Why does it always get bigger?

[Pioneer]

If we asked really nice could we convince Leica to build us a Leica II or IIIc in digital? The M8 sensor could probably be used.

I am sure you have noticed but Leica cameras have continually gotten larger over the years. Starting with the Leica Standard, or 1, then the II was a bit bigger, the the IIIc became a little bit bigger.

Then came the M3 and it was quite a bit bigger. The M5 was even bigger but all holy h...l erupted and it went back to M size. Then came the digital Ms and they were bigger yet.

Now we have the new M, and it is even bigger again...and heavier!

Just once it would be nice to shrink instead of expanding. Even by a couple millimeters and an ounce or so.

 

[Clint Troy]

Many people will smartarse you for your post but I completely agree with you.

Wasn't the future supposed to be about progress? Didn't happen.

 

[roundg]

Leica may consider their X1/X2 as the digital version of the screw mount If.

I completely agree with you. And M8/9 just too fat to feel right.

 

[Keith]

Try lugging a D700 around for a few hours and then tell me the digital M is too big. I went from an M8 to my current D700 for my gallery shoots and fondly remember how tiny the Leica was. The new M isn't that much bigger IMO considering what it now offers.

Which doesn't answer your question of course.

Cars are the same ... I had a Honda Civic back in the seventies and it was a lovely car and very compact and nowhere near the size of the current version ... which looks like a taxi in comparison! 😀

 

[peterm1]

Try lugging a D700 around for a few hours and then tell me the digital M is too big. I went from an M8 to my current D700 for my gallery shoots and fondly remember how tiny the Leica was. The new M isn't that much bigger IMO considering what it now offers.

Which doesn't answer your question of course.

Cars are the same ... I had a Honda Civic back in the seventies and it was a lovely car and very compact and nowhere near the size of the current version ... which looks like a taxi in comparison! 😀

Here! Here! I just bought the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 for my D700. While I am accustomed to carrying heavy cameras all I can say is WOW its heavy. Ms are still a dream by comparison.

 

[c.poulton]

It's not just Leica, remember the slr's of the 70's & 80's - I fondly remember my Pentax ME Super for it's compactness (and it was full frame!)

The digital 'revolution' has increased camera size, at least for full frame models....

I must admit that I regret selling my IIIf which was the perfect 'pocket' camera - my M2 is just that bit too big to be 'pocketable' unfortunately.....

 

[S.H.]

Sensor + electronic board is thicker than film obviously. Then you have a screen, and some buttons to access some basic functions. The shutter is auto cocking and 3fps capable, so you also have a Leicamotor in it. Even with a minimal interface such as the M8, you have much more under the hood than a film M. And it is only a few mm bigger.

If you have a IIIc, a Leicavit and a good finder, it's almost bigger.

 

[theno23]

The X1/2 models are roughly Leica I size - you lose some features (interchangeable lenses, and builtin optical viewfinder). You gain AF and liveview.

 

[thegman]

I suppose technology sells, and technology takes up space. I'm sure in some markets, like the 'prosumer' market etc. people like the idea of a big camera to look more like a pro. I'm sure many motorwinds and grips sell for that reason.

 

[gavinlg]

Sometimes smaller isn't better... I prefer the x-pro1 over the x100 and xe1 for that reason - it's not like either of them are pocketable, and the x-pro1 is much more relaxed in my hands with its controls.

In the case of the M though, I'm not sure. I haven't spent any large amount of time with a digital M.

 

[sparrow6224]

Once the camera gets into its fifties it will start to shrink

 

[Keith]

Size is unimportant ... it's how you use it!

 

[valdas]

Size is unimportant ... it's how you use it!

I am not sure this one applies to cameras...

 

[James24]

I quite agree. I can just about tolerate the size increase of my M8 over a film M, but it is an unfortunate increase. The size increase of the new M may be a deal breaker for me. I will at some point handle one side by side with an M8/M9 and or a film M and see if it is doable.

 

[hepcat]

"We" demanded a 24x36mm sensor so that lenses could be used in their native field of view. "We" demanded a larger battery because the M8/M9 battery didn't last long enough. "We" demanded a larger LCD with live view and compatibility with other lenses... all that takes space. It's a miracle that the digi-Ms are as small as they are, really.

I don't find the M8/M9 to be so much larger than my M3 to be objectionable. I don't expect that the M will be either. And as was mentioned before, relative to DSLRs, the M will still be diminutive.

 

[icebear]

"We" demanded a 24x36mm sensor so that lenses could be used in their native field of view. "We" demanded a larger battery because the M8/M9 battery didn't last long enough. "We" demanded a larger LCD with live view and compatibility with other lenses... all that takes space. It's a miracle that the digi-Ms are as small as they are, really.

I don't find the M8/M9 to be so much larger than my M3 to be objectionable. I don't expect that the M will be either. And as was mentioned before, relative to DSLRs, the M will still be diminutive.

+1 in all counts.

 

[FTL]

I agree about the size. I always found my M9-P a 'touch' big but didn't know what I was missing. After getting the MP, the M9 just doesn't feel right anymore. My perfect digital M is an MP body, with an ISO dial where the MP rewind knob is at, add the M240 thumb rest and dial and put in a hybrid viewfinder. I don't need an lcd on the back, just use that space to get the sensor at the same distance as the film. Did I miss anything? Assuming the dial can be configured for exposure compensation I think I'd be happy.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't care much. The M4-2 fits my hands very nicely. So does the M9. So does the X2. Smaller than that, and my hands get cramped unless the camera's controls are very well designed, which is a rarity.

A lucky friend got his*new M and we got together for a little bit last evening. The new M is barely larger than the M9 ... it actually feels a little handier because of the thumb rest, relocated dial, and smaller, relocated control pad. The difference in weight is hard to notice if you don't have an M9 next to it to pick up and compare, and it isn't that much even when you do. I'll happily trade the additional 1 mm thickness at the baseplate and a couple of ounces for double the battery life.

G

 

[Pioneer]

I pack a Canon 1Ds Mk II complete with L lenses so I certainly understand the size differences between the Leica M9 and the large, professional DSLRs. The point though is that Leica has also grown larger and larger. I don't have any problem holding the M9, but that really is not the point. The point is they keep getting bigger. Where does it stop?

The M-E is a great example. Here is the camera that is supposedly the M-9, but several years later. Why couldn't the M-E have been smaller? Even by a little bit. Ok, there may be some limits to the thickness because of the dimension of the sensor package compared to a strip of 35mm film. But you can't tell me that some things haven't become smaller in the interim between the M9 and M-E.

Personally, I don't think Leica even thought about shrinking it.

 

[eleskin]

Stop complaining man!!!

Stop complaining man!!!

Hey, I lift weights, and bench 330! Let me tell you, the M8,M9,M are NOTHING compared to those grotesque abominations coming from Canon and Nikon. Ever picked up their most expensive cameras? Heavy as a brick s#$t house! I hate em! Any M is nothing to complain about in terms of weight! I like to keep my weight lifting at the gym, not with cameras! That is unless I need to satisfy my large format fetish (8x10), but thats another story!