Rumour mills are grinding again as we approach the launch of the new M. It’s four years since the M240 hit the shelves and a replacement is now definitely due, if not overdue since the opportunity of Photokina 2016 was conspicuously missed. According to Leica Rumors this new beast could launch next month and be in your hands by the Spring of 2017. I don’t think we will see an announcement next month but probably in the first quarter of next year.
But what can we expect when it does come? LR suggests a 36MP sensor which I think is likely but not by any means a given. The SL makes do with 24MP — as does the Q — and much has been made of the benefits of not going to excess on sensor size. There is a big question mark over whether 36MP is a necessity or simply an exercise in keeping up with the Joneses. If so, it will not impress the traditional M user.
More interesting is the rumour that the camera will be smaller overall than the M240 and that, to my mind, would be the most exciting development.
Ultimate aim
Leica’s ultimate aim, I suspect, is to produce a digital rangefinder that is no larger, nor heavier than a film camera. The M3 has been cited, but I’d settle for an M7 feel-alike.
There are physical problems in achieving a body depth equivalent to that of a film camera. In analogue cameras the film plane usually sits right at the back of the body and, of course, it is very thin. With a digital camera the rear the body is cluttered with screen and sensor electronics, plus the inescapable fact that an electronic sensor is thicker than film (for the moment, at least, but watch out for developments). This alone mandates a deeper body to maintain the correct relationship between lens and sensor. But technology marches on and what is possible in 2016 is clearly different to what Leica had to work with in 2011 during the development of the M240.
Without a doubt the traditional viewfinder will remain. An M without a rangefinder is unthinkable. I imagine Leica’s boffins have studied the hybrid concept, perhaps checking over the odd Fuji X-Pro, but I suspect trying to combine the mechanical rangefinder with an electronic live view presents almost insurmountable problems. The Fuji is all electronic, of course. Instead, more refinement of the existing rangefinder would be welcome. I would also not discount a return to optical rather than electronic framelines; it is often frustrating to bring the M240 and its siblings to the eye and realise they aren’t switched on, therefore no framelines.
But will we need an external viewfinder? When the M240 was designed Leica’s development engineers were under pressure to add as many box-tickable frills as possible. EVFs were becoming an essential feature and Wetzlar no doubt feared that a new M without an EVF would flop. I don’t think it would have done so, but then I wasn’t asked at the time.
Sir SL to the rescue
What has changed in the last five years is that Leica now has something else to offer the technologically minded: The SL.
The SL does EVFs rather well, far better indeed than the M, even with a hybrid finder, can hope to emulate. It houses perhaps the best EVF on the market today. It gives Leica M owners the chance to maintain their much vaunted pure rangefinder concept while embracing modernity with the larger and more capable SL. I do not believe the typical M rangefinder buyer wants to see excessive bells and whistles. If an EVF is needed, buy the SL. If video is important, buy a Fuji or Panasonic to do the job better.
I have anecdotal evidence that things are moving in this direction. M240 owners are migrating to the SL and many of them are scratching their rangefinder itch with a used M9 rather than an M240. After all, as I wrote only two days ago, the M9 is much nearer to a film camera in size and weight.
I fear, however, that Leica will retain the external EVF when the new M is disclosed. At best we can hope for a completely redesigned, streamlined and svelte device that matches the one in the SL in terms of effectiveness. At worst we will get the ugly Visoflex introduced with the Leica T. I fervently hope that the elderly and creaky VF-2 has been consigned to Valhalla. In fact, I think this is one thing we can be certain of.
What would you like to see in the new M?
[After publishing the above piece I found an article by Ashwin Rao in which he mirrors many of my thoughts and opinions. But Ashwin adds some extra bits, including getting rid of the hoary old baseplate, adding a faux film advance lever, introducing in-camera stabilisation and a suggestion that it be called the Leica 10. Yes! Read the full article here.]
_______________
- Subscribe to Macfilos for free updates on articles as they are published. Read more here
- Want to make a comment on this article but having problems? Please read this
My list:
– sensor cleaning function
– a free Thumbs Up
That’s it.
As a never-to-be owner of an M and a full-time enjoyer of the Leica mystique (and cheaper bits of its reality!), I always take great pleasure in the speculations of the faithful. Just to put a Q-cat among the M-pigeons, how about a Q-Vario?
Excuse my flippancy.
I would be happy with an M-D Monochrome or at least a Typ 262 Monochrom. I would get one immediately.
As for a brand new version, for the viewfinder I would much prefer a magnification system à la XPro-2 rather than any EVF.
Smaller would be nice but to be honest I have never felt that the M9 (which I have) has ever been to big, and I don’t have big hands.
And black paint brass… none of this aluminum business !! 🙂
Ian,
I definitely love the M-D and an M-D Monochrom is something I think we might well see. It will be a way of stringing out the existing M240 sensor/design for a year or so after the introduction of the new M (as they did with the Mk I Monochrome which continued well into M240 territory. On the other points I also agree with you.
I would love sensor cleaning to be added to the mix of things missing from the current M. the M is the only camera i had to clean the sensor over the last few years.
Improvements on high iso would be welcome, and a hybrid ovf/evf would be fantastic although less likely i guess.
Yes, I forgot sensor cleaning and I thoroughly agree with you. It must cost Leica tens of thousands to offer their free sensor cleaning service (which used to be chargeable but which they had to make free because of user pressure). It is these small point, which other manufacturers have accepted as a matter of course, that cause aggravation.
Thin is not hard in M world, it has just never been tried. To slim down the body and maintain the lens to sensor plane difference it is necessary to make the mount proud of the body, not flush as it is now. I know this has been actively considered and it is a mystery to me why it has not been adopted already. I detest the middle age spread of the digital M bodies – it is a major contributory factor in my leaving the marque after more than two decades and there is little that would temp me back now – too little, too late I’m afraid…
I have a sneaking suspicion that the collar, as on Sony A7, RX1, is not compatible with the rangefinder mechanism. Remember that any changes to the M mount have to be backwards compatible into the dark ages. That’s a tall order. And anyone fiddling by adding collars is likely to have a frustrating time. I hope I am proved wrong, however.
Hi Mike, I can see what you mean, but I can still think of a way of achieving that, the roller cam is quintessentially Leica, but it can be re-engineered to move (pun intended) with the times.
You could well be right, Bill, but they have shown no tendency to consider a collar arrangement. There is on cosmetic problem: A collar (similar to Sony) is a relatively small extension but has the effect of making thinner M lenses look longer and somehow out of proportion. It’s a toss up between a longer lens or a slightly thicker body. Anyway, as Ian Docherty points out in an earlier comment, we’ve passed the time when any of our suggestions will make any difference. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see.
If we are "approaching the launch" I would have thought that ‘we’ have well passed the point of no return for suggestions as to what ‘we’ might like it to be.
Ian, of course you are quite right and I am well aware of the fact. But it doesn’t stop speculation. I have a very good idea of what the new M will look like and I know I will be disappointed in several respects. Let’s keep our fingers crossed!
I hope the photo at the top is not a portent of things to come.
Is there a prize for getting a correct guess? In truth, whatever will be, will be and I don’t suppose Leica will listen that carefully to be anything we say. My comments are
Leica should be wary about going to 36MP. My experience is that as MPs go up, getting sharp clear pictures becomes more difficult as any little shake shows up.
I would prefer a built in switchable EVF as in the Fujifilm X-Pro 2, but I have no problem with an add on one if it is a good one. It would certainly beat carrying around a bagful of viewfinders to cover focal lengths not covered by the rangefinder viewfinder.
As thin as physically possible and with good ergonomic design. The exposure compensation system should be the same as on the Fujifilm X-Pro 2.
That’s about it.
William