tzhang4284 wrote:
This is irrelevant to their product development cycle, which is what we were talking about . All the rumors point this to being a mid cycle refresh of the m11 - the maestro iii processor gives it away.
People get too hung up on defending their brand is good without reading the actual substance of the conversation.
What improvements in the M cameras do you think a new, faster processor would provide considering it's use case? Is there some feature that you want that he processor is limiting? Remember that te M series cameras are stills only so video feature are not a consideration. For stills I am shooting primarily manual everything, single shot, and using the range finder I don't see room for much improvement from a faster processor. Maybe faster boot times, and faster write speeds? But usually these are not a big issue.
For the M EV-1 I can see that more processing power may be useful to smooth out the EVF experience. What else?
1bwana1 wrote:
What improvements in the M cameras do you think a new, faster processor would provide considering it's use case? Is there some feature that you want that he processor is limiting? Remember that te M series cameras are stills only so video feature are not a consideration. For stills I am shooting primarily manual everything, single shot, and using the range finder I don't see room for much improvement from a faster processor. Maybe faster boot times, and faster write speeds? But usually these are not a big issue.
For the M EV-1 I can see that more processing power may be useful to smooth out the EVF experience. What else?
Personally, I don't really need this camera since my eyes are still good enough (for now) to use the rangefinder and I have solid AF cameras if needed. I'm just pointing out that it's most likely a M11 variant based on where they are in their product release cycle and based on past history of how Leica operates. But who knows - just speculating - I hope they overperform my expectations.
As for features - I think Nikon led the way here - AF assisted manual focus is the killer app that they need to implement. I also think they could probably figure out IBIS at some point and having video would be nice even if it's not in the forefront.
tzhang4284 wrote:
Personally, I don't really need this camera .....
Me neither, and I most likely will skip this one since its new camera price point will be much too high for me to bear with. Nevertheless I applaud Leica for making this kind of camera which I and others raised already as missing piece in the M/Q line two years ago. It will more be an addition than replacement of traditional M rangefinder cameras - that's at least how I would handle it when getting one at some point. Since this M11 EV1 camera has most likely no AF nor video capability, it will not compete much with the SL series but more so with Q-cameras - there some customers might switch from fixed lens Q series to exchangeable lens M11 EV1 series if they are not eager to have AF capability.
Where did Leica "cripple" the M11 EV1 to avoid in-house competition? M-series is fully manual anyway, no change there but I am quite certain that Leica won't include video even if they could to protect the SL series as video-centric base. IBIS likely also not included and kept for the second generation of this new series. I expect the EV to be good but not as big and maybe resolving as in the SL series (more likely similar to the current external M11 electronic viewfinder).
retrofocus wrote:
.
IBIS likely also not included and kept for the second generation of this new series.
While I've long, maintained that there is likely enough real estate to do IBIS in the M240 chassis ... I suspect IBIS won't come until they figure out how to get it to fit in the slimmer M10 / M11 chassis.
Personally, I'd dig on a slightly larger chassis (M240-ish or split the diff) to have flip screen and IBIS in an M. At that point ... mated to an RF viewfinder, the flip screen would be fine for me. If the LCD had a "low-res" option to save on battery power / heat generation, but I digress.
Of course, that then starts to take on the vibe of a Q3 with an M mount and an RF, instead of EVF (IBIS vs. OIS). I think for a portion of folks, they'd simply like to have a Q3 with an M mount, form factor, etc.
I know Leica prizes size greatly wrt its ethos of legacy heritage (very keen to M's), so it's a tough sell for them to make an M larger, after making it smaller. Could an M12 chassis be "ever so slightly" larger to accommodate IBIS. IDK, with Leica's ethos to heritage ... I'm not expecting it.
RustyBug wrote:
While I've long, maintained that there is likely enough real estate to do IBIS in the M240 chassis ... I suspect IBIS won't come until they figure out how to get it to fit in the slimmer M10 / M11 chassis.
Personally, I'd dig on a slightly larger chassis (M240-ish or split the diff) to have flip screen and IBIS in an M. At that point ... mated to an RF viewfinder would be fine for me. If the LCD had a "low-res" option to save on battery power / heat generation, but I digress.
Agreed regarding this wish list and form factor - but I doubt Leica will go this route. Since the M 240 series has a some kind of bad rep being "too bulky", they likely will do everything to stick to the M10/M11 form factor. I wouldn't be surprised if Leica is already working on a prototype of a future maybe M12 EV1 or M11 EV2 with IBIS. They simply keep the first gen M11 EV1 simpler since they test the waters with it how it will perform in sales.
retrofocus wrote:
Agreed regarding this wish list and form factor - but I doubt Leica will go this route. Since the M 240 series has a some kind of bad rep being "too bulky", they likely will do everything to stick to the M10/M11 form factor. I wouldn't be surprised if Leica is already working on a prototype of a future maybe M12 EV1 or M11 EV2 with IBIS. They simply keep the first gen M11 EV1 simpler since they test the waters with it how it will perform in sales.
+1
Caveat being, IBIS might be M13 vs. M12. I don't really hold any hope for IBIS in an M, anytime soon. That said, as advances with others (Hassy, Panny, etc.) in IBIS accrue, the technological incremental improvements will someday reach a place where it presents viable for Leica to implement in the M. But, as incremental improvements go ... yeah, M13. M12 or sooner would be quite a surprise, imo.
That said, I think the trajectory of the customer base (aging + new) includes the legacy shooters incurring more eyesight / hand holding concerns (although, just bump the great ISO / SS) ... coupled with the newer generations XYZ growing up with tech expectations ... the day WILL come that these are incorporated into the M. Granted, it might be a long way off, even a decade or more as we exit stage left, but I can't image Leica not looking toward the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years and knowing that it will become a product offering at some point.
Of course, they can always offer the "stripped down" version as a specialty variant. Kinda like the -D is now.
Imo, it's a matter of when, not if. But, I have no angst, hope or expectation of it being anytime soon. Until then, I just lean into "old school" approach to things, when shooting the M.
Caveat being, IBIS might be M13 vs. M12. I don't really hold any hope for IBIS in an M, anytime soon. That said, as advances with others (Hassy, Panny, etc.) in IBIS accrue, the technological incremental improvements will someday reach a place where it presents viable for Leica to implement in the M. But, as incremental improvements go ... yeah, M13. M12 or sooner would be quite a surprise, imo.
That said, I think the trajectory of the customer base (aging + new) includes the legacy shooters incurring more eyesight / hand holding concerns (although, just bump the great ISO / SS) ... coupled with the newer generations XYZ growing up with tech expectations ... the day WILL come that these are incorporated into the M. Granted, it might be a long way off, even a decade or more as we exit stage left, but I can't image Leica not looking toward the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years and knowing that it will become a product offering at some point.
Of course, they can always offer the "stripped down" version as a specialty variant. Kinda like the -D is now.
Imo, it's a matter of when, not if. But, I have no angst, hope or expectation of it being anytime soon. Until then, I just lean into "old school" approach to things, when shooting the M....Show more →
Hey, if I can buy a used M11 EV1 in a couple years for approx. $2.5K (assuming that for a full electronic M11 EV1 the price depreciation is much faster than for a M rangefinder series based camera) versus the successor model with IBIS for triple this price, I really don't care if the camera has IBIS or not.
Hey,
Can't say anything about the new M EVF but what i would have liked is a much improved visoflex, on par with the very best electronic visors now available.
The best of two worlds.
Joel Cahane wrote:
Hey,
Can't say anything about the new M EVF but what i would have liked is a much improved visoflex, on par with the very best electronic visors now available.
The best of two worlds.
Unlikely this is going to happen now. I rather think that with the new M11 EV1 future traditional rangefinder based M cameras might not even get the option to be used with external EVF anymore. This way Leica pushes users who prefer an EVF into the new EVF-based M series. Same what happened with the video function in M 240 based cameras - when the video-centric SL series was released, the M10 had the video option removed.
retrofocus wrote:
Unlikely this is going to happen now. I rather think that with the new M11 EV1 future traditional rangefinder based M cameras might not even get the option to be used with external EVF anymore. This way Leica pushes users who prefer an EVF into the new EVF-based M series. Same what happened with the video function in M 240 based cameras - when the video-centric SL series was released, the M10 had the video option removed.
I guess it is time to start the M12 speculation thread. I am wondering if Leica will eventually venture into electrical contacts on their M lenses. So, I’ll vote for the M12 with hybrid viewfinder and a 50mm Summicron with electrical contacts. The lens transition will have to be slow, but would be another source of revenue.
bwcolor wrote:
I guess it is time to start the M12 speculation thread. I am wondering if Leica will eventually venture into electrical contacts on their M lenses. So, I’ll vote for the M12 with hybrid viewfinder and a 50mm Summicron with electrical contacts. The lens transition will have to be slow, but would be another source of revenue.
I also doubt this will happen with electrical contacts in M lenses. Leica created a good revenue for 6-bit coding of older lenses. More communication between camera and lens will only bring the M-series closer to the (not so well selling) SL series which Leica will try to avoid this to happen. I also don't think we will see a hybrid viewfinder - it would sacrifice both sales of traditional M rangefinder cameras and also of the new EVF-based one.
Could just a well be that the M12 has less stuff in it. If they make a M11-EV and it's good they could remove visoflex capabilities from the M12. I doubt it as they want the 21mm and 135 to be usable but you never know. The rangefinder could become more pure and the EV camera could have more toys.
bwcolor wrote:
I am wondering if Leica will eventually venture into electrical contacts on their M lenses.
I'm not sure this is technically possible: where would they be so that there is no risk of shorting on the body using old lenses?
flash wrote:
If they make a M11-EV and it's good they could remove visoflex capabilities from the M12.
Maybe but supporting the visoflex is software only. There is not even an extra button for it on the M10 or M11. So why remove it?
pmeheut wrote:
I'm not sure this is technically possible: where would they be so that there is no risk of shorting on the body using old lenses?
This has not been a problem for other brands. Lots of cameras have electrical contacts and are fine with manual lenses. Nikon F lenses from the 60s can be used on F-Mount dSLRs. Canon cameras work fine with M42 lenses on a dumb adapter. Etc.
retrofocus wrote:
I also doubt this will happen with electrical contacts in M lenses. Leica created a good revenue for 6-bit coding of older lenses. More communication between camera and lens will only bring the M-series closer to the (not so well selling) SL series which Leica will try to avoid this to happen. I also don't think we will see a hybrid viewfinder - it would sacrifice both sales of traditional M rangefinder cameras and also of the new EVF-based one.
How many years ago did Leica create the 6-bit code? Isn’t SL an autofocus system? Did adding Visoflex capability stop people from buying Leica? Hybrid is just a word. The actual implementation would determine acceptance. I have very few reasons to buy more ‘M’ lenses, or bodies. In fact, I need to sell. I really don’t need more resolution. I would not resist some form of stabilization and I for one would accept an extended lens mount to accomplish this. I would also accept a higher resolution sensor and blindingly fast processing to accomplish digital stabilization if I didn’t need to accept less dynamic range and greatly reduced battery life. Global shutter would be fine with me. The A9 is a wonderful camera. All that said, I own two M3s and six ‘M’s with fully manual shutters. I remember when the M7 was considered poorly because of the electronic shutter. How is that working out now?
bwcolor wrote:
How many years ago did Leica create the 6-bit code? Isn’t SL an autofocus system? Did adding Visoflex capability stop people from buying Leica? Hybrid is just a word. The actual implementation would determine acceptance. I have very few reasons to buy more ‘M’ lenses, or bodies. In fact, I need to sell. I really don’t need more resolution. I would not resist some form of stabilization and I for one would accept an extended lens mount to accomplish this. I would also accept a higher resolution sensor and blindingly fast processing to accomplish digital stabilization if I didn’t need to accept less dynamic range and greatly reduced battery life. Global shutter would be fine with me. The A9 is a wonderful camera. All that said, I own two M3s and six ‘M’s with fully manual shutters. I remember when the M7 was considered poorly because of the electronic shutter. How is that working out now?...Show more →
My earlier reply focused on avoidance of in-house competition. Leica seems to be very aware of it and will IMO make sure that one new camera will not affect sales of another line much. It was always mentioned as reason that the M10 had no more video because of the "Das Wesentliche" approach and to simplify - I don't buy it. Yes, some really didn't like the extra video button in the M 240, but I never saw video capability in contradiction to simplification. It comes as kind of a freebie with LiveView anyway. IMO the real reason to remove it in the M10 series was to avoid in-house competition with the SL series which started just two years earlier. We can also look at the Q-series - it comes with a fixed lens. This way there is no competition with either the SL series (exchangeable AF based L-lenses) and with the M series (exchangeable lenses but only manual focus and no video in newer digital Ms). The anticipated M11 EV1 changes this a bit since it might make some Q-series users move to this camera instead if they value lens flexibility over AF and close focus capability with video in the Q series. I think Leica is risking it for two reasons: a) the Q series sells well - a bit loss might not matter much and b) Leica had no other choice regarding the overall market - a smaller M-sized camera with exchangeable M-mount (smaller lenses) and EVF-based fits a niche where other mirrorless manufacturers are already in but Leica was dragging their feet.
What Leica will try to avoid for any price is to slam already poorer sales of the SL series because this is the only one with L-mount which was so hyped up that it will be very difficult for Leica to roll back. (yes, the customer still preferred the M- or Q-series over it which isn't what Leica's senior mgmt hoped to see). Practically it means Leica won't implement things in M-cameras which are seen as main value in SL ones - excellent large and bright EVF, AF, and video. Electronic contacts on M lenses as suggested will only bring M- and SL-series closer. Same for a hybrid viewfinder approach. I can see this happening only if the SL series fails like the former Leica R-series (both good camera series but out-competed by other brands).
yes, the customer still preferred the M- or Q-series over it which isn't what Leica's senior mgmt hoped to see
Yep, but they were told, again and gain to make the body smaller and lighter, and they ignored all advice. I would have gone with the SL but for its size and weight, and put up with the less than stellar autofocus, just to use my M lenses on it, and to enjoy the class-leading interface. So instead I went with Sony, and don’t regret it, even though the SL3 has shrunk a little. It amazes me that back in the 70’s and 80’s many people complained about the lump that was the then SL, but they did not learn from that. Pity.
wolfloid wrote:
Yep, but they were told, again and gain to make the body smaller and lighter, and they ignored all advice. I would have gone with the SL but for its size and weight, and put up with the less than stellar autofocus, just to use my M lenses on it, and to enjoy the class-leading interface. So instead I went with Sony, and don’t regret it, even though the SL3 has shrunk a little. It amazes me that back in the 70’s and 80’s many people complained about the lump that was the then SL, but they did not learn from that. Pity....Show more →
Not only have they been ignoring the requests from their customers, Leica additionally discontinued the APS-C CL (and the TL2), the only 2 lightweight L-mount cameras they had, and offered no FF solution whatsoever... Also, now you have the Hasselblad X2Dii which is lighter and cheaper than the Leica SL3... What is the purpose of the SL product line nowadays? It is the Leica video solution but is that sufficient to keep the product line going? I have my doubts...
