Does any of you "out there" have any informations about the possible launch of a new M model, which could (let me dream...) have, for example, a compensantion button +2, -2, improved focusing system (see some of the latest questions in M forum about this issue), better TTL, and so forth, which I'm sure all of you, even if very happy (as I'm myself) with your M cameras, would like to see, say, some slight improvements in it!!

-- Nuno Fontes Nunes (Nuno.Fontes_Nunes@curia.eu.int), March 30, 2001

Answers

I haven't heard anything about future M models. Doubtless there will be one, but Leica tends to keep its cards pretty close to its chest until the product launch is a few months away.

If you're asking what my "perfect Leica" would look like, I'd have to say it would be a Hexar RF with a slightly better viewfinder and a traditional thumb film wind lever so you could turn the motor off for complete silence.

What would my "ideal" vf look like? It would have the clarity, contrast and lack of distortion found in both the Leica and Bessa finders, and it would have single frame lines instead of sets. OK, while I'm dreaming, it would also have variable magnification so that each single frame line occupies the same visual angle as the 35mm frame in the current .58 finder.

Failing that, a set of three cameras each consisting of a Leica finder (.58, .72 and .85) in a Hexar RF body would suit me just fine.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), March 30, 2001.

what about an icecream, what´s your favourite flavour? sorry fellows, just kiding. Not bad ideas just wander how much size those improvements would add to a M body, well we could also ask for smaller size, and some shutter courtain protectors

-- R. Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 30, 2001.

Nuno, it will be shown at the next Photokina.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), March 30, 2001.

I read somewhere that the technology exists for LCD framelines, and that they could come up one at a time and actually get bigger and smaller depending on where you are focused.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 30, 2001.

My wish list: Smaller (back to the original M size, or possibly even CL size), titanium shutter, elimination of rangefinder flare.

My do-not-wish-for list: Electronic shutter, AE, integrated motorized film advance/rewind.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), March 30, 2001.

In regards to making an M camera that has all of the features common to every other camera: these discussions are like television programming...program for the lowest common denominator. In other words, offend as few people as possible, therefore maximizing the profits of the program provider.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Leica M made to satisfy the masses. On the other hand, there are plenty of cameras that do all of the things you all are asking.

Perhaps I'm the hopeless idealist, but given the choice, I'll take fully manual, fully mechanical any day. As I said, I won't be surprised when Leica introduces an M model that has moved in the direction of "dumbing down".

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

After many years of following the antics of Leica it seems that whatever decisions they make are reactive rather than proactive, and the reactions come only after substantial losses have been incurred...the Leicaflex (non-TTL meter when TTL was already a proven hit) being replaced by the SL; re-intro of M4 when M5 (too much) and CL (too little)tanked; discontinuation of huge, heavy 35-70/2.8 introduced even though 28-70 was what that segment of the market craves. It appears that many of Leica's product decisions have been made behind closed doors, ignoring or even contrary to customer wants

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 30, 2001.

Actually, Jeff, I wouldn't be surprised if Leica did very little for a while, and waited to see the marketing fallout from the Cosina and Konica initiatives. They have a very well-defined niche in the market right now, and as far as I can tell the M camera is fully realized to address that niche.

The kind of camera I'm talking about (motorized AE) is fundamentally not how people think of Leica, and they'd need to be pretty sure of the market response before they threw resources into a camera that is even more of a departure from their traditional paradigm than the M5 was. And we all know how _that_ turned out.

I like the fact that the Leica M is such a uncompromised purist camera, and really don't want to see them change it. But then I pick up the Hexar and shoot with it...

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), March 30, 2001.

Andrew:

I read somewhere that the technology exists for LCD framelines, and that they could come up one at a time and actually get bigger and smaller depending on where you are focused.

LCD's have one problem: When exposed to light [and camera's often are] they begin to fade and then disappear. Beware of used F3's. With LCD technology, I'm sure that my M3 would be "sans" finder lines.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), March 30, 2001.

As a small company with a limited R&D capital and low economic tolerance for bad decisions (and a disproportionate history of them!) it surely can't help them out that one vocal segment of their market wants an M in the direction of the Hexar and beyond, while another vocal segment wants the M6 to live forever just as it is. The answer might lie in the recently-announced Nikon FM3A, which has a hybrid shutter that is purely mechanical in manual mode, but stepless and electronic in AE. With that priority, the "perfect" M7 would be one which caters to both market segments...in addition, if the guts were modular they could be replaced by a digital module for those wanting to go (even sometimes) in that direction.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 30, 2001.

A modular M7 with a hybrid manual/AE shutter? Sounds like the perfect project for a company with limited R&D resources :-)

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), March 30, 2001.

Not to trash anyone else's perspective, but I really don't understand why, if you're looking for autoexposure/advance/rewind or other "improvements," are you looking for a Leica?

Seems kind of like looking for a small sporty convertible that has lots of legroom in the backseat, plenty of luggage space, automatic transmission, hundreds of horsepower, and excellent fuel economy. If you're looking for all those features, you're not really looking for a small sporty convertible. . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 30, 2001.

Yeah, me too! I'd like a M2 with TTL metering and a crank winder; that'l do.

Paul Nelson

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), March 30, 2001.

Yes, we are looking for a Leica with all those features. We want a camera which can do all those neat modern things plus

mount the exceptional Leica lenses work on manual without a battery have the feel of a Leica have the quality of a Leica

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), March 30, 2001.

Take the current M6, remove the TTL flash, and you have the perfect M. That would be an M6 "classic" in 0.58, .72 and .85 VF versions. Oh, and make the Leica logo black, get rid of the plastic tip on the film advance, and engrave the Leica scipt on the top cover, and make a painted version. Also, engrave the shutter speeds on the shutter speed dial. And, I'd like to see a 10 second timer added too (but this is just a glitzy feature, not a necessity.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 31, 2001.

I have thought that a "clip on" digital back but the rest as Dan describes above. On refection this would probably cost a heap more than a quality film scanner and once you have taken your ditigal image there is no option to print a quality photographic print. i bought my m6 because i didn't need instructions to learn use it.

-- Charles Curry-Hyde (charles@chho.com.au), March 31, 2001.

I think that some people might be losing the plot. Leica has always suggested that it wants to be innovative but not provocative - "continuous but conservative improvement", if you like. There is a whole heap of technology out there, tried and tested and useful and long overdue in the M series or in a separate model.

There is no good reason to discontinue the M6 series of fully manual cameras because of the strong and very vocal demand. There are very good reasons to either:

(a) incorporate electronic controls with some automation in a new M model if electronics are reliable and will still allow the camera to be used in a completely manual way; or (b) retain the M6 in its current form and make a new model with electronic shutter and AE exposure. Provided that the same M6 shape is retained, all M accessories including the motor winder could be used on both models. The case for option (b) is almost overwhelming because it retains the "no-change for any reason" customer base and rewards the other customers who would welcome a great leap forward into some technology that is only 10 years old. I admit to being in that group, but I own and use an M6 (rather than just admire the engraving) which is a superb camera by any comparison. I do not want a Hexar or a Cosina. I want a Leica which helps me take photographs more automatically, if I want to. If I don't want to be automated, I will turn the functions off.

The tooling setup costs for the M6 must have been recovered ten times over in its 17 years of production. Time for some innovation! End of speech.

-- Wayne Murphy (wayne.murphy@publicworks.qld.gov.au), April 01, 2001.

Wayne

No doubt Leica are very wary about doing anything to the hallowed Leica M shutter - and rightly so I would have thought - this is surely one of the great things about the M - change it at your peril. I can just imagine the whining that would be produced if the new AE Leica was noisier or had a different feel. Of course there is no real satisfying Leica folk, but we know also that total inaction is death too. I would spend the money on more optics myself.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 02, 2001.

New optics - now there's a good thought. Leica knows no-one will bitch if they produce new lenses. A 75/2.0 would be fine with me, along with a recomputed 50/1.4. And how about a 24/2.0? Leave the bodies along and give us More Glass!

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), April 02, 2001.

LCD framelines could be modular for replacement if they fade, would reduce complexity, cost and size, and so would a well-designed electronic shutter. Both could be licensed. The mechanical M has become too big, as well as turning into a luxury toy, which the new marketing plan sadly recognizes. My number one wish in a Leica is a return to the size of the IIIc, and to Barnack's criterion that the camera be able to fit in the breast pocket of his hiking jack

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), April 02, 2001.

I'm with Paul on this one. Give us more lenses! How about a tiny 75mm lens? The existing Summilux is great, but also a great big monster.

A line of ultracompact lenses with a small body would be great-ala the CL.

As for bodies, my hands would like to see a smaller body camera, with AE exposure along the lines of the OM4Ti.

Aperture priority exposure does work very fast and efficiently for pin-point exposure control with spot metering, exposure lock and thumb dial compensation in my modern Nikon, and the Olympus has (had) the best thought out spot meter.

Oh yeah, do away with the base loading and the itsy-bitsy rewind lever.

Conservative changes? The rewind lever has to be number one. Improve the gearing ratio or make the tiny handle knob bigger.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 02, 2001.

I would go with Dan Brown's return to more traditional cosmetics; though I feel no need to delete the TTL (or even to add it to my M6 Classic). I definitely like the slender curved wind lever on my M2 better than the plastic gizmache on my M6. What were they thinking? The rangefinder whiteout has got to go. The canted rewind crank can stay, I guess. The speed loading system definitely stays. The finder clutter needs to be reduced. My suggestion for accomplished this would be to add a mode selector lever that only permits the display of one frame at a time. The frames would still be brought up automatically by the lenses, but with this difference. At present the 28 and 90mm lenses bring up the same pair of frames. The 50 and 75 bring up another pair. And the 35 and 135 bring up the third pair. I would add a lever in one position would enable the 28, 35, and 50 frames, and suppress the others. In the other position, the 75, 90, and 135 are enabled. You only have to flick the lever when moving between the wide angle group and the longer than normal group.

All royalties should be deposited directly in my bank account.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 02, 2001.

I think the Konica was meant to capture territory that Leica was -- foolishly, IMHO -- leaving exposed. And it might have worked, if it had been a better camera.

What do people like about Leica?: craftsmanship, reliability, customer service back-up, photographic control, and -- in particular -- marvelous options.

What do many dislike?: The film loading (taking off the bottom plate to load film? what the heck is that); the number of steps a photographer has to go through to get a good picture (focus, set aperture, set shutter, advance film).

I understand the allure of Leica purity. But two notions strike me: 1) when you buy a Leica, you are buying a photographic tool, not a life-style or ideology (the R8 demonstrates this); and 2) Leica is still a business, and adding in some opf these features would likely sell more cameras.

I'd really like a better film loading system. I'd really like aperture priority AE. I wouldn't mind a winder. In this day and age, they don't seem to be a lot to ask for.

I'm not happy with the Konica Hexar RF I bought. I'm looking forward to seeing the M7

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), April 11, 2001.

John, Just curious, what don't you like about the RF? I love mine, but there are three things I would change: 1. Round the ends of the camera like the Leica M series. 2. Reposition the strap lugs. With a small, light lens the camera wants to point up instead of hang vertically. However, not a problem with the 3E. 3. The rangefinder patch should be the same length as Leica’s. Otherwise, I’m very happy with mine.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), April 11, 2001.

I, too, have a possible wish list for both camera and lens innovations from Solms (how about taking another stab at a 250-gram Tele-Elmarit or APO-Tele-Elmarit 90 or 75 - now that we've gained 35 years of computer and glass development and experience. It might actually be sharp this time!)

But we also need a reality check. As noted, the last time Leica tried to produce something that wasn't essentially a 1954 M3 with bells on (the M5) Leica users ran screaming.

And the last time Leica tried to maintain two rangefinder body lines simultaneously (CL and M5/M4-2) they cannibalized each other to the point the company nearly went under (yes there were other factors, too.)

If Leica produces an M7 that is not just an electronic shutter dropped into the existing M3/6 body cavity - but more along the lines dreamed of here - what happens to the M6 with its ruggedness, timelessness, and mechanical reliability? Suppose total Leica sales go up 60%, but M6 sales decline to 60% of current levels? Will the cost-per-unit kick M6 prices up to $2500 on the street.

Even if Leica just licenses the bottom half of Hexar RFs and adds their own 1.00x .72x and .58 finders, do they end up killing off the M6? And if they don't, does the competition end up killing off the M6?

Thoughts?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 03, 2001.

A small and "affordable" 75 mm lens (DiurnoLux?) would be great.

-- Scott Leibs (SLeibs@mindspring.com), June 29, 2001.

A 75mm f/2.8 Elmarit would of course be smaller and lighter. Maybe we could get a tele-version no bigger than a 50. But photographically, how much could we do with it that we can't do with the 90mm Elmarit?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 02, 2001.

The Konica Hexar RF is my M7.

-- Richard Brown (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), August 03, 2001.