urban_alchemist
Well-known
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.
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
summicronia
Yeah, not any mount other than M. The letter has to mean something in order to keep the line alive.
urban_alchemist
Well-known
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
Dr
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:
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
Well-known
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
what?
Imagine the worse - the Mini-M is really just an app for i-pad tablets 
bensyverson
Well-known
If it has a full frame sensor, sign me up! Seriously.
doolittle
Well-known
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.
Last edited:
MartinP
Veteran
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
Dr
bensyverson
Well-known
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.
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
somewhat colored
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
Dr
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
somewhat colored
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
Well-known
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
Established
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.
My Red Dot Glows For You
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".
Maybe.
Yep. And yep.
Whaa? Lumix GF1? Anyone? Buller? Anyone?
I can agree with you there, also.
Well, Leica is doing a good job of slowly pulling the bra straps; we're talking...
user237428934
User deletion pending
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
Well-known
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
Peter
Well.. it does keep us off the streets, doesn't it?