The "leaked" image of the camera with the zoom lens does not match the partially visible camera in the box on the leica website. But then, the "thing" in the partially opened box doesn't look like a realistic representation of a camera fitting inside the depicted box, unless it was very compact and had an interchangeable lens mount or an extremely "pancaky" lens.
this is a funny moment... it feels like the whole community is holding their opened hand in front of their face, just inches away from one of the biggest collective facepalms in the history of photography
I think it's possible the fullframe Internet speculation was getting out of hand and Leica decided to scotch the rumours. A bit disappointing for the genuine Leica fans who own M or R lenses and seek more options than the 240.
_julian_ wrote:
I think it's possible the fullframe Internet speculation was getting out of hand and Leica decided to scotch the rumours. A bit disappointing for the genuine Leica fans who own M or R lenses and seek more options than the 240.
This morning I kept thinking why on earth I hoped this to be a full frame mirrorless with M mount.
There is the ME, MM and M240. For leica fans who own M lenses there is everything we can possibly want.
Sure its no mirrorless full frame M mount, but the M240 for fills that task.
For R lens owners there is the M240 with all sorts of options to have a good solution. And lets face it, the R is a old system out of rotation. Great for R owners leica still thinks about them but there is no real need.
The only real reason I can think of is people want a cheaper leica. The change that happens is pretty small.
sebboh wrote:
there's lots of people that just don't like rangefinders but like other things about leica cameras and their lenses.
True, but, like they've shown a bit with the m240 and its live view, electronics still isn't their strong suit. Without the rangefinder, a Leica M would likely be under powered and overpriced compared to what Sony could offer...if Sony solves the FF sensor and rangefinder lens issue.
I wonder how many would buy and EVF-based M for something like $5K?
douglasf13 wrote:
True, but, like they've shown a bit with the m240 and its live view, electronics still isn't their strong suit. Without the rangefinder, a Leica M would likely be under powered and overpriced compared to what Sony could offer...if Sony solves the FF sensor and rangefinder lens issue.
I wonder how many would buy and EVF-based M for something like $5K?
that is a big if regarding sony. i doubt there would be people falling all over themselves to buy it at $5k, but leica is a low volume niche producer unlike sony. i bet they could sell more of such a camera than they will of a slow variable aperture aps-c zoom at $3k.
your point about electronics is well taken though, liveview in the m240 is rather crippled. i don't see why they can't just buy their electronics from sony though? everybody else does and that's what's in the x2.
sebboh wrote:
that is a big if regarding sony. i doubt there would be people falling all over themselves to buy it at $5k, but leica is a low volume niche producer unlike sony. i bet they could sell more of such a camera than they will of a slow variable aperture aps-c zoom at $3k.
your point about electronics is well taken though, liveview in the m240 is rather crippled. i don't see why they can't just buy their electronics from sony though? everybody else does and that's what's in the x2.
I hear you. I would also bet that an EVF-based, FF M would sell better than this strange aps-c fixed zoom. Strange decision.
sebboh wrote:
there's lots of people that just don't like rangefinders but like other things about leica cameras and their lenses.
Thats the thing. With the m240 you don't have to use the rangefinder. You can use the M240 with only the back screen or the evf.
The mirrorless M most of us hope for is just a M240 without the rangefinder.
If so many people so much hope for such a camera why don't they just buy a M240 instead? (or at least get on the list ) It has all they want in a camera. EVF, FF, compact, M mount.
Sure, no scrolling liveview, but why would a mirrorless M body differ from the M240 in that.
One of the bigger reasons I can see is the high price of the body. If they don't buy the M240 I seriously doubt they would buy a 5000 dollar mirrorless.
In my opinion, a FF mirrorless from Sony will not sell below 3000-4000$. I personally would prefer to have 2 M bodies, one with RF, and another with integrated EVF. I would gladly pay 5K for the EVF version. Even though I'm on waiting list for the M 240, I still don't think I will ever put such an ugly accessory as the external EVF on it, which will make my use of LV very limited.
Edward, IMHO a FF NEX wouldn't sell OVER $4000 .i.e. not enough to be a reasonable sales success for Sony.
Pricing this camera max. 2800-3000 is more on line with the current condition of the market -gloomy economics, competition from other brands or formats, etc. If they sell the RX1 for $2800, including a terrific 35/2 lens, I see feasible the same price for a body only FF mirrorless. But if Sony falls into the greedy temptation of asking a huge premium price, many people waiting for THE FF mirrorless might shrug their shoulders and fetch a Speed Booster for their NEX/Fuji, go back to a FF SLR/SLT or even buy a Leica M-240.
My five cents. (which are worth 3 and a half due to depreciation.)
If you think the thought of a Mini is bad for YOU, as the consumer, just imagine if your the guy who is in charge of marketing the thing, or the guy who signed off on it as a winning concept.
Could only imagine coming into work the next day and learning that pretty much every photo site on the web is all talking about what a horrible product I'm about to introduce.
Bijltje wrote:
Thats the thing. With the m240 you don't have to use the rangefinder. You can use the M240 with only the back screen or the evf.
The mirrorless M most of us hope for is just a M240 without the rangefinder.
If so many people so much hope for such a camera why don't they just buy a M240 instead? (or at least get on the list ) It has all they want in a camera. EVF, FF, compact, M mount.
Sure, no scrolling liveview, but why would a mirrorless M body differ from the M240 in that.
One of the bigger reasons I can see is the high price of the body. If they don't buy the M240 I seriously doubt they would buy a 5000 dollar mirrorless....Show more →
i can only speak for myself, but my problem with the m240 is that it has a half assed liveview implementation added as an afterthought and is overly big due to the rangefinder. i don't want a camera with a clunky attachable evf unless there is significant size saving because it's detachable. the m240 still has the rangefinder wasting space (and yes money) and liveview is too poorly implimented to be usable. the x2 has a better implementation of liveview than the m240 if my memory serves, so it's not like decent liveview is beyond the realm of possibility for leica. what i want is a FF evf based liveview camera designed to be manual focused with leica m lenses with a leica III sized body (m6 sized would be ok i suppose ). i don't expect to ever get it, but as i said, at $5k i expect it would sell better than the aps-c monstrosity that the mini m appears to be. leica is luxury boutique producer (whether they want to admit it or not) and they would do better producing types of cameras that people construe as high end rather than high priced cameras of a type people typically think of as cheap.
for myself, i've lost any hope that somebody will make the camera i want in the next couple years and plan on buying an rx-1 sometime in the next few months to hold me over.
sebboh wrote:
i can only speak for myself, but my problem with the m240 is that it has a half assed liveview implementation added as an afterthought and is overly big due to the rangefinder. i don't want a camera with a clunky attachable evf unless there is significant size saving because it's detachable. the m240 still has the rangefinder wasting space (and yes money) and liveview is too poorly implimented to be usable. the x2 has a better implementation of liveview than the m240 if my memory serves, so it's not like decent liveview is beyond the realm of possibility for leica. what i want is a FF evf based liveview camera designed to be manual focused with leica m lenses with a leica III sized body (m6 sized would be ok i suppose ). i don't expect to ever get it, but as i said, at $5k i expect it would sell better than the aps-c monstrosity that the mini m appears to be. leica is luxury boutique producer (whether they want to admit it or not) and they would do better producing types of cameras that people construe as high end rather than high priced cameras of a type people typically think of as cheap.
for myself, i've lost any hope that somebody will make the camera i want in the next couple years and plan on buying an rx-1 sometime in the next few months to hold me over....Show more →
I understand. I don't really see the M9/ M as a big camera. But compared to the nex it is indeed. Also didn't knew about the LV of the X2 being better than that of the M240.
Don't throw away all hope. Last week we didn't knew about the mini M, who knows what leica have for us in the future.
My guess is that the live view implementation of the m240 is at least partly tied to the sensor, so we may be in a situation of choosing between poor live view in an EVF-based m240 vs. poor rangefinder lens performance ina Sony FF mirrorless.
millsart wrote:
If you think the thought of a Mini is bad for YOU, as the consumer, just imagine if your the guy who is in charge of marketing the thing, or the guy who signed off on it as a winning concept.
Could only imagine coming into work the next day and learning that pretty much every photo site on the web is all talking about what a horrible product I'm about to introduce.
YIKES
Imagine being the product manager for the Hassleblad Lunar.
How could you show your face in public after that fiasco!
) It has all they want in a camera. EVF, FF, compact, M mount.