Year 2021 (and later) predictions

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With Leica?  A LOT.

[Advertisement]

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

[Herr Barnack]

With Leica, retail price is no object.  Same as Bugatti and Patek Philippe. 

We Leica buyers are somewhat like wingsuit pilots.  Neither standing at the precipice of a canyon in a wingsuit or entering a Leica store with bank card at the ready is for the faint of heart or the sound of mind 😳:

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[mmradman]

26 minutes ago, Steven said:

I got an M10R and sold it two month later with a 3k loss because I could not get more than 20% of my shots in focus. I’m the m10p, I’m a sniper. 

Leica is well aware of disconnect between optical RF, high megapixel sensor and fast lenses. Most current Noctilux M 75mm and Summilux M 90mm were suggested to be used on SL cameras.

[astrostl]

10 hours ago, mike3996 said:

Some people have difficulty focusing with the lens stopped down and they need to cumbersomely open up the aperture, focus, stop down for taking.

I admit I don't have trouble that much, even using the low-rez VF2 on my MP240. But I 'm not as critical as many others are about their work.

Your original claim was, "Leica M-EVF is not going to happen. The reason is that no M lens supports automatic aperture opening for focusing and then closing it for taking. It's a juggle that will feel awkward enough to scare the majority of people off of the concept."

The overwhelming majority of lens adapters, adapted lenses, and users of both that I've seen are for vintage/off-system ones which necessarily lose amenities (to the extent they even existed) such as auto anything, EXIF data, etc. It may well be that an EVF M never gets produced, but this as a reason is still incomprehensible to me. All of my adaptations turn the lenses into glass bricks with manual aperture and focus with no smarts whatsoever. They work great with all kinds of EVFs, and resulting digital focus aids like magnification and peaking to make it easier than a rangefinder to nail focus at any aperture. I'm just not seeing the issue here, and it's the first time I've ever encountered a mention of it.

> This has long been a feature on DSLR cameras before IBIS.

Agreed, ultrasonic has been around for a while. Dust removal can be and are implemented with IBIS shakes too, though, and having a "floating" sensor helps facilitate both. But even if there were somehow no other tradeoffs with IBIS, it's possible that it could wreak focusing havoc with very fast rangefinder-focused lenses. So that's another one in the potential con column. I'll be looking forward to seeing how it plays out either way, and a lack of IBIS clearly wasn't a dealbreaker for me to enter or appreciate the system. I imagine many who have never done without it may feel differently, though, and they are necessarily the future of Leica's business.

[mmradman]

2 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

With Leica, retail price is no object.  Same as Bugatti and Patek Philippe. 

We Leica buyers are somewhat like wingsuit pilots.  Neither standing at the precipice of a canyon in a wingsuit or entering a Leica store with bank card at the ready is for the faint of heart or the sound of mind 😳:

 

Something like this perhaps...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQd3a6g2Tvg

[otto.f]

The M6 was produced between 1984 and 2002. No need to upgrade until the TTL, which was not before 1998 I think. In the meantime there was a crowd moving around SLR’s with autofocus, eye-directed focus, multi-point metering, etc. A sort of early AI movement motivated to enable photography that goes beyond the human abilities to make images. Nobody at that time was thinking about turning the M6 into an AI camera, whci should deliver at least TTL view. For me, the M10 is a fully developed digital M6. And it should remain that way. The only thing for me is the Bayer filter procedure to produce color photography through the ‘golden’ standard of CMOS. That can be done better, not higher ISO’s or more resolution. Leave the M10 and its variations as an ergonomic unity alone, the man-machine relation is perfect there. A different sensor technology would be a nice perspective though. Before such a new technology would arise, an M11 is of no need. 

[jplomley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, otto.f said:

Leave the M10 and its variations as an ergonomic unity alone, the man-machine relation is perfect there. A different sensor technology would be a nice perspective though. Before such a new technology would arise, an M11 is of no need. 

+1

[pgk]

My prediction is that Leica will continue to produce a fairly 'basic' M model with its rangefinder intact and if anything, with less features not more - effectively striving for the 'essence' of photography. I guess that they might go for an EVF M model if predicted sales made this a sound proposition, but they would need to weigh up the consequences of the inevitable compromises involved in doing so (I'm not going to repeat them yet again) against profitability of such a camera. Personally I think that doing this could damage their reputation as a maker of the 'highest quality' products, and offerings from other manufacturers tend to bear this out. Nikon do not (as far as I am aware) provide an autofocus adapter for their manual focus lenses for example. Should they do so? I suspect that the answer is no, so why should Leica. And Canon dropped the FD/FL lenses a long time ago and don't offer any tech adapters despite many of these lenses still being usable.  Some want to drag the M camera, kicking and screaming, into the next decade as a feature laden, all singing, all dancing product. Others, like myself, prefer to see the Leica M in its current form as a fine photographic tool with little need of upgrading and still capable of extraordinarily good results in this form.

[jaapv]

I agree, the choice is clear - keep the M in the basic-but-perfect tool niche, or bring it into the 21st century, which Leica started to do with the 240, but gave up on.

[jdlaing]

Keep the M simple.

[mike3996]

12 hours ago, astrostl said:

Your original claim was, "Leica M-EVF is not going to happen. The reason is that no M lens supports automatic aperture opening for focusing and then closing it for taking. It's a juggle that will feel awkward enough to scare the majority of people off of the concept."

The overwhelming majority of lens adapters, adapted lenses, and users of both that I've seen are for vintage/off-system ones which necessarily lose amenities (to the extent they even existed) such as auto anything, EXIF data, etc. It may well be that an EVF M never gets produced, but this as a reason is still incomprehensible to me. All of my adaptations turn the lenses into glass bricks with manual aperture and focus with no smarts whatsoever. They work great with all kinds of EVFs, and resulting digital focus aids like magnification and peaking to make it easier than a rangefinder to nail focus at any aperture. I'm just not seeing the issue here, and it's the first time I've ever encountered a mention of it.

But dressed in another words, each camera system masters one lens mount (their native) treats all other foreign, adaptable lenses as "glass bricks". This supposed M-EVF camera would treat its native M mount lenses also as glass bricks.

It's great that your lenses are all easily focusable via EVF means but there are some seriously soft ones out there that are pure hell to try to focus using TTL means but would be trivial to work with with a rangefinder.

You can keep your ND filters on, it won't change the focusing experience or accuracy. Your lenses can be as slow as they need to be, your framing and focusing experience won't suffer using a rangefinder.

TTL and magnification is a good way to go but they are not nearly the speed of operation in focusing compared to a real optical-mechanical rangefinder. About focusing accuracy we can agree to an extent but the speed of achieving satisfactory focus (and more often than not, perfect focus) will be greater with RF.

Edited December 31, 2020 by mike3996

[Rob L]

I agree with the last half dozen or so posts. I like the M10 the way it is and see no need for an M11. The M10 could go on for a very long time with just minor tweaks ( like M6 ) with various appendages to the name to distinguish the difference ( like P, D, R & M ).

Most of the desires expressed here create something that is no longer a "M" camera, but an "M mount" camera, like an M mount Q or similar. So while I'm here I'll articulate my wish: I think a larger view finder ( large as possible within the current body ) with a high quality adjustable diopter, top of the line optics, projected LED frame lines, critical info and a movable focus area square that gives off the sensor focus confirmation, would be great. This would be helpful for those with less than perfect vision, would replace the very expensive hand assembled rangefinder mechanism, while retaining the Leica M experience. A full frame Fuji X100 with no electronic viewfinder that takes M lenses. Fuji does it for $1400, not that I would want cheap, it needs to retain all of the Leica mojo!

Edited December 31, 2020 by Rob L

[mmradman]

By the sound of it M10 platform reached a plateau in development.

Body shape and size is considered by many as ideal.  Any minor improvements are in the diminishing returns territory, going forward this will not bring new younger users to the M range. So, the question is what the future M camera need to be to sell in sufficient quality to be viable business proposition.

[astrostl]

14 hours ago, mike3996 said:

But dressed in another words, each camera system masters one lens mount (their native) treats all other foreign, adaptable lenses as "glass bricks". This supposed M-EVF camera would treat its native M mount lenses also as glass bricks.

It's great that your lenses are all easily focusable via EVF means but there are some seriously soft ones out there that are pure hell to try to focus using TTL means but would be trivial to work with with a rangefinder.

You can keep your ND filters on, it won't change the focusing experience or accuracy. Your lenses can be as slow as they need to be, your framing and focusing experience won't suffer using a rangefinder.

TTL and magnification is a good way to go but they are not nearly the speed of operation in focusing compared to a real optical-mechanical rangefinder. About focusing accuracy we can agree to an extent but the speed of achieving satisfactory focus (and more often than not, perfect focus) will be greater with RF.

Digital Ms treat M lenses as glass bricks too. Rangefinder coupling (where present) just pulls up framelines, and 6-bit coding just adds EXIF data and profile corrections. With an EVF system framelines are unnecessary, and the 6-bit code could still be read for EXIF and profile corrections. So what again would the difference be?

Weirder and weirder goalposts are being established here, now with lenses so soft that they cannot be focused according to the actual images they would produce? The advantages of rangefinders are duly noted, and can certainly explain why one would prefer them to an EVF. As with the automatic aperture OP argument it does not explain why an EVF couldn't or shouldn't be produced, though. All we are ultimately talking about is a faster, higher-resolution, built-in Visoflex 020.

Edited December 31, 2020 by astrostl

[jdlaing]

EVFs are produced and used on Leica cameras. Several models.

[astrostl]

17 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

EVFs are produced and used on Leica cameras. Several models.

Noted, while also noting that an EVF M is a perpetually-discussed subject of desire. "Don't want it? Don't buy it." could be a simple retort, if one is ever produced.

My main point, though, is that, "The reason is that no M lens supports automatic aperture opening for focusing and then closing it for taking. It's a juggle that will feel awkward enough to scare the majority of people off of the concept." does not appear to be a coherent reason as to why it couldn't or shouldn't be produced. "I don't want it" is a much better reason!

[jdlaing]

I don’t need it.

[Herr Barnack]

I have the EVF for my M-P 240.  The only time I ever use it is if I am putting extension tubes between the camera and lens, using my focusing rail and doing macro work.

Other than macro what little macro work I have done, i shoot with the rangefinder 100%. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nicci78]

My first wish for 2021 is more lenses ! 
We need more TL lenses : wider and faster. 
APO-SL 21 ; 24 & 28 have to be released. 
 

My second wish is to make everything smaller : a CL2 , compact SL2 and smaller SL lenses. 

 

My third wish is to make more new film camera. Please release the rumoured M6 1984. 

 

 

Extra wish for M10 : a new Visoflex is what’s missing. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by nicci78

[mike3996]

10 hours ago, astrostl said:

Digital Ms treat M lenses as glass bricks too. Rangefinder coupling (where present) just pulls up framelines, and 6-bit coding just adds EXIF data and profile corrections. With an EVF system framelines are unnecessary, and the 6-bit code could still be read for EXIF and profile corrections.

You forgot the defining factor: rangefinder coupling allows rangefinder focus. This feature makes M lenses (and all rangefinder-coupled lenses) first-class citizens and not "glass bricks" to the M.

I'm sorry if you feel I am moving goalposts here but I thought here at M forum we would share the appreciation of rangefinder focusing at least. If I want TTL focusing with the associated benefits, the world is full of cameras that offer just that.