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 ... ?

Photon42

Well-known member
I love the look and the concept of the new lcd-less M. I do not like at all the fat body compared to film Leicas. And if it would mean a differently shaped and sized battery to make it slimer, I would not mind. Along with the price, this is going to be the deal breaker for me.
It does not help this is basically to help selling the parts of the present soon legacy M line, rather than coming alongside with an to be expected new model later this year.
So - would I be really tempted with a all new slimer body with a new sensor, lighter body and maybe even some WLAN functionality, intelligently implemented? Very much so.

Ivo
 

Paratom

Well-known member
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.
The M8 has been allready slightly heavier than film Ms, and I assume Leicas was forced to do so to pack everything inside.
The M type 240 has a larger battery, a bigger display and is weather sealed.
And yes, I also would prefer a slimmer version.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
The M8 has been allready slightly heavier than film Ms, and I assume Leicas was forced to do so to pack everything inside.
The M type 240 has a larger battery, a bigger display and is weather sealed.
And yes, I also would prefer a slimmer version.
Slimmer? ... or lighter? :angel:

Far as I've measured, M8, M9, M typ 240, etc, are all about the same thickness (within a mm or so), measured at the baseplate. Lighter is more feasible than slimmer, as seen by the M typ 262 with its aluminum top plate.

Slimmer is much more difficult to achieve. I'm sure Leica would have done that if they could.

G
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
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
Your point about the rangefinder is very valid. Both the Q and the SL are thinner than digital Ms, so a thinner body is possible. Leica could make an interchangeable lens Q using the M bayonet on a pedestal; but for that to work they would (probably) have to ditch the rangefinder, so the resulting hybrid becomes something other than a pur sang M.
 

Photon42

Well-known member
I do not have enough engineering understanding to judge, whether the body can or cannot be made thinner. I have, however, heard a while back that full frame digital rangefinders are not going to happen :cool: So I keep my hope for now.

Still I do think the camera is there to exploit existing technology and already invested capital in the hope it will pay back. Nothing wrong with it. It is just that the film like purity would even better be pronounced with a slimer look.

Ivo
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
As long as the sensor stack is thicker than film, the digital body will always be thicker than the film body if the distance from film/sensor plane to lens flange is the same. Add to that the thickness of the LCD. The fact that the lack of LCD hasn't made the M-D thinner probably just confirms that Leica doesn't expect to sell huge numbers of this camera. They needed to share parts with other family members to keep costs down.

Comparing with Q and SL is irrelevant since the Q has a fixed lens and the SL a different lens mount with a different register.
 
Last edited:
But also do note that some thickness is added to film cameras due to pressure plate pushing the film. Would assume that sensor stack + required electronics can be fitted in the same space as film + pressure plate..

So removing lcd should make it possible to reduce thickness. In this case it would have needed too much re-engineering/re-tooling that it probably didn't make any sense to do so. Also it could have caused unwanted move away from M-P typ 240 towards this M-D.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
But also do note that some thickness is added to film cameras due to pressure plate pushing the film. Would assume that sensor stack + required electronics can be fitted in the same space as film + pressure plate..

So removing lcd should make it possible to reduce thickness. In this case it would have needed too much re-engineering/re-tooling that it probably didn't make any sense to do so. Also it could have caused unwanted move away from M-P typ 240 towards this M-D.
That's incorrect. The pressure plate and film assembly is much thinner than the sensor stack.

The LCD assembly is mounted on the outside of the body shell; removing it doesn't change the required depth of the body.


Leica M240 body shell ... borrowed from leica-forums similar discussion.
G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
That's incorrect. The pressure plate and film assembly is much thinner than the sensor stack.

The LCD assembly is mounted on the outside of the body shell; removing it doesn't change the required depth of the body.


Leica M240 body shell ... borrowed from leica-forums similar discussion.
G
I agree. It's the same situation with the Nikon F6 (which has a back LCD) compared to Nikon's digital bodies. The F6 body is considerably thinner:

 
Top