M12 wishlist

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, lct said:

Do you take the adapter into account in this calculation?

Obviously not - the adapter makes the difference the same (for M lenses) . . . . . but it doesn't alter the fact that the Sony E-mount has a 10mm smaller register . . . . of course if you stuck a 10mm deeper lens mount on the front of your M camera you could move the sensor 10mm forwards, and then you would have room for IBIS (it would look a bit funny though!)

[Smudgerer]

2 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

I used to think that as well - but I'm no longer sure what the advantages of smaller sensors are: For example, one of the advantages of the SL2-S over the SL2 was that the 24mp sensor had much better high ISO than the 48mp of the SL2. . ..  but the 24mp sensor of the SL3-S doesn't have any such advantage over the 60mp of the SL3.

I've never been convinced by the storage space argument - the solution to that is better curation - once I used to import all my images and (sometimes) cull some later. Nowadays I select the good images on import and the rest never hit my hard drive. 

As for the camera shake argument - that doesn't apply if you choose the smaller DNG sizes either. 

. . . . . . so what is the reason?

 

"the reason"........do you mean why I would like to see a lower mp sensor in a future M Jono?

If so then it would be just a part of a simplification of the camera that in my view has become a bit too electronically dense, too many options and too many various settings available. The Luddite in me would like the Leica M to be simpler and most of all more reliable, less prone to electronic and firmware hiccups.

[_leicaguru]

Okay I'll bite. This is my ideal M12. You can have your mirroless PanaLeica with your IBIS and EVFs, but this is what I would like to see:

I will call this camera...

Leica M12 Classic – The Ultimate Pure M

A refined, no-compromise M that surpasses the M11-P in key performance while keeping only what matters for pure photography.

Leica Dual-Mag OVF 

Magnification:

Switchable 0.73x ↔ 1.0x Optical Viewfinder (manual lever, like X-Pro2’s OVF zoom)

True 1.0x life-size magnification 

Automatic parallax correction

Frame Lines:

0.73x Mode: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm

1.0x Mode: 50mm, 75mm, 90mm

Automatic frame line adjustment based on magnification

Optical-only, no digital overlays

Brighter RF patch with higher contrast for improved focusing

Larger eyepiece for comfortable viewing

Anti-reflection coatings to reduce flare and ghosting

Sensor & Image Quality

40MP Full-frame CMOS (Kodak-designed for film-like tones & highlight roll-off)

ISO 64 – 100,000 (clean base ISO, excellent high ISO performance)

15+ stops dynamic range (better highlight retention than M11-P)

No low-pass filter (maximum sharpness)

Leica + Kodak film profiles (embedded in DNG)

Speed & Processing

Maestro IV processor (faster than M11-P’s Maestro III)

6GB RAM (double M11-P for better buffering & responsiveness)

256GB High-Speed Internal Storage (faster read/write speeds than M11-P)

Single UHS-II SD slot (faster write speeds, no unnecessary dual-slot)

Display

3.2-inch Touchscreen LCD (larger than M11-P’s 2.95-inch)

2.4M-dot resolution (higher than M11-P’s 2.3M-dot for better sharpness)

Optimized for fast response (quicker touch-to-focus and menu navigation)

Improved brightness & anti-glare coating (better outdoor visibility)

Gorilla Glass protection 

Streamlined UI with swipe gestures (refined for quick adjustments)

Body & Controls

Solid brass construction (black paint & silver chrome)

Refined mechanical ISO & shutter dials (no M11’s push-turn ISO dial)

Same BP-SCL7 battery as M11-P (but optimized for efficiency)

Mechanical shutter only (1/8000s max, whisper-quiet)

Pure Photography Experience 

NO EVF, NO Video (100% classic RF shooting)

No electronic shutter (only true mechanical)

Essential Connectivity

USB-C (for file transfer only, no charging)

Hot shoe (manual flash control)

[lct]

47 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Obviously not - the adapter makes the difference the same (for M lenses) . . . . . but it doesn't alter the fact that the Sony E-mount has a 10mm smaller register . . . . of course if you stuck a 10mm deeper lens mount on the front of your M camera you could move the sensor 10mm forwards, and then you would have room for IBIS (it would look a bit funny though!)

The anti-IBIS argument, so to speak, is there is 10mm more space behind the sensor of the Sony body because of the register distance if i understand well. Doesn't sound true when taking the adapter's thickness into account. I have not mine at hand but i suspect it is not far from 10mm thick. Snap below for sake of illustration only as the M240 is thicker than the M11 and my Sony had no IBIS when i took the shot.

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!

 

 

[charlesphoto99]

9 hours ago, jrichie said:

Why would I want a Q, SL or Nikon ZF over a M mount camera to use my M mount lenses?

Anyway I am willing to bet they release an EVF M in the next version and am happy to wait and see.

If you wear glasses and try and shoot anything wider than 50mm then you may understand my opinion on the rangefinder compared to the EVF on the SL and Q3.

Because with those you get your internal EVF. Makes sense to me (ok, maybe not the Q). 

I wear eyeglasses (and just turned 61) and shoot 18,24,28, and 35 all the time. For decades now. To me M's are about what you don't see (the magic of after the fact), as well as what you see outside the tunnel vision of an SLR (now EVF). It's an aesthetic and philosophical thing. The rangefinder patch, for me, is much faster than any other focus system I've used, and definitely much faster than being distracted by squiggly lines and pop up magnifications going on. The rangefinder (or top finder if needed) allows me to concentrate on the subject, and what may be going on outside the frame ready to come in. 

They may very well release a better Visoflex in the next version, but if it's internal EVF, it will be a new line, not an M. 

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!

[jonoslack]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, Jono,  if the S versions of the SL make sense, why not on an M?  Especially if it meant reintroducing video. 

Haven't we already got an M version of the SL? just an adapter on your SL and you've got it (including the video)🤩

Edited February 4 by jonoslack

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But there are those that would rather stop photographing altogether than use an EVF. 

[charlesphoto99]

25 minutes ago, lct said:

The anti-IBIS argument, so to speak, is there is 10mm more space behind the sensor of the Sony body because of the register distance if i understand well. Doesn't sound true when taking the adapter's thickness into account. I have not mine at hand but i suspect it is not far from 10mm thick. Snap below for sake of illustration only as the M240 is thicker than the M11 and my Sony had no IBIS when i took the shot.

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!

 

 

M's have an entirely different architecture inside than Sony's. Plus Sony has access to electronics, years ahead, that Leica doesn't. Stop comparing apples to oranges, or just eat apples when you feel like an apple, or an orange when you crave oranges. 

What would be revolutionary is if Leica totally redesigned the rangefinder mechanism so that it could be easily calibrated by, say, one easy to access set screw. Doubt that would ever happen, but it would certainly cut down on service times and user frustrations... 

 

[charlesphoto99]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

But there are those that would rather stop photographing altogether than use an EVF. 

And there are those that would rather stop photographing altogether rather than use the rangefinder over an EVF, though for some reasons choose to buy an M.... 😏

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

I used to think that as well - but I'm no longer sure what the advantages of smaller sensors are: For example, one of the advantages of the SL2-S over the SL2 was that the 24mp sensor had much better high ISO than the 48mp of the SL2. . ..  but the 24mp sensor of the SL3-S doesn't have any such advantage over the 60mp of the SL3.

I've never been convinced by the storage space argument - the solution to that is better curation - once I used to import all my images and (sometimes) cull some later. Nowadays I select the good images on import and the rest never hit my hard drive. 

As for the camera shake argument - that doesn't apply if you choose the smaller DNG sizes either. 

. . . . . . so what is the reason?

 

The main (only?) advantages of lower resolution sensors are cost and faster readout.

[lct]

37 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

M's have an entirely different architecture inside than Sony's. Plus Sony has access to electronics, years ahead, that Leica doesn't. [...]

I can understand that but the register distance argument sounds more like a marketing excuse for not doing things one is not competent for than a valid argument IMHO.

[jaapv]

And better noise performance and faster AF 

[jaapv]

Just now, lct said:

I can understand that but the register distance argument sounds more like a marketing excuse for not doing things one is not competent for than a valid argument IMHO.

Even when they shrunk the M to the M10 they had to implement a special motherboard to accommodate the lack of space behind the sensor. But then, you are not a techie…😜

[charlesphoto99]

4 minutes ago, lct said:

I can understand that but the register distance argument sounds more like a marketing excuse for not doing things one is not competent for than a valid argument IMHO.

But that doesn't explain why the SL line is bigger than the equivalent Sony's, which is a more valid comparison imo. I would also think that the marketing department isn't in charge of register distances, or any of the mechanics, firmware, etc, thank god, considering the 100 year obsession with overpriced teddy bears and pencils...

[SrMi]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

And better noise performance and faster AF 

When comparing same technologies, lower resolution sensors do not have better noise performance. That has been demonstrated with measurements and tests. Faster AF is not a given either but it may be related to faster readouts.

[jonoslack]

15 minutes ago, lct said:

I can understand that but the register distance argument sounds more like a marketing excuse for not doing things one is not competent for than a valid argument IMHO.

It absolutely is the case - if you have a greater distance from the front of the sensor to the outer edge of the mount (the register distance) then the body has to be fatter (assuming the same distance behind the sensor). Conversely if you have less distance between the sensor and the front of the mount (as Sony does ) then you can have more space behind the sensor (for IBIS) without making the body fatter.

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

But there are those that would rather stop photographing altogether than use an EVF. 

Well, they will (I'm sure) always have an M with a rangefinder. 

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

And better noise performance and faster AF 

Not the case anymore - the faster AF relates to the number of PDAF points and the readout time of the sensor - Noise is no longer better in sensors with less MP (witness the SL3 and SL3-S) especially if you scale down the larger mp sensor (or use the different MP DNG options).

best

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

It absolutely is the case - if you have a greater distance from the front of the sensor to the outer edge of the mount (the register distance) then the body has to be fatter (assuming the same distance behind the sensor). Conversely if you have less distance between the sensor and the front of the mount (as Sony does ) then you can have more space behind the sensor (for IBIS) without making the body fatter.

The question is why Leica said that they could add IBIS if they remove the mechanical shutter? Eliminating the mechanical shutter would allow moving the sensor a bit forward and would require a slight protrusion at lens mount to keep the lens further away from the body. The main thickness of the body (where you feel it when holding the camera) would remsin the same.

[jonoslack]

18 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The question is why Leica said that they could add IBIS if they remove the mechanical shutter? Eliminating the mechanical shutter would allow moving the sensor a bit forward and would require a slight protrusion at lens mount to keep the lens further away from the body. The main thickness of the body (where you feel it when holding the camera) would remsin the same.

Interesting point - but I assume it's because IBIS also needs space around the sensor which is currently taken up with the shutter mechanism.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[charlesphoto99]

56 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The question is why Leica said that they could add IBIS if they remove the mechanical shutter? Eliminating the mechanical shutter would allow moving the sensor a bit forward and would require a slight protrusion at lens mount to keep the lens further away from the body. The main thickness of the body (where you feel it when holding the camera) would remsin the same.

Removing the mechanical shutter without having the latest greatest 'global' electronic shutter sensor would be a step back, and even then, if they did have access to it, might be a step back nonetheless, when it comes to dynamic range, base iso, and other issues. Right now, it's the purview of sports shooters, and the M is not considered a sports camera by those who shoot sports for a living (though it can very well be used for such, even with just the rangefinder). 

I once offhandedly said to a Tibetan monk who met a dog of mine, 'sometimes I wish I could be a dog [without all the responsibilities and crap that come with being human being my implication]. He looked at me seriously and said 'Please, be very, very careful what you wish for.'