Leica Mini Image Leaked

A overpriced point and shoot camera.........another wasted effort by Leica, why don't they just stop making all the junk and sell out to the Japanese, then you'll see some REAL Leica's getting made again, Germany's lost it, Leica is just a stupid red dot, not a useful camera tool anymore for the modern photographer *sigh*

I've given up on Leica ever since the end of the M6 0.85 TTL ......all the camera's since then have been dogs. 🙁

A compact *Retro Designed* Screw Mount looking camera with a M mount/Full Frame sensor/No preview screen and all manual controls........that's what the mini should be!

I cross my fingers and hope that Sony comes out with a FF/Fixed lens camera with a Carl Zeiss Sonnar f1.5/50 on it and my digital camera searching days are over.........!

Tom
 
Leica fans are very passionate about the brand Leica, Leica the brand is passionate about mindless rich people in new markets who like to buy status.

That duality cannot be met, hence all the tears and sorrow among Leica fans...
 
I am almost certain it is a fake.

Front of the lens looks like is says 16-46mm. If that is the case no crop factor will give you 28-70mm equiv as per the spec sheet. It works out either 28-80mm on a 1.75 crop or 24-70mm in a 1.5 crop (give or take).

Even if the above is wrong why put a big 70 & 50 on the barrel?
 
dgrobler said:
I am almost certain it is a fake.

Front of the lens looks like is says 16-46mm. If that is the case no crop factor will give you 28-70mm equiv as per the spec sheet. It works out either 28-80mm on a 1.75 crop or 24-70mm in a 1.5 crop (give or take).

Even if the above is wrong why put a big 70 & 50 on the barrel?
Click to expand...

are you Andy on Mirrorless Rumors? it probably reads 18-46mm, 1.5 crop. 50 and 70 would be the 35mm focal lengths. come on it's not that hard to figure out.

looks pretty real to me, stupidly outrageous enough to be a leica product
 
LeicaTom said:
A overpriced point and shoot camera.........another wasted effort by Leica, why don't they just stop making all the junk and sell out to the Japanese, then you'll see some REAL Leica's getting made again, Germany's lost it, Leica is just a stupid red dot, not a useful camera tool anymore for the modern photographer *sigh*

I've given up on Leica ever since the end of the M6 0.85 TTL ......all the camera's since then have been dogs. 🙁

A compact *Retro Designed* Screw Mount looking camera with a M mount/Full Frame sensor/No preview screen and all manual controls........that's what the mini should be!

I cross my fingers and hope that Sony comes out with a FF/Fixed lens camera with a Carl Zeiss Sonnar f1.5/50 on it and my digital camera searching days are over.........!

Tom
Click to expand...
I used to understand Leica's philosophy; now I'm even sure what it is - but it fully appears to be "make as much money as possible as quickly as possible" and "cater to the shallow celebritwat and photographic poser demographic segments." If those are Leica's corporate values, they have truly lost their way.

This is JMHO - and apparently a fair percentage of Leica M camera connoisseurs will agree, but I see the following: Leica has gotten WAY off in the ditch in terms of fidelity to the original Leica M camera philosophy and execution of design.

Rather than calling it the Mini M, perhaps Leica should have named this camera the X2 II. Or maybe the X4 (X2 multiplied by II).
Either way, this camera is regrettably starting to look like another mini sensor digital turd which will be dispatched from Solms on June 11. 🙄

More and more, I feel vindicated in my decision to eschew digital and adhere to silver halide based photography.
My M4-P is looking better and better with each passing day as are my stacks of boxes full of negatives and chromes.
 
funkydog said:
And this is why the market for vintage Leica stuff is still healthy. All that 30-80 year old gear is way preferable to the overpriced junk that Leica now churns out. The brand and patents should be sold to Samsung to manage, even if Samsung is the Rodney Dangerfield of digicams.
Click to expand...

Their glass is more amazing than ever. I love my 50mm Summilux ASPH.

But their digital strategy is a little weird...
 
FA Limited said:
are you Andy on Mirrorless Rumors? it probably reads 18-46mm, 1.5 crop. 50 and 70 would be the 35mm focal lengths. come on it's not that hard to figure out.

looks pretty real to me, stupidly outrageous enough to be a leica product
Click to expand...

Nope not Andy or from Mirrorless Rumors.

Okay even if it is 18-46mm and 1.5 crop, why write the actual focal length on the front and 35mm equiv in the barrel?

Is this normal? Has this been done before?
 
Personally, I'm waiting for the news that this is not fake… and the inevitable frothing defenses of it from Leica partisans.
 
You can't just Photoshop brand new lighting... If this is a fake, the artist started in 3D and spent maybe two dozen hours modeling, texturing, lighting and rendering.

I'm not sure why people think the Vario-Elmar lettering looks wrong... It looks precisely right for that typeface. (You're also looking at a small image blown up by some unknown interpolation algorithm.)

It's good to remain skeptical, but there's a fine line between skepticism and circling the shadows on the Apollo 11 footage and claiming it was faked. Sadly, there is absolutely no reason to believe this image is anything but a well produced product shot.
 
If it is a mock up it´s very well done....BTW everything on that picture can be done in photoshop...there are many tools like clone and lightinig effects as well as masking procedures to make this things...

...if it´s a mock up i cannot tell with such a poor IQ image...but it can be made...for sure...

:angel:
 
Bille said:
The camera looks real to me, except for the "VARIO-ELMAR ..." lettering.

de1m6d.jpg


By the way, the Leica C2 was a film compact featuring a"Vario Elmar 35-70mm (f/4.6-8.6)". Yes, that f8.6 at 70mm.
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Leica_C2
Click to expand...

I just can't wait for the $25,000 titanium limited edition version to be offered... 😀
 
I'm in the fake camp. The lighting looks odd. The specular highlights on the rings on the lens don't align with the highlights on the lens barrel. And given the probable light orientation to produce those highlights, that shadow on the front of the top plate, where lens meets body, looks incorrect.

John
 
johnwolf said:
I'm in the fake camp. The lighting looks odd. The specular highlights on the rings on the lens don't align with the highlights on the lens barrel. And given the probable light orientation to produce those highlights, that shadow on the front of the top plate, where lens meets body, looks incorrect.

John
Click to expand...
It's easy to see that there are at least four lights in the shot, but everything looks completely consistent to me.

However, keep in mind that highlights and shadows are often brought up, toned down, or even removed in the course of routine retouching. The promotional images in glossy brochures don't come out of the camera like that.

Given that Mirrorless Rumors has confirmed the images with their sources, it's looking pretty grim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Pierce
A Quick One
Replies
4
Views
793
charjohncarter
charjohncarter
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
857
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
17
Views
986
Mos6502
Mos6502
J
  • Article Article
The Pixii Max: The first real competitor to the Leica digital M’s!
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
10K
Godfrey
Godfrey
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom