Features On A More Affordable Leica M Digital

The Leica M3 was a revolutionary camera. Photojournalists and consumers wanted a less expensive Leica M body

with 35, 50, and 90mm frames lines. The solution was the M2. What features would your moderately priced Leica M9

Digital have?

 

- Same 4/3 sensor or Full Frame sensor - no IR filter

- 10 to 12MP

- No LCD monitor on back of camera to view histograms or images

- No lens coding

- Manual lens frame selection for three focal lengths (Which three focal lengths would you want and why? - 21, 28,

35, or 50 to display 28, 36, 48, or 67mm)

- No built-in meter?

- Manual setting aperature and shutter settings

- Manual set of shutter speed (B, 1, 2, to 1/1000th)

- Direct bottom load of SD card

- Simple top LCD

-- Counts of number of frames shot and remaining on SD card

-- Set ISO (range 100 to 1600)

-- Set RAW or JPEG

-- Set Quality of image

- No I/O ports to down load images

 

The goal is a simpler Leica M9 Digital body that costs no mre than $1,500 USD.

No meter for $1500. Right!

I would like a histogram graph. Don`t need the picture. I know what is was when I took it.

 

For $1500 I would even accept a crop sensor.

 

M mount is a must. I might accept a digital RF but with more than one light, nearly there, almost, dead on perfect, too far, way too far, and give up, you are not a Leica guy. And the light better be where I can see it and the focus mark at the same time. Not off in some corner. If not, it has to have a RF.

 

Does not need 10 FPS. 2 will do with a burst of 4. If I can`t get it with 4, I ain`t gona get it.

 

I has to be RELIABLE. I don`t want to buy three for insurance.

 

6MP is fine. reasonably clean 800 ISO would be nice. 400 ok

 

I would accept Japanese SLR construction. No brass top and bottom. Plastic covered metal frame is fine or even a plastic frame covered with poly carbonate.

 

Garden variety AA batteries a plus.

 

Meter the same as M6 or later with white dot.

 

This camera is a 5 year purchase after which I will buy the improved model. So it need not be built to withstand a bomb attack.

 

I have a slew of M and R glass so they can do the same with an R body. I probably will never buy any 5/8 thousand dollar camera bodies.

 

These things don`t need to do anything fancy. Just make a file with existing Leica glass.

 

They will never do it, so my Nikon collection grows. They simply need to realise they have to cater to the existing customer most of whom will not pay $5000.

 

Just my humble opinion.

Rick,

 

Ya gotta have a meter, Ya gotta have an "LCD monitor" so you can see what you shot.

 

Ya gotta have RAW and JPEG available or no serious buyer would touch it.

It just has to shoot like my M3. No meter, no histograms, no gimping through menus. Anyone who has shot with an

M knows they need to set aperture, shutter speed and focus. Why must it compete with all the other super featured

digi cams? There are no other digi RF cams out there to compete with at this time. So why shouldn't it shoot like an

M the way we've shot it for half a century? If at no more than $1500 USD I'd take it at any multiplier and any mpx.

And Leica, forget about making history or a camera that lasts for 20 years. It just doesn't work with digital cameras,

and that's why I'm still shooting with my M3 and not an MP...

I think all the minimalism is missing the mark. Doing away with all these features wouldn't save anything, really. Meters,

histograms, menus, etc. are found in any $200 P&S. I think Leica understands well that if they sell any other digital RF with

an M mount that is cheaper than the M8, it would kill the M8. And likely Leica.

 

<p>I do think Leica might attach their name to a lower cost Japan made digital RF at some point. But I feel pretty confident

it won't have an M mount and won't look like a Leica M.

I don't think it needs any menus at all. have a nob for shutter speeds, a nob for ISO and MAYBE a selector for preset WB, no auto WB to keep processing to a minimum. A selector for RAW, JPG, RAW + JPG and that's it. So what, we've added 2 nob /lever/selectors compared to an M6? I don't need an LCD to see what I shot, i don't see what i shoot on film! It's a leica, with no mirror blackout, their is no reason to not know what you got!

 

If the sensor could be 1.3 or better crop that would be awesome, i can deal with 1.3x. As for frames, i would love to be able to select frames ONE at a TIME. The lever can individually select 28,35,50,75,90,135 (or the equivalent considering the magnification). I hate having my 35 frame crowded by some junk in the middle. How about a little red light that comes on in the very far corner when i only have space for 25 pictures left on the card, or maybe a beep, and another beep at 15 pictures left, at 5 and at 0, it won't take pictures.

 

I don't need AE, don't need a top LCD, or a back LCD, just the usual M6 meter readout in the rangefinder.

 

I would love to have a shutter crank, so that it doesn't make that sound the M8 makes right after taking a picture. Winding the crank could be like turning the camera ON so that we don't encounter the issues that the M8 switch had. A good old style self timer works for me. I don't however, care much for the bottom plate.

 

As Ronald said, you don't need to make it out of brass, make it out of the polycarbonate stuff the use for Canon / Nikon / Pentax / Sony / Olympus digital cameras since no one is going to keep one of these for as long as they keep an M3. If it's simple and made with a cheaper exterior, Leica will sell more and will afford to make newer models more often. They could even sell the brass top and bottom plates for an extra $750 if they want to those who feel like they need it. How much can some brass plates cost?

 

I don't need anything more then 2fps with a few frames burst, it's a leica, not a canon. As far as I'm concerned, I don't need burst at all. I don't need modes, or anymore flash control then i have on an M6 TTL.

 

If it's priced at $2500 and not even made quite as well as an M3 but along the lines of a consumer DSLR like a Nikon D80 or a XT, I would buy 1 the day it's announced. I would sell all i can the day i get it and buy a second one the day after that.

 

I think most people feel this way, keep it simple and consider it's purpose, it's a digital, not a timeless M3. It's a camera for everyday people that appreciate Leica glass, not for collectors, collectors won't keep a company alive, photographers will. If everyone who bought a M9 if it came out tomorrow, also bought an M10 in 4 years and an M11 4 years after that, Leica would be doing just fine. Most people, for that price, would buy a new one every 4 years, hell DSLRs only last 2 years, and many of us upgrade that often!

Leica is losing money because they don't have any appeal anymore in the younger generation. The younger generation isn't dreaming anymore from a Leica but rather form from the top line of Nikon and Canon because they are in the reach of those. Sure, most will know the name Leica but why should they pay 4 times more if they can get almost the same quality with a Nikon or Canon DSLR? If Leica want's to survive they must do a serious assault on those Japanese brands, not by advertising that much but by seriously cutting the price down. To be honest, I yet have to encounter a 25 year old with a Leica in his hands, this brand has the "grandpa stuff" tag on it for some time and it shows in terms of sales.

I hope the Leica folks read this. They need to sell some cameras and this is what we want, not luxury goods for collectors.

 

I see others agree with me on a 5 year camera.

First I would like live view, this would help out seeing wide angle lens coverage not covered by internal VF wider than 28mm.

 

FF is based on 3:2 aspect ratio, 36mm x 24mm legacy 35mm film frame. This frame becomes cropped to accomediate the 8x10 and 16x 20 inch prints most often the largest prints folks get made up.

 

Since some of the 3:2 frame is cropped to 5:4 aspect ratio eventually why not start with native 5:4 sensor.

 

What is gained? A sensor with different dimensions that has uses more of the lens circle then the Leica M8. A 30mm x 24mm frame sensor is a 1.2x crop comparred to a 35mm frame.

 

A few mm in lens focal length change has a much greater effect on a wide angle lense than short tele lenses.

 

1.33x crop factor makes a 28mm lens a 37mm lens ; and a 21mm lens into a 28mm lens.

 

1.2x crop factor makes a 28mm lens 33mm lens : and a 21mm lens into a 25mm lens.

 

The difference between making a 28mm lens into a 33mm vs. a 37mm lens is real and same with a 25 vs.28mm lens and its easy to see the in the results.

 

Thats why I see the link between losing nothing to cropping in the final print by selecting a 5:4 format with the associated lower crop the format imposes on the lenses effective focal lenght is in the photographers interest.

 

The most important point is you lose nothing to having a FF if you use standard size prints because they are cropped anyway. But the 5:4 frame crops the soft edges, that vignetting area and low resolution edges that trouble lens performance.

 

Less is more here and subtracting 6 mm reduces the affects of the acute light angle.

The only "feature" you (and most others who lust for a digi-M) really want is a very low price. The rest doesn't really matter.

"Be careful what you wish for .... you might just get it".

Unless you're shooting auto, the meter's an interesting anachronism. Guess an exposure, take a shot, check it on the screen on the back (yes, I think this is necessary on a digital camera), correct the exposure, and move on.

 

But I don't think the meter or the screen, or any other electronic things, are going to be the hang-ups. I will bet you that currently one of the most expensive parts of the camera is the finder. That's the thing they'd have to figure out a way to do cheaply.

'I will bet you that currently one of the most expensive parts of the camera is the finder. That's the thing they'd have to figure out a way to do cheaply.'

 

One of the many dubious supposed leaks of information about future Nikon products has a 'rangefinder' camera with an 'electronic M-mount' without mechanical couplings. I think LCD framing was mentioned (presumably manually selected for current lenses). I imagine you could use a phase detection system (as in AF SLRs) to assess focus and have the kind of 'digital rangefinder' indicators that Ronald suggests, it would be simpler to implement AF lenses and zooms without having to worry about RF cams and mechanical framelines, etc, and the whole thing would probably be a lot cheaper to produce. Any takers for this sort of design?

Zeiss-Ikon uses Cosina for design and manufacturing;

Leitz once used Minolta in the same sense to produce a cheaper, simpler M camera;

It seems obvious that Leica could use Cosina to provide an alternative digital camera of lesser features than the M8 but at

a lesser price and maintaining the 1.33X crop factor.

The Epson digital came out of Cosina.

I think an ultra-minimalist camera would be a big winner for Leica. But not another M. A point and shoot that's really really simple to use

but with top quality to appeal to serious photographers. Something along the lines of the Digilux 2 (The Digilux 3 is too bulky.)

 

Compact body

Manual shutter speed dial + A

Manual aperture ring plus A

Zoom lens 24-90 with manual zoom

Manual ISO dial

JPEG/RAW option (possibly)

Large optical viewfinder

No built-in flash. Small accessory flash instead. Quality is much better.

LCD with minimal information such as frame number and battery check.

Record, play, off on top plate around shutter.

Self-timer on front of body as in M series.

Forward, back and delete buttons on back.

Removable storage on base plate.

Ultra easy connection software to computer.

 

Naturally, it would have to be ultra reliable, too. It's a fact that most people use only a fraction of the USPs (Unique Selling Points) and

multiple modes. Get rid of them! Concentrate on the essentials.

Low price so a cropped sensor is a must. M mount a must. Leica has to swallow a bit of pride and make low cost M-mount 'DX' lenses. Leica glass but 'Japanese' construction. A 28/35 50 90 (equivalent) combo will do nicely. Have them made by Voigtlander with 'Leica specs'. Zeiss does it too!

 

No bomb proof construction, just solid enough. No meter would be silly because the sensor can do that. But the display can be left out. Maybe make two models, one with screen, one without. RAW capture of course. Cloth shutter with usual specs, manual cocking. Would make sense to have the M7 design, the camera will be mostly electronic anyway. Basic functions on monochrome LCD. AA batteries. A few presets for white balance.

 

And all that for 1500$. If they can build it at a decent profit, I think people while whine a lot that it is not a 'real' Leica but buy it anyway.

>Zeiss-Ikon uses Cosina for design and manufacturing;

 

Zeiss Ikon is a camera, not a company. Cosina did NOT design the camera or the ZM lenses -- they are merely the contracted fabricator.

 

>It seems obvious that Leica could use Cosina to provide an alternative digital camera of lesser features than the M8 but at a lesser price and maintaining the 1.33X crop factor. The Epson digital came out of Cosina.

 

Cosina supplied only the body and RF to Epson who was responsible for the electronics of the R-D1. It was not really a Cosina product.

Back in the days of film, when you used a Leica camera, it recorded the image not on Leica film but somebody else's (Fuji or Kodak mostly I imagine). So nowadays it's not a deal breaker if the sensor is not a Leica sensor: All you need is a light-tight box to put your M lenses on. So when Panasonic has finished making its micro 4/3 body with an M mount adapter, there you are. Your affordable Leica M digital.

HE, lose the 4X5 idea or patent it. I order 8X12 prints.