Leica teases "Mini M"

[urban_alchemist]

Guess we'll just have to wait till June 11.

That said, to all those who are predicting a rebadged Panasonic of some sort, what do you make of the news that they have been developing this for many years and that it wasn't ready for the last Photokina?

This points towards something unique and developed exclusively at and by Leica - not the quick rebody of a G5 or other m4/3.

 

[Chris101]

Guess we'll just have to wait till June 11.

That said, to all those who are predicting a rebadged Panasonic of some sort, what do you make of the news that they have been developing this for many years and that it wasn't ready for the last Photokina?

This points towards something unique and developed exclusively at and by Leica - not the quick rebody of a G5 or other m4/3.

Yeah, not any mount other than M. The letter has to mean something in order to keep the line alive.

 

[urban_alchemist]

Yeah, not any mount other than M. The letter has to mean something in order to keep the line alive.

Yeah, but not a m4/3 either - that already exists with the lense adaptors. Doubt they'd go APSC either. Maybe a shrunk M9 (if they've worked out how to do that)...

 

[Cyrus]

What all the folks have missed:

1) the camera box stays actually between the M and X cameras, not the camera itself

2) the announcement is made on the next day of Apple WWDC 2013 conference

3) the camera naming pattern reflects that of Apple products (mini, micro, nano, pico, femto,etc)

So my 5 cents go to a module that slaps M lenses on one side, and i-phones on the other!

:angel:

 

[Exdsc]

Works OK (just about) on the M.

Cheers,

R.

The problem with an EVF is that one is not looking "at it", one is looking "through it". Our eye can put up with lousy TV screens or camera LCD, because its simply looking at it, when its looking through something, it expects complete transparency.

When you're looking at an EVF the eye's focus mechanism goes into continuous focus mode trying to resolve the screen and look through it, but it cannot so your eye gets exhausted the same way that AF if set to continuous focus will exhaust the battery.

Until EVFs reach such a resolution that fools the eye into thinking its looking at a transparent screen, it is going to strain the eye, make the eye tired and make the photographer really unhappy.


The only caveat is of course, how prolific the photographer is, if someone shoots slowly and rarely, they can put up with all sorts of camera limitations.

 

[daveleo]

Imagine the worse - the Mini-M is really just an app for i-pad tablets 😱

 

[bensyverson]

So my 5 cents go to a module that slaps M lenses on one side, and i-phones on the other!

If it has a full frame sensor, sign me up! Seriously.

 

[doolittle]

What all the folks have missed:

1) the camera box stays actually between the M and X cameras, not the camera itself

2) the announcement is made on the next day of Apple WWDC 2013 conference

3) the camera naming pattern reflects that of Apple products (mini, micro, nano, pico, femto,etc)

So my 5 cents go to a module that slaps M lenses on one side, and i-phones on the other!

:angel:

Not sure if you are being flippant or not, but I think you are on the money with all your points. Surely not co-incidence.

I had forgotten that Jony Ives was designing a version of the Leica M for a charity auction, but you just made me remember.

So it very well could be a device which slots in an iPhone 5 to a digital back with a FF sensor and M mount. So an iOS powered Leica M.

 

[MartinP]

Mini-M ?? Pfffft . . . how about building us a Mini-S - fixed lens, focus-confirmation on manual plus single-point auto-focus (or even only manual to keep the weight down and add simplicity), optical viewfinder with projected parallax-corrected frame?

 

[Cyrus]

Not sure if you are being flippant or not, but I think you are on the money with all your points. Surely not co-incidence.

I had forgotten that Jony Ives was designing a version of the Leica M for a charity auction, but you just made me remember.

So it very well could be a device which slots in an iPhone 5 to a digital back with a FF sensor and M mount. So an iOS powered Leica M.

one more thing.....

Why is the V-lux the lost son?

 

[bensyverson]

Leica updated the teaser graphic, and it now shows part of the lens and the camera body... We can now determine a few things.

1. It is not a rangefinder. Sorry, there just isn't room for a RF assembly in that short height, unless the RF viewfinder is 5mm tall peephole. So we can rule out the "Digital CL / CLE" idea completely.

2. It's shorter than the M 240, but taller than the X2. So we can rule out the idea that it's a D-series point and shoot.

3. It has a similar textured grip to the 240, which indicates a heavier, probably metal camera—grip is functional, not decorative.

4. The height is exactly what I would expect from an M-mount EVF camera.

5. The diameter and vertical alignment of the lens is identical to the Summilux on the 240. That could be meaningful, or it could be a coincidence. But here is the teaser graphic with the M's Summilux overlaid on the "Mini M" box:

Due to the size of the lens, I would rule out Micro 4/3 completely. There's also no reason to expect they would position a M43 camera above the APS-C X2, but I digress.

It won't be an APS-C fixed lens camera, because that's the X2, and this is substantially larger.

So I believe it has to be either a full frame fixed lens camera to compete with the Sony RX1, or an M-mount EVF camera (either FF or APS-C). At this point, I think those are the only two plausible options.

 

[Godfrey]

The OM-D drives its EVF at 120 fps (and allegedly bursts to 240 fps). This viewfinder is eminently usable with no perceptual lag or smearing.

The Leica M, on the other hand, can only drive the EVF at 30 fps due to limitations with the Maestro processor. (Leica alleges that the sensor is capable of live view frame rates higher than 30 fps.)

For an EVF to provide a satisfactory user experience, it must be driven at 120+ fps.

As such, the problem is not with current EVF technology but with the capability of the imaging sensor and processing hardware.

All that it is required for Leica to deliver a satisfactory EVF experience is a new Maestro II processor from Fujitsu.

But I was referring to the VF2, which can be used on the OM-D in addition to its built in EVF. I'm not sure that it drives the VF2 at the faster rates, but i know it works pretty well anyway.

G

 

[Cyrus]

Leica updated the teaser graphic, and it now shows part of the lens and the camera body... We can now determine a few things.

1. It is not a rangefinder. Sorry, there just isn't room for a RF assembly in that short height, unless the RF viewfinder is 5mm tall peephole. So we can rule out the "Digital CL / CLE" idea completely.

2. It's shorter than the M 240, but taller than the X2. So we can rule out the idea that it's a D-series point and shoot.

3. It has a similar textured grip to the 240, which indicates a heavier, probably metal camera—grip is functional, not decorative.

4. The height is exactly what I would expect from an M-mount EVF camera.

5. The diameter and vertical alignment of the lens is identical to the Summilux on the 240. That could be meaningful, or it could be a coincidence. But here is the teaser graphic with the M's Summilux overlaid on the "Mini M" box:

Due to the size of the lens, I would rule out Micro 4/3 completely. There's also no reason to expect they would position a M43 camera above the APS-C X2, but I digress.

It won't be an APS-C fixed lens camera, because that's the X2, and this is substantially larger.

So I believe it has to be either a full frame fixed lens camera to compete with the Sony RX1, or an M-mount EVF camera (either FF or APS-C). At this point, I think those are the only two plausible options.

You have some points but actually the Summilux on the M240 is placed parallel to the picture's image plane whereas the "Mini M" is skewed to the left, so there is a wrong perspective in your rendering.

On the other hand is noticeable that the lens position is placed on the left side of the "Mini M" reminding me somehow my NEX-6. Apparently there is also place for a grip on the right side of the camera and for an EVF, although I really doubt that this is an EVIL camera.

 

[Godfrey]

You have some points but actually the Summilux on the M240 is placed parallel to the picture's image plane whereas the "Mini M" is skewed to the left, so there is a wrong perspective in your rendering.

On the other hand is noticeable that the lens position is placed on the left side of the "Mini M" reminding me somehow my NEX-6. Apparently there is also place for a grip on the right side of the camera and for an EVF, although I really doubt that this is an EVIL camera.

I certainly hope the lens flange on the M240 is parallel to the image plane. I think you mean that the lens is nearly centered with respect to side to side on the M240, and more offset in seeming on the M Mini graphic.

I don't play the teaser game very well. I am content to just wait and see what Leica announces. I could care less about conjecturing about it.

G

 

[bensyverson]

You have some points but actually the Summilux on the M240 is placed parallel to the picture's image plane whereas the "Mini M" is skewed to the left, so there is a wrong perspective in your rendering.

On the other hand is noticeable that the lens position is placed on the left side of the "Mini M" reminding me somehow my NEX-6. Apparently there is also place for a grip on the right side of the camera and for an EVF, although I really doubt that this is an EVIL camera.

True, though it looks like the "Mini M" is skewed only a degree or two (if that—it's certainly skewed less than the box), so the perspective error is minimal. I do think the lens is offset to the left, as it is with the other camera, but perhaps even more so, somewhat like the NEX series. But I would be surprised to see a molded grip, because as far as I can tell, they've never used one on an M or compact camera; only the R series.

 

[NazgulKing]

The problem with an EVF is that one is not looking "at it", one is looking "through it". Our eye can put up with lousy TV screens or camera LCD, because its simply looking at it, when its looking through something, it expects complete transparency.

When you're looking at an EVF the eye's focus mechanism goes into continuous focus mode trying to resolve the screen and look through it, but it cannot so your eye gets exhausted the same way that AF if set to continuous focus will exhaust the battery.

Until EVFs reach such a resolution that fools the eye into thinking its looking at a transparent screen, it is going to strain the eye, make the eye tired and make the photographer really unhappy.


The only caveat is of course, how prolific the photographer is, if someone shoots slowly and rarely, they can put up with all sorts of camera limitations.

Countless videographers have survived on EVFs. I'm pretty OK with EVFs and so are plenty others using mirrorless cameras. I'm personally not seeing the problem, beyond an issue with user preference.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

1. It is not a rangefinder. Sorry, there just isn't room for a RF assembly in that short height, unless the RF viewfinder is 5mm tall peephole. So we can rule out the "Digital CL / CLE" idea completely.

I disagree. If I consider my Lumix GF1 as my "Digital Canonet" even though it doesn't have a rangefinder, I think if the Mini Me (no, not a typo) has liveview and an M-mount, I'd consider it a "Digital CL".

2. It's shorter than the M 240, but taller than the X2. So we can rule out the idea that it's a D-series point and shoot.

Maybe.

3. It has a similar textured grip to the 240, which indicates a heavier, probably metal camera—grip is functional, not decorative.

4. The height is exactly what I would expect from an M-mount EVF camera.

Yep. And yep.

5. The diameter and vertical alignment of the lens is identical to the Summilux on the 240. That could be meaningful, or it could be a coincidence. But here is the teaser graphic with the M's Summilux overlaid on the "Mini M" box:

(image snippedy-snipped)

Due to the size of the lens, I would rule out Micro 4/3 completely.

Whaa? Lumix GF1? Anyone? Buller? Anyone?

There's also no reason to expect they would position a M43 camera above the APS-C X2, but I digress.

I can agree with you there, also.

It won't be an APS-C fixed lens camera, because that's the X2, and this is substantially larger.

So I believe it has to be either a full frame fixed lens camera to compete with the Sony RX1, or an M-mount EVF camera (either FF or APS-C). At this point, I think those are the only two plausible options.

Well, Leica is doing a good job of slowly pulling the bra straps; we're talking...

 

[user237428934]

Countless videographers have survived on EVFs. I'm pretty OK with EVFs and so are plenty others using mirrorless cameras. I'm personally not seeing the problem, beyond an issue with user preference.

But there are EVFs and EVFs. Had the opportunity to look at some cameras with EVFs side by side.

Fuji EVF was pretty bad. Very slow.
Olympus OM-D EVF was noticeable better, no lag.
Sony 99 was the best of them all.

To survive something or to have fun with a good finder are two different things.

 

[rivercityrocker]

Leica updated the teaser graphic, and it now shows part of the lens and the camera body... We can now determine a few things.

1. It is not a rangefinder. Sorry, there just isn't room for a RF assembly in that short height, unless the RF viewfinder is 5mm tall peephole. So we can rule out the "Digital CL / CLE" idea completely.

2. It's shorter than the M 240, but taller than the X2. So we can rule out the idea that it's a D-series point and shoot.

3. It has a similar textured grip to the 240, which indicates a heavier, probably metal camera—grip is functional, not decorative.

4. The height is exactly what I would expect from an M-mount EVF camera.

5. The diameter and vertical alignment of the lens is identical to the Summilux on the 240. That could be meaningful, or it could be a coincidence. But here is the teaser graphic with the M's Summilux overlaid on the "Mini M" box:

Due to the size of the lens, I would rule out Micro 4/3 completely. There's also no reason to expect they would position a M43 camera above the APS-C X2, but I digress.

It won't be an APS-C fixed lens camera, because that's the X2, and this is substantially larger.

So I believe it has to be either a full frame fixed lens camera to compete with the Sony RX1, or an M-mount EVF camera (either FF or APS-C). At this point, I think those are the only two plausible options.

Didn't it occur to anyone that this is a composite image and not indicative of an ACTUAL camera? Seriously, trying to determine the dimensions of a "camera" in a Photoshop composite is ludicrous. :bang:

 

[pvdhaar]

Seriously, trying to determine the dimensions of a "camera" in a Photoshop composite is ludicrous. :bang:

Well.. it does keep us off the streets, doesn't it? 😀