Lightweight M10

[cmod]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd love a lightweight M10. An M10 made from some lighter material.

I know magnesium is used in constriction — a metal lighter than titanium or aluminum — but it seems as if it's the brass that compounds the weight?

I spent two weeks hiking with my M10 + 35mm Summilux and definitely felt it at the end of each day. I just finished an even more arduous mountain climb but brought only my Leica Q and the difference in shoulder / neck fatigue was astounding. Would love to have an M10 combo that weighed as little or less than the Q. 

The Q, all in is 640g. The M10 seems to be 660g body only. 

Probably a contentious idea (removing brass from the Ms) but … just wondering if anyone else has felt the need for such a machine? 

[FrozenInTime]

A slower lens makes a surprising difference to the weight and balance.

These days, the APS-C Leica CL fits lightweight needs better than a M.

[Advertisement]

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

[sleepyhead]

I would welcome a smaller, lighter digital RANGEFINDER-focusing camera. Something like a digital Minolta CLE, or Leitz/Minolta CL.

It would be the perfect complement to my Leica SL.

[frame-it]

5 minutes ago, sleepyhead said:

I would welcome a smaller, lighter digital RANGEFINDER-focusing camera. Something like a digital Minolta CLE, or Leitz/Minolta CL.

It would be the perfect complement to my Leica SL.

like the pixii ?

[M9reno]

Good idea.  It might help bring down cost, as a bonus...

[Steve Ash]

the problem might be the strap. You do not feel the weight if you use the holster

Edited October 29, 2018 by Steve Ash

[Simon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica may do a “low cost” M10 with aluminium top plate à la M Typ 262.  Which lens(es) are you using on your hikes?

I agree with Steve’s recommendation above.  Can you reduce weight in other ways?

[jdlaing]

2 hours ago, M9reno said:

Good idea.  It might help bring down cost, as a bonus...

Hahahahaha. No.

[sleepyhead]

5 hours ago, frame-it said:

like the pixii ?

Hi, I don’t know much about the pixii (does it exist yet?), but for me a “digital CLE” would need/want to be full frame. Something a little smaller than a Leica M 240, and a few hundred grams lighter.

[M11 for me]

When hiking I use very light and high tech hiking shoes that wheigh less than 650g each. That makes much more of a difference than 500g on the camera. Try it out 😇

[M11 for me]

Considering the M I think that camera and lens have to be well balanced. Around 300g would be fine. Like that the M is very easy to be carried everywhere. 

[a.noctilux]

With heavy M, I use lighter lens : those LTM lenses are blessing for that Elmar, Summaron about 120 - 150g .

With lighter M262or MDa (film), I have more freedom to chose my lenses, but the handling/balance can be less comfortable.

When I want really light gear Sony @ is my answer.

[M11 for me]

Please no S . . .

[ramarren]

The CL body is 200g lighter than the M-D 262 body. When I want light and compact, instead of the M-D with 50mm lens, I fit the Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 on the CL and stick the Elmar-C 90mm f/4 in the bag. Small and light, image quality nearly identical to the M-D. 

[a.noctilux]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

I don't ask for lighter M (they are light enough used with light lenses I own).

With time, I don't use much large/heavy lenses even if I do appreciate them sometimes.

I use them along with M10 when I want to travel (very) light but with traditional focal lengths "35/50/90"

with benefit of round aperture opening for all three, if I fancy back/spots lighting 👍

and with good ISO of M10/Monochrom which I prefer higher ISO (with some 😎 "grain" anyway for my taste)

[adan]

One could ensure that it doesn't have a fake film-advance lever - probably save 10 grams right there (oh....wait!)

More seriously, the Q gets part of its light weight from having no interchangeable lens mount (requires two fairly hefty machined bits of metal - lens + body - to hold a lens on securely) and by having a "flawed" lens (requires strong digital corrections for distortion compared to M lenses - not a critique of the imaging otherwise). I wouldn't want to give up lens interchangability, or have to use "lightweight, compact" lenses that require digital processing to work right (suppose I want to use them on film?)

Magnesium? Light and strong (in some ways). It's not very ductile - drop a magnesium camera and it will usually crack, not dent.

Which brings up another point: magnesium is usually cast, because it is inflammable and machining it risks fires from the chips and dust. You know those highway emergency flares? - they burn magnesium. As do old-school flash-bulbs and flash-pans (the ones photographers used around 1880 - *poof!*). The M brass parts are CNC-machined by Ewe Weller FeinwerkTechnik (right next door in Leica-Park), not cast (although they could be, in theory).

I don't like flash with Leica Ms - especially if it is accidental. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_(photography)

As structure on the inside - maybe OK. As the metal on the outside, exposed to who knows what.....?

Most of the M6s and M4-2/Ps used zinc for the top and bottom plates, and I was fine with those. About 85% the weight of brass, per volume. But occasionally caused "bubbling" of the chrome plating, and did not accept paint well (thus special-edition black-paint cameras needed brass anyway, from ~1977-2003).

The thing with the M10 is that it is dense - about the same contents as an M240 (less some battery weight and capacity and volume) crammed into a body with - I dunno - about 10% less volume overall?

Anyway - I wouldn't mind a little less weight in an M body - just so long as we know the trade-offs in getting there.

Edited October 31, 2018 by adan

[250swb]

Until Leica can incorporate some form of image stabilisation to the M series I think a lightweight M is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. It's simple, a heavier camera is easier to hold steady, the inertia stops it waving around in the breeze. A 135mm lens on a Nikon F is easier to hold steady than a 135mm lens on a Leica. Same for using slow speeds, heavier is better (obviously up to a point).

[evikne]

When I use my 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH v.4, my M10 becomes so light that I sometimes have to check if I have remembered to put on a lens. 😁

Edited October 31, 2018 by evikne

[Stuart Richardson]

I agree that the lenses are probably the most sensible way forward here. The 35mm Summarit or Summicron are very light and sharp, in other lengths there is the 28mm elmarit, 50mm elmar and 90mm macro elmar. The 35mm summilux is a fairly dense and heavy lens, if you are primarily shooting in daylight, you might not lose much by switching to one of the more compact lenses...at least for your mountain climbing, where I imagine the f1.4 aperture is not extremely helpful.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[microview]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

Until Leica can incorporate some form of image stabilisation to the M series I think a lightweight M is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. It's simple, a heavier camera is easier to hold steady, the inertia stops it waving around in the breeze. A 135mm lens on a Nikon F is easier to hold steady than a 135mm lens on a Leica. Same for using slow speeds, heavier is better (obviously up to a point).

Relustantly I have to agree, having seen slight blur with Q/TL2 at slow speeds, which the M cameras would allow.