The "M"issing Innovation

I absolutely agree with the OP.

IF a future M camera will return to the analog M size, so Leica will have my money.
Until then I will stick on my M9, though I still think it's too thick ( while my MP is P E R F E C T)
 
willie_901 said:
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.
Click to expand...

they also declared in the past that a 24x36 digital rf was impossible to make...
 
luuca said:
they also declared in the past that a 24x36 digital rf was impossible to make...
Click to expand...

That's a different story. Let's kindly assume that it was impossible when the statement was made. But specifically, Leica had to be refering to a camera that resembled a film M body and worked with practically all the M and LTM lenses in existence.

Nikon, Canon and others could have easily made an interchangable camera with a 24x36 mm sensor and an analog, mechanical rangefinder. It would have been much thicker than a M film body and may not have been comparable with M lenses. Obviously they decided not to do so.
 
willie_901 said:
Nikon, Canon and others could have easily made an interchangable camera with a 24x36 mm sensor and an analog, mechanical rangefinder. It would have been much thicker than a M film body and may not have been comparable with M lenses. Obviously they decided not to do so.
Click to expand...

Yep since in that case they wouldn't sell much cameras anymore, don't you think...rangefinder cameras are not particularly popular considering price and practicability....

btw I guess a smaller rangefinder camera could have been made by now, however it would cost so much more than the current models, that it wouldn't sell enough.....
pity that the new M is even bigger than the M9 and M8 which I found also big and heavy

...hope Leica or other company will come up with a model that only has that sensor in place with no LCD screen and other rubbish at the back, and no video and mics. Only a small camera with just the sensor, so you get almost the same experience as with film....shooting without having instant proof whether the shot was a success....( the camera can be linked to a separate labtop if life view is required in case of studio work and such)......
 
Why would a Canikon digital RF be "much thicker" than the M8/M9/M? Their film RFs weren't really bigger than the M series (Canon 7 was the biggest & that's arguably comparable to the M5), nor are modern non-Leica film RFs like the CV Bessas, Hexar RF, & Zeiss Ikon. And there's no technical reason why they can't use the M mount (+ it's clearly no longer patent-protected).

willie_901 said:
Nikon, Canon and others could have easily made an interchangable camera with a 24x36 mm sensor and an analog, mechanical rangefinder. It would have been much thicker than a M film body and may not have been comparable with M lenses. Obviously they decided not to do so.
Click to expand...
 
I use my D700 in low light situations because it just works ... but it's a porker!

The 240 is tiny from my perspective ... I realise it's not as tiny as a film M but hey ... it hasn't put on a lot of weight in fifty nine years! :D
 
luuca said:
they also declared in the past that a 24x36 digital rf was impossible to make...
Click to expand...
Selective quote: You left out: " with the present technology" :rolleyes:
Guess what: as soon as they could, they did....
furcafe said:
And there's no technical reason why they can't use the M mount (+ it's clearly no longer patent-protected).
Click to expand...
A bit of a problem to get it to work with Leica lenses, though. The six-bit coding IS patent-protected
 
Ron & furcafe

All I was trying to say is all existing M-mount lenses require a minimum distance between the rear element and the sensor for the microlenses to collect enough light from the frame edges. The physics makes it even harder as the sensor area increases. Even the current Ms use in-camera firmware to correct color shifts and vignetting with some M lenses (or am I confused or misremember?). M lenses are coded or a reason, right?

Nikon or Canon could have used their own contemporary mounts with a mechanical RF if they wanted too. Adapting their existing optics designs for mechanical focusing would be trivial. It was not impossible, just inconsistent with their business models. And most relevant to this thread, the cameras would have been thicker than the M8 or M9.

So a thicker non-M mount mechanical RF camera that could not use M lenses was possible years ago. Nobody bothered to make one.

By the way, Leica was rather brave and innovative to bring the M8 to market. The M9 series is also clearly innovative and technically challenging. I suspect live view (or whatever Leica calls it) adds a bit to the thickness of the newest Ms because the heat build up from continuous operation must be dissipated using purely mechanical means. Of course that's just speculation. Only Leica knows why the bodies are getting thicker.
 
JSU said:
Am I the only one on this earth (or just this forum) satisfied with the M9? So long as mine continue to work, I'll continue to be satisfied. If repairs are needed and Leica can make that happen, I'll continue to be satisfied.
Click to expand...

I admire that sentiment.

To embrace imperfection and be satisfied with limitations is the greatest innovation one can make.

I think it is very easy for the enthusiast to get sucked in by the carefully planned interval of upgrades into a situation that is equivalent to monthly payments in perpetuity to camera manufacturers.

For myself, I'm still trying to figure out if the tangible pleasure I get from using RF lenses and bodies is worth the enormous (for me) opportunity cost? RFs have been intimately tied to my love for photography since the very beginning, but I've discovered too recently that being without an RF wouldn't be the end of photography for me, far from it.
 
If the lens mount would extrude a tiny bit from the body then the body itself could be thinner while still having enough room for a sensor and a display. Then again if it were that easy I guess someone already would have thought about it.
 
j j said:
Lund: That is how Samsung made their second round of mirrorless offerings slimmer than the first.
Click to expand...

That at least means there is hope for a thinner Leica M in the future. Even though new leica's seems a bit to expensive for me it still makes me long for one. Then again I probably would be satisfied with a fat M9 or even a fatter M.
 
I liked M8 better than M6 size-wise. And I don't have big hands.

Probably because I started with M8 and only then got film M.
 
The lack of six-bit coding would hardly be a deterrent for those who want to simply use Leica lenses on a digital body.

jaapv said:
A bit of a problem to get it to work with Leica lenses, though. The six-bit coding IS patent-protected
Click to expand...
 
We are in agreement that existing tech requires a thicker body than in the days o' film & that simple marketing/business reasons are behind the lack of RF competition for Leica. I think if CaNikon were crazy enough (in a business sense) to build a digicamera w/mechanical RF & chose to use their current mounts, they would also probably have to launch a new line of smaller, more compact lenses to match the body (possibly including some non-retrofocals that wouldn't be compatible w/their SLRs).

All I've been trying to say is that CaNikon "pro" camera bodies had gotten big & fat long before digital, so there's a lot that could be taken out if they chose to offer a stripped-down manual focus camera of any kind, SLR or RF (digital FM, etc.).

willie_901 said:
Ron & furcafe

All I was trying to say is all existing M-mount lenses require a minimum distance between the rear element and the sensor for the microlenses to collect enough light from the frame edges. The physics makes it even harder as the sensor area increases. Even the current Ms use in-camera firmware to correct color shifts and vignetting with some M lenses (or am I confused or misremember?). M lenses are coded or a reason, right?

Nikon or Canon could have used their own contemporary mounts with a mechanical RF if they wanted too. Adapting their existing optics designs for mechanical focusing would be trivial. It was not impossible, just inconsistent with their business models. And most relevant to this thread, the cameras would have been thicker than the M8 or M9.

So a thicker non-M mount mechanical RF camera that could not use M lenses was possible years ago. Nobody bothered to make one.

By the way, Leica was rather brave and innovative to bring the M8 to market. The M9 series is also clearly innovative and technically challenging. I suspect live view (or whatever Leica calls it) adds a bit to the thickness of the newest Ms because the heat build up from continuous operation must be dissipated using purely mechanical means. Of course that's just speculation. Only Leica knows why the bodies are getting thicker.
Click to expand...
 
noimmunity said:
Nothing full frame in the digital world compares with the form factor of film cameras. Not yet.
Click to expand...

The Sony RX1.

I shoot an X-E1 in large measure because it's smaller — and lighter — than the digital M's. Feels about the size of a Barnack. Right in between my M6 and my CLE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom