M Classic?

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, evikne said:

I get the impression that film users often find it very difficult to understand why anyone would want a digital camera that behaves like a film camera (why not just buy a film camera?).

It's about as difficult as getting someone to understand that some people wants a digital camera without a screen (why not just turn it off?).

I think there would be a market for a gadget that contains a digital sensor that can be inserted instead of a film. Developing and scanning a film is quite a hassle.

[Advertisement]

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

[RF’sDelight]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb evikne:

It's about as difficult as getting someone to understand that some people wants a digital camera without a screen (why not just turn it off?).

 This psychological effect of being "positively limited" obviously does not apply to every digital user/photographer. 

I think, the first time this kind of discussions came up was when the Leica M Monochrom was introduced in 2012 and some people didn't see the point of a monochrome sensor when you can convert your digital images to BW at any time.

For me personally an almost analogue digital M with no screen and a monochrome sensor would be the pinnacle of shooting in a very modern yet classical way. What worries me most about this concept is the fact that if Leica ever realized it, it would probably be the first non-limited edition M that could have a five-digit price tag. 😁

[adan]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

I think there would be a market for a gadget that contains a digital sensor that can be inserted instead of a film. Developing and scanning a film is quite a hassle.

A dream 35 years old at this point. And lots of failed attempts at bringing "digital film" to market. Although some keep trying......

But would you be satisified with "quarter-frame" pictures (a 4/3rds sensor) from your M? Where you 50mm is cropped to an effective 100mm field of view, and even a 16-18-21 is cropped to 32-36-40.5mm framing?

https://imback.eu/home/

https://petapixel.com/2023/10/06/a-20mp-sensor-in-a-film-canister-reinvigorates-vintage-analog-cameras/

Basic problem is that a digital sensor "package" (cover protective glass, IR/UV filter, microlens array, (color filter array if desired) in front of the sensor > silicon sensor itself > output channels/CB on the back of the sensor - total thickness about 0.5 to 1mm) is about 4-8x thicker than film (0.14mm), and therefore has a displaced focal plane (behind all that glass and filters sitting on the front).

Even assuming a hatchet-job on the original pressure plate to fit in the extra thickness, without off-the-sensor focusing, all pictures would come out significantly front-focused.

Leica and others just barely managed it (R-system's DMR; various Kodak/Nikon attempts), by also using a cropped sensor, that could fit into the shutter opening, rather than being placed behind it on the rails where film's focal plane sits.

I'll refrain from my usual comment about "The funniest thing on the internet....." 😜

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, adan said:

A dream 35 years old at this point. And lots of failed attempts at bringing "digital film" to market. Although some keep trying......

But would you be satisified with "quarter-frame" pictures (a 4/3rds sensor) from your M? Where you 50mm is cropped to an effective 100mm field of view, and even a 16-18-21 is cropped to 32-36-40.5mm framing?

No, an FF sensor only would make me use it.

[dscdsc]

On 5/9/2025 at 7:11 PM, pgh said:

 

As for the supposed EVF M, I have to ask why? This is better handled by the SL series. Throw on an M adapter and there you have it. Sure the form isn’t exactly the same. It’s only easier to hold for precise EVF focusing work and weighs within grams of the same setup on a M. 

Size - I have stayed away from the SL series due to the large size. if i can get M mount with EVF in an M sized body then that would be a buy for me. I don't care if it's called an M series or not.

[costa43]

9 hours ago, lct said:

I thought that the OP wanted such compatibility... Sorry for misunderstanding.

No idea if they do or don’t but in my mind, a classic M digital will be a film camera with a sensor pretty much, nothing else. 

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, evikne said:

I get the impression that film users often find it very difficult to understand why anyone would want a digital camera that behaves like a film camera (why not just buy a film camera?).

It's about as difficult as getting someone to understand that some people wants a digital camera without a screen (why not just turn it off?).

I agree, I’ve found that people tend to see things from their perspective rather than holistically. I love the aesthetic look of film and the experience of shooting it but if I was a film only shooter, it would cost me a 28mm Elmarit a month in film and development costs at the pace I would shoot, which is a bit too punchy for me. Some of us enjoy the considered approach that film requires but life and the process gets in the way a bit. I shoot both but mainly digital for family bits and film for personal projects. I commonly hear if you edit digital to film you should just shoot film and vice versa but there is never a right or wrong. Do what you enjoy. 

Edited May 12 by costa43

[IkarusJohn]

9 hours ago, lct said:

I thought that the OP wanted such compatibility... Sorry for misunderstanding.

Here’s the opening post.  I hope this clarifies at least what I am proposing:

Quote

With all the talk of an MEVF, IBIS and the like, potentially making the already complex M11 even more feature filled, what chance is there of Leica making a digital M in the same paradigm as a digital MP or M6?  A purist digital M, for those who like to add a little dismissive connotation.

This isn’t an invitation to spec such, but the question - is Leica developing such a camera?  Best sensor for the use (not just the best sensor), best dynamic range, all packaged in what Leica used to do so well - the most effective, stripped back combination of components which work well together, but give you nothing more that excellent direct control of ISO, focus, aperture and shutter speed, with a DNG file.

Nothing more, preferably in black paint, no red dot, traditional lettering on the top plate.

 

Edited May 12 by IkarusJohn

[lct]

25 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Here’s the opening post.  I hope this clarifies at least what I am proposing [...]

I must have been mistaken by this post i guess.

20 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

[...] That is why I suggested that the M60 should be the starting point.  Personally, I was one (I suspect of others) who suggested the M10-D should have WiFi and Visoflex compatibility [...]

[IkarusJohn]

I guess the answer to your question is hidden in the text - that second quote was about the M10-D ...

[DadDadDaddyo]

Hmm.

I just got back from an entire, glorious weekend of shooting with my M11 and M11M.

I seem to have missed this entire thread!

[pgh]

On 5/12/2025 at 8:44 PM, dscdsc said:

Size - I have stayed away from the SL series due to the large size. if i can get M mount with EVF in an M sized body then that would be a buy for me. I don't care if it's called an M series or not.

Have you tried this in practice? I only ask because I find my SL2 to be functionally no different than an M in terms of carrying size and weight.

Yes, it feels a bit bigger to hold if only because of the grip and viewfinder, but it generally fits in the same bag(s) and I feel no weight difference. Or if I go no bag, again no functional difference in the size/weight experience. I could see possibly a marginal difference if you’re a person with huge coat pockets and you jam an M in there - maybe an SL wouldn’t fit, but that’s not me anyways. 
 

I had to buy one for a job years ago and it unexpectedly disabused me of the notion that it was a bigger camera. Very different if you use SL lenses, but I’m talking with adapted M lenses. And I think the SL3 is even a bit smaller. 
 

Edited May 15 by pgh

[SrMi]

50 minutes ago, pgh said:

Have you tried this in practice? I only ask because I find my SL2 to be functionally no different than an M in terms of carrying size and weight.

Yes, it feels a bit bigger to hold if only because of the grip and viewfinder, but it generally fits in the same bag(s) and I feel no weight difference. Or if I go no bag, again no functional difference in the size/weight experience. I could see possibly a marginal difference if you’re a person with huge coat pockets and you jam an M in there - maybe an SL wouldn’t fit, but that’s not me anyways. 
 

I had to buy one for a job years ago and it unexpectedly disabused me of the notion that it was a bigger camera. Very different if you use SL lenses, but I’m talking with adapted M lenses. And I think the SL3 is even a bit smaller. 
 

For me, an M lens on an SL3 feels a lot different (and worse) than an M lens on an M11.

[charlesphoto99]

52 minutes ago, pgh said:

Have you tried this in practice? I only ask because I find my SL2 to be functionally no different than an M in terms of carrying size and weight.

but I’m talking with adapted M lenses. And I think the SL3 is even a bit smaller. 
 

If using ONLY M lenses, why not just use an M? I can see an SL with a mix of M lenses because one already has them, but seems overkill otherwise as merely an M replacement.  

[pgh]

4 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

If using ONLY M lenses, why not just use an M? I can see an SL with a mix of M lenses because one already has them, but seems overkill otherwise as merely an M replacement.  

My answer was originally to “why an evf m” - now, I don’t usually want one of those. But if I want evf, it’s so easy to use that glass on my SL2. I wouldn’t buy it strictly for M lenses but I also would never buy any EVF only for them.

 

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

For me, an M lens on an SL3 feels a lot different (and worse) than an M lens on an M11.

Ok. It doesn’t for me, other than the evf thing. Which is always a down grade from the RF experience. But if someone wants EVF, it’s a pretty easy option imo. The SL2 is quite ergonomic, I’d just rather hold an M anyways. 

[IkarusJohn]

Interesting point - if you need an EVF for M lenses, then use an SL (the SL(601) is optimised for M lenses).

I do use my EVF with my M10-D, but not so much.  Not because I have to focus wide open and then stop down (I don’t, and have never felt the need to), nor because of any difficulty focusing (people who use their M lenses with an SL or and M with the Visoflex rarely complain about the experience here - you just understand the limitations and deal with them, much like the m system itself).  I just prefer not to add a further viewfinder.  I feel the same way about my 21mm optical viewfinder.  It’s just another thing which detracts from the simplicity and clarity of purpose of the M system.

I just find that I like to use my M cameras between 28 & 75 without an additional viewfinder of whatever flavour.  I wouldn’t use the EVF on such a Classic camera, I don’t think; or at least, I wouldn’t miss it.

WiFi is very useful for the M10-D, albeit clunky.  I don’t use that for any settings - just for remote control and brief viewing of images when I’m out and about (over a drink).  Again, I probably wouldn’t miss it (though I do have it on EVERY other camera I have with the exception of the Monochrom and the M-A).

I guess what I’m saying is that the putative Classic M is basically an MP, with a digital sensor.  The best digital sensor for the camera (not the one with the highest MP or anything else that is largely irrelevant).  No extra buttons, no extra functions, just the best OVF with the best DNG files.

I don’t really care about the baseplate, size of battery or internal memory (frankly, SD cards have hardly been a lesson in reliability).

I wonder if Leica will take the blindest bit of notice?  It’s just the sort of challenge that used to appeal to them, and provides a useful challenge to photographers.  Okay, some photographers, but they used to be Leica photographers!

[Jeff S]

9 hours ago, pgh said:

Have you tried this in practice? I only ask because I find my SL2 to be functionally no different than an M in terms of carrying size and weight.

 

The SL2 is a half pound heavier, and bigger, especially compared to an M without accessories, which is how I use it (except minimalistic thumb lever). If any new stock M added this weight and size, the forum would explode.

My experience is the opposite of yours. I own the SL2 and both M10–R and M10M (latter two never used together). I recently bought an M/SL adapter, just to experiment with M lenses on the SL2, something I never cared to do, but kept hearing others’ praise. After a very short trial, I returned the adapter, in large part because I found the size and weight unnecessarily uncomfortable compared to my M, apart from the worse viewing and focusing experience compared to the M’s RF/VF. My 28/35/50 M lenses (only ones owned) work perfectly on an M, and for anything wider or longer, the SL2 serves far better for me than cluttering up my M bodies with sub-optimal accessories. Already a  classic M experience for me.

 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

The SL2 is a half pound heavier, and bigger, especially compared to an M without accessories, which is how I use it (except minimalistic thumb lever). If any new stock M added this weight and size, the forum would explode.

My experience is the opposite of yours. I own the SL2 and both M10–R and M10M (latter two never used together). I recently bought an M/SL adapter, just to experiment with M lenses on the SL2, something I never cared to do, but kept hearing others’ praise. After a very short trial, I returned the adapter, in large part because I found the size and weight unnecessarily uncomfortable compared to my M, apart from the worse viewing and focusing experience compared to the M’s RF/VF. My 28/35/50 M lenses (only ones owned) work perfectly on an M, and for anything wider or longer, the SL2 serves far better for me than cluttering up my M bodies with sub-optimal accessories. Already a  classic M experience for me.

+1

I also have the adapter and rarely use it with M lenses when I want the special characteristics of that lens. I use the small Sigma DG DN lenses if I want a small prime.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[costa43]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The SL2 is a half pound heavier, and bigger, especially compared to an M without accessories, which is how I use it (except minimalistic thumb lever). If any new stock M added this weight and size, the forum would explode.

My experience is the opposite of yours. I own the SL2 and both M10–R and M10M (latter two never used together). I recently bought an M/SL adapter, just to experiment with M lenses on the SL2, something I never cared to do, but kept hearing others’ praise. After a very short trial, I returned the adapter, in large part because I found the size and weight unnecessarily uncomfortable compared to my M, apart from the worse viewing and focusing experience compared to the M’s RF/VF. My 28/35/50 M lenses (only ones owned) work perfectly on an M, and for anything wider or longer, the SL2 serves far better for me than cluttering up my M bodies with sub-optimal accessories. Already a  classic M experience for me.

 

I like this approach, using each system to their respective strengths, a direction I am also moving toward. The M experience is best in its simplest form for me too, no additions. 

Edited May 16 by costa43

[IkarusJohn]

8 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I like this approach, using each system to their respective strengths, a direction I am also moving toward. The M experience is best in its simplest form for me too, no additions. 

Yeah, I agree.  I’ve found that my SL is limited to the 24-90 zoom and the R 180/2.8 (both excellent lenses).  I originally thought I would use the SL as a universal platform for my M lenses, but I prefer an M camera with M lenses …