The future of the M-mount

ISO said:
I appreciate your words Artorious. And I agree with you that we will have film for a long time. With so many film cameras out there and many people use and like them, there will always be a company producing the medium. It could be a good business even for a small company, like the one Ruben is thinking of. But please do not discuss the future of the film medium here. Stick to the topic. Thanks.
Click to expand...

and, you are who?
I think that I speak for a few here, when you mention the M mount, you speak to film. as I said in my last post above, M mounts are here to stay, whether new or old.
When something works for 50+ years, why change.
 
I think there is room for a digital M, by Leica or someone else, at a lower cost and somewhat more modest specification compared to the M8. I don't want to spend $5000, yet I want something better than the R-D1, which reportedly doesn't do justice to the performance level of current Leica lenses. (My guess is that the M8 does.) I'd like a digital M-mount camera with around 7.5 to 8MP and a more nearly full-frame sensor than the R-D1. And without the R-D1's low-pass filtration that kills fine detail (read Erwin Puts for more on that). Maybe equalling or exceeding the 1.33 of the M8. So my 21mm can at least be a 28mm. If enough others want such a camera as I do, maybe the economic constraints Tom wrote about will no longer discourage a manufacturer.

I think that tomorrow some company will come out with a sensor that will make all this more feasible with a rangefinder camera. Sooner or later, probably sooner, a method will be found that allows economic manufacturing of full frame or nearly full frame sensors, like the 5D has, at a more reasonable price. Eventually we will have full frame sensors in $150.00 cameras. It will be like computer memory, which used to be very expensive, and now we have gigabyte memories in laptops.

The problem of using full-frame sensors in rangefinders is that the angle at which light strikes in the corners is too extreme. But if the sensor were curved, it wouldn't be. Like the curved film gate that allowed Arthur Seibert to design such a sharp lens for the Minox, by not having to correct curvature of field. But then of course such a sensor would have to have lenses designed specifically for it, and, as Tom said, the cost would be prohibitive.

Still, perhaps it could be done using the same techniques that were used in the M8, in a larger sensor. It's a matter of time, before sensors that are prohibitively expensive now, become commonplace as ten cent transistors.
 
Last edited:
Artorius, I said in my first post, "...I would say, the M-mount will never die. There already exists enough great stuff out there and it is produced for longevity. Sure there are some of you saying, I stick to my M2 and film for the next 150years ;-) , and that is just fine." - totally! I was asking about what will come new for the m-mount. I thought the thread could be interesting and appreciate all your answers. BTW I thought, this thread is more interesting like "your favorite beer threads" or "what is about the weather" in a forum about RF cameras. Well, next Saturday I will think about something else. Again, no worries. Post your opinion if you like.

Rob-F. Very interesting to read about your experience and opinion of the the RD-1....and great lines with facts afterwards. Thanks.

In general. Can we say, that most of you/ us are not even interested in new m-mount bodies?
 
Last edited:
Here is how I see it:

Full Frame sensors will never be common place, as in P&S cameras. SLRs maybe, the overall market no. There is not need for someone taking family pics to lug around all that sensor and glass. The smaller sensors do just fine, and less noise with higher EVs is evolutionary. Even if FF gets cheap, many P&S shooters won't carry all that around, especially if camera phones continue on the arc they are.

If someone (Canon, Nikon, Sony) come out with a dRF, it will have a different lens mount. Not only won't they care about our lens stable, they probably can only make a go of it if they can also sell lenses. The M mount might be slightly compatible, but not enough for really serouis use. If they can get rid of the vingenting problem and better overall properties, all the more power to them. And if Canon or Nikon come out with it, it won't be cheap. although under Leica. (Stop talking about costs, it's what they think they can sell them at.) A FF dS3 or dP with a 24/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/2 is what I would expect.

I think the most realistic hope is an APS-c sensor sized G7 or GR-1 ala the DP-1.

If they only sold 10000 of the Rd1, I'd be almost embarrassed to go to a big electronics firm to make that kind of commitment for such a little payback. The Rd1 was $2500? How much did Epson clear in the deal? That's why I think if someone does come out with one, they will need to sell the lenses to get some real cash moving.
 
RobF: why would it need new lenses? The curved sensor would just adjust to the angle at which 'current' lenses deliver the light
 
I'd like to see an M9 much the same as the M8 but with minor but important improvement to the sensor. I'd like to think that Leica would realease a new model M with about 16mp, an APSc size chip, M mount but maybe using 3CCD or other interesting technology. I don't see them trying to be too radical with things because it's hard to forsee them making a killing on M8 bodies. Lenses are where the money is. I imagine they will just refine the M8, maybe do things to tweek the shutter noise and infamous IR issues and takes steps with Kodak to improve the sensor.

Personally, I'd like to see a M9 with NO SCREEN, manual ISO knobs ala old M's, I definatly want to retain the motor rewind but would like it quiet or to at least incorporate a silent mode, and I'd completely forget about JPG's and go RAW only. Battery power is something that needs improving, and dumping a lot of techno-cr%@ can only improve it.

As a tool for photojournalists I see no reason to have a screen. A real photographer shouldn't need to chimp as it only slows you down, especially when people want to see the image.

A black and white only model sounds interesting but too limited to a specific crowd. It'd be a dead duck.

I say the best thing Leica can do is stick with the M8 for a year or so, let the sales of lenses to new customers keep steady income and work with Kodak on adopting new technologies in CCD's into the current M8 shell (electronics and all) to see how and where advances are being made and to what effect it has on REAL WORLD shooting. Personally I'd LOVE a bare bones model digi with manual knobs for important settings like ISO and colour temp. Kill all the screens, JPG's, auto stuff etc, as it's all going to break down at some stage. WATER SEAL THE BODY WITH ALL THE SPACE SAVED!!!!

Live view I couldn't care less about and it wouldn't give me cause to want a screen.

Yeah, so that's my ideas out in the open.

key features:

less = more, except in the case of weather seals and bettery life.

Tim
 
I think that it is interesting that you brought up the Plymouth story in connection with Leicas. I almost thought that you were going to ask if Leica will go the way of Plymouth-which is gone now.

Not to turn this into a car thread😉 But just a couple of weeks back someone asked me what kind of car I was driving. I replied that I was driving a '72 Plymouth. This person had never heard of Plymouth! To top everything off my local Chrysler dealer recently closed after 87 years of continuous business🙁

Richie
 
Exactly TJV, no screen. A screen ads just a different workflow of using a camera. It is like, 50% shooting and 50% checking your last shot. Do not like it either and can control my cameras. But flip screens are Ok and useful to have, I think....And please give the camera a nice VF, as this is one of the most important parts on a camera. I am missing that point on most new cameras. At the end we compose a picture through the VF. (For the lenses, m-mount would be just great, thanks!)

richiedcruz. I never heard of a Plymouth before this story, as well. But it is a story I really enjoyed. I am happy for you, you have one of those gorgeous cars...(with less rust hopefully...)
 
Last edited:
The future of the M mount is wedded to the future of hundreds of thousands of Leica M bodies out there in drawerland. My three unused bodies - M2, M3, M6. Waiting for a replaceable digital back-and-base set that would cost $1,500 tops and would give them a new lease of life.

RFF Kommune - that's something to invest in!
 
Horosu: Yes, the curved sensor would solve the problem of unequal light distribution caused by allowing light rays to approach each pixel sensor at a more nearly ideal angle. But at the same time, it would introduce a new issue to be corrected. Many lenses have a flat field, or nearly so--meaning the image across the the whole film or sensor area is in focus at the same time. But if the image surface is curved, then in order to hold focus, the lens has to deliver a curved field.

It's the same idea as using a flat-field projection lens for glass-mounted slides, but a curved-field lens for cardboard mounts, where the film assumes a curved surface. The lens needs to match the contour of the imaging surface. The same applies to the lens and sensor situation.
 
This discussion is very interesting. Not the least because partisipation by experts like Tom Abrahamsson.

First of all; if there is going to be a M9, M8 must first become a promising success. With only 6000 examples out there, it is far from a success. Must be.

So, if you want to see a M9, buy a M8!

To make the M-system a success a cheaper camera that appeals to younger buyers must be introduced on market. - Otherwise the M-system will die out with us 'the old guys'. (The RFF rangefinder.com playes a very important role in introducing the Leica cultrure to new users, old and young!)

This cheap version shall not be the M9 (that can come later), but a digital CLM (something looking like this; http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm )- a cheaper, compact M-camera with, say, 8 million pixels and a 1,5 crop sensor. - Can Epson/Cosina do such a camera, then Leica can do it even better (..and cheaper...?). Now that Epson has stoped producing the RD-1 then this segment (M-compatible 1,5 crop camera) free to anyone who want to exploit it. Leica should rush to fill this gap.

- What Leica is not good at, is rushing, though. but that is a thing they have to learn to stay afloat in the digital world.

The M9 should be the 'perfect' next high end camera that exploits any significant development in resolution, low noice/hight ISO, crop factor - whatever it might be.

Before all that, the M8 success must be assured. Leica should go thru all the bad issues that has hit the M8 and try to improve them all to close to perfection as it goes and launche a 's'-version, with the UV/IR filters in the box. Say, by Chrsitmas. Hopefully, by this, squeezing another 10.000 units out of the market.

To the Leica organisation in Solms I say; good luck!
 
Yes I can agree with 8 megapixels for a junior digital M mount. But if there has to be a crop factor, I'd like it to be smaller. A factor of 1.2 would be very reasonable. Then our 21mm lenses could still be decently wide-angle at 25mm equivalent. Our 24mm lenses could be 29mm; 28mm becomes 34mm; and a 35mm would serve as a 42mm. Each lens would still be in its original ballpark, serving essentially its original purpose.
 
Olsen said:
- What Leica is not good at, is rushing, though. but that is a thing they have to learn to stay afloat in the digital world.
Click to expand...

So, we want them to rush. But we also expect the camera to be perfect, first time. And, of course, it has to be cheap.

I'm pretty sure there's no point in saying "I want an x-crop (or full-frame) sensor". I think they try to put the biggest sensor in that they can - and still get (of course) better image quality than anyone else.

Sounds easy. I guess they're just not delivering because they don't want to.

colin
 
TJV and ISO, you don't think a B&W only camera would fly, but you want one with out a screen? Turn the dang thing off of you don't like it. The vast majority of great RF pics are B&W. Yes, chimping makes you look like a monkey, but I'd rather have the feedback to take better pics, not to mention overly stuck lens caps.

The 35mm leica rangefinders were ground breaking edge-of-the-envelope cameras in their times. Hoping for a digital MP is like like the people just wanting a horse-less carriage at the start of the 20th century.

A digital CL would be a great camera. I carry my CL all the time when I travel, and forget it is in my bag it is so small. I even carry it in my pocket.

I think the true photographers need to voice their opinion for the type of technology that would help us take pictures "in the spirit of Leica". Small, durable, high IQ, and discrete. Not throw backs to the Eisenhower Administration or mongo "Look at me, I'm a pro" dSLRS. I wouldn't mind a camera that most people can't identify, and if they can they think "he must be a serious photographer" not that I'm a trustfund kid, doctor, lawyer or dentist.

Call me a RF anarchist.

Mark
 
The idea of a low cost Rf with or without a M-mount is nice but at the moment hypothetical. Leica would not want to dilute the M8 sales with it and with Epson out of the market, why should they! To go to a non-M compatible mount would be plain stupid. There are 100 000's of lenses available in M-mount and to disregard that market is not good marketing. The rangefinder market is small, compared to the DSLr market and however much we want to promote it, in the real world we are a minority. If someone would come out with a new Rf Digital today, the Mp number would have to be equal or larger than the curent M8. This has to do with marketing and even though those of us who are on the Rf forum constitute part of the market, we are all but a minute proportion of it. how many of us have a RD1 or a M8, probably lss than 100 (1% of the Rd1 sales and slightly less than that of the M8 sales)!
Any new Digital Rf has to be built with a new market "niche" in mind. It has to reach out to buyers who possibly would have little or no knowledge of Leica/Zeiss and Voigtlander. They would have to be sold on the concept of the rangefinder, on the superiority of prime high quality lenses and that "less is more" when it comes to full featured "i-drive" type cameras. This is the infamous BMW I-drive that purportrdly gives you in excess of 900 permutations on your dash - most of which are there because there was room for them on the chip! Not because they were needed!
The idea of the Mono-chrome M8 was talked about at one of the LHSA meetings. This was before even the M8 was officially introduced! There was a surprising amount of the attendee's who indictaed that they were willing to a/buy one and b/even pay a premium for it.
At the moment Leica is competeing in the 10Mp market and it is packed with cameras that can do exactly what the Leica can at a 1/4 or even 1/5 th of the cost. They need something to set them apart from the pack. A 15-16 Mp mono-chrome ( at that resolution it moves up into medium format backs and top line Canon) and would give them an exclusive market segment for at least 1-2 years to establish themselves. It also would have a logical connection with what the M stands for - the photojournalists camera of the 50 and 60's. Today sales of films is dropping dramatically, execpt for one segment, black/white is increasing (albeit from a already minute market).
Today we are seeing a resurgence in lenses for rangefinder cameras and some of the best lens designers arounds are creating optics that 10 years ago were dreams in our minds! The 12/15 Ultra wide Heliars from CV, The soon to come 18f4 Distagon, super speed lenses like the 35/1,2 VC, the 35/1.4 Asph from Leica. As a rangefinder shooter did you ever think that one day you would be able to buy, at any price, a lens like the 50/1,4 Asph or the 75/2 Asph. Those of us who have muddled along woth our 50/2 Summicron's can now by a lens that is better and actually cheaper, the Planar 50f2. I am not a great user of "longer" lenses on my Rf's, but I had the 90/2 Summicron Apo-Asph for several years and it is as good as it gets in that focal length! Remember the original Hologon 15/8 from the early 70's. It was over $700 at the time, fixed aperture and hyperfocal (it would not focus at infinity only to midway between closest and infinity). The light fall off was dramatic to say the least and with the center filter it become a f16 lens! In 1998 Cosina came out with a 15mm 4.5 for $400 (including finder!) that not only would focus across the range, but was functional at f4.5 and is a better performer across the board!
Even being a dedicated film shooter with roughly 2miles of film in my freezer (and another 4000ft on order) I have never had it so good in respect to camera bodies, lenses etc as right now! Most of this stuff is cheaper than it was in the "good old" days and significntly better to.
So if I would go digital, I would not even consider a camera that makes my collection of M mount lenses obsolete - at any price! The M8 has had some problems with the first batch of cameras, but so has every other digital DSLr that has been released! The RD 1 was sneered at as being "cheap" but from ergonomics point of view, it is better than the M8 with its advance lever and flip-able screen. I still think both Epson and Cosina Voigtlander deserves credit for being the first with a Digital Rf and have you noticed how the prices of the RD1 have gone up lately! Maybe 6 Mp is enough for us rangefinder users? Maybe we want to pay less for a body that will most likely depreciate worse than a car and spend our money on the lenses instead as, lets face it, the best film/digital sensor is limited in its performance by the lens that is bending the lightrays and shuffling the foton's throuhg it,
 
Tom wrote: " . . . lets face it, the best film/digital sensor is limited in its performance by the lens that is bending the lightrays . . ."

Tom, which digital cameras do you feel this is true of? You are not saying this about the R-D1, are you? I'm asking, because I've read in two places that the R-D1 is not good enough to take advantage of the resolution of Leica lenses. Popular Photography said it in their review. And Puts says it in his R-D1 review currently on his website. Do feel otherwise about it? I decided against the R-D1 partly because of these statements. Also, do you consider the M8 good enough to be limited by the lenses?

Best, Rob
 
anselwannab said:
TJV and ISO, you don't think a B&W only camera would fly, but you want one with out a screen? Turn the dang thing off of you don't like it. The vast majority of great RF pics are B&W. Yes, chimping makes you look like a monkey, but I'd rather have the feedback to take better pics, not to mention overly stuck lens caps.

The 35mm leica rangefinders were ground breaking edge-of-the-envelope cameras in their times. Hoping for a digital MP is like like the people just wanting a horse-less carriage at the start of the 20th century.


Mark
Click to expand...

You've completely missed the point. I don't want to lose the screen because I'm a traditionalist, and I'm not against a BW only camera - I just don't see it making any money back on the investment a company would have to put into it. With film camera's you buy whatever film you want and always have the option of shooting something else if the mood takes you. Paying big money to develop a tool that only takes BW images doesn't make any sense in this day and age.
As for the losing the screen, I'd rather have all the things you mentioned able to be tuned on manual dials. Lets face it, colour temp and ISO are the only real variables that need addressing in photographic practice.

So I stick to my guns,

weather sealing
no screen
manual controls for ISO and colour temp
raw only
silent rewind.

That's a real tool for field photojournalists or street photographers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
first steps with the KEKS M Meter
Replies
11
Views
728
hilltime
hilltime
P
Leica M mount to others
Replies
1
Views
357
Cascadilla
C
tortellini_man
first M mount film body
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
JohnGellings
J
F
What is the best non M digital body for M lenses?
2
Replies
23
Views
601
shawn
S
A
Does Voigtlander optimize their mirrorless lenses based on M designs?
Replies
8
Views
691
mrtoml
mrtoml
Back
Top Bottom