than a computer.

 

PS - I should add that no one, that I am aware of, is suggesting that Leica STOPS producing the M10 with OVF.  That's never been the suggestion.  To my mind, the following M10 variants would be very attractive:

 

(1)  M10, as is - maybe an M10-P (I prefer the cleaner looks of the P versions)

 

(2) M10 Monochrom

 

(3) M10 M-D - with WiFi and the ability to use the EVF 020.  Ideally, this camera would be great with a joystick.

 

(3) M10 EVF

 

Now, before the naysayers toss their toys out of the cot, the first three have already been done with the M(204).  The EVF version could, of course, come with video capability and tethering ...

Edited November 26, 2017 by IkarusJohn