Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,

[eraydinc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica accidently made the best camera: CL. CL is better than SL and M10. Only disadvantage is sensor size. Leica can make ML or QL system but this is all about heritage fantasies.

 

 

500px.com/eraydinc

[jaapv]

... or Sony cameras... 

 

... but I don't want a SL camera with M adapter, but a true M camera (= M mount), specifically designed with the M system in mind, so the body size and weight should the coordinated with M lenses, not heavy superlarge SL lenses. 

 

A system is a coherent combination of bodies and lenses. The SL cameras have to be large, because of the lenses. The ML camera may be as small as possible, because M lenses are really small. 

 

The key and inimitable flavor of the M system is the size/format ratio. It is unique. The rangefinder and the brass do not allow a full exploitation of that advantage. So a new body free of the tradition of the classical M bodies could be a little revolution: a supersmall 35mm system. With manual lenses, of course. No AF. For that you have/need the SL system. But the parameters of the SL and M system are very different, because AF is related to the size of the lenses and this to the size of the body, necessarily.

 

However, Sony cameras don’t take adapting M lenses into account.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jdphoto]

I adore the gestalt of Leica M cameras. However, I shoot everything from snow sports to studio portraits and the M is a terrible choice for the former. I looked into the SL, but the size of lenses put me off. The Q was great, but limited focal lengths negated that model too. The CL most certainly fills a niche being able to use both M lenses and native TL mounts. I have printed rich, detailed 20 inch prints with the CL that would be hard to discern from the M10 or SL. The popularity of the CL has to be something Leica needs to consider to appease the mental phenomena regarding the subject matter of cropped frame vs full frame sensors. For those who have a different camera for each specific mission need not apply, but those who need one camera for multiple missions a weather resistant, FF Leica with AF ML lenses and the ability to adapt to all current ones would seem a logical choice for a camera company whose sales seem to favor AF technology. 

[djs]

... or Sony cameras... 

 

... but I don't want a SL camera with M adapter, but a true M camera (= M mount), specifically designed with the M system in mind, so the body size and weight should the coordinated with M lenses, not heavy superlarge SL lenses. 

 

A system is a coherent combination of bodies and lenses. The SL cameras have to be large, because of the lenses. The ML camera may be as small as possible, because M lenses are really small. 

 

The key and inimitable flavor of the M system is the size/format ratio. It is unique. The rangefinder and the brass do not allow a full exploitation of that advantage. So a new body free of the tradition of the classical M bodies could be a little revolution: a supersmall 35mm system. With manual lenses, of course. No AF. For that you have/need the SL system. But the parameters of the SL and M system are very different, because AF is related to the size of the lenses and this to the size of the body, necessarily. 

 

I could not improve on this post.

 

Exactly my thoughts - a manual focus M mount, EVF equipped body. So that we can use the lovely small M lenses on a small body - without adapters. And crucially, the body would be equipped with an M sensor (FF), optimised for M lenses - no compromise!

[jaapv]

It would probably mean the commercial demise of the M series... If that is compromise you would want to make. Long term it would mean the end of manual focus Leica lenses.

[Einst_Stein]

leica really should give it a try. Keep M10, and adds a FF L mount CL like camera.ML0?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It would only appeal to a certain percentage of M users. To the rest of the world it would be an overpriced mirrorless that is crippled by the lack of AF and related features.
Thus it would only eat into M sales, perhaps fatally, and sell too few to survive itself.

The M system is struggling with its position as it is. The SL primes are already better than their M counterparts as they are not restricted by size, the CL is beating it by compactness and versatility as a carry-everywhere camera.
The more these systems grow, the more the M niche shrinks. An ML would be the final nail.
To survive it would need dedicated AF M lenses for which the mount is on the small side. These lenses would be unsuitable for the traditional M.
Should Leica go down this hole? I fail to see long term success.
But who knows? They have pulled rabbits from hats before

[lct]

Another way or seing the same things FWIW:

The M system has no reason to shrink if an "ML" camera i.e. FF mirrorless with M mount is offered as a complement to the M.

This way, photogs will have the choice between rangefinders, that will decline soon or late but may stay alive the same way as film Ms, and mirrorless that will have the same or even more success than the CL if the ML proves to be as smart as the latter.

Question is not to know if but when Leica will realize that it can sell more M lenses if it offers both M and ML bodies to photographers.

S, SL and TL lenses are another story. There are S, SL, CL and TL cameras for them already.

YMMV

[rosuna]

The SL primes are already better than their M counterparts as they are not restricted by size.

 

 

I don't care because I do not want to carry a monster 50mm Summilux lens. Even TL lenses are comparatively large. Size is the key here. Superquality combined with very small size. No AF system may offer this. Not even the M system at this moment (M cameras are large and heavy), not even the Olympus OM system of the past can go as far as a ML camera plus M lenses. 

 

It may attract new users to the M system, as LCT says, or cannibalize the classic M sales, or a mixture of the two effects. I don't know. My feeling is a ML camera would expand the user base of the M system. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by rosuna

[jaapv]

Well, we may speculate, but the bottom line will be Leica's decision - and they are highly protective of their iconic Messsucher M cameras - and justly so.

[Guest VVJ]

It would only appeal to a certain percentage of M users. To the rest of the world it would be an overpriced mirrorless that is crippled by the lack of AF and related features.

Thus it would only eat into M sales, perhaps fatally, and sell too few to survive itself.

 

+1.  I would be very surprised if this ever happens.

[jaapv]

I’m intrigued by the remark about the possibilities of the L mount. An ML is small fry thinking. What about a Leicina-L and L-C adapter? Especially if it could be used on SL an CL too.

[Einst_Stein]

The thickness of a camera body for M mount lens is limited by the M flange distance. Using M adapter on L mount body does not change that.

 

In fact, if not the lens flange distance, technically the EVF has the potential to be thinner then the OVF. If not now, definitely will be soon. That is the beauty of electronics.

[jmahto]

I could not improve on this post.

 

Exactly my thoughts - a manual focus M mount, EVF equipped body. So that we can use the lovely small M lenses on a small body - without adapters. And crucially, the body would be equipped with an M sensor (FF), optimised for M lenses - no compromise!

Well, at some point EVF (add-on or not) for M RF body will be fast enough and resolve enough and all this talk of EVF only M won't make any sense except a desire to have lower priced option. And I can already hear faint laughter in Leica board room about "lower price option".

[thighslapper]

There was a lot of discussion about an M with EVF several years ago generated by rumours of a new camera and the patenting of a digital RF mechanism.

 

The new camera turned out to be the SL and the patenting of the mechanism was either a dead end or (as Jaap suggested) a spoiler to prevent competitors using something similar.

 

The M has in fact become more ‘M’ like with the ISO dial and an improved optical RF mechanism and the only concession to ‘non M’ features is a change to the marginally better Visoflex EVF. These are not the actions of a company intending radical future changes ..... in fact it is the confirmation that the M digital format is essentially fixed for the future ...... like the remaining film cameras that Leica makes.

 

You can all use legacy M and R lenses on the CL and SL exactly as on the M with an EVF that is far superior to that available for the M, so I cannot see Leica pandering to the few who want an M with an integral EVF ..... or ability to use AF lenses for that matter. Physically there is not enough room in the M and the complexity is just not worth it.

 

Leica’s main future is based around L mount AF cameras, with M digital and film for the those who want a traditional photographic experience in a compact format and are prepared to accept the trade-offs involved. Leica themselves stated that the CL was the camera Barnack would have built if he was alive today, so they clearly view this as a digital successor to the M.

 

There is also persistent bleating about the size and weight of AF lenses ...... but you cannot avoid the laws of optics and physics, or the complexities involved in correcting aberrations to a level that Leica expect from their lenses. They are never going to produce a line of average quality lenses made of plastic just to reduce the size and weight just because some folk would like them a bit smaller. If you choose Leica you are by definition buying into optical quality of the highest order with other considerations coming way down the list.

 

The CL offers a good balance of system size to image quality with a good range of fine lenses. Functionally it works well and is a pleasure to use. It’s expensive and lacks some features compared to the competition ..... but that applies to all Leica cameras and anyone buying into Leica long term has to accept that this a trade off they will have to live with.

Edited April 6, 2018 by thighslapper

[rosuna]

We are not discussing changes to the M rangefinder cameras, but about a new ML camera as a complement to the system.

[thighslapper]

We are not discussing changes to the M rangefinder cameras, but about a new ML camera as a complement to the system.

You are either looking at a variant of the M or CL and for the reasons above it is neither going to satisfy the needs of those wanting another option or be a sensible option for Leica. Like the R, the M mount is destined to be an legacy product, albeit for a significant user base who prefer the RF format. Product differentiation is only worthwhile if you increase sales or take sales away from your competition. Offering more variety just for the sake of it increases costs but does not necessarily increase profits.

 

At one stage I had 2 M240’s, M9M, Monochrome, X-Vario, T and Q with a pile of TL, M and R lenses and associated bits and pieces. All were good but had either niche uses or various niggles and deficiencies. Since the SL and CL I have liquidated the lot apart from a handful of the best R and M lenses and find the current L system does everything that the previous pile of gear did as well or better and much more efficiently. I have not the slightest intention of accumulating yet more variants because it would be handy to have a full frame CL or something I can use M lenses on without an adaptor. If you offer me something with more pixels, DR, IBIS or faster AF I will spend some money ...... but I suspect that will be in upgrades of the CL and SL, and not a new camera.

Edited April 6, 2018 by thighslapper

[lct]

I fail to see why a legacy product could not be used in its full capacity on mirrorless cameras. Quite the opposite to me. Mirrorless cameras are the ideal "digital backs" for M lenses IMHO.

[grahamhoey]

I fail to see why a legacy product could not be used in its full capacity on mirrorless cameras. Quite the opposite to me. Mirrorless cameras are the ideal "digital backs" for M lenses IMHO.

 

Agree completely, best of both worlds

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

I fail to see why a legacy product could not be used in its full capacity on mirrorless cameras. Quite the opposite to me. Mirrorless cameras are the ideal "digital backs" for M lenses IMHO.

Yes, they are to the select group that owns/wants to afford M lenses.

You confirm my opinion: it will certainly appeal to a percentage of M owners/affectionadoes, thus eat into M sales, and fall flat on it's face in the rest of the market for lack of AF, features, and high price. Result: less M sales and a camera that won't amortize the R&D.

The advent of the CL, which does wonderfully well with M lenses, only worsens this prospect.

Leica will decide whether it is feasible or wise, but I think their business sense will prevail in this case, attractive as the idea may be for the occupants of the Leica M niche.