M12 wishlist

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don’t want the Leica equivalent of a Fuji X-Pro. 
 

Without any thought as to the practicality:

 

1) A larger focus patch

 2) Different magnification finder choices like we used to have

 3) Skip the OG version and launch it with the P version instead

[mikeamosau]

Really hope it returns back to being an M and not this odd mash up of rangefinder with a bunch of awkward added extras. It’s a rangefinder, no need for ibis or evf’s or hybrid shutters etc. Loads of cameras do that, for less money, and usually better. The M is unique, hopefully it stays that way or the M10 (m11 to me has already gone too far) will be my last and I’ll just stick to film. 

[Derbyshire Man]

57 minutes ago, mikeamosau said:

Really hope it returns back to being an M and not this odd mash up of rangefinder with a bunch of awkward added extras. It’s a rangefinder, no need for ibis or evf’s or hybrid shutters etc. Loads of cameras do that, for less money, and usually better. The M is unique, hopefully it stays that way or the M10 (m11 to me has already gone too far) will be my last and I’ll just stick to film. 

You sound therefore like someone very unlikely to buy another M digital camera and not someone that Leica ought to focus on? I do agree that some purity is needed, certainly any M with an EVF must never replace the rangefinder just be a variant.
 

There are though subtle improvements which could be made including better info in the OVF, ie the damn thing doesn’t even show you shutter speed when you change the dial! A faster reading sensor wouldn’t hurt either. 
 

Personally, as I use it for event portraiture in part; the ability like my Canons for time immemorial to record a snippet of audio with the file (this is Joe Bloggs, email jbloggs@motorracing.com) would be incredibly helpful. It would still be an M but have reasons for me to repurchase. 

Edited August 20 by Derbyshire Man

[Ray Vonn]

3 hours ago, mikeamosau said:

Really hope it returns back to being an M and not this odd mash up of rangefinder with a bunch of awkward added extras. It’s a rangefinder, no need for ibis or evf’s or hybrid shutters etc. Loads of cameras do that, for less money, and usually better.

I agree, but I don't think it will, these extras seem to be "the way forward" and I suspect they'll no doubt be a want for even more amongst the current customer base which is different these days.  If anyone was attracted to Leica because of the bare bare bones nature of its rangefinder cameras to put lenses on, well, if they're not in the minority already, they soon will be.  Yes, lots of other camera makers are more seasoned at making models with extras, probably better cameras too, but they don't have the badge and that's what seems to be desired by a lot of consumers as much as anything else.  If Leica takes full advantage of this (and I suspect they will, why not) and profits stack up, then who knows, maybe they could be in a position to release a new more traditional rangefinder but I don't think it'll be the M12.

[lct]

Leica make reissues for lenses, why not for cameras? Not sure how many people would be interested in an M9 or M10 reissue though. If i were interested i would rather be tempted by a Pixii i guess but it is purely hypothetical.

[ELAN]

Leica is losing business by alienating those who prefer a more traditional M.  I used to buy brand new two or three variants of each M model, but no more.  After using the M11 for a year I went back to the M10-R because I prefer its shutter experience (and colors) and unless Leica corrects these in the M12 I will not buy it.  I can continue to happily use my three M10 variants for many years to come.  My guess is that Leica will eventually relent and offer an M I will want to buy.

[T25UFO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

32 minutes ago, lct said:

Leica make reissues for lenses, why not for cameras? Not sure how many people would be interested in an M9 or M10 reissue though. If i were interested i would rather be tempted by a Pixii i guess but it is purely hypothetical.

Nice idea but I can’t see reissued digital cameras selling.  Reissued film cameras?  Well, that’s different, as we’ve seen with the M6, but it’s still a niche within a niche.

[Alexander108]

Now, as I gathered my first experience with my wonderful M10M that I bought 5y old preowned I'd love to see this:

• IBIS is a must as OIS is not an option. I found on the M10M that even 1/125s on a 35mm induced some blur from not being steady enough. Let alone doing handheld street photography shots that induce motion blur (1/8s on my Q3 is absolutely sharp with OIS).
• There should be an EVF version. I immediately bought the Visoflex 020 but it's clunky. I often use histogram and framing the image with an EVF is much easier. I am spoiled by my Q3. With that said a real "Messsucher" will most likely be also available. However, I am not sure if focusing is as fast with the EVF as it is with the Messsucher. So maybe a hybrid option. Leica would not be the first to introduce a hybrid viewfinder.
• Tilt display is ever so useful. I take a lot of shots on waist level with my Q3 wich would be very difficult without the tilt screen.
• The ISO wheel is not necessary in my mind difficult to use anyway (ISO is not an issue with the Monochrom anyway).
• No higher resolution than the existing 60MP. The files on my Q3 are huge already. 

Just my 2Ct being spoiled by the Q3 and Canon R5,

[jgeenen]

The M12 will feature a new bayonet. Like the M mount replacing the screw mount, existing M lenses can be attached to the M12 with full backward compatibility (including rangefinder), the new (wider) bayonet will open to a new (in Leica terms) world - fast lenses with excessive back lens diameters, electronic contacts to signal lens data to the body.
I believe that the rumored Noctilux 35mm does not support rangefinder focusing (due to limited space in the bayonet opening) and will have to rely on EVF focusing. The M12 will close this gap again. 
Because of the wider bayonet, Leica will need more space around the bayonet, so the finder will be redesigned with a wider physical baselength. This will allow Leica to reduce the magnification of the rangefinder without affecting rangefinder accuracy for the benefit of customers with eyesight issues or wideangle lovers. And you will get IBIS!!!

Unfortunately this will affect the beloved M design more than the M240 and the M11 did in the past. So we will eventually see the M11 and M12 being produced in parallel for some years… 

One might call this utopian, the other dystopian. 

[lct]

25 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

The M12 will feature a new bayonet. [...]

Fact, rumor or nightmare? The latter hopefully 😉

[jaapv]

32 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

The M12 will feature a new bayonet. Like the M mount replacing the screw mount, existing M lenses can be attached to the M12 with full backward compatibility (including rangefinder), the new (wider) bayonet will open to a new (in Leica terms) world - fast lenses with excessive back lens diameters, electronic contacts to signal lens data to the body.
I believe that the rumored Noctilux 35mm does not support rangefinder focusing (due to limited space in the bayonet opening) and will have to rely on EVF focusing. The M12 will close this gap again. 
Because of the wider bayonet, Leica will need more space around the bayonet, so the finder will be redesigned with a wider physical baselength. This will allow Leica to reduce the magnification of the rangefinder without affecting rangefinder accuracy for the benefit of customers with eyesight issues or wideangle lovers. And you will get IBIS!!!

Unfortunately this will affect the beloved M design more than the M240 and the M11 did in the past. So we will eventually see the M11 and M12 being produced in parallel for some years… 

One might call this utopian, the other dystopian. 

I do not see how the bayonet opening has anything to do with the rangefinder coupling. 

[jgeenen]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

I do not see how the bayonet opening has anything to do with the rangefinder coupling. 

Certain lens designs require wide rear elements. One of the M bayonet limitations is, that the bayonet opening has to fit the rear element, the focusing helicoid and the rangefinder cam. The diameter of the rangefinder cam in the M bayonet is about 34mm, which limits the rear element width to max. 33mm. A wider bayonet could allow wider rear elements giving the engineers more design freedom. 

Obviously I have no insights to any Leica internals, but there is a general pattern in Leica M design and development: Either you maintain the current design principles and accept limitations in functionality or you open the M design in the one or the other direction. You cannot have both. 

Consider my contribution as "out-of-the-box" thinking. 

[JNK100]

9 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

Certain lens designs require wide rear elements. One of the M bayonet limitations is, that the bayonet opening has to fit the rear element, the focusing helicoid and the rangefinder cam. The diameter of the rangefinder cam in the M bayonet is about 34mm, which limits the rear element width to max. 33mm. A wider bayonet could allow wider rear elements giving the engineers more design freedom. 

Obviously I have no insights to any Leica internals, but there is a general pattern in Leica M design and development: Either you maintain the current design principles and accept limitations in functionality or you open the M design in the one or the other direction. You cannot have both. 

Consider my contribution as "out-of-the-box" thinking. 

So your statement that there will be a new mount is in fact not the case?

[jaapv]

The point of the M is that it has to be retrocompatible for a galaxy of older M lenses, so the mount cannot be changed, and indeed, the challenge has always been  and still is to design the best possible lens within the limitations that a rangefinder poses. No Noctilux has ever failed to comply with those set-in-concrete limitations. Why now and lose 70%-90% of your customer base? 

[jgeenen]

vor 27 Minuten schrieb lct:

Fact, rumor or nightmare? The latter hopefully 😉

I don't know, but at the end It depends on your viewing angle and what are the key essentials of the Leica M that need to be maintained going forward. At the end it is Leica's management who decides the future direction of the M system. Will it attract more potential customers when insisting on the inherited paradigms of the 50s or will it attract more potential customers when re-inventing the M story at one point in time.

But to be honest - Leica seems to be very comfortable with looking backwards and praising Leica's past, so I honestly don't believe the Leica M12 will be any kind of game changer.

[jgeenen]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb JNK100:

So your statement that there will be a new mount is in fact not the case?

I am just an ordinary Leica M user with no insight into the company. But I am constantly asking myself two questions - why am I paying this ridiculous amounts of cash for Leica M gear and what could be reasons to go a different path.

[JNK100]

5 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

I am just an ordinary Leica M user with no insight into the company. But I am constantly asking myself two questions - why am I paying this ridiculous amounts of cash for Leica M gear and what could be reasons to go a different path.

Perhaps if you have to ask that question, an M is not for you.

[lct]

1 hour ago, jgeenen said:

[...] Because of the wider bayonet, Leica will need more space around the bayonet, so the finder will be redesigned with a wider physical baselength. [...]

AFAIK the RF physical (mechanical) baselength does not depend on the width of the bayonet, nor the design of the finder, but on the distance between the VF window and the RF window. If you want a longer mechanical baselength, the camera would have to be larger then, i'm afraid, unless i'm missing something.

[mikeamosau]

7 hours ago, Derbyshire Man said:

You sound therefore like someone very unlikely to buy another M digital camera and not someone that Leica ought to focus on? I do agree that some purity is needed, certainly any M with an EVF must never replace the rangefinder just be a variant.
 

There are though subtle improvements which could be made including better info in the OVF, ie the damn thing doesn’t even show you shutter speed when you change the dial! A faster reading sensor wouldn’t hurt either. 
 

Personally, as I use it for event portraiture in part; the ability like my Canons for time immemorial to record a snippet of audio with the file (this is Joe Bloggs, email jbloggs@motorracing.com) would be incredibly helpful. It would still be an M but have reasons for me to repurchase. 

I’ve bought a lot of M’s. I’ll buy a lot more if they return it to the more towards the original concept of the camera. I doubt I’m the only one. 

I’m not saying don’t innovate or continue to improve. But I am saying that Leica have a unique and niche product in their line up. Keep it as that and compliment it with other cameras in the line up that fulfill needs like evf’s, ibis etc etc. one could even be M like or rangefinder style (like a Fuji if they want to make a Fuji). But keep the M an M.
 

Based on previous comments from Leica, I think that’s probably intention anyway.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jgeenen]

 

vor 14 Minuten schrieb JNK100:

Perhaps if you have to ask that question, an M is not for you.

In a thread talking about the future of the M camera, it should be allowed to ask any question. On the other hand it is certainly valid think about a freeze of the M system technically and/or optically.