Leica's M9 and Mini M plan

Although I have been highly interested in the idea of a "traditional" digital RF, I have always felt that if it is to make use of M-mount lenses then it should be FF, because those lenses were built for it: the right fgocal lengths are available, and what is even more important, there are fast lenses in the 35-50mm range which is where they are most needed.
If a decent FF RF mounting M-lenses is so difficult (and likely to cost a fortune if made by Leica) I am beginning to think that a less conventional approach would be available sooner, and be better in the end. My spec for this would be something like ...
1 a stepping-zoom lens (a la Ricoh GX200, for example) from 24 to 75mm efl, at least f/2 at the wide end, preferably throughout;
2 at least a 1.6x crop sensor, at least 10MP, at least 3200 ISO at the top end, comparable quality (for example) to the Canon 40D;
3 at least M and Av modes;
4 setting shutter speed, aperture, ISO and shooting mode to be via dials, not buried in menus;
5 fast AF plus MF optional;
6 fast reacting, no noticeable shutter lag, with a decent buffer - should be possible to shoot without waiting for at least 10 shots in RAW mode;
7 MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, an accurate optical zooming viewfinder, with variable magnification but just a single set of framelines.
8 Size and shape: no larger than an M7 with a CV 50/2.5 mounted when off - I'd expect the lens to extend a bit when turned on.
 
Last edited:
kevin m said:
No, it's pure wacko. :D The very notion that something you buy is going to transform either your craft or your life is, honestly, a delusion.
Click to expand...
Dear Kevin,

Read the rest of my original post, and ask yourself if it is 'pure wacko' or 'a delusion' that it makes sense to use the best tool for the job, and the best tool for you.

Then reflect upon the nature of polite discourse, and consider that 'irony' does not mean 'made of iron'. Do you REALLY believe that I meant, absolutely literally, that this was only a slight exaggeration? Or might it conceivably have been a way of modifying the over-enthusiasm of the previous post, and making a more general point that anyone would agree with, if only they thought about it, and if only they were not permanently spoiling for an argument?

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
Roger, irony, despite its name, is a delicate thing, and doesn't always survive the journey from thought to page. I have no doubt that, in person, the irony would have been evident by delivery or facial expression, but I missed it in print. :)
 
JohnL said:
. . . there are fast lenses in the 35-50mm range which is where they are most needed.
Click to expand...
Dear John,

Or, of course, faster wide-angles are not beyond the wit of man. I look forward to photokina with a mixture of hope (about what new lenses there may be) and apprehension (about the possible prices).

Cheers,

R.
 
rxmd said:
No they won't. Chip area costs money.

I know that everybody thinks that CPUs and RAM and stuff have gotten a lot cheaper over time so sensors will, too. However, computer chips get cheaper mainly because you can build them smaller. You can't build a full-frame sensor any smaller than 24x36, so while their cost does scale down, it does so considerably slower than everything else in electronics.

There will never be a full-frame P&S camera and only a couple of APS-C P&S cameras.
Click to expand...

I'll be happy with an APS-C P&S...just waiting for one with good specs to show up.
 
kevin m said:
Roger, irony, despite its name, is a delicate thing, and doesn't always survive the journey from thought to page. I have no doubt that, in person, the irony would have been evident by delivery or facial expression, but I missed it in print. :)
Click to expand...

Dear Kevin,

A perennial problem on the internet: how to render the subtle sufficiently unsubtly that it is impossible to miss...

Cheers,

Roger
 
rxmd said:
This is not quite true, of course, because you run into trouble as soon as vignetting in low light gets close to the sensor's sensitivity threshold. If the sensor doesn't resolve the dark areas anymore, the fact that it resolves the brighter areas with an extra bit of precision doesn't save your day.

That said, the new Nikon sensor has quite good low-light characteristics. The main problem with such a software-based approach to vignetting is that there is no way to know what lens is mounted, especially since everybody and their mom paints black and white stripes on their Zeiss lenses.

Philipp
Click to expand...

I was counting on the sensitivity of the new Nikon sensor, Philipp (and new similar sensors of other manufacturers to come). That sensor's technology, for the first time, makes a short registration distance, FF DRF possible. And, if I understand right, even some M8 users would prefer to select their lens with a menu instead of approximating its characteristics with coding ....

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
I was counting on the sensitivity of the new Nikon sensor, Philipp (and new similar sensors of other manufacturers to come). That sensor's technology, for the first time, makes a short registration distance, FF DRF possible. And, if I understand right, even some M8 users would prefer to select their lens with a menu instead of approximating its characteristics with coding ....
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that would actually be quite interesting. In fact now that I actually look at the numbers, you're completely right and I shouldn't have written off your comment as easily. As written elsewhere, digital vignetting is proportional to the cosine of the angle of incidence. Now we can calculate how many stops of vignetting correction reserve we need. The Nikon sensor gives us about ISO 25.600, so if we restrict ourselves to shooting at 1600 ISO we get about four stops of reserve. That's a factor of 1/16, corresponding to an angle of incidence of 86 degrees, which should be enough for quite a number of lenses. (Of course this calculation is rubbish, last not least because it assumes the lens has no vignetting of its own, but it shows sensor technology is definitely moving a digital RF into the realm of the possible).

It would be nice to have another mechanism for selecting lenses, but I think it's unlikely that Leica will ever support non-Leica lenses, though. That's left for other companies. Spinning the idea further, If there was a way to parameterise the vignetting characteristics of a lens, then one could put together a web site with the vignetting parameters for arcane lenses and add them to the camera's menu ("now what if I use that 1930s 28/f8 Contax wideangle on an M adapter"?). That would of course be a rather nerdy exercise, but quite cool nonetheless. :)

Philipp
 
"No, you can't change physics, but you can find ways of dealing with it. The current sensor gets pretty creative in addressing the problem. Who knows what some guy lots smarter than you or I will come up with next?
In the long term, you never lose betting on technology coming through with a solution. If there's money to be had, someone will find a way to solve a problem.

Steve."


This is a wind up right?

I suppose these superbrains are going to fix the planet as well so I can go back to churning out CO2 with my concience clear.

I'm certainly smarter than to believe this twaddle.

Sorry. Rant over.

I can understand the desire to have exisitng lenses act as you would expect them to on both digital and film bodies; however the processing that would be required in a full frame M may destroy any cherished qualities in those lenses.

As for having to effectively carry two sets of lenses, point accepted. Bigger bags all round :D

SR
 
SR1 said:
"No, you can't change physics, but you can find ways of dealing with it. The current sensor gets pretty creative in addressing the problem. Who knows what some guy lots smarter than you or I will come up with next?
In the long term, you never lose betting on technology coming through with a solution. If there's money to be had, someone will find a way to solve a problem.

Steve."


This is a wind up right?

I suppose these superbrains are going to fix the planet as well so I can go back to churning out CO2 with my conscience clear.

I'm certainly smarter than to believe this twaddle.

Sorry. Rant over.

I can understand the desire to have exisitng lenses act as you would expect them to on both digital and film bodies; however the processing that would be required in a full frame M may destroy any cherished qualities in those lenses.

As for having to effectively carry two sets of lenses, point accepted. Bigger bags all round :D

SR
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the super-brains will some day realize/prove that very little you do with your CO2 matters and you can go on as you please.
Of course, arrogance often interferes with the operations of even super-brains...so they may go on figuring their exhalations are more powerful than the sun.
 
dazedgonebye said:
Actually, I think the super-brains will some day realize/prove that very little you do with your CO2 matters and you can go on as you please.
Of course, arrogance often interferes with the operations of even super-brains...so they may go on figuring their exhalations are more powerful than the sun.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about positronic brains? :cool:

It can all be explained with diet.

Has somebody ever tried to get their hands on Einstein's cookbooks?
 
"...I can understand the desire to have exisitng lenses act as you would expect them to on both digital and film bodies; however the processing that would be required in a full frame M may destroy any cherished qualities in those lenses..."

I for one am actually enjoying the crop factor
It allows me to get double use out of my lenses...on my film camera they act normal and on my m8 they give me a different EFL and to me that's a nice little cost saver.
 
Leica M9 and mini M plan

Leica M9 and mini M plan

That's an interesting thought, I never saw the crop factor as an positive thing :)
I have just ordered a Ultron 28 F1.9 which will give a 37.2 mm EFL on a M8.
my 35m F1.2 Nokton will give a 46mm (I use 35 and 50 the most)

If there is no M9 (or mini M) on the Photokina, then I will buy the
controversial M8, despite it flaws...
I can no longer wait, I have switched from Minolta/Sony mount to rangefinder M-mount and now I really like to start photographing with the M glass :)
 
rxmd said:
I was referring to the section on new products. Neither of the points you made are in there. I'm not denying that the article has some sources at Leica, only not for the section on new products that this thread is largely interested in, judging by the thread title.


For me both don't make sense. Or they make sense as products, but sound problematic as parts of a product lineup.

A digital mini-M will cut into M8 sales just like the CL cut into M5 sales. Leicas own sales are slim enough that they can't afford to undercut them. The existing M8 will have to present significant added value over a hypothetical mini-M, so the mini-M, if it comes, is likely to be crippled in significant aspects. I mean really significant as in "crop factor 2", or in "zoom viewfinder with only electronic rangefinder", not as in "slightly smaller rangefinder base" or "slightly different viewfinder" or "not in the original M form factor", because that didn't make a significant difference with the original CL either. If the mini-M lets you do the same that you could do with an M8, or almost the same, then the mini-M will be a danger for Leica, so it has to be substantially less capable.

A full-frame M9 will be hideously expensive given today's technology. Then again, maybe customers don't care and Leica doesn't mind producing a camera of which only a couple of thousand can be sold if at all. If people buy $6k lenses, maybe two or three of them will also buy $10k bodies. In this case the M9 is not a relevant product for any consideration of mine any more than a Seitz 6x17. But: Just because people say they would like to buy something, doesn't mean they will.

Regarding the oversized-sensor, autofocus R10: oversized sensors are a staple item in nerd speculations about digital developments in the 35mm world, people were speculating about that for the Canon 1Ds Mk III as well. It does not make sense technically because of the size and available clearance of the mirror, since it would make all the existing lenses incompatible mechanically. Let Leica build a full frame 35mm camera first, it's a capability they haven't demonstrated so far either. There is no market for what would effectively be another medium format system - in fact the existing systems are already done for; the Contax 645 is dead, and Pentax is having difficulties getting a workable digital 645 out, so I don't see why Leica with its overstrained development budget would want to dabble in this minefield. The "custom shutter" in the article is completely unnecessary because Leica has good electronic shutters already. Finally, autofocus has been speculated for the R series since the R8; Puts, in possibly unintended irony, wrote that Leica will have to develop autofocus sooner or later because Leica buyers are getting older and older and their eyes are getting weaker and weaker. I believe Leica producing an autofocus SLR when I see it, because many Leica-heads tend to see autofocus as the work of the devil and Leica as the epitome of manual-focus goodness, but still this seems to me the most likely addition of all the pieces of speculation from the article.

So until I hear someone from Leica making a definitive statement in the direction of one of these products (and I mean we-have-a-working-preseries-and-will-present-it-at-Photokina definitive, not some-of-us-have-been-speculating-over-a-beer-about-it definitive), I will remain quite skeptical about them.

Philipp
Click to expand...

Phillip,

I agree with this. Except for one thing. A smaller/cheaper M-compatible camera will be around and launched by others, - if Leica does not do it. Cosina/Epson is a candidate. This camera will, most likely, have a 1,5 crop sensor equal to a current Nikon D-SLR, but will vignette and produce unsharp corners and all that. But it will be cheaper. Possibly around 3,000$.
 
northpole said:
If the US economy doesn't improve in the near future (the ripples from which are already making themselves felt on the world's stock markets), companies such as Leica could be badly hit as the "rich men" referred to above temper their
expenditures on hobbies.

Peter
Click to expand...
...in your spendid isolation, you may not be aware that the US Sub-prime loan fiasco.. (throw in Oil prices)...has caused a veritable Tsunami in World financial markets...including here in Australia...so I would agree...the timing for a FF M9 is not good .....the M8 does 95% of what the market wants is to do..that is...record digital files of very high quality...how many how many of us mere mortals who have already bitten the M8 bullet are going to shell out to another $6K for so or for the other 5% with a World Recession looming???
 
Leica mini M

Leica mini M

aniMal said:
I use an Ultron a lot on my M8 - really great combination...
Click to expand...

I really liked this picture L1000036-5 (two punk girls dressed in black and red) was this picture also made with the Ultron 28mm F1.9 ?
I liked the high contrast in this picture.
 
wayne.mills said:
...in your spendid isolation, you may not be aware that the US Sub-prime loan fiasco.. (throw in Oil prices)...has caused a veritable Tsunami in World financial markets...including here in Australia...so I would agree...the timing for a FF M9 is not good .....the M8 does 95% of what the market wants is to do..that is...record digital files of very high quality...how many how many of us mere mortals who have already bitten the M8 bullet are going to shell out to another $6K for so or for the other 5% with a World Recession looming???
Click to expand...

And an 8000 Euro R10 hovering over the market?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom