Really “Is it the end of M road”?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

However, there is little to discuss about the future of the M. It will continue to evolve, nothing more, nothing less.

 

All things end. In our youth it was unimaginable that gas stations might diminish, that local Ma & Pa general stores would evaporate, that an invisible asset would pervade under the name of credit. The M will go the same way; for most living then it will be unnoticed.

Edited August 4, 2018 by pico

[mdemeyer]

The problem with the concept (and reality) of the TechArt adapter, which shifts the position of the lens mount to focus, is that it defeats the workings of lenses with floating elements. Hence, not a generally viable approach.

 

 

Yesterday I saw two prints from M (Typ 240) files in 1 × 1.5 m (40 × 60 inch). I stepped up as close as my eyes would focus–the level of detail leaves nothing to be desired. So 24 MP works just fine even for huge prints. The only reason to want more is because others have more. I wouldn't mind having 36 or 48 MP in the next M model ... but that's nothing we utterly need.

 

Regarding that silly 'end of the road' notion ... I expect the next M model to incorporate auto-focus. Seriously. And it will work with any existing M lens as well as adapted screw-mount lenses. Just look at what a Sony Alpha 7 (any model) can do today with an M lens on this M-to-E adapter, and you'll see a glimpse of where the M road is going to go.

[pico]

The problem with the concept (and reality) of the TechArt adapter, which shifts the position of the lens mount to focus, is that it defeats the workings of lenses with floating elements. Hence, not a generally viable approach.

 

That point has been many times in this thread, but I suppose yet one more post of the same reaches others like you who do no read through. Who knows?

[jaapv]

All things end. In our youth it was unimaginable that gas stations might diminish, that local Ma & Pa general stores would evaporate, that an invisible asset would pervade under the name of credit. The M will go the same way; for most living then it will be unnoticed.

Umbrellas? Bicycles? Shoes?

[jdlaing]

On what planet did gas stations diminish? My old town had two and there are a dozen now.

[adan]

Let me bring in a different idea or concept: Looking back in Leicas history I am fascinated by the early idea of upgrading an existing model to a newer version. I like to have a body, let‘s take the M10 ( my Favorit is the M9 because I own one) and if a new sensor or/and a new processor is available you can send in your M10 body and it will be upgraded. Same procedure as with a new rangefinder. Environment friendly, customer friendly because of costs and a model which fits to a „Manufactur“! Naturally you can buy still a new M11, M12 or Mxy! Hope my bad English is not distroying the idea!

 

Your Engish is no problem. But one Leica CEO (Steven Lee) was fired (in part) for promising such an idea (continuing upgrade path). Doesn't make economic sense, for either Leica or the users.

 

The problem is that a digital camera is a whole suite of a dozen or more electronic devices (A/D converter, power supply, display LCD, display driver, card reader, data buffer, shutter, shutter motor, etc.) that have to work together (clock speeds, I/O connections, voltages. etc.) Not as simple as just changing the sensor and/or processor alone. Ultimately, you have to change virtually everything inside the camera except (maybe) the RF - and that would be more expensive than just getting the new upgraded camera in the first place.

 

You really want your M9 upgraded to M10 specs for $20000, when you can get an all-new M10 for $7000?

 

The old film Leicas (especially screw-mount) were designed from the beginning in such a way that a few mechanical features - self-timer, slow shutter speed dial, flash sync - could be added or left out rather easily with a screwdriver (more or less). The film MD has "empty space" already available to simply stick in a rangefinder - the M9 doesn't have space set aside for an ISO knob.

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While I wish the M10 had more resolution and better dynamic range, it is not a very low resolution camera like some have stated, nor would I take opinions from a gear reviewer who has never actually made an interesting photograph with any of the tools they charge people to read about. It is a decent sensor when compared to everything else out there now.

I mean, if you're looking for the utmost in technical precision/high resolution rendering (with little regard to anything else) you're missing a screw to review an M camera on those term and think the actual user base of that tool would care or put any stock in that opinion. 

[glenerrolrd]

However, there is little to discuss about the future of the M. It will continue to evolve, nothing more, nothing less.

 

DL point of view is that the M has reached its end of life .  He outlines an argument that then M (and RF photography ) has been  surpassed by mirrorless alternatives.  My POV is that for many applications ..landscape for example he is correct ..but that RF photography will still have a place in journalism ,street and travel .  And some photographers will simply prefer the M .  

 

If it doesn t continue to evolve ..e.g . provide improved capabilities ....then would enough owners of existing M buy new models ? 

[IkarusJohn]

Cobblers.

 

As Jaap observes, the M cameras have "evolved" for the last 60 years.  The development of the L mount and other mirrorless cameras is irrelevant - they're AF and EVF.  The M is a rangefinder with wonderful manual focus lenses - why would the development of a different camera system spell the end of a completely different niche camera system which has endured for many years, and actually saved the company?

 

Sorry, the argument really makes no sense to me at all.  If true, the SL/TL2/CL systems would kill the M cameras all on its own ...

 

As for landscape, can't agree either.  What is wrong with an M camera for landscape?  A quick browse of any of the photo threads here would suggest that many here are happily taking very good landscape images with their Ms.  Should we tell them not to?

 

I admit I have not read DL's posts, and have no intention to.  I'm quite happy doing what apparently I'm not supposed to do - buying, using and taking landscapes with my M cameras - I can fit filters, I prefer primes for landscape, I can use a tripod ... gee, what is it I'm not supposed to be able to do?  Use my SL?  Sure, but that's not compulsory and for things like landscape, I prefer primes over zooms.

 

Each to their own, I guess.

Edited August 5, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[mdemeyer]

Yeah... was reading front to back and replied to the first one. My bad.

 

That point has been many times in this thread, but I suppose yet one more post of the same reaches others like you who do no read through. Who knows?

[dantemi]

Gee another post about ..”its not the equipment ..its how you use it “  .  

 

So useful on a thread about the future of the M camera ?  

 

Lloyd threw out a preposterous point of view to provoke debate and sure to catch some clicks for his website .   This should not detract from the excellent testing he performs and the effective display of the results .  Obviously if you have all the gear you desire and are happy ..the its  of no use .  

 

Thus thread could be a lot better if members contributed to the debate ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE M .  But I know thats too much to expect .

 

According to some principles of logic, arguing a contrario about the “end of M system” leads (or may lead) to arguing about the future of M system!

[StS]

Concerning age, I'm with Mark Twain, "Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." Varifocals help, though.

 

The point has already been made that rangefinders were out of age in the 1960s, when long focal lenses offered new points of view. However, these days a picture does not go very far just for having an unusual perspective.

 

So, if you want a rangefinder, the M10 is arguably currently the highest evolution point, if you can live without video in a rangefinder.

 

If you want an electronic viewfinder, the SL/CL are (arguably again) the most consequent way of implementing this concept, both cameras were the first time, when I found electronic viewfinders to be good enough to live without an optical one. This is coming from someone who is using rangefinders as main cameras for more than a decade. I've bought the Visoflex for the M10 but find it somewhat a compromise, partly because of it's position, partly, because I open the aperture manually before focusing, like on a 1960s SLR before shutter and aperture were coupled.

 

Stefan

[Gelatino]

To-day new perspective is aerial view; I am waiting for Leica to propose me a M that can fly.

[Ouroboros]

Gee another post about ..”its not the equipment ..its how you use it “  .  

 

So useful on a thread about the future of the M camera ?  

 

Lloyd threw out a preposterous point of view to provoke debate and sure to catch some clicks for his website .   This should not detract from the excellent testing he performs and the effective display of the results .  Obviously if you have all the gear you desire and are happy ..the its  of no use .  

 

Thus thread could be a lot better if members contributed to the debate ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE M .  But I know thats too much to expect .

 

You persist in labouring points that few contributors to this thread are interested in. Maybe it’s a symptom of subscribing to nonsense blogs, but it’s your choice.

 

As for the future of the M series in it’s current form, well, you could have had a similar debate about the Hasselblad V series a few years ago. Did it really matter to photography that Hasselblad chose to cease production?

 

No, of course it didn’t.

[otto.f]

You persist in labouring points that few contributors to this thread are interested in. Maybe it’s a symptom of subscribing to nonsense blogs, but it’s your choice.

As for the future of the M series in it’s current form, well, you could have had a similar debate about the Hasselblad V series a few years ago. Did it really matter to photography that Hasselblad chose to cease production?

No, of course it didn’t.

 

Equipment is important and fun, but indeed there comes a moment when it’s not anymore about the brush but about the painting. The end of the M was already reached at the M3 or M4, what you like. The M4 and the M10 are both perfect until today and most of it what’s in between too.

[jaapv]

No, it didn't. But it did matter to Hasselblad, as it shifted their customer base. For Hasselblad that was a necessary move, as their audience was dwindling in the direction of zero.

The shift was preceded by some desperate attempts, like the Lunar, but with the X1D they seem to have pulled it off. However, their original customers have nowhere to go now.

 

Leica has already gone through this phase with the M8 and diversifying with the  X, SL and CL. The interesting thing is, that they managed to hang onto their original customer base by evolving the M series. This puts them in a much stronger position as they still have their signature product and archetypal camera concept to bolster their brand identity.

[Tragg]

All things end. In our youth it was unimaginable that gas stations might diminish, that local Ma & Pa general stores would evaporate, that an invisible asset would pervade under the name of credit. The M will go the same way; for most living then it will be unnoticed.

 

You may soon be able to add public telephone boxes, landlines, manual gear shifts and a host of other technologies that we grew up with to that list but certain designs have proven remarkably resilient, the Fender Telecaster being a prime example. Indeed, in the world of musical instruments the designs that dominate the market have remained more or less unchanged for decades and in the case of the violin, for centuries. 

[R6M6]

Your Engish is no problem. But one Leica CEO (Steven Lee) was fired (in part) for promising such an idea (continuing upgrade path). Doesn't make economic sense, for either Leica or the users.

 

The problem is that a digital camera is a whole suite of a dozen or more electronic devices (A/D converter, power supply, display LCD, display driver, card reader, data buffer, shutter, shutter motor, etc.) that have to work together (clock speeds, I/O connections, voltages. etc.) Not as simple as just changing the sensor and/or processor alone. Ultimately, you have to change virtually everything inside the camera except (maybe) the RF - and that would be more expensive than just getting the new upgraded camera in the first place.

 

You really want your M9 upgraded to M10 specs for $20000, when you can get an all-new M10 for $7000?

 

The old film Leicas (especially screw-mount) were designed from the beginning in such a way that a few mechanical features - self-timer, slow shutter speed dial, flash sync - could be added or left out rather easily with a screwdriver (more or less). The film MD has "empty space" already available to simply stick in a rangefinder - the M9 doesn't have space set aside for an ISO knob.

 

 

 

Very good Arguments! Nevertheless I beliebe that we live in time of fast develompment of electronics and a mature one for mechanics. Therefore it is of interest to develop products which allow to adopt to new technical features w/o declaring a major part as waste. I understand that you need to analyse cost breackdown, skills, production process etc. Working more then 30 years in an industry where investments has a life-time of more then 40 years we were always confronted with an exchange of technology in situ. And we did. it successfully. But as you wrote I am also not sure if it works for the M! And unfortunatly the ISO knob is the first hurdle to be taken,

[jaapv]

Not just the ISO knob. The whole interior of an M body is shaped to accommodate the specific components contained therein. So you would need to change both bodyshell castings and everything connected to them. In the end you would only be keeping the hot shoe and shutter button

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

Not just the ISO knob. The whole interior of an M body is shaped to accommodate the specific components contained therein. So you would need to change both bodyshell castings and everything connected to them. In the end you would only be keeping the hot shoe and shutter button

 

 

I'm not sure that's right, Jaap.

 

The electronics are made to specification.  Leica makes the case, top and bottom plates, rangefinder and shutter.  In future models, it is not as impossible as many argue to standardise this specification, rather than changing it for every new model.  It is not so hard to require the electronic suppliers to work to the standardised Leica body specification.  it would require forethought and heat and battery management would be a challenge, but not as hard as some suggest.

 

The issue, as Andy points out, would be one of CS managing sensor and electronic upgrades and one of volume.  $20,000.00 for an upgrade might be somewhat pessimistic, but it would be more than the unit cost of the sensor, processor and related electronics.  I seem to recall that those components cost somewhere around $2,000.00 (not sure if this was guesswork).  Fitting the new upgrade should not be too much more than $1,000.00 per camera, provided the volumes are right.

 

I love the idea that we can match the longevity of the Leica hardware with the externally sourced electronics. I don't think it will happen (not because of Mr Lee) - more because of volumes and because standardising the body specification would remove some of the excitement many owners feel about a new M camera.

 

Cheers

John