M12 wishlist

[jgeenen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 16 Minuten schrieb lct:

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.

Yes, the mount width has nothing to do with the baselength, but look at the M5. Leica had to stuff a lot of things into the camera and had to change the body. They decided to use the free space under the top cover for a wider baselength, stuffing all of the mechanics into the (then wider) body. We all know, the M5 was not very successful, but some still claim that the M5 finder was one of the best Leica ever made. If one tries to make the M mount bigger while maintaining backward compatibility, the needed space would require changes to the surrounding layout. Nikon and Contax already demonstrated in the 50s that one can put a wider baselength into a reasonably small body. 

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

1 minute ago, jgeenen said:

look at the M5. Leica had to stuff a lot of things into the camera and had to change the body. They decided to use the free space under the top cover for a wider baselength, stuffing all of the mechanics into the (then wider) body.

The body of the M5 was larger indeed but as far as i recall, its mechanical or physical baselength was exactly the same as that of M2, M3, M4 and M4-2 cameras (69.25mm). Again, i may be missing something.

[jgeenen]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb 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? 

A well made adapter would maintain retrocompatibility. The main issue would be the backward compatibility. How big is the base of customers buying NEW lenses attaching them to their OLD M cameras. 

I have no insights into the customer base of Leica M. But if it is 70-90% of customers, who want backwards compatibility, then I have to ask two questions

a) Is there an (at least) equally growing number of young photographers who are having the money for and the interest in buying new Leica M gear to stand in for the aging community of existing customers? In other words - to what extent Leica is currently profiting from the "baby boomer generation" and is Leica attracting generation Z enough?

b) Leica does not benefit from the used market directly. So how could Leica generate new business then?

On the other hand - should I care? I am probably no longer in the Leica galaxy in 20 years from now. And Leica stocks are not part of my pension funds ....

[jgeenen]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb lct:

The body of the M5 was larger indeed but as far as i recall, its mechanical or physical baselength was exactly the same as that of M2, M3, M4 and M4-2 cameras (69.25mm). Again, i may be missing something.

You are probably correct. Leica had not changed the baselength for the M5, they only put some different controls into the finder. And the longer I think about it, the more difficult it would be to imagine a larger baselength without body redesign - you need some space for the shutter button and for the photographer's left hand to firmly grab the body. 

Ok, bad idea, since we all love that iconic body shape of the M ...

[T25UFO]

1 hour ago, jgeenen said:

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.

Well, if you don't know the answer, it becomes a rhetorical question.

31 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

I am probably no longer in the Leica galaxy in 20 years from now.

That long?

20 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

Ok, bad idea, since we all love that iconic body shape of the M ...

I think we can all agree on that.

 

Edited August 20 by T25UFO

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, jgeenen said:

A well made adapter would maintain retrocompatibility. The main issue would be the backward compatibility. How big is the base of customers buying NEW lenses attaching them to their OLD M cameras. 

I have no insights into the customer base of Leica M. But if it is 70-90% of customers, who want backwards compatibility, then I have to ask two questions

a) Is there an (at least) equally growing number of young photographers who are having the money for and the interest in buying new Leica M gear to stand in for the aging community of existing customers? In other words - to what extent Leica is currently profiting from the "baby boomer generation" and is Leica attracting generation Z enough?

b) Leica does not benefit from the used market directly. So how could Leica generate new business then?

On the other hand - should I care? I am probably no longer in the Leica galaxy in 20 years from now. And Leica stocks are not part of my pension funds ....

Did you see the reactions to the suggestions for an EVF M with L mount and adapter?  No-go for Leica.

[MinRas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hi,

My two cents if Leica moves to bayonet change, IBIS, EVF, AI ... and any other super extension with button (ART) on their M's it will come in to the place where big boys with plastic cameras is gaming  and nothing special can be proposed to their clients. M system is not for everyone there is a fact and this is not about the price, because with M's you must have knowledge and-or passion for process in photography, otherwise people starting to blame cameras because no "masterpiece" button there  

[Kiwimac]

10 hours ago, ELAN said:

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.

They are, but conversely those who hanker for the more original and simple M are - to be blunt - dying out. Literally. 
 

Anyone born after (approximately) 1995 has never seen film cameras as the prevailing technology of image making. And they’re already 30 years old. By the time they retire as the proverbial rich dentists in another 35 years I can barely imagine what a camera will look like or how it works. 
 

Leica has to remain aspirational. Those ever increasingly expensive lenses need to get sold and already a number of them are entering price territory where there are actually cheaper cars. 
 

Also, the M is constrained by having to remain in a particular form factor otherwise older users will complain loudly - see the ‘too big’ M240 for details! That constraint is deleterious to progress. 
 

Look at the Hasselblad X2D: it’s almost perfect in the hand, with a UI like an iPhone. If they were still building X2Ds into the traditional Hasselblad form of square boxes it wouldn’t be anywhere near the success it’s proving to be. 
 

I can see a time when the M body changes and evolves. Us old ones will take to the internet and complain. Young ones will just say “at last!’ and hand over their credit cards. 

[ELAN]

8 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

They are, but conversely those who hanker for the more original and simple M are - to be blunt - dying out. Literally. 
 

Anyone born after (approximately) 1995 has never seen film cameras as the prevailing technology of image making. And they’re already 30 years old. By the time they retire as the proverbial rich dentists in another 35 years I can barely imagine what a camera will look like or how it works. 
 

Leica has to remain aspirational. Those ever increasingly expensive lenses need to get sold and already a number of them are entering price territory where there are actually cheaper cars. 
 

Also, the M is constrained by having to remain in a particular form factor otherwise older users will complain loudly - see the ‘too big’ M240 for details! That constraint is deleterious to progress. 
 

Look at the Hasselblad X2D: it’s almost perfect in the hand, with a UI like an iPhone. If they were still building X2Ds into the traditional Hasselblad form of square boxes it wouldn’t be anywhere near the success it’s proving to be. 
 

I can see a time when the M body changes and evolves. Us old ones will take to the internet and complain. Young ones will just say “at last!’ and hand over their credit cards. 

I agree, the M needs to evolve and incorporate modern features, which many here are advocating for. On the other hand, many here do not want these features, they want a traditional M, an improved M10, with a better viewfinder, battery, dynamic range, colors like HB, but none of the modern offerings like metering off an open shutter, huge files, evf or ibis.
 

Leica would be wise to offer two versions of the digital M, one for traditionalists and one packed with all modern features.  I am not sure which will sell better, but everyone here will want at least one of them. 

Edited August 21 by ELAN

[IkarusJohn]

I think it’s important to remember that Leica made the Monochrom and the M Edition 60 - both have been in serial production since, and have become classics. One of the 100 year celebration cameras is the M11-D. 

Many here thought both were dumb ideas.  Leica had the courage and foresight to make them both. 
 

[jaapv]

9 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

They are, but conversely those who hanker for the more original and simple M are - to be blunt - dying out. Literally. 

Are they? Others claim a revival by younger generations. Only Leica really knows. 

[Chris W]

Hasselblad offers two bodies effectively, with really only ergonomics separating them. Leica have already answered the call of modern needs with the SL and Q models.

The three main things that separates a digital M from most other digital cameras on the market are 1) the rangefinder focussing, 2) the simple and elegant menu system and button array, 3) the size - compared to other non-single lens systems.

 

[Chris W]

17 hours ago, jgeenen said:

A well made adapter would maintain retrocompatibility. The main issue would be the backward compatibility. How big is the base of customers buying NEW lenses attaching them to their OLD M cameras. 

 

Having watched many, many Leica M videos on Youtube over the years, one of the biggest selling points, even for those YouTubers sceptical about an M, is the huge selection of lenses at all price points available, from Minolta, Voigtlander and Zeiss to modern Chinese. 

[IkarusJohn]

43 minutes ago, Chris W said:

Hasselblad offers two bodies effectively, with really only ergonomics separating them. Leica have already answered the call of modern needs with the SL and Q models.

The three main things that separates a digital M from most other digital cameras on the market are 1) the rangefinder focussing, 2) the simple and elegant menu system and button array, 3) the size - compared to other non-single lens systems.

 

No, it’s just one - the lenses, and a trailing second, if you must, the simplicity of the camera.  I say this as I was torn between the digital and a film M when I bought into the system.

[JNK100]

51 minutes ago, Chris W said:

Having watched many, many Leica M videos on Youtube over the years, one of the biggest selling points, even for those YouTubers sceptical about an M, is the huge selection of lenses at all price points available, from Minolta, Voigtlander and Zeiss to modern Chinese. 

🕐I don't think many people considering an M would be swayed by YT videos.

[Chris W]

53 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

No, it’s just one - the lenses, and a trailing second, if you must, the simplicity of the camera. 

You don't think manual rangefinder focussing is one of the main factors distinguishing this camera from every other compact camera system?

[Chris W]

42 minutes ago, JNK100 said:

🕐I don't think many people considering an M would be swayed by YT videos.

You missed my point. The point being that even though an M body is expensive, arguably premium, the massive choice in lenses at all price points is a huge selling point that would be completely lost if Leica changed the mount.

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, Chris W said:

You missed my point. The point being that even though an M body is expensive, arguably premium, the massive choice in lenses at all price points is a huge selling point that would be completely lost if Leica changed the mount.

By now it is about the only selling point together with the rangefinder. The SL lenses are better, the Q is high quality compact. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Chris W]

I disagree. The Q is locked to either 28 or 43mm, neither of which suit me. The SL lenses are extremely expensive and heavy. SL as a system arguably can't compete with other larger mirrorless systems like Sony.

I have both an M10 and SL2-S. I mostly use M lenses or Sigma L mount. If I wanted good autofocus and IBIS I'd buy a Sony.

 

Edited August 21 by Chris W

[lct]

45 minutes ago, Chris W said:

You don't think manual rangefinder focussing is one of the main factors distinguishing this camera from every other compact camera system?

Sure it is but it is not the only one, an even not the main one for some people. For them (us) the main point is lenses. No system can compete with the M for them. Those lenses deserve the best. For now the best is called M11, tomorrow it will be EVF-M and/or M12, we shall see. But M9 or M10 reissue really? If Leica decided to make revive the M9 or the M10, it would be a Leica price, not Pixii. Then how could they make money with it when the second hard market is full of those bodies? Wishfull thinking this revival dream if you ask me.