Leica M-D in action

[robert blu]

I'm not interested in a similar camera, and personally I do not feel "ready" to buy a digital camera without LCD but Leica doesn't force me or anyone else to buy it!

You like it you buy it, you do not like it for any reason you do not buy it!

And if this helps Leica to make a profit and stay in the business why not?

robert

 

[willie_901]

The thing about the df though as as much as you dislike the retro thing it still is a smaller body with a d4 sensor.

Not to mention much lighter!

 

[JoeV]

Yea, if only the new M-D was built around an M7 or film MP chassis.

~Joe

 

[jsrockit]

The thing about the df though as as much as you dislike the retro thing it still is a smaller body with a d4 sensor.

Personally, I love the retro thing... it's what makes the camera for me. I hate the typical Nikon DSLR. The D4 sensor was just a bonus.

 

[Godfrey]

Yea, if only the new M-D was built around an M7 or film MP chassis.

~Joe

The camera's guts wouldn't fit. The digital Ms need 4.5 mm more space to accommodate the sensor stack instead of the film and pressure plate.

The geometry of the lens, lens mount, and imaging plane is fixed. You're either going to need more room in the body or you need to put the lens mount on a pedestal to accommodate the geometry, which then requires a major design change to the rangefinder mechanism.

I'm sure Leica would make the digital Ms smaller if it were possible. They're not stupid...

G

 

[nightfly]

Is there really no technical way to overcome this?

Every other piece of very complex computer equipment manages to get smaller and thinner over time.

Is this a limitation of physics and optics or just current technology?

The camera's guts wouldn't fit. The digital Ms need 4.5 mm more space to accommodate the sensor stack instead of the film and pressure plate.

The geometry of the lens, lens mount, and imaging plane is fixed. You're either going to need more room in the body or you need to put the lens mount on a pedestal to accommodate the geometry, which then requires a major design change to the rangefinder mechanism.

I'm sure Leica would make the digital Ms smaller if it were possible. They're not stupid...

G

 

[Vince Lupo]

I think the M-D is a beautiful camera -- just not sure I really need one.

 

[jaapv]

Is there really no technical way to overcome this?

Every other piece of very complex computer equipment manages to get smaller and thinner over time.

Is this a limitation of physics and optics or just current technology?

The only way would be to thin the sensor array down to the thickness of film and the motherboard+connections to the sensor to the thickness of a pressure plate. Unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, if at all.

 

[Luke_Miller]

Is there really no technical way to overcome this?

Sure - Leica could introduce a set of M mount lenses with a shorter register distance to work with a new digital body with the same thickness as an M7. Of course none of the existing M and thread mount lenses would work on it.

 

[peterm1]

I don't understand why anyone needs to buy a digital M without an LCD screen. They should just buy a used M8. Their LCD is so bad it's almost like having no screen. (Oops I am going straight to Leica hell for that one.) 😀

 

[olakiril]

Is there really no technical way to overcome this?

Every other piece of very complex computer equipment manages to get smaller and thinner over time.

Is this a limitation of physics and optics or just current technology?

Oh there definetly is.

After tryinh to mod an FE with a digital sensor and removing the LCD from the xpro1 I got a clear idea about size limitationss.

Most cameras have a sensor, then the sensor plate,, then the main motherboard and finally the LCD with the plastic cover.
The thickness of the LCD is actually very very small. So of course it wouldn't lead to a significantly smaller body and my guess is that is why md wasn't thinner.

To allow for thinner designs the motherboard has to shrink and move to one side of the camera. Many small cameras have adopted this design in order to be very thin. The sensor plus its plate are about the same thickness as the distance from the film pressure plate to the back of the camera.

 

[Ken Ford]

Sure - Leica could introduce a set of M mount lenses with a shorter register distance to work with a new digital body with the same thickness as an M7. Of course none of the existing M and thread mount lenses would work on it.

Or they could bump the lens mount forward on a thinner body to maintain the register distance. Of course, people would complain about that too.

 

[aizan]

if the film body wasn't thinner, nobody would care about the digital bodies being thicker. the solution: travel back in time and change the m3's size.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I think I like this thing..
No screen to smash or fail...
Simplicity in operation as well as risk...will improve photos probably...
Close to M6 feeling once again..but with no chemicals..
Whats not to like for an old fart like me...
I'm turning 60 this week..maybe I'll order one for fun...

 

[donny]

Perhaps it's because I feel the M9 isn't so stellar at moderate ISOs, an ISO dial is something I wish the M bodies have, LCD or no. Maybe I'm alone here and/or I'm just doing it wrong?

 

[jaapv]

Or they could bump the lens mount forward on a thinner body to maintain the register distance. Of course, people would complain about that too.

They’d get into trouble with the rangefinder linkage...🙄

 

[Lss]

an ISO dial is something I wish the M bodies have, LCD or no. Maybe I'm alone here and/or I'm just doing it wrong?

Nope, not alone. The addition of the ISO wheel and the overall simplification of the UI for quicker and more intuitive operation are exactly the reasons why I like the removal of the screen. In majority of my photography, I have absolutely no need for the screen for any operation that truly requires a screen from the UI design perspective. I use the screen because I have to check things like the ISO setting and exposure compensation there. It should not be so, and with the M-D it is not so (as far as ISO goes).

It's a mistake to look at this camera and only think there are applications where it will not work well.

 

[Godfrey]

EC setting is in the viewfinder readout.

 

[jsrockit]

What I would miss is Auto ISO.

 

[Huss]

What I would miss is Auto ISO.

I recently discovered that on my M (late to the party, eh?) and it is great!
I use it all the time now.

But as the MD has the ISO dial right there, instead of having to push a couple of buttons and dial through the menu to set the ISO, it's not a huge loss. In fact I think it's a good trade off because AUTO ISO is much more necessary if changing ISO manually is fiddly.