Leica teases "Mini M"

Interestingly the box is open at the back... Has anybody looked at the backside of their monitor?:D
 
NazgulKing said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, people do survive with EVFs, but often people want to enjoy the experience more than survive it. I'm not saying I'm against EVFs, I think they certainly have their place, but for 99% of us here, this is a hobby, so we're meant to be enjoying it.

But yes, you're right, it is user preference.
 
thegman said:
Yes, people do survive with EVFs, but often people want to enjoy the experience more than survive it. I'm not saying I'm against EVFs, I think they certainly have their place, but for 99% of us here, this is a hobby, so we're meant to be enjoying it.

But yes, you're right, it is user preference.
Click to expand...

Why is that everyone thinks that a member on RFF is 99% a hobbyist? I am damned sure NOT a hobbyist. I work hard at what I do and so do many others. This is not entertainment for me. Maybe for some but don't be so free in categorizing people.

EVF? I hate them.

LCD? I hate them.

Bells and whistles? I hate them.

Should I go on? I don't need toys, I need tools, simple, efficient, great performing and beautiful tools. Anything else I leave for others.

Of course, YMMV, but that is why we are all individuals.
 
pvdhaar said:
Fortunately for you, RFF is open to collectors too :p
Click to expand...

Excuse me, let's get back on topic...the so-called "mini-M", the title that will still be around in 50 years like the M3...M2...M4...etc. LOL....

I suppose my question for the "mini-M" is why? Is it just for the financial well-being of Leica? And that is very important. What exactly will the "mini-M" offer for generations to come? Is it just another landfill product or is it a lasting precision instrument that will become a classic?

I love my X1 but I do not expect it to be around in 10-20 years, but then I won't either. THAT is my problem with the digital products marketed these days. Leica must avoid the melting pot while staying viable financially. No easy task.
 
dave lackey said:
I suppose my question for the "mini-M" is why? Is it just for the financial well-being of Leica? And that is very important. What exactly will the "mini-M" offer for generations to come? Is it just another landfill product or is it a lasting precision instrument that will become a classic?
Click to expand...

Thinking about the Why? for Leica makes me come to the following conclusions:

- Making precision rangefinder cameras (i.e. the optical parts and mechanical parts of the focussing system) is time consuming (and hence costly)
- This part of the camera is a weak link in its reliability as a consumer device
- Demand for the M240 is high
- Re-calibrating rangefinders is time consuming. Dealing with customers who have problems due to rangefinder/lens calibration issues is time consuming

The simplest solution, from a manufacturing point of view, is to build almost the exact same camera as the M240 leaving out the rangefinder parts and those bits associated with it, leaving everything else the same. So same sensor, same battery, same electronics, same port for attaching evf. Possibly simplified shutter system (no need for off the shutter exposure measurement or changing over from live view mode).

Besides simplifying manufacturing, it still leaves the camera with a unique selling point - full frame interchangeable mirror less.
 
doolittle said:
Thinking about the Why? for Leica makes me come to the following conclusions:

- Making precision rangefinder cameras (i.e. the optical parts and mechanical parts of the focussing system) is time consuming (and hence costly)
- This part of the camera is a weak link in its reliability as a consumer device
- Demand for the M240 is high
- Re-calibrating rangefinders is time consuming. Dealing with customers who have problems due to rangefinder/lens calibration issues is time consuming

The simplest solution, from a manufacturing point of view, is to build almost the exact same camera as the M240 leaving out the rangefinder parts and those bits associated with it, leaving everything else the same. So same sensor, same battery, same electronics, same port for attaching evf. Possibly simplified shutter system (no need for off the shutter exposure measurement or changing over from live view mode).

Besides simplifying manufacturing, it still leaves the camera with a unique selling point - full frame interchangeable mirror less.
Click to expand...
Yup. M-0. (Well, they've already had 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 plus D, P, -E, etc.)

See post 67 et seq.

Cheers,

R.
 
By what measure is M10 demand high?

Demand for digital Ms has never been high, vis a vis say full frame DSLR demand.

Certainly Leica has never been able (or willing?) to build to whatever the demand actually is.
 
digitalintrigue said:
By what measure is M10 demand high?

Demand for digital Ms has never been high, vis a vis say full frame DSLR demand.

Certainly Leica has never been able (or willing?) to build to whatever the demand actually is.
Click to expand...

My guess would be that Leica are unable to build whatever the demand actually is. The product or the assembly structure isn't geared for mass production the way say Canon or Nikon are. The final camera assembly of the M cameras is very much by hand. It's slow precision work. Same for the lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom