Godfrey
somewhat colored
Leica did work on reducing one large thing with the M-E model: the price tag. It has everything the M9 did except for the unnecessary USB port and the manual frame line preview lever, and it costs a whopping $1500 less.
The way they could reduce the price like that was by reusing most of the M9 parts instead of having to develop all new ones.
G
The way they could reduce the price like that was by reusing most of the M9 parts instead of having to develop all new ones.
G
When I heard that the new M has twice the battery size of the M8/M9, that lead to a thought that the said M8/M9 could have been smaller in some respect. Might have looked/felt pretty odd though, off-putting. Then I thought to admire the designers of the new M in keeping it as small as it is despite the larger battery!
furcafe
Veteran
I think there's some truth to that. The battery on the Fuji X-Pro1 is tiny & the battery life is horrendous even when compared to the M8/M9/M-E/Monochrom.
Thardy
Veteran
How large are the digital Leica compared to an M6? The M6 is not really small, but it isn't like a Nikon D700 either.
Pioneer
Veteran
Without measuring the M6TTL and M9 are practically identical in height and width. The difference is in the thickness (or depth.) Here the M9 looks like a decidedly chubby M6.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
From http://camerasize.com/compare/#356,213
Leica M3 is 1% (1 mm) narrower and 4% (3 mm) shorter than Leica M9.
Leica M3 is 9% (3.5 mm) thinner than Leica M9.
Leica M3 [580 g] weights 1% (5 grams) less than Leica M9 [585 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
Leica M3 dimensions: 138x77x33.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Leica M9 dimensions: 139x80x37 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Pioneer
Veteran
Ehhh, numbers don't mean anything. Marilyn Monroe was only 9% thinner than Roseanne, excluding protrusions of course. I can tell you which one I would rather have been holding!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sorry, but the numbers do mean something specific. They provide the dimensions.
The M9 does feel noticeably thicker than the M3, but it's not as much in actual dimension differences as you might think from handling it. The weight is the interesting one ... I always knew the M3 was a bit heavy, I didn't realize the M9 was that close in weight. The extra thickness fools us into expecting it to be heavier.
In the end, looking at the numbers, I think Leica has done a pretty remarkable job of keeping the M digital cameras pretty close to the M film cameras overall, in both size and weight, considering the totally different (and amount of!) technology inside them.
G
The M9 does feel noticeably thicker than the M3, but it's not as much in actual dimension differences as you might think from handling it. The weight is the interesting one ... I always knew the M3 was a bit heavy, I didn't realize the M9 was that close in weight. The extra thickness fools us into expecting it to be heavier.
In the end, looking at the numbers, I think Leica has done a pretty remarkable job of keeping the M digital cameras pretty close to the M film cameras overall, in both size and weight, considering the totally different (and amount of!) technology inside them.
G
I have to agree. They had the unique job of fitting totally different inards into an existing shape. Most other companies would have taken the easy route and redesigned completely.
douglasf13
Well-known
I'd take it further. Put a FF sensor in an MP body, have no LCD (have a little card formatting button under the battery door or something,) have the usual ISO dial on the back like the film cameras, and done. Operationally just like an M6, but with a digital sensor. Heck, keep even keep the film advance lever, so there is a good thumb rest that folds flat. I'd buy that tomorrow if the price was right.