Where next for the digital M platform?

[Jipster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, newtoleica said:

I shoot my M7 with Tri-X and M10-P back to back. the M10 fills in where the M7 can't (colour, very low light, when I need to see what I'm getting re exposure etc) I process the files to match Tri-X if B&W. Where digital photography needs to go IMHO is AFFORDABLE high quality home pigment printing to match silver or platinum print output. The image capture aspect is fine (having used film since 1975 and digital since 2003), its the final output that lags still....

It's tricky for Leica if they rely on 'latest and greatest' churn but I think the digital M reached its peak with the M10P/R for all purposes that matter to an M user. sure you can make it more of a interchangeable lens mirrorless... but...

Printing IS cheap already and superb (Epson P900). About $6 for a 13x9 inches.

JP

[Jipster]

1 hour ago, MyLeicaWorld said:

For me a perfect M should have recognizable results.. for example if one sees a photo he must say “ahh that’s leica”  but how will leica do this? With a sensor and software long studied and perfectly ended .. a sensor resulting with  files which have film like colors and no need for an editing .. that would make me think “ ahh now that’s a true leica like the M6 era  ..

Hmm, i would rather have people say “ah, a nice photo”. Love Leica (have both an M6 and M10), but my goal is not to have my photos recognized as Leica photos.  But to each its own 😉

[evikne]

For me, the ultimate M should have the dimensions and design as close as possible to an original film M, only with a digital sensor (the best possible, however). No more, no less. That's what I think Leica should strive for. Avoid derailments and leave all other subtleties to other camera models.

[Kwesi]

9 minutes ago, evikne said:

For me, the ultimate M should have the dimensions and design as close as possible to an original film M, only with a digital sensor (the best possible, however). No more, no less. That's what I think Leica should strive for. Avoid derailments and leave all other subtleties to other camera models.

I believe for now, Leica has settled on the M7 dimensions as the standard. 

My hope though is that we see an improvement in the rangefinder mechanism - it would be nice to be able to focus down to 0.3m and have parallax correction through the optical viewfinder. Maybe they are working on this and this is why we are seeing this new crop of close focussing M lenses. 

[newtoleica]

1 hour ago, Jipster said:

Printing IS cheap already and superb (Epson P900). About $6 for a 13x9 inches.

That's about 10x the cost of a same size darkroom print.... so not at all cheap!

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, newtoleica said:

That's about 10x the cost of a same size darkroom print.... so not at all cheap!

Sixty cents for a 13x19 finished silver print?  Not anywhere close for me considering my film costs, darkroom sunk costs and photo supplies (including papers… and a dry mount press to flatten!), let alone the time/labor value of producing those prints to final stage. 

Jeff

Edited August 20, 2023 by Jeff S

[Edax]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An electronic shutter with minimal rolling-shutter distortion, and speeds up to 1/32000s, replacing the mechanical one. Wouldn't that be something?? 😇

 

[newtoleica]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Sixty cents for a 13x19 finished silver print?  Not anywhere close for me considering my film costs, darkroom sunk costs and photo supplies (including papers… and a dry mount press to flatten!), let alone the time/labor value of producing those prints to final stage. 

Jeff

Not including the cost of the darkroom but that’s several decades old. Paper is about 40p a sheet as bought a bunch of it a while ago. B&W chemicals are pence. Mounting applies to both so didn’t include. Time applies to both though I accept darkroom takes longer, but if it’s for pleasure I wouldn’t cost my time. If for work, then yes digital probably wins, except you would charge a lot more for a hand finished silver print. 

[Steve Ash]

My interest is in negligible startup time. That means a very responsive camera.

[Jeff S]

31 minutes ago, newtoleica said:

Not including the cost of the darkroom but that’s several decades old. Paper is about 40p a sheet as bought a bunch of it a while ago. B&W chemicals are pence. Mounting applies to both so didn’t include. Time applies to both though I accept darkroom takes longer, but if it’s for pleasure I wouldn’t cost my time. If for work, then yes digital probably wins, except you would charge a lot more for a hand finished silver print. 

Quality fibre papers aren’t cheap. Don’t forget film costs; hard to make silver prints without, and digital pics are almost free. I use the same care for my printing, whether for me or for sale, including my own matting and framing. Darkroom processing and printing required far, far more time and labor.
 

Jeff

 

[IkarusJohn]

How do dark rooms and printing costs fit into the next digital M platform?  I don’t see film Ms changing, other than cosmetically. 

Edited August 20, 2023 by IkarusJohn

[SrMi]

53 minutes ago, Multicoated said:

Unfortunately with the M11 the Leica M entered the mirrorless camera spec race. So the only way forward is to eventually kill the rangefinder, as ironic as that sounds. 

 

Leica rangefinders were always mirrorless. What is your definition of mirrorless?

[IkarusJohn]

39 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Leica rangefinders were always mirrorless. What is your definition of mirrorless?

Actually, I agree with @Multicoated - the M9 & M10 were relatively true to the M rangefinder paradigm.  The issue with both the M(240) and M11 is that they take the M camera into a tech race with other mirrorless cameras, which was unnecessary, in my view.

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

How do dark rooms and printing costs fit into the next digital M platform?   

They don’t IMO, but post #5 raised the the need for affordable digital printing.  I think it’s already there.  But, as noted, I find that digital capture still hasn’t achieved the subtlety in highlights comparable to film; that’s where I’d like to see improvements.

Jeff

[frame-it]

5 hours ago, Steve Ash said:

My interest is in negligible startup time. That means a very responsive camera.

or a better more responsive standby mode?

[hdmesa]

27 minutes ago, Multicoated said:

...From here we can go 2 ways

1) The M12 will erase the M11, taking AWAY features instead of putting more. Only improving color and the signature look of the sensor and not adding more megapixels. Maybe even LESS megapixels. Less features, less heat, smaller battery, smaller body? Better weather sealing. More robust. A return to all brass. Bare bones experience. And maybe an innovative rangefinder window that can be magnified like an M3. 

2) or rip the bandaid off and make it into an M-mount Leica Q that looks like an M (just for looks) and has everything. Auto focus, IBIS, EVF, everything everyone wants. Eye detection. Etc etc. 

Which way is it looking now? 

In the M240 to M10 journey Leica course corrected, but I’m not sure about that now. 

It’s like Disney and Snow Not White and the Seven Not Dwarfs. It’s full steam ahead no matter what. 

*Fewer

I've said before that there is no reason for Leica not to offer both a rangefinder and EVF version of the M. I hope they don't simply go one way or the other.

Edited August 21, 2023 by hdmesa

[adan]

17 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The most obvious problem with the M11 though, even if it is only aesthetic, is the horrible shutter feel/sound. Leica should return to a mechanism that gives a light snick sound (and only a light snick) that is immediate and in sync with the taking of the photo.

Yeah, well....that's the difference between a horizontal rubberized-cloth curtain shutter (as in the film Ms), that "stops" with counter-rotating gyroscopic deceleration (curtains winding around spinning spools, that move in opposite directions on each side, over several centimeters).

   >
( O ) ..."whishzzz"
  <

Compared to a vertical-blade shutter that decelerates linearly in a single direction (think - guillo(thump!)tine) in less than 1cm.

       |
       |
       |
      V
*thump!*

And not just with Leica. One reason I stuck with the "pro" Nikons F/F2/F3 over Nikkormats and the compact FM/FE - their horizontal-running rotating-spool shutters produced much less shake and "crash" than the blade shutters.

Unfortunately for digital (at this point) the smooth, horizontal, somewhat "gyrostabilized" clockwork shutters require about twice the volume of a blade shutter. Which eats up space needed for the electronics. As well as being subject to burn holes if a mounted lens is left uncapped facing the sun 😱 . And limited to 1/1000th sec (in rarel cases, 1/2000th) at best. And not available "off the shelf" from Seiko et al.

See the images here for size comparisons of the classic quiet M film shutter and a blade shutter (and a tip of the hat to the late Erwin Puts for preserving them).

https://photo.imx.nl/technique/leica/page103.html

But I am not opposed to your wish at all - just noting why it will be problematic in an M-sized digital (which has already sweated down to about as small as possible, for the moment).

The techies will suggest an all-electronic sensor-shutter with neither curtains or blades - but then, techies suggest "more electronics" the way frogs produce croaks.  

[hdmesa]

35 minutes ago, adan said:

Yeah, well....that's the difference between a horizontal rubberized-cloth curtain shutter (as in the film Ms), that "stops" with counter-rotating gyroscopic deceleration (curtains winding around spinning spools, that move in opposite directions on each side, over several centimeters).

   >
( O ) ..."whishzzz"
  <

Compared to a vertical-blade shutter that decelerates linearly in a single direction (think - guillo(thump!)tine) in less than 1cm.

       |
       |
       |
      V
*thump!*

And not just with Leica. One reason I stuck with the "pro" Nikons F/F2/F3 over Nikkormats and the compact FM/FE - their horizontal-running rotating-spool shutters produced much less shake and "crash" than the blade shutters.

Unfortunately for digital (at this point) the smooth, horizontal, somewhat "gyrostabilized" clockwork shutters require about twice the volume of a blade shutter. Which eats up space needed for the electronics. As well as being subject to burn holes if a mounted lens is left uncapped facing the sun 😱 . And limited to 1/1000th sec (in rarel cases, 1/2000th) at best. And not available "off the shelf" from Seiko et al.

See the images here for size comparisons of the classic quiet M film shutter and a blade shutter (and a tip of the hat to the late Erwin Puts for preserving them).

https://photo.imx.nl/technique/leica/page103.html

But I am not opposed to your wish at all - just noting why it will be problematic in an M-sized digital (which has already sweated down to about as small as possible, for the moment).

The techies will suggest an all-electronic sensor-shutter with neither curtains or blades - but then, techies suggest "more electronics" the way frogs produce croaks.  

I think most would be happy if the M11 shutter sound and duration was at least like the M10-P/R (in rangefinder mode, certainly not in LV) rather than the M11's "drunk person falling down the stairs" shutter sound. That said, I think the M11M is not as loud nor as drawn out as my M11 shutter was, so I have hope the M11-P will improve on the M11 in this regard.

Edited August 21, 2023 by hdmesa

[Jeff S]

13 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

 That said, I think the M11M is not as loud nor as drawn out as my M11 shutter was, so I have hope the M11-P will improve on the M11 in this regard.

First I’ve heard of that. Any related discussion or basis?

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[chasdfg]

17 hours ago, Kwesi said:

I believe for now, Leica has settled on the M7 dimensions as the standard. 

My hope though is that we see an improvement in the rangefinder mechanism - it would be nice to be able to focus down to 0.3m and have parallax correction through the optical viewfinder. Maybe they are working on this and this is why we are seeing this new crop of close focussing M lenses. 

Unfortunately that probably won't happen. The newer lenses with closer focusing aren't coupled below 0.7m.

I think on paper the M11 is pretty much all I want in an M. I love the size, finish and weight of the black one, and the sensor. 

But somewhere down the line we'd have sensors with fast readouts and can do away with the shutter completely, maybe freeing up space for IBIS. That and a more responsive cameras (as others have mentioned) with faster startup and no lockups would be ideal. Then I can truly only blame myself and my mediocre reaction time and unsteady hands for all the rubbish shots I take.