New M, 24MP liveview and video...

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m_new/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The new Leica M is the most innovative and versatile M-Camera that the modern M-System has ever created.<br>

<br /> It unites decades of experience in rangefinder technology with groundbreaking digital technologies: It features a completely newly developed high-resolution full-format CMOS sensor that, in combination with its high-performance processor and the legendary M-Lenses, delivers outstanding imaging results. With Live View, video, and new additional focusing methods, it is also the M for photographers who do not wish to miss out on any of what modern digital technology has to offer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing unexpected, it's exactly what I've been predicting for about two years now: a Leica M with a 24MP liveview sensor and video capability. The choice of a CMOSIS sensor instead of Sony is a mild surprise, but CMOSIS has been making waves, and, with the effective loss of DALSA, they are only European FF sensor maker (actually, with the effective loss of Kodak, CMOSIS is the only non-Asian FF sensor maker). Of course, it's got all the goodies, like focus peaking, which is faster than a rangefinder or SLR split image, when it's done right.</p>

<p>I love that they've kept the Visoflex name for the pop-on EVF. For 60 years, the Visoflex adapters have been bringing macro and tele capabilities to the M. This is the ultimate Visoflex. I shudder to think that they could have revived the "other" name...</p>

<p>PLOOT</p>

<p>Can you imagine PLOOT II or ePLOOT? Perhaps iPloot?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Looks a real good'n. Especially with the R solution. Wonderful. I have no Leica stuff left, more's the pity.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>To me what was unexpected other than the M not being called the M10 is the M-E, a very slightly warmed over M9. Perhaps the shutter is quieter? All this is making the M9 look better and better especially with price drops. My M8.2 isn't worn out yet but I'd sure like to get back to FF.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>As I dig into it a bit the M-E is suppose to be entry level at 4800euro. Also NO lens field of view preview lever. Frankly I'm a little shocked at its omission. It's such a basic of the M series. BTW, the M is priced at US$6950. That's a bit of a surprise since many thought the name would be M10 and the 10 would stand for US$10k. Heh.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

So where do m9 prices stabilize?

[kyoken74]

<p>So, besides the missing field of view preview lever, how is M-E different from M9? It appears that the USB jack is gone. That's about it, I guess. That's kind-a silly. Why should anyone buy M-E when they can buy a used M9 for less?</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>David, I'm wondering that, too. The announcements today make the M9 very appealing to me. I'd really like to get to FF from my M8.2. The M8 has been a workhorse but I've been doing photography too long and the crop sensor makes me a little nuts. When I put a 35mm on the camera I want a 35mm. OTH, if I don't think about it too much it's not that big a deal. The M8.2 is a swell little camera.</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

 

<blockquote>

<p>... It appears that the USB [M9] jack is gone. That's about it, I guess. That's kind-a silly. Why should anyone buy M-E when they can buy a used M9 for less?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The M-E appears to be "M9 Basic." If an M9 is what you want, then I suggest you buy one before they're gone altogether. </p>

<p>As has already been pointed out, the only surprise with the M10 is what they're calling it.</p>

 

 

[Alex_Es]

<p>For the first time in a long time I am overwhelmed by a new camera product. Among other things, the Leica M answers the recurring question of how to use your old R lenses on a digital camera. Now you can use them on a full frame Leica RF with Live View.</p>

<p>I foresee using the M with my Canon FD lenses, Pentax lens, Nikon lens.... </p>

<p>And top ISO of 6400!</p>

<p>I want this baby.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

While I am sure there will be plenty of detractors (the usual $5.5 to $7K for a body that with worse specs than my Canon /

Nikon / Sony that cost me $26 on eBay!) I am actually very happy. I shot Leica and Contax G rangefinders (film) for many

years when not using Canon or MF and always enjoyed them. About a year ago I finally took the plunge on a used M8 as

I missed the feel of these cameras and did not have a lot of time to shoot film with my M6 and G1 and G2s. I really have

not looked back - I expected issues with UV, lack of 6 bit lenses (none of my 5 M mount lenses are 6 bit) Moire etc... In

reality I was actually very happy. The M8 is a joy to use and takes great photos. I had decided to move to a full frame M

but wanted to wait for this announcement. Now I have the choice of an M9 / M9-P, and ME and the new M all for

between $4000 (used M9) and $7000. While I will wait for tests the new M looks great on paper. My big issues with the

M8 were that it was not full frame and that it was limited for higher ISOs (I find 320 for colour and 640 for B&W to be its

limits). If the new M solves this and also adds a better display and live view then I will get one. If not I still have two other

options to go full frame. While I am sure the Internet will be full of detractors (essentially people who have never used

one) I am happy. Last year I was pleased to discover that the reviewer from dpreview ( probably the bastion of features

over substance) had been converted by the M8. It will be interesting to see if the M has an impact on video shooters - it

has the potential to solve many of their issues.

[alastair_anderson]

<p>I always felt that the M8 wasn't quite good enough but that I would be happy with a 9. I've been trading Leica cameras and lenses liberally in order to finance Nikon equipment. However I still have a complete set of lenses (albeit not the current ones),enough to be lured back. In my opinion this latest model ticks all the boxes. It addresses the high ISO issue as well as the screen resolution. Liveview and video are bonuses. What more could one ask for? For me it's too expensive though - I need a high paid job. I've always said I'd be happy with a 9.</p>

<p>Leica's intentions notwithstanding, we're all going to call this the M10 aren't we?</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Epiphany! This is the Leica M and not the M10 because this is it. The end of the line. The evolution is complete! Sure, they may tweak the sensor in future and add a saphire crystal rear face, or ostrich leather cover but there will be no need to make any further significant changes. Could this be the first digital camera that actually is an investment, that won't be obsolete after five years? Can any electronic device last for more than a few years? My Sony Trinitron TV lasted for 20. Ok, I'm gonna start saving up!</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The switch in sensor vendor seems to have some major benefits, there should be much less color error in the corners with lenses whose rear nodal point is close to the sensor.<br>

I've seen comments elsewhere that CMOSIS is eating the lunch of Dalsa (now part of Teledyne) and sensor division that Kodak sold last fall. Smart people running "fabless" semiconductor production.</p>

 

[carbon_dragon]

The switch doesn't bode well for Kodak, does it? I'm enjoying my Nex-7 but I have to admit that an M9 for $4000ish would

be pretty interesting

[didier]

Alastair,

I agree with you : this M ticks all the boxes.

Hope you're right about it being an investment!!

I begin to feel ready to switch to digital... start saving !

 

Didier.

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Ah, but it'll never be as good as this!</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Didier - I am not sure it is an investment (i.e. it will not hold its value like the film bodies) but it is an investment in enjoyment. There is no "objective" reason to buy a Leica M. This is why reviews contain many comments from people (who have usually not tried one) damming the old specifications and high prices. However, those who use them understand. Many of us cannot do a lot of our photography with a Leica (My Canon are a lot more versatile) but the Leica gives a please that you do not get from a modern DSLR</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I like the fact that Leica is presenting more options and wider price range for its M digital cameras. Great also that live view allows reflex type photography and R optics. Smart move to bring back digital R users.</p>

<p>One comparison I am looking forward to seeing before making any move is the low ISO performance of the M9 versus the monochron and versus the new M. The extent of the differences will be useful in determining whether or not to upgrade at some point. There are some who maintain that the qualitative performance of the CCD sensor of the M8 through M9 and monochron is quite different from a CMOS sensor (like that of the M), with advantages in regard to image rendition. That would be interesting to see, as will the in-practice efficiency of the new features of the M.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>Live view and focus peaking are great additions. I am not buying an "M" but they have certainly made a very good camera.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Especially with the R solution. Wonderful.<br>

Smart move to bring back digital R users.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm quite speechless that this contraption is considered an “adequate solution for Leica R photographers”. Buy an Nikon D800E and modify your Leica R-glass to F-mount with leitax bayonets - if you don't need to use them on R cameras any more. If you do, get an EOS-to-R adapter and a Canon 5D MKIII. Either of these solutions is about half price (not that cost is of any consideration to the average Leica user) compared to the inelegant one Leica presented with the M, the R-to-M adapter and that Olympus-sourced EVF. Glad I didn't believe in that promise made a few years ago - but I knew anyway that when it would finally surface, it would be priced way out of my acceptable price range anyway.<br>

<br />I find it also rather interesting that used Leica M9 cameras can now be found at around the $4000 mark - $3000 down from their introduction price some three years ago; so much for Leica digital M cameras being an investment.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Dieter (sorry my spell check changed your name last time and I missed it). I do use MF lenses on EOS Contax and

medium Format but they are actually quite hard to focus. You develop a working style that is rough frame, focus in

zoomed in live view then frame again in the viewfinder. Focus confirmation adaptors help but even then they are not that

accurate for critical focus. It would be nice if the old split screen prisms were still available. I have tried the Fuji and NEX

and the focus peaking does help. While I am sure it will be added to Canon at some point (if they move to a hybrid or

EVF viewfinder) it will give the Leica an advantage. My concern would be that R series lenses will feel clumsy on the M

series body. It will be interesting to see what adaptors emerge - I have a very extensive collection of FD glass that I

would like to try on a Leica (just for fun). I suspect that I will still be unable to use my Contax G glass as the 1mm

difference in flange distance is likely to preclude adaptors

[carbon_dragon]

The Leica R mount looks a little less awkward than the visoflex I tried for a while on my M2 but the fact is that it just didn't

make much sense as an actual solution. I don't think it does here either. Just a gimmick. The M is about small size to me

and I'm happy within the wide to 90mm lens range. I do have a 135 with goggles but never really use it. Heck I seldom

use the 90/4.

 

If prices fall to $4000 (which seems to be happening) I'd be very tempted to buy an M9. I kind of think the M9E should

have been more like this price rather than $6200'ish (based on rate of exchange for euros)

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Philip, not sure if you are indeed addressing me or responding to Didier.<br />In any case, in my opinion, live view makes the use of a tripod mandatory. That outstretched-arms stance isn't working well even when AF lenses are used - and manual focusing adds a layer of complexity. An EVF has certain advantages in some situations - but nothing beats an optical viewfinder. And that EVF needs to be build in (in from of a hybrid finder ala Fuji X-100 and X-Pro 1), not attached to the hot shoe and sticking out like a sore thumb (though I am not sure if it is technically feasible to do with a rangefinder).</p>

<p>With the M, Leica certainly opens a new chapter - time will tell how well that camera is perceived. Live view and video will be welcomed by some/many and IMO can certainly be useful in some situation. But somehow the M feels like as it isn't the last word and that in particular with regard to the EVF, a better solution could be found.</p>

<p>My comment in my post above wasn't against the M in general but against the M as an “adequate solution for Leica R photographers”. IMO, it's inadequate and pricey to boot. AFAIK, Leica abandoned the R10 because they felt they couldn't compete with Nikon and Canon in the marketplace because the price point of their camera would be too high (and I assume the fact that continuing the R line would have necessitated the introduction of AF R lenses). So if $8000 (to name a number) was too high a price for a R10, why is it now considered "adequate" for this "solution" which leaves a lot to be desired when compared to a real DSLR?<br />This feels particularly true now that a D800E is on the market - no AA filter puts it on equal footing with the Leica M and the Leica R glass should certainly have no problem with the 36MP sensor. The only drawback is that (semi-)permanent modification of the lenses is required - which makes the parallel use of an R film camera impossible. As already mentioned, Canon DSLRs don't have that limitation - but they currently don't offer higher than 22 or 23MP and have no camera without an AA filter. Not sure about adapting R glass to the Sony A99.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do have a 135 with goggles but never really use it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did too - and sold it because I rarely used it and when I did, I had trouble with nailing the focus. I agree, an M camera is a good choice when used with lenses between 28mm and 90mm. Not sure there is much of an advantage with smaller focal lengths - I am not a friend of those attachment viewfinders and rather have a reflex camera then.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Dieter,</p>

<p>I don't really understand your compliant. The point, surely, is that if you want to shoot with a Leica M body and you have R glass you can now use it on your Leica. What is so hard to understand? Yes, you can use an EOS or a Nikon, but then you have to take two bodies around and they are totally different systems. Suppose you have a couple of long R lenses, say a 180 or a 350, now you do not have to take around your extra large and heavy EOS or Nikon body and it will work essentially the same way too with the same metering on your M. Of course, if you don't have an M body and are not interested in one then, I agree, your only solution is to use an adapter for another camera system, but these people are not the ones for which the M is designed. The 35mm Leica DSLR is dead and has been for years - we know that. The point, surely, is that the R lens will work pretty well as well on the M body as the M lenses themselves, because the M lenses are already completely manual. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>@Robin, why would an R glass owner necessarily want to shoot with an M body or necessarily own one already as your post implies. Chances are that an R glass owner is still using an R body and was waiting for the promised "R solution" that now consists in having to purchase an M body - which I am sure isn't only a surprise to me!<br>

Now, your point is valid and well taken - but then my question is: how many do own both M and R cameras and lenses? As you admit, the solution is only a valid one if you want to shoot with an M body - but what if you don't? Then the Leica-offered solutions certainly doesn't look "adequate" to all R glass owners, now does it? It was already clear when the promise was made that the R solution would include an EVF and that it would need to be full frame. So to some extent, the M fills those shoes. But why an attachment viewfinder and a built-in rangefinder that is of zero use to an R glass user? Why not an M body with a build-in EVF and sans rangefinder that surely could be made "a la carte" for those desiring it?</p>

<p>In any case, I have no dog left in this fight - my R cameras have been sold off, as have all but one of my R glass (which has been leitax-modified to fit my Nikon). I am still struggling whether I will keep my M film system, or sell off the bodies and get a digital M (preferably a full frame one) or sell it all off. Maintaining an "M presence" in my case strictly falls into the "want" category (as opposed to "need") but I am still on the fence if it isn't only a "might want". I've got some good glass, but even the cost for a used M9 is a substantial outlay for me especially since it is parallel to the cost of maintaining and upgrading my Nikon system.</p>