RustyBug wrote:
That said, I wouldn't mind if they configured the bottom plate to have an Arca Swiss dovetail in it. But, that's likely a bit far fetched for them.
Indeed. And adding a way to have a small, lightweight removable handgrip. My 1981's Canon A1 had one.
I'm using FlipBac G4 adhesive ones and they stay in place for a year or more but of course, I guess the want to keep the same exact look as ever because nothing changed since 1954 and the release of the Leica M3.
The removable baseplate is a nuisance. It's a film-era relic that adds no utility to a digital camera ... no style, no elegance, nothing good ... just wasteful delay. Having a smaller battery to accommodate a baseplate is silly. A baseplate might be ok for people who barely use their cameras.
NJPhotographer wrote:
The removable baseplate is a nuisance. It's a film-era relic that adds no utility to a digital camera ... no style, no elegance, nothing good ... just wasteful delay. Having a smaller battery to accommodate a baseplate is silly. A baseplate might be ok for people who barely use their cameras.
Ironically, some folks who use their cameras A LOT find the removable baseplate of no concern / nuisance ... muscle memory, etc.
When I got my first M-P 240, I fumbled with it. Now that I've used an M246 and M10-R ... bottom plate is no biggie, at all.
My guess is that they were thinking an M10 body (and battery) with a removable plate, but an M12 sensor. Those tiny little batteries in the M10R would be trying to handle an M12 sensor, and the shot life could be even worse (efficiency dependent, etc.).
The M11 touted the better battery (and USB charging) as a benefit of losing the bottom plate. While I suppose they could still have a USB-C charging port ... if so, THEN the pain of smaller batteries might not be so bad. Still, I have no preference for the bottom plate, either way. It is the impact of the quid pro quo that I have preference(s) about.
Now, if the removable bottom plate could be swapped out for a bottom battery ... then, you might get something for it as being more utilitarian. Aesthetic / nostalgia only ... not a driving force for me. But again, I'm good either way as long as it doesn't jack up something else (i.e. battery, etc.) in the process.
Honestly it is one major reason why I would currently prefer the M10-R over the M11. I like the metal baseplate and would prefer to keep it in newer models. It provides additional protection to the camera housing and in this case to the battery and SD card compartments. Well, and then there is a bit of my thinking involved that Leica made newer M cameras without metal baseplate cheaper to manufacture but still selling them for more....(*shrug*)
This discussion will never lead to a consent between both camps of users - it reminds me of the discussion > 10 years ago in the Sony forum if a larger handgrip is preferred on Sony A7 models (I voted to prefer the original smaller grip but Sony went along and added a much larger grip in future A7 models). It is one reason why I never upgraded from my original A7R since I like its compactness much better than in all successor models from Sony.
I did not get a link to this survey. Was it only sent to selected Leica customers?
i like the baseplate. but bringing it back likely means changing the damn battery _again_. i don't like it brought back for that reason. FFS i don't want yet a different battery for a new M generation.
RustyBug wrote:
If they asked about going back in time to a body the size of the M240 ... and that extra real estate meant bigger battery ... or IBIS ... or BOTH. I could go "back" for that (I rather enjoy how my M246 fits in my hand). If that came WITH or WITHOUT the bottom plate being removable ... I couldn't care one way or the other about the bottom plate.
That said, I wouldn't mind if they configured the bottom plate to have an Arca Swiss dovetail in it. But, that's likely a bit far fetched for them.
I wouldn't mind the bottom plate being removable (or not), but not at the ADDITIONAL EXPENSE of battery reduction ... ...Show more →
It's funny that you mention the bigger body... I've had M10s, M240s, and M9, and an M8. I'm now using the M8 and I want to add an M9 instead of a newer camera. I love the build and feel of the M8 in my hands... As a 5% Leica shooter (I use Nikon for 99% of my nature photography), the M8/M9 make sense in terms of both my budget and the unique character of the images that seem so less digital than all of the 24MP (+) cameras.
One thing the removable baseplate brings in is the option for add-on grips and Arca-Swise plates that don't have to be tripod screw mounted to the existing fixed baseplate. It also allows an add-on grip (or other accessory) to access an internal camera connector for additional functions like GPS, bluetooth, wifi, additional battery, etc.
They could do a brass bottom plate and M11 capacity battery. The brass is only around 0.80mm thick and there's more than that in dead plastic space on the bottom of an M11 battery. An externally accessible USB-C port would be the wild card since paint/chrome loss around that hole might be too risky for Wetzlar—or, more accurately, their cutomer base with mint-condition black-paint bodies.
I'm neutral and haven't yet filled out the survey. I can see both sides since I shoot both an M11-M and M-A. If I had to bet, the M12 will return to brass construction and a more analog experience.
hahr wrote:
If I had to bet, the M12 will return to brass construction and a more analog experience.
What would a "more analog experience" be?
And I hope Leica will not make the mistakes of the past again where they were all about "tradition" up to the point where they closed their digital department.
They can sell as many special editions to people who buy an "experience" instead of a camera but I hope they will not go this way.
Because I have the impression this is what they are doing with lenses: excellent, incredibly expensive but no real added value when it comes to producing pictures.
pmeheut wrote:
What would a "more analog experience" be?
And I hope Leica will not make the mistakes of the past again where they were all about "tradition" up to the point where they closed their digital department.
They can sell as many special editions to people who buy an "experience" instead of a camera but I hope they will not go this way.
Because I have the impression this is what they are doing with lenses: excellent, incredibly expensive but no real added value when it comes to producing pictures.
To your last point here... I suspect that this is why so many M11 users are shooting with LLL, Voigtlander, Typoch and other non-OEM lenses. Leica shooters who spent $7000 to $10000 on their M11/MEV bodies are willing to pay a premium for new Leica-branded glass, but most are not willing to spend an additional 4K to 6K on a lens when after market competitors make as good or equally interesting options.
OwlsEyes wrote:
To your last point here... I suspect that this is why so many M11 users are shooting with LLL, Voigtlander, Typoch and other non-OEM lenses. Leica shooters who spent $7000 to $10000 on their M11/MEV bodies are willing to pay a premium for new Leica-branded glass, but most are not willing to spend an additional 4K to 6K on a lens when after market competitors make as good or equally interesting options.
regards,
bruce
I shoot Leica Summilux lenses on my core 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses on my M system. I shoot third party on my less used focal lengths, and when I want some more obvious character. That seems to make financial sense to me.
Same story with my SL3 system with a core of three APO-SL primes.
That said, one reason I upgraded from the M10 to the M11 is the fact that the latter doesn’t have that baseplate. Even in the film days, it didn’t make sense to me and I never liked it.
1bwana1 wrote:
I shoot Leica Summilux lenses on my core 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses on my M system. I shoot third party on my less used focal lengths, and when I want some more obvious character. That seems to make financial sense to me.
Same story with my SL3 system with a core of three APO-SL primes.
Financial sense, absolutely! I primarily buy my Leica bodies and lenses used from private parties directly, sometimes at auction. The new pieces I purchased have been in Europe where I get VAT refunds, and have been able to arbitrage the currencies advantageously. This has limited my exposure to loss from retail purchases. I am patient and take advantage of opportunities present themselves to acquire at good prices. Since the Leica market is so active, and Leica equipment holds its value really well after the initial retail drop, I have actually made a profit overall on the items I have resold.
So, for me Leica has "net" been the least expensive camera system I have owned. Yes, I have a decent sum "invested" (Not using the right word to use with camera money) in Leica equipment. But in the scope of things it is not really all that much as far as hobby money goes. I just consider it an asset allocation calculation. Amortizing on a per hour of money spent, it is damned cheap compared to other hobbies.
I have not done as well financially with other camera systems. So for me, Leica does make sense financially. Those third party lenses and accessories I buy I consider as money spent. Although the cost of acquisition is low, the percentage you get back on resale is very low when compared to Leica.
1bwana1 wrote:
Financial sense, absolutely! I primarily buy my Leica bodies and lenses used from private parties directly, sometimes at auction. The new pieces I purchased have been in Europe where I get VAT refunds, and have been able to arbitrage the currencies advantageously. This has limited my exposure to loss from retail purchases. I am patient and take advantage of opportunities present themselves to acquire at good prices. Since the Leica market is so active, and Leica equipment holds its value really well after the initial retail drop, I have actually made a profit overall on the items I have resold.
So, for me Leica has "net" been the least expensive camera system I have owned. Yes, I have a decent sum "invested" (Not using the right word to use with camera money) in Leica equipment. But in the scope of things it is not really all that much as far as hobby money goes. I just consider it an asset allocation calculation. Amortizing on a per hour of money spent, it is damned cheap compared to other hobbies.
I have not done as well financially with other camera systems. So for me, Leica does make sense financially. Those third party lenses and accessories I buy I consider as money spent. Although the cost of acquisition is low, the percentage you get back on resale is very low when compared to Leica....Show more →
Agree with that, though you can of course take pictures with cheaper systems overall. Still wondering how you do that VAT thing if you’re living in Italy and not having it shipped to the USA. I used to buy my fountain pens in Florence and had them shipped to NY, but nowadays they’d be crazy expensive having them shipped within the EU. Only can do the VAT thing in Japan and they’re apparently thinking about making that harder.
johnvanr wrote:
Agree with that, though you can of course take pictures with cheaper systems overall. Still wondering how you do that VAT thing if you’re living in Italy and not having it shipped to the USA. I used to buy my fountain pens in Florence and had them shipped to NY, but nowadays they’d be crazy expensive having them shipped within the EU. Only can do the VAT thing in Japan and they’re apparently thinking about making that harder.
Although I still maintain addresses in the U.S., I don't think it works with shipping. Especially since Trump started the tariff thing, and then U.S. Customs reporting to the States to collect State Sales Tax (our Montana house has no State Sales Tax applied though). Since both my Wife and I have American passports we buy using those, and a US based American Express Card. The sellers are signed up with Global Blue who refund the tax directly to the card at the airport as long as we leave with the item within 90 days of purchase. We never stay longer than 90 days without taking a trip somewhere swo no issues with that.
1bwana1 wrote:
Although I still maintain addresses in the U.S., I don't think it works with shipping. Especially since Trump started the tariff thing, and then U.S. Customs reporting to the States to collect State Sales Tax (our Montana house has no State Sales Tax applied though). Since both my Wife and I have American passports we buy using those, and a US based American Express Card. The sellers are signed up with Global Blue who refund the tax directly to the card at the airport as long as we leave with the item within 90 days of purchase. We never stay longer than 90 days without taking a trip somewhere swo no issues with that.
I also received the Leica survey. One portion of the questionnaire asked if you would be willing to accept a smaller battery - and how much % less capacity would you find acceptable.
I interpreted this as a question for the M12: if Leica put an IBIS system in the M12, would you still be interested if it required a smaller battery? IBIS was not mentioned in the survey. I suspect IBIS system designs have continued to progress with smaller mechanisims that might fit in an M size body. If something has be decreased in size to permit this, it is logical to consider a smaller battery.
Interesting survey about the base plate but it may have been about more than this...
