I hope leica would look to CFV , as it has all the bells & whistles in the Phocus, that you load from internet. Just basic stuff in the body. The ESSENCE on M camera is the finder. That is to say, you cannot touch it. On the contrary it could be both optical AND electronic, just a flick of a switch, then the problem with long lenses would dissapear, You could crop the optical finder, open it for wides, zoom it for longer.

The other is the problem with the sensor, why can`t it be easily replaceable, in case of problem, the local repairman could just repair it, clean it and re-install. Also the new up-to -date would be a simple one. The software to it would be loadable from the net. All the others, such as the grip, the “thumbie”, bottom opening etc are trivial. If you regard the M camera as an investment, you don`t want these to clutter your pride. That`s what the “User M bodies” are not, after a few street sessions…

Agree | Disagree: 0  0

Personally – I like what one of the posters here said regarding the “mechanical” aspects. I would prefer an M9 that has the ability to go all mechanical as much as possible while retaining the innovation and technology of a high resolution sensor and updated viewfinder. Why can’t we just crank a mechanical shutter? Do we really need a motor in there to do that for us? I mean really.

Give me the mechanical shutter, the manual focus, the optical viewfinder with the OPTION of using a EVF (preferably within the existing finder) and an internal motor drive if I want to use it. Otherwise – let’s have that nice quiet shutter we’re all used to. Live view should definitely be available for extreme wide shots or macro. I don’t care if they want to include video – as long as it is not in the way – but I wouldn’t probably use it much unless it was super great or something.

And for sure let’s get the ISO up to speed here. A D3 kills a Leica in the dark – even with a fast lens on the Leica. Granted – technology such as noise reduction makes this less of an issue – but a little more would be better! I don’t need 12,800 ISO. 3200 should be there though.

Agree | Disagree: 1  0

Agree | Disagree: 0  0

For example:

1) One of the nice think about the optical range-finder is that it does not use any battery power. So it would be nice to have the option to use one or the other on demand, depending on the conditions. For example, EVF in low light, optic viewfinder whenever you need to save battery.

2) A thumb rest or a handgrip are useful, but incrrese the overall room accupied by the camera. One of the nice thing about the M9 is the fact that it is very small, occupying as little space as possible. If you need an handgrip it is better to add it on demand and only if you really need it. Of course, it would be much better to have a nice, robust and resilient alloy thumb rest rather than a cheap, plastic toy.

3) The screw on plate: someone like sit, someone else does not …. but it is certainly much more solid that a plast door, whether sliding or on hinges. I personally miss the solid metal screw on plate of my Contax, and no amount of ergonomic on flimsy plastic door gives you that “solid confidence” feeling.

4) I think M10 should look to fix other issue, for example:

high iso performance
shooting speed (fps)
reduce the size / weight even further
add telephoto lenses support (in analogy to what is happening in the 4/3 segment)

Also, we should start discussing whether using a Kodak sensor still makes sense …. there alternatives around that sounds much more interesting, unless Kodak decides to step up to the game, and produce a sensor that is competitive with D3 sensor. The M9 sensor whilst extremely good at very low iso had already some issues when compared to other sensors existing at the time.

Finally, I would very much like to see a camera with an “energy saving mode” (or an alternative version of the camera), where all energy consuming belles and whistles are switched off, with the exclusion of the sensor, so that you can use in mechanical / manual mode.

What do you think?

Agree | Disagree: 0  0

Agree that Leica should take a leading role.

However it is not the same company of old fame and I wonder if it has the resources to do so.

And even if it does, we may be limiting it when we ask it to advance only so much, as defined by Reichmann, you or I. Our ideas of the “perfect” camera may be a limiting factor — for technology and innovation will certainly morph the camera as we know it into a new product we may not like.

Today’s digital camera is changing into a new product with movie mode and other “gimmicks” which seriously look like they are here to stay. Some of us like it, some don’t, and many are finding good use for them. Should Leica then lead and build the BEST of such camera? Or build the best 35mm camera, except that it uses an image sensor instead of film? The latter is all I really need and want. But if that is all Leica builds, it will have missed the train filled with customers going to the next station in the development of the camera.

Just my 2 cents.

Kind regards,
Yin

Agree | Disagree: 0  0

Agree | Disagree: 3  1

His basic premise: make it better to hold, give the photographer advanced focus feedback while maintaining manual control, and weather tight battery and SD doors. I’d like to add: and a modern shutter mechanism. Could we please get away from the wind-up noise? A click is great. The Whhiirrrrr makes everyone want to know “what was that weird noise?” Anti-stealth shutter mechanism should be done away with.

Agree | Disagree: 2  1

http://www.mizbot.co.uk/camera

Agree | Disagree: 0  2