The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

New Leica M ... ?

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I had no idea that achieving simplicity was so complicated and expensive.
1. The people at Leica knows that users are willing to pay a premium for they cameras. That has been proven a zillion times. Why sell it cheaply when they can make a healthy profit on each body?

2. Leica probably doesn't have the capacity to make these in large numbers anyway, and the market is limited. Even if many would have liked to buy this, Leica lenses are expensive, even used ones.

3. In this hi-tech world, making a different body is cheap, while making electronics in small numbers is very expensive. Look what Nikon did with the Df; took a D610 chassis with D610 electronics and added some retro body panels and a D4 sensor. The result is rather nice, but it makes the F4 look like a Barbie-cam. Still, the price at launch was close to half of what this rather unique camera costs.

If Olympus made a digital OM-2, the price would probably have been lower than this, but not really cheap. I do have a lot of OM glass though, so for me it would be much cheaper. One can always hope :)

Edit: When I got my OM-1 in 1974, the price was around NOK 2,000 or nearly USD 700. 700 1974 dollars is the equivalent of 3,600 2016 dollars. The Leica M3 was only USD 270 in 1960, which convert to around USD 2,200 in 2016. Remember though that Leica made more than 200,000 M3. The M-D is a niche camera and I'd be surprised if more than 10,000 copies are made. The numbers will probably be much lower.
 

monza

Active member
They won't ever release all variations at once; releasing them incrementally allows them to extend the life of a sensor without much additional engineering, and sell multiple bodies to the same buyers.

This all started with the Monochrom...nice way to sell old tech twice to the same customers. :)
 
Last edited:

bipbip

Member
... I want one of these more than anything else. It would be a pure luxury ...
Indeed so. When I saw the M60 I thought, aha, we're getting somewhere but why make it a special one off?

I want one too, although I suspect it's not a completed project ...

The quieter shutter cocking mechanism is also a step in the right direction.

Elsewhere on this forum I see someone commented on the fact that despite not having an LCD (and therewith all the accompanying clutter inside) it was still the same thickness and not more like an M6 - production cost-cutting by using the same shell?

So, Meine Damen und Herren at Leica, the next step would be to bring back the cocking lever à la Epson RD, use a slimmer body shell and couple it with the next generation sensors. I say this in plural because naturally there would have to be a Monochrom version to put the icing on the cake, n'est ce pas?
 

monza

Active member
Elsewhere on this forum I see someone commented on the fact that despite not having an LCD (and therewith all the accompanying clutter inside) it was still the same thickness and not more like an M6 - production cost-cutting by using the same shell?

So, Meine Damen und Herren at Leica, the next step would be to bring back the cocking lever à la Epson RD, use a slimmer body shell and couple it with the next generation sensors. I say this in plural because naturally there would have to be a Monochrom version to put the icing on the cake, n'est ce pas?

No doubt it makes sense for them to use as many of the same parts and tooling as on existing models, that may in fact be the entire reason for this release. 95% the same components and 95% of the engineering has already been done...yet here's a new model that will generate quite a bit of revenue and actually sells for more...

There must be a reason for the fat body of Leica digitals. Is it simply that they don't have the capability (ala Sony and others) to pack components into incredibly small spaces? I mean, if Leica built a smartphone it might be the size of a phone book. :)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I don't understand the "last generation sensor" hysteria. A friend of mine gave me his Olympus 7070 last week. It's a camera that was launched in January 2005. I took it out for a spin today. The sensor is 1/1.8" and more than 10 years old. Except for the slowness of the camera, it's very usable and renders beautiful images. Next year, all sensors that were sold this year are ancient stuff.

Olympus 7070 @ ISO 80, 5.7mm and f/2.8. Jpeg from camera

 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
'Hysteria' is rather hyberbolic. :)

The M240 was announced 3 1/2 years ago, that's kinda old tech when the price is several grand.
I doubt that it matters much for the target group for this camera. Most of them will be upgrading from Tri-X ;)
 

monza

Active member
I doubt that it matters much for the target group for this camera. Most of them will be upgrading from Tri-X ;)

Most will be placing their M-D on the shelf right next to their other CMOSIS sensor camera, underneath their doctor of dentistry diploma. :)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Most will be placing their M-D on the shelf right next to their other CMOSIS sensor camera, underneath their doctor of dentistry diploma. :)
You insult my father, who loved Leicas and taught me photography. :mad:

Leica could not make the body of the M-D any thinner without having to create yet another, likely smaller capacity, battery and charger. Having one battery type for all typ 240, 246, and 262 cameras (M, M-P, M-D, ME60, etc) is far more than just a cost savings for Leica themselves ... It's in the users' best interest too. One good battery and charger through a series of cameras means not having to buy and manage multiple batteries and chargers whenever you own more than one model and also means a longer potential availability lifespan for the battery after production has ceased.

I don't mind the size of the typ 240/246/262 body. It fits my hands and grip well. The M-D's lack of buttons and LCD are a bigger draw to me as there's more gripping space and less to hit accidentally when using the camera.
 

bipbip

Member
... Having one battery type for all typ 240, 246, and 262 cameras (M, M-P, M-D, ME60, etc) is far more than just a cost savings for Leica themselves ...
Good point.
However, (there had to be a 'however' coming along) I'd rather a second battery charger than an unnecessarily thicker and heavier camera when the size of the M6 was perfect.
I use the Sony a6000 and also an RX1RII; they have different batteries and the one on the latter gives up after less than 200 shots. I don't mind at all, carrying three extra little batteries in my pocket for this camera is no bother and neither would it pose a problem for me with the as yet unreleased Leica.
Actually it brings a smile to many faces when not so long ago they remember having to stop shooting after every 36 shots ...
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Good point.
However, (there had to be a 'however' coming along) I'd rather a second battery charger than an unnecessarily thicker and heavier camera when the size of the M6 was perfect.
I use the Sony a6000 and also an RX1RII; they have different batteries and the one on the latter gives up after less than 200 shots. I don't mind at all, carrying three extra little batteries in my pocket for this camera is no bother and neither would it pose a problem for me with the as yet unreleased Leica.
Actually it brings a smile to many faces when not so long ago they remember having to stop shooting after every 36 shots ...
Personally, I really hate carrying multiple different batteries and chargers. Bad enough I have to carry chargers for cell phone and tablet in addition to camera charger. In fact, I won't: when I've had the choice to do so, at least one of those cameras just stayed home.

The battery introduced with the M typ 240 and used in all subsequent Ms has a great capacity and is often good for 900-1000 shots—this is great. I absolutely despised the necessity of carrying four batteries when I had the A7, and then having to charge all of them for the next day's shooting. It meant I usually needed to carry two chargers as well.

I suspect there will never be a Leica M digital camera as thin as an M6 without changing the shape of the front of the camera. A sensor stack is much thicker than film and pressure plate, there's so little space behind the sensor stack that the couple mm gained by removing the LCD don't account for much, and the lens register cannot change (unless you want to toss compatibility with all existing M lenses out the window). So unless you put the lens mount on a pedestal (and then completely re-engineer how the rangefinder works!), it just isn't going to happen, period.

I suspect that if you want a Leica M compatible with existing lenses and styled like the classic M line has been, the current body's form factor is as near to what's going to be its size as Leica is going to manage. It was already very tough to make a digital RF compatible with the M mount lenses that meets the imaging standards, and I'm sure no one wants to degrade that.

As I said before, I like the M-P just as it is, and would love an M-D as well. I also like my M4-2. Funny thing is that when I first pick up the M4-2 after using the M-P for a bit, I find it a bit thin and cramped... :toocool:

Our minds and hands are much more adaptable and flexible than any camera can be.

G
 
Last edited:

monza

Active member
You insult my father, who loved Leicas and taught me photography. :mad:
Just simple humor. :) Offense wasn't given so please don't take it.

Leica could not make the body of the M-D any thinner without having to create yet another, likely smaller capacity, battery and charger. Having one battery type for all typ 240, 246, and 262 cameras (M, M-P, M-D, ME60, etc) is far more than just a cost savings for Leica themselves ...
It most certainly makes sense for Leica to have the same battery across the line, although I'm rather doubtful that is the reason why this series of camera is this size. If there is indeed a technical reason why they could not engineer them to be the same 'thickness' as a film M, I'm very curious to know what that reason is. Even the M9 is a full 5mm more svelte, according to camerasize.com. :) My guess is that they don't have the engineering and/or manufacturing expertise to do so, or chose not to do so, to make it easier to repair, or for cost reasons or perhaps all of the above.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Just simple humor. :) Offense wasn't given so please don't take it.



It most certainly makes sense for Leica to have the same battery across the line, although I'm rather doubtful that is the reason why this series of camera is this size. If there is indeed a technical reason why they could not engineer them to be the same 'thickness' as a film M, I'm very curious to know what that reason is. Even the M9 is a full 5mm more svelte, according to camerasize.com. :) My guess is that they don't have the engineering and/or manufacturing expertise to do so, or chose not to do so, to make it easier to repair, or for cost reasons or perhaps all of the above.
I am sure Leica could design it slimmer but than it would not be just a modification of the M240 but a different camera and that would increase the cost/price and decrease the profit margin. So customers would have to pay more while Leica would earn less.

You ask for the reason - I believe it is an economic reason (which makes sense IMO). Specially since the number of people who will buy this camera is limited anyways.
 

monza

Active member
I am sure Leica could design it slimmer but than it would not be just a modification of the M240 but a different camera and that would increase the cost/price and decrease the profit margin. So customers would have to pay more while Leica would earn less.

You ask for the reason - I believe it is an economic reason (which makes sense IMO). Specially since the number of people who will buy this camera is limited anyways.
The question is why is the entire series is the size that it is, not just the M-D. I don't expect them to slim down just the M-D when one of the primary reasons for the M-D is to use as many existing parts as possible.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
Even the M9 is a full 5mm more svelte, according to camerasize.com.
...
They have incorrect figures.

Measure the front to back dimensions of the M typ 240 baseplate and an M9's. The M typ 240 is slightly less than 1mm thicker, and that is due to a thicker, stronger baseplate and lower body structure (with a stronger tripod mount, I might add).

I know this for a fact from measuring them both and also from noting that the M typ 240 fit perfectly in my A&A M9 half case other than for the position of control cutouts. IN the hand, the M typ 240's redesigned four-way control/ok button/thumbrest with control dial makes the body thinner and more 'svelte' than the M9.

G

- - - Updated - - -

The question is why is the entire series is the size that it is, not just the M-D. I don't expect them to slim down just the M-D when one of the primary reasons for the M-D is to use as many existing parts as possible.
As I said before: "... there will never be a Leica M digital camera as thin as an M6 without changing the shape of the front of the camera. A sensor stack is much thicker than film and pressure plate, there's so little space behind the sensor stack that the couple mm gained by removing the LCD don't account for much, and the lens register cannot change (unless you want to toss compatibility with all existing M lenses out the window). So unless you put the lens mount on a pedestal (and then completely re-engineer how the rangefinder works!), it just isn't going to happen, period."

G
 

monza

Active member
They have incorrect figures.
Wouldn't be the first time. :)

I measured an M3 baseplate, and one of the prototype M-Mate baseplates for M8/M9 that I designed for Luigi.

Here is a comparison. 36.73mm vs 32.31mm.

4.42mm doesn't sound like a lot, but it ends up contributing to a significantly greater volume.


 

monza

Active member
I agree with regards to thickness. They don't do enough volume to justify the expense of sensor assembly size reduction...
 
Top