noimmunity
scratch my niche
...reduction in size and weight while maintaining full frame sensor and integrated VF/mechanical RF.
The two innovations that would have meant the most to me. (Not knocking the impressive innovations that were made, just expressing my own personal preference for minaturization).
The two innovations that would have meant the most to me. (Not knocking the impressive innovations that were made, just expressing my own personal preference for minaturization).
Attachments
c.poulton
Well-known
Yeah, I'm with your there.... 
Not that I'm into digital but whenever I feel tempted, I think about the size comparison between my beloved M2 and M9 et al, - middle age spread?
Of course, saying that, when I first got my M2 I thought that it was huge in comparison to my old IIIf...!
Not that I'm into digital but whenever I feel tempted, I think about the size comparison between my beloved M2 and M9 et al, - middle age spread?
Of course, saying that, when I first got my M2 I thought that it was huge in comparison to my old IIIf...!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Yeah, I'm with your there....
Not that I'm into digital but whenever I feel tempted, I think about the size comparison between my beloved M2 and M9 et al, - middle age spread?
Of course, saying that, when I first got my M2 I thought that it was huge in comparison to my old IIIf...!
Nothing full frame in the digital world compares with the form factor of film cameras. Not yet.
The M is 12% thicker than the M9, which is probably over 15% thicker than an M3.
thegman
Veteran
Yes, small size is what seems to be lacking in digital "innovation" right now. However, the Sony RX-1 shows it is entirely possible, and I'm sure Leica has noted that. I would not be surprised to the next M return to a more M2/M3 style of size/shape.
I wouldn't be bothered about the EVF, but Fujilfilm can do it on a £600 camera, so I'm sure Leica will work out how to do it on a $6000 camera.
Leica does need to tread carefully though, radical change is not what they are about, and they probably don't have the cutting edge manufacturing ability which is available to the Japanese giants.
theno23
Established
It's really not, the M body is less than one mm thicker than the M9 (measured it myself). Some stats online include the thumb grip bump thing, but even that only sticks out a couple of mm from the body, and doesn't contribute to the feeling of thickness - the baseplate does though.
The modern Ms are noticeably thicker than my M6 though - I'd really like a camera that thin, but it would probably mean having no rear screen. I could maybe live with EVF only, but I'd rather have a camera that's a few mm thicker I think.
- Steve
theno23
Established
Making it M3 thin would probably mean having a lens mount that sticks out from the body - the sensor + flange distance is already quite thick.
Not the end of the world, but it wouldn't look like a classic M. Sensors on circuit boards are quite a bit thicker than pressure plates.
The lens on the Sony sticks out quite a long way.
- Steve
N.delaRua
Well-known
Digital cameras are relatively new, and they are getting smaller i.e. mirrorless systems. Look at the Sony RX1.
I think after technology starts to peak before its begins to get smaller example cell phones, computers, and even something like the Pentax 110. The iPad took a loooonnnggg time. People had been discussing tablets for some time.
This is their third digital body, and second FF camera. Its also their first digital body to actually have features beyond a digital sensor. I think this one had to be big.
Miniaturization will come with time.
I think after technology starts to peak before its begins to get smaller example cell phones, computers, and even something like the Pentax 110. The iPad took a loooonnnggg time. People had been discussing tablets for some time.
This is their third digital body, and second FF camera. Its also their first digital body to actually have features beyond a digital sensor. I think this one had to be big.
Miniaturization will come with time.
willie_901
Veteran
There are two things Leica can't do (but only two).
1. Change the laws of physics
2. Accommodate the laws of physics, use a 24x36mm sensor, reduce size at the same time and achieve the full potential of all existing M lenses.
Leica can not afford a R&D program that starts from scratch to invent an entirely different, now unknown digital imaging technology compatible with how light exits M lenses and a thinner camera body with a 24x36 mm sensor.
There's a valid reason why the digital M bodies are a little fatter.
1. Change the laws of physics
2. Accommodate the laws of physics, use a 24x36mm sensor, reduce size at the same time and achieve the full potential of all existing M lenses.
Leica can not afford a R&D program that starts from scratch to invent an entirely different, now unknown digital imaging technology compatible with how light exits M lenses and a thinner camera body with a 24x36 mm sensor.
There's a valid reason why the digital M bodies are a little fatter.
MCTuomey
Veteran
To each his own. The thickness of the digital M's doesn't bother me, although it's not as smile-inducing as the feel of a film M in hand. I often use a grip (gasp!) and have Steve's thumbie on my M9. Love that thumbie.
furcafe
Veteran
No argument w/OP's point, but it would appear to apply w/even greater force to dSLRs.
I agree... the film M is a wonderful size. The digital M, second.
Phantomas
Well-known
Stop making sense you two! Someone wants something, laws of physics and common sense should be simply ignored.
wilonstott
Wil O.
Have you seen a Nikon D800?
It's the size of a Food Processor.
And you're complaining about a few millimeters.
Consider the relative difference there (between Nikon Film vs Digital / Leica Film vs Digital) in terms of proportional size increase with digital.
Leica's doing pretty good.
It's the size of a Food Processor.
And you're complaining about a few millimeters.
Consider the relative difference there (between Nikon Film vs Digital / Leica Film vs Digital) in terms of proportional size increase with digital.
Leica's doing pretty good.
akitadog
Established
I agree that the size of the Film M's is nicer, but I think it is simply the difference between the thickness of Film versus Sensor and Electronics. I see the same difference between my Nikon F3HP and the D600. Still, I wish I could afford a Digital M.
Akitadog
Akitadog
pieter
Established
Hey, I think you guys have left something out. Don't you know that when you tell everybody about your dream camera that defies the laws of physics that you also tell everybody that it should cost about 1000$?
Only THEN would you buy it.
Seriously though,
I think "size" should be the thing that Leica improves upon next.
Only THEN would you buy it.
Seriously though,
I think "size" should be the thing that Leica improves upon next.
James24
Well-known
Size matters, and I think the continuing success of the Leica M brand is dependant on Leica staying true to the original dimensions of the M3. Look what happened when they went bigger in the 70s and made the M5. History just might repeat itself, and they may have to make a digital M4-2 to keep their loyal followers.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Relax everybody. I know it sounds like yet another irate consumer clamoring for his or her bottle of milk, but it is really just a confirmation of the sweet spot for size.
@Phantomas: Of course there are physical limits, particularly with regard to the optical part of the camera, but the electronics can certainly be made smaller over time. It is exactly what has happened with every other computer. (And we all recognize that the computer is a core component of the digital camera).
Personally, I wouldn't want a general-use camera that is too small, either. The film M body hits a real ergonomic sweet spot for handheld optical devices.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Possibly, it probably depends on your hands. I find the film Ms a bit thinnish now that I am used to digital ones.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And, of course, the lens and sensor are 'optical parts'. The sensor is thicker than film, and there's no scope for putting connections in front of the sensor, so they have to go behind. Likewise, there pretty much has to be a screen on the back: despite the maunderings of fantasists, it's the easiest way to present such options as white balance, ISO, etc., and it has a detectable thickness. No wonder a digi-M is thicker than a film M!
Cheers,
R.