Honestly, can we really complain about resolution or IQ anymore? I personally don't care who makes the sensor, and I don't even want to know. The reality today is that pretty much every modern camera has an excellent sensor, even APS-C bodies. At this point, that is no longer where the meaningful differences in IQ come from. The lenses we use have far more influence on the final look and rendering of the image than the sensor itself. Maybe that was a bigger discussion a decade ago, but today every brand offers sensors that are more than good enough. (Even Canon...just joking!)
So instead, why not focus on keeping the Leica M what it has always been? Something different from the "super computer" direction most mirrorless cameras are going. We don't really need a computer in our hands to make photographs. What we need are the basics: control over ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Keep the internal meter if you want, but bring the emphasis back to simplicity and to enjoying the process of making pictures. With the level of IQ we get from virtually all cameras today, that experience matters more than ever.
If the Leica M eventually morphs into just another mirrorless computer, then what's the point of carrying one? At that stage I would probably just use other brands that are already pushing the technological side much further than Leica. The appeal of the M has always been simplicity and that it's something different...
The talk around the M12 reminds me about these last handful of years where I was shooting with my Sony A9. I picked it up back then cause it really felt like something special at the time. Even now, eight years later, I still really enjoy using it and the photos make me happy. At some point I just realized I didn’t need to keep running on the upgrade treadmill anymore, at least not for me.
I think it really depends on why each of us gets into photography in the first place. Everyone’s got their own reasons. For me, I’ve found a lot of joy in just working within the limits of a camera and trying to enjoy the process more. It’s honestly been good for me. My mood’s always better when I’m out shooting. Mental health win.
My M10‑R doesn’t feel like it’s showing its age at all. I’m not trying to go back to film. I’m just learning where “enough” is for me. And it sure doesn’t hurt that the previous owner sold it to me my M10 with four batteries, since I plan on keeping it for a long while.
I don’t expect anyone to listen to me or take this as advice. the heck do I know anyway, haha
I’ll probably just keep shooting with what I’ve got and be grateful it still makes me want to go out and take pictures. I am not saying anyone else's views are wrong. They're right for them.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Honestly, can we really complain about resolution or IQ anymore? I personally don't care who makes the sensor, and I don't even want to know. The reality today is that pretty much every modern camera has an excellent sensor, even APS-C bodies. At this point, that is no longer where the meaningful differences in IQ come from. The lenses we use have far more influence on the final look and rendering of the image than the sensor itself. Maybe that was a bigger discussion a decade ago, but today every brand offers sensors that are more than good enough. (Even Canon...just joking!)
So instead, why not focus on keeping the Leica M what it has always been? Something different from the "super computer" direction most mirrorless cameras are going. We don't really need a computer in our hands to make photographs. What we need are the basics: control over ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Keep the internal meter if you want, but bring the emphasis back to simplicity and to enjoying the process of making pictures. With the level of IQ we get from virtually all cameras today, that experience matters more than ever.
If the Leica M eventually morphs into just another mirrorless computer, then what's the point of carrying one? At that stage I would probably just use other brands that are already pushing the technological side much further than Leica. The appeal of the M has always been simplicity and that it's something different......Show more →
It is not a matter of whether the older cameras can create high quality images. For sure they can, I loved the images that came from my M10 series cameras, and the experience of shooting with them. It is however, a matter of extending the circumstances where a certain level of IQ can be attained.
The challenge and the art for Leica is to expand this envelope while maintaining the attributes that have made Leica so beloved. It is much like Porsche having to work hard to achieve faster lap times without losing the soul of the 911.
The economic future of Leica is not tied to those who love their M9,M10, etc and are happy to keep their copies of those cameras forever. Their future is tied to providing something that new people will buy at premium prices. As much as I love the Porsche's I drove 20 years ago, they would not be competitive, nor would they sell in sufficient numbers to keep Porsche a viable company.
1bwana1 wrote:
It is not a matter of whether the older cameras can create high quality images. For sure they can, I loved the images that came from my M10 series cameras, and the experience of shooting with them. It is however, a matter of extending the circumstances where a certain level of IQ can be attained.
The challenge and the art for Leica is to expand this envelope while maintaining the attributes that have made Leica so beloved. It is much like Porsche having to work hard to achieve faster lap times without losing the soul of the 911.
The economic future of Leica is not tied to those who love their M9,M10, etc and are happy to keep their copies of those cameras forever. Their future is tied to providing something that new people will buy at premium prices. As much as I love the Porsche's I drove 20 years ago, they would not be competitive, nor would they sell in sufficient numbers to keep Porsche a viable company....Show more →
I am not an economist () or a Leica shareholder, so I don't really care about their financial future, though of course I want them to keep making cameras and lenses.. For me the point is not what's technologically possible, it is about what Leica chooses to do with the M line. Take the M-A for example. They are still making it brand new today. They could certainly add a bunch of modern features. Things like a mechanical self-timer, hot shoe with TTL flash support, a redesigned shutter dial, and more would be possible. But they don't. And it is not because these things are not possible or relevant today. It is because the absence of those features is exactly what makes the camera special. That is how I see the M body: simple, focused, and all about the act of taking pictures.
What worries me is seeing photographers coming from mirrorless systems wanting the M to have all the bells and whistles they are used to. That is not the path I want for the M. But given what you wrote about Leica's economics, it is likely they will continue to push the M in a more feature-packed and more electronic direction. That is fine. It just means I will either step away from buying new bodies or stick with what I already have until it no longer works.
Fred Miranda wrote:
What worries me is seeing photographers coming from mirrorless systems wanting the M to have all the bells and whistles they are used to. That is not the path I want for the M. But given what you wrote about Leica's economics, it is likely they will continue to push the M in a more feature-packed and more electronic direction. That is fine. It just means I will either step away from buying new bodies or stick with what I already have until it no longer works.
I guess I fall somewhere in the middle on that. I shoot my M11 pretty much the same way I would shoot an M3. Fully manual, except much of the time relying on Auto ISO. I pretty much never go to menus, and the only buttons or dials used are to control frame rate, exposure compensation, and ISO. My guess is that is how most of the "traditionalist" M shooters shoot theirs. That is also pretty much how I shoot my Leica IIIf except of film fixing the ISO. I do not want this to change at all. As long as the camera can be used in this very simple manner I do not care what other optional features/functions are added. They won't affect me and my workflow/enjoyment (or yours probably).
I just have a hard time understanding the purist sentiment that if I don't want a feature, no one else should either. Leica has shown that the company holds tradition and legacy in high regard by as you pointed out, still making analog cameras, bringing back historical lenses, and by supporting and servicing cameras made all the way back to the first ones. In fact Leica makes a big business out of its legacy products in the used and auction markets. No other camera brand does this at leica's level of commitment.I doubt that will ever change. I doubt that this will be possible with the electronics based models. Components will not be available to do that. The current digital M must keep advancing in a balanced way, or the company will fail. It is as simple as that. That balanced approach is why Leica is investing such a big effort into pursuing its own sensor when the easiest path forward would be to continue to buy technology from Sony. I recently spent some quality time with Dr Kaufman and his family. They are very much aware of these issues, and multiple generations of the family are working to preserve this balance.
But keep in mind, the EV-1 exists because of large customer requests. Customers are still requesting a better EVF/Focusing experience. IBIS and a faster processor are also very high on the list of requested improvement. These are also required to advance the EV-1. Therefore it will come. I highly doubt the Leicas inboxes are filling up with customer demand for Leica to release more M10(x). The digital M line will advance. The good news for the traditionalist is that there is probably going to be a lifetime supply of the past products available on the used market. They just won't be maintainable for decades like the analog ones are.
The M10 showed us that Leica got the message that most M shooters want a simple pure M (after the more complex 240 series). The EV-1, Monochrom and D variants show that Leica isn’t afraid to also make M’s that are requested repeatedly by its buyers.
The M12 will need to be the core M. And that means as simple as possible. Just the necessary. But they could also make an M with IBIS (maybe that’s M240 sized) or other variants. Leica seem to know their M audience well. Better than most. They also know that whatever they do it’ll be controversial.
Personally, if it doesn’t fit in the M10/11 body size, it won’t be in the M12. But that doesn’t mean an M12-xxx isn’t also in planning.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If the Leica M eventually morphs into just another mirrorless computer, then what's the point of carrying one? At that stage I would probably just use other brands that are already pushing the technological side much further than Leica. The appeal of the M has always been simplicity and that it's something different...
I highly doubt that the M12 will morph even closely towards MLC. For one simple reason: Leica will avoid in-house competition (again!) with the M EV-1. If more features of mirrorless find its way to Leica, it will be a future M EV-[number] benefitting from it. But not the traditional rangefinder based M. IBIS might find its way into both M variants (traditional M and EV-[number]). But for example a hybrid EVF won't happen with the traditional M how I see it nor other MLC benefits i. e. flip displays etc.
Leica will make sure that there is not much overlap (or that there are enough differences) between M, M-EV1, SL, and Q series.
I’m happily parked at the M10-P. I am more than fine with the files and the quiet shutter is the best of the bunch, even better than my M6 and M3. I think I have about 110,000 clicks on it now, no plans to upgrade.
I've had every M digital BUT the M10-R (just timing). I don't care what others say, the M11 is the better camera in virtually every respect. And the M EV1 is in the same camp for output. I like the M10s but if had to have only one, it's the M11-P in black or the M EV1.
I am with those who consider the M10 series to be the ultimate digital M. My first M was an M4 in 1974 along with a 35 Summilux. Both new at the time, as I got them on a discount as an employee at a Leica dealer in NJ. They, along with a 90 T-E thin got got me through school and beyond. I foolishly sold the kit to purchase an Canon SLR kit upon embarking on a free-lance career. I sold the Canon kit to get back to the M experience upon retirement. I don't miss the Canon stuff, but I DO miss the M4 and 35 Summilux. An M10M and M10R now fill the void. They are everything I (will ever) need.
I can imagine what a Leica product specification person is thinking when he hears things like "I am happy with what I have and will never upgrade". He realizes that this is not a customer for him. He will never feed his family by making this guy happy. Best to quickly introduce him to a Leica vintage manager and move on to trying to understand a Leica new product customer.
I'm not sure they worry about such statements. Perhaps they remind them to keep their roots in mind, on occasion. And they know very well that there's always GAS. :-)
Mar 16, 2026 at 06:15 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
retrofocus wrote:
I highly doubt that the M12 will morph even closely towards MLC. For one simple reason: Leica will avoid in-house competition (again!) with the M EV-1. If more features of mirrorless find its way to Leica, it will be a future M EV-[number] benefitting from it. But not the traditional rangefinder based M. IBIS might find its way into both M variants (traditional M and EV-[number]). But for example a hybrid EVF won't happen with the traditional M how I see it nor other MLC benefits i. e. flip displays etc.
Leica will make sure that there is not much overlap (or that there are enough differences) between M, M-EV1, SL, and Q series. ...Show more →
Very close to my guess how Leica will proceed as well. My guess is the Leica M12 will be more like the Leica M10R than the Leica M11. It will go back to the proprietary sensor, we know that already, and I don't think it will have IBIS, but will keep the same thin body. My guess is that it will have more processing power and probably have faster sensor scan speed, something like 1/50 or 1/60 which will make the electronic shutter more useful. It will have a new Visoflex add on EVF that will be a little better than the Visoflex 2 as well, which will help a lot with close focus when it is wanted. Still, it will be very much a classi M camera in look and feel.
Then I expect the M EV-2 to diverge more with likely a Sony sensor. I think it will have IBIS. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 45 MP sensor like in the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or Canon R5 II with fast sensor scan speed. I expect the EVF to get bigger and be blackout free. Will it have focus aids beyond magnification? I'm not so sure, but I think by the time we get to an EV-3, that very well may happen. It will mostly be the shape of a Leica M, but I think it will have to be a bit thicker to accomodate the IBIS.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Very close to my guess how Leica will proceed as well. My guess is the Leica M12 will be more like the Leica M10R than the Leica M11. It will go back to the proprietary sensor, we know that already, and I don't think it will have IBIS, but will keep the same thin body. My guess is that it will have more processing power and probably have faster sensor scan speed, something like 1/50 or 1/60 which will make the electronic shutter more useful. It will have a new Visoflex add on EVF that will be a little better than the Visoflex 2 as well, which will help a lot with close focus when it is wanted. Still, it will be very much a classi M camera in look and feel.
Then I expect the M EV-2 to diverge more with likely a Sony sensor. I think it will have IBIS. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 45 MP sensor like in the Nikon Z8 and Z9 or Canon R5 II with fast sensor scan speed. I expect the EVF to get bigger and be blackout free. Will it have focus aids beyond magnification? I'm not so sure, but I think by the time we get to an EV-3, that very well may happen. It will mostly be the shape of a Leica M, but I think it will have to be a bit thicker to accomodate the IBIS....Show more →
+1. I can see your shared vision as of coming true. Very possible that only the M EV will see IBIS in the future even more so underlining my made point above to avoid in house competition between traditional M and M EV lines. A new Visoflex is pretty safe to say that it will happen with the M12, too.
1bwana1 wrote:
I can imagine what a Leica product specification person is thinking when he hears things like "I am happy with what I have and will never upgrade". He realizes that this is not a customer for him. He will never feed his family by making this guy happy. Best to quickly introduce him to a Leica vintage manager and move on to trying to understand a Leica new product customer.
Leica actually seems to be quite used to these kind of customer statements. Where you often hear it is from Leica M users who only shoot with film based M cameras. I was in this camp for many years, too. But what happens is that some of them over time upgrade to a Leica M digital camera at some point (this also happened with me). It's a win-win for Leica in the end. Or in other words - film M can be seen as entry towards the digital M system. And Leica doesn't need to do anything to make these temporarily satisfied customers move to digital M since it will often automatically happen when already being vested into the M environment.
One reason why I think some move to Leica digital M is they are not like say Canon. With many of their(Canons) upgrades you need to buy new lenses. They are not the only camera manufacturer to do this. It is good for the bottom line. Also making cameras and equipment with a usable life span thus having to upgrade when it gets old because the company no longer supports the cameras/lenses. This is also something used in a lot of business models.
Once I find something that works really well for me I am not one to easily want to change with a so called upgrade. For large format film I still think a Deardorff large format camera is as good as it gets. For medium format film I would still have my 500 C/Ms if I still had a darkroom. I still have my Canon F-1s. Never a need to upgrade any of those cameras because the so called latest/greatest maybe really wasn't. It's hard to jump off the gadget go round but at some point I realized that it's not the gear holding me back.
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Haas
As Fred mentioned earlier cameras have all become very capable when talking about things like IQ. The M 10 series is full capable of capturing what I see, The problem I struggle with isn't the technical part of the equation but the visual part. Leica rangefinder's, especially the M 10 Mono fits the way I see and work.. Thats the reason I own it.
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."
Edward Weston
I need my equipment to just be part of the creative process. I don't want to think about the gear when I am working. I want it to be second nature. I need it ti be an extension of my vision. For me it can take a very long time for that to happen. So when it has happened I am very reluctant to make a change.
That is one reason I have 2 M 10s and an M 10 Mono. The process is like breathing. It just happens. The stuff just gets out of the way so I can create. For me and the way I work the more stuff thats put on a camera the farther away I get from that. So if Leica wants me to buy a new camera they need to keep at least one digital M that is in line with the way I work. Or I just stay with what I have until it no longer functions and can't be repaired.
airfrogusmc wrote:
One reason why I think some move to Leica digital M is they are not like say Canon. With many of their(Canons) upgrades you need to buy new lenses. They are not the only camera manufacturer to do this. It is good for the bottom line. Also making cameras and equipment with a usable life span thus having to upgrade when it gets old because the company no longer supports the cameras/lenses. This is also something used in a lot of business models.
Once I find something that works really well for me I am not one to easily want to change with a so called upgrade. For large format film I still think a Deardorff large format camera is as good as it gets. For medium format film I would still have my 500 C/Ms if I still had a darkroom. I still have my Canon F-1s. Never a need to upgrade any of those cameras because the so called latest/greatest maybe really wasn't. It's hard to jump off the gadget go round but at some point I realized that it's not the gear holding me back.
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Haas
As Fred mentioned earlier cameras have all become very capable when talking about things like IQ. The M 10 series is full capable of capturing what I see, The problem I struggle with isn't the technical part of the equation but the visual part. Leica rangefinder's, especially the M 10 Mono fits the way I see and work.. Thats the reason I own it.
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."
Edward Weston
I need my equipment to just be part of the creative process. I don't want to think about the gear when I am working. I want it to be second nature. I need it ti be an extension of my vision. For me it can take a very long time for that to happen. So when it has happened I am very reluctant to make a change.
That is one reason I have 2 M 10s and an M 10 Mono. The process is like breathing. It just happens. The stuff just gets out of the way so I can create. For me and the way I work the more stuff thats put on a camera the farther away I get from that. So if Leica wants me to buy a new camera they need to keep at least one digital M that is in line with the way I work. Or I just stay with what I have until it no longer function and can't be repaired.
Understood the concept but still feel like I am missing the point. If the form factor, Range Finder, button layout, and workflow is identical to your M10s and M10-M (the difference between these actually being quite large under the hood electronically) how does the addition of IBIS and a faster processor negatively affect you?
airfrogusmc wrote:
One reason why I think some move to Leica digital M is they are not like say Canon. With many of their(Canons) upgrades you need to buy new lenses. They are not the only camera manufacturer to do this. It is good for the bottom line. Also making cameras and equipment with a usable life span thus having to upgrade when it gets old because the company no longer supports the cameras/lenses. This is also something used in a lot of business models.
This happened to me decades ago with Canon. I started out with FD lenses which couldn't be used with later EF cameras. Nikon didn't do this - they made sure their lenses were always backwards compatible. I started with Canon because I was handed it as my first camera (Canon FTb), and I didn't know better until much later that Nikon would have been for me personally - liking vintage lenses - would have been the better choice. Especially when the D850 came along and I was stuck with Canon and a sensor below Sony image quality. My FD lenses found a second life when Sony MLC came along. Some of my FD lenses I still prefer over similar EF lenses I own.
The reality today is that pretty much every modern camera has an excellent sensor, even APS-C bodies. At this point, that is no longer where the meaningful differences in IQ come from. The lenses we use have far more influence on the final look and rendering of the image than the sensor itself. Maybe that was a bigger discussion a decade ago, but today every brand offers sensors that are more than good enough. (Even Canon...just joking!)