Fotodiox Leica is the correct size

[Huss]

It feels so good in the hand. About 2/3 the size of an M240. Leica should take note.

https://www.fotodioxpro.com/fotodiox-crystal-camera-display-model-replica-leica-m9-camera.html

 

[Roger Hicks]

.. . Leica should take note. . . .]

Unfortunately they are constrained by the laws of physics. It's much easier to make a non-working model, of any size you like, than a working camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Huss]

That was the excuse Leica gave when they introduced the M8 and said it had to be a crop sensor. Laws of physics.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That was the excuse Leica gave when they introduced the M8 and said it had to be a crop sensor. Laws of physics.

Um... You might want to look more closely at the laws of physics. And at the difference between "excuse" and "reason". And at "technological progress". And microlenses and custom sensors.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

I too remember the M8 excuses and also the coming of the M9.

Could you be specific about the laws of these physics personally, Mr. Hicks?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jason,

For a start, consider flange/sensor distances, and telecentric lens designs.

Then look at microlenses, which are much more necessary with a short flange/ sensor distance. http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_releases/new_leica_m_uses_cmosis_24_mp_cmos_image_sensor might help you here.

Then consider the quantity of electronics that Leica managed to stuff into a body only slightly bulkier than a film M. Compare it with the size of a DSLR.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Huss]

Those are all excuses due to old tech. Ask yourself why the full frame Q is so much smaller than the M? It has a much better LCD panel, and includes autofocus and image stabilizing.
It is far more highly featured than the M, uses the same sensor size. and is smaller...

What is going to happen is that software is going to correct the physical issues that you mention. The Q is already using it. How else do you think the latest iphone takes such good photos and is so thin with such a tiny lens?

 

[Lss]

Those are all excuses due to old tech.

Do you want to use the old tech (M mount and lenses) or not?

Leica could build a digital M mount rangefinder with a significantly smaller size than the current camera. The flange-to-sensor distance however is what it is. The form factor would therefore need to be something new, and that is a marketing risk (perhaps rather spelled 'suicide') they are unlikely to take anytime soon. Leica could also come up with a new rangefinder mount allowing for a smaller camera with all sorts of bells and whistles, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks that would happen.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do you want to use the old tech (M mount and lenses) or not?

Leica could build a digital M mount rangefinder with a significantly smaller size than the current camera. The flange-to-sensor distance however is what it is. The form factor would therefore need to be something new, and that is a marketing risk (perhaps rather spelled 'suicide') they are unlikely to take anytime soon. Leica could also come up with a new rangefinder mount allowing for a smaller camera with all sorts of bells and whistles, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks that would happen.

Dear Lasse,

All true, but there are always people who are sure that they know better than the people who are actually making a success of the business. It helps, as I said before, if you ignore the laws of physics. And commercial good sense. And being able to use the vast majority of lenses made since 1931. And the cost of writing software corrections for all those lenses...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Huss]

Of course you could use the M lenses. Software could make the corrections, as the camera will already be able to recognize what lens is mounted due to the 6 bit coding.
And Leica already has a menu selection where you can manually pick the corrections for whatever non 6 bit lens is mounted.

Software is the answer, why are you hung up on physical limitations? It's already being used in the current Ms!

Leica will do this, because it will kick start the M sales. I see zero reason to update my M240 for a new M that is the same bloated size. It already takes amazing pics.
But if they reimagined the M by making it's size comparable to a film M, oh my.
It can be done.

Or you can pretend it is impossible, the way people accepted the limitations of the M8...

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . And Leica already has a menu selection where you can manually pick the corrections for whatever non 6 bit lens is mounted . . .

No. You can pick SOME lenses. But don't let facts stand in the way.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pioneer]

Leave the M Alone

Leave the M Alone

Go buy the Q if you like that size.

I like the M cameras just like they are. Leica is doing a fine job with them. It is one of the very few systems out there that just works, without any hassle. I put my 1933 Elmar 50 on my M Typ 262 and everything works great together.

 

[Huss]

No. You can pick SOME lenses. But don't let facts stand in the way of your fantasies. After all, you haven't so far.

Cheers,

R.

You have gone from denying the possibility to now admitting that SOME lenses can be corrected.
I'm sure when the first digital camera came out you thought of it as some kind of black magic! Because that is impossible! Don't they know the laws of physics?!

Simple test for you. Turn off the profile for the Super Elmar 18mm lens on a digital Leica. Or whatever super wide angle you want. The image becomes a mess. Turn it back on. Magic!! It looks amazing! Wow, how did they do that?

And that is with code written 10 years ago. That is aeons ago in the tech industry.

Keep futilely shaking that stick at the innovators. They don't care because they are not held back by preconceived notions of how things should be because of how they were.

 

[jaapv]

That was the excuse Leica gave when they introduced the M8 and said it had to be a crop sensor. Laws of physics.

And they were correct with the technology of 2006.

 

[jaapv]

Of course you could use the M lenses. Software could make the corrections, as the camera will already be able to recognize what lens is mounted due to the 6 bit coding.
And Leica already has a menu selection where you can manually pick the corrections for whatever non 6 bit lens is mounted.

Software is the answer, why are you hung up on physical limitations? It's already being used in the current Ms!

Leica will do this, because it will kick start the M sales. I see zero reason to update my M240 for a new M that is the same bloated size. It already takes amazing pics.
But if they reimagined the M by making it's size comparable to a film M, oh my.
It can be done.

Or you can pretend it is impossible, the way people accepted the limitations of the M8...

This makes no sense at all. How can software change the incidence angle of light on the sensor or the register distance of a lens?

 

[Huss]

Go buy the Q if you like that size.

I like the M cameras just like they are. Leica is doing a fine job with them. It is one of the very few systems out there that just works, without any hassle. I put my 1933 Elmar 50 on my M Typ 262 and everything works great together.

That's nice, but that won't help with future sales.
😉

What camera feels better in your hand, your gorgeous svelte M-A, or your chunky munky 262?

 

[Huss]

And they were correct with the technology of 2006.

This makes no sense at all. How can software change the incidence angle of light on the sensor or the register distance of a lens?

The first one answers the second one. And the second statement was what was said as the excuse for the M8 being a crop camera.

It's not 2006 anymore.

Did you know that the iphone did not even exist in 2006? Think about that for a moment.

 

[YouAreHere]

What if Leica simply made the right hand side of the camera thinner and left every other surface as is?

 

[Roger Hicks]

You have gone from denying the possibility to now admitting that SOME lenses can be corrected.
I'm sure when the first digital camera came out you thought of it as some kind of black magic! Because that is impossible! Don't they know the laws of physics?!

Simple test for you. Turn off the profile for the Super Elmar 18mm lens on a digital Leica. Or whatever super wide angle you want. The image becomes a mess. Turn it back on. Magic!! It looks amazing! Wow, how did they do that?

And that is with code written 10 years ago. That is aeons ago in the tech industry.

Keep futilely shaking that stick at the innovators. They don't care because they are not held back by preconceived notions of how things should be because of how they were.

First sentence: no I haven't. Where did I say that? It really isn't worth discussing the matter with you. You seem to think that Leica is deliberately making inferior or excessively bulky cameras. Why would they do that? Just to annoy you?

As Jaapv pointed out, "This makes no sense at all. How can software change the incidence angle of light on the sensor or the register distance of a lens?"

Your comment about "black magic" is frankly insulting. I understand things like (as Jaapv said) the incidence angle of light on the sensor, which is dependent on, yes, the laws of physics, and which requires trick sensors to overcome the problems of a short flange-to-sensor distance.

 

[jonmanjiro]

As Jaapv pointed out, "This makes no sense at all. How can software change the incidence angle of light on the sensor or the register distance of a lens?"

Software cannot change the angle of incidence of light on the sensor or register distance, but it can certainly make color corrections for the light hitting the sensor at a certain position (known angle of incidence) as well as correct vignetting and distortion etc.