I think it would still look very, very much like M. Maybe a bit thinner, or sexier. But that would compromise ergonomic, so I don't know.
I think the biggest change will be the internal machined components resulting in combining elements to reduce parts. Especially when only one will be made. Then again Leica Engineers went through that design process with MP. But I guess manufacturing tech had probably improved enough to revisit that again.
As much as I love Apple, unless there's a major breakthrough announced, I would rather see other cameras being tested, SLRs or compact.
Flickr uploads is a very bad gauge of shutter frequency per camera or duration of camera on the hand of their users. SLR users tend to upload only a select few of a day's shoot, or outing. iPhone uploads tend to be massive, without filtering, like 2 photos of every plate they ordered that dinner, or a sequence of their kids that's close enough to be animated in gifs. So the volume upload does not speak of users and their shutter presses, or time spent handing the camera.
liin: Want it just on "handsome" factor alone.
I can't afford Leica M. Can we get a M42 module? That will be super fun.
Edit. Maybe I'll just get this with Zeiss 50 f/2 M mount.
Want it just on "handsome" factor alone.
liin: I can't afford one. I mean, I have the money, but I can't justify the price tag because I'm not a pro photographer.
So, give me a full-frame X2, with 50 f/1.4, for $2k. Thank you.
I agree Leica is in a very weird spot now.
Photojournalists used to prefer Leica because of its film load, that even if the camera was badly damaged, the shots in film would not be exposed. That advantage exists in all digital cameras. MP might still have a slight advantage in that it is less likely to fail than digital, if abused. But Pros always carry backups anyways.
Leica is now sort of desired for their attention to detail in addressing the need of photographers, in design and engineering. But, other manufacturers' method of pumping out newer versions often to let their so-so designs evolve, seems to work very well too.
So, Leica is now priced for pros ( meaning, people who are ok with those price points, due to revenue they can earn from using the tools ), but is more likely to end up being desired by consumers.
RoccoGalatioto: It seems to me another example when Leica missed the boat and arrived late. It should have been Leica to be the first FF camera. Kodak had the sensor and instead of fooling around with Fiuji as it later did with Panasonic where identical product came out only branded Leica and with a higher price tag, Leica could have been there at the start. I realize the the company was on the ropes at that time but it was a moment lost forever. The M-8 was a failure nd the M-9 it too pricey and although a great camera it's outside the budgets of many. It is also in a precarious marketing place. It Voigtlander comes out with a true RF like it tried before under the Epson brand but with more up to date features and with FF, it could relegate Leica back to the "collector's" camera category where it was for many years. It's too bad.
Contax took the dive, and it didn't work out for them, so it is hard to say. I would think that now is a perfect time. It would have been much more expensive to pull it off back then, and it would also need a bigger body to get full frame.
JimW: What they now call "mirrorless" will be the wave the future... The "shutter flapping and mirror flapping" will go away, sooner or later, hopefully sooner. These electronic LCD viewfinders, EVF, have such high resolution... Like upwards of a million pixels in a 20mm mini LCD screen... The real advantage is in low light... Where traditional pent-prism viewfinders, you cannot really see well... But with a modern EVF the seen appears illuminated due to the camera's ability to auto-expose the proposed image... If anyone has seen SONY's EX-3 video camera... Albeit a video camera,,, the viewfinder is totally amazing... Hopefully the pro DSLR will adopt some of the features of today's digital video cameras... JimW.
I haven't seen one of those EVF. But our eye's iris opens up under low light, which would also auto expose the scene.
Our eyes can see perfectly to perform tasks under conditions where no images could be captured.
I can't afford one. I mean, I have the money, but I can't justify the price tag because I'm not a pro photographer.
Good lord. Very bad images.
I have no problem with heavy vignetting, light leaks, crappy brokeh, etc, etc, stuff found on cheap camera / lenses. I even like them sometimes. But that swirling distortion around the edges, on a normal field of view, is just ... yuk.
I like the warm/bright colors accenting over the entire gray tone. But the blue bottle and blue signs are very distracting to the composition, should have taken out those colors in post.
Straight lines only contrasted by organic form on the upper two-third, and curved lines only at the lower third, very nice.
Ok, ok, I clicked for the boobs.
Akos Kozari: If i would have 8000 USD, i would buy a camera body below 3000 USD, buying some lenses and spend the remaining for e.g. travelling. M9-P looks like a great tool, but not worth for the money. Good picture can be done without the Red dot and top plate scriptings.(I have just sent my Leica M analog.)
As much as I think this is built for pros, desired by hobbyist, you can hand Henri Cartier Bresson a crappy toy camera, and he'll still come up with better shots than most most M owners.
mauro paillex: Leica lives in prehistorical era of photography! I'm a professional, i've tried the m9 but it does not absolutely worth the money!! Camera body for Dandies that just want appear in fashion parties...
You misunderstood Jark. It has nothing to do with "retro art". He meant, just look at great photojournalists, artists, photographers, in the history of art ( as the business of advertising, publishing, wedding, etc, is what we often think first when we think pro ). Those artists do not care a bit about status associated with what they use. Whatever that make them feel most intuitive to deliver what their eyes see, to express, will be their choice of tool. Many of them chose Leica M, even in the digital era. They have their reasons, and has nothing to do with appearing fashionable, or feeling retro.
I'm gonna get flamed for this.
But I think there should be a dedicated ISO dial. I do not think that is bells and whistles we don't need. It would make digital M more minimal, in essence. No menus to go through for the three basic elements of exposure, sensitivity of capturing plane, exposure time, and amount of light. So, we have our ISO dial, shutter speed dial, and aperture ring.
In film, it was unreasonable to consider, say, ISO 64 or 200, when exposing shots, as it would be a lot of trouble to go through if I opted for the one that's not loaded. But that was then. Considering just shutter and aperture, and waving the whatever hand to ISO, is not thinking in term of best possible options. Going through menus to set ISO feels intrusive to the intuitive process of using M.
I seriously want it. Too bad I can't claim I need one.
MPA1: Gorgeous but still impossible to focus accurately unless you have excellent eyesight.
An autofocus version of this camera would sell in truckloads. I would buy 2 almost immediately for a start!
One of the Leica M's strong selling point ( and it has very few strong selling point ) is it is easy to get your focus super fast.
I prefer split screen focus on SLR. But argument is, I have to recompose after I confirm my focus, or focus before I compose. You don't have to with rangefinder, you do both at the same time. Modern DSLRs have multiple focus points, but it's still a step to select.
ross7: I wish there's a M9 giveaway contest. IMHO, Leica's target market are for millionaires.
If you are a photographer, that price tag is dirt cheap. Think about it. How much do you have to invest to open a cafe, start up a design studio, run a local hardware store?
I have friends who use and abuse their M like a $2 disposable camera. And they outright told me it's a just a film container that allows you to do proper exposure. Because one good shot in a roll of film, will net them income worth a lot of Leica Ms. They do take some care to their M lenses, but mostly just not to ruin shots with dirty lens, I think.
I believe I'm not prehistoric, I'm pretty geeky when it comes to gadgets, and new tech. I hate parties, and never, ever dress up. Still, this full frame baby is looking very desirable for me.
I love everything about it. I'm deterred only by its price tag, since I'm not a pro, I can't make money off this thing. But I can see who some photographers would prefer this as their tool.
That said, yes, a lot of Leica owners own it for vanity. But same can be said to a lot of owners who own exotic f/1.2 lenses, even though those lenses are built for pros.
A lot of people don't know this, but journalists preferred M for its film load box. They run and gun, and can't re-shoot what they shot. M can take a lot of abuse, and, even more importantly, won't leak light even when badly damaged. Film backs flip open when camera are dropped.
While digital can't take much abuse, journalists now are not worried about loosing their shots stored in memory cards. Journalists who worry about loosing opportunities, still carry two film based M, despite preferring digital post processing.