New Leica Mini M camera coming on June 11

Leica Mini M camera

Leica Camera has a new teaser on their website for a new Mini M camera that will be announced on June 11th. A new model placed between the M and the X series has been rumored for years. The only additional info I have at that point is that the new camera will be made in Germany and it will not be part of the Panasonic-rebranded Leica cameras. Stay tuned for more and check out all possible scentios for the new Mini M.

Here is a close up of the mystery box:

Leica Mini M camera teaser

This entry was posted in Leica X Vario and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • EVIL ?

    • MJr

      Yes they are. Teasing us like that. 🙂

  • Artem

    What a news. But more wonderfull news would be new production line for producing new M, to fulfill all orders. Now we will wait even more, if they will produce new camera on the same factory.

    • None of their equipment will be produced at “the same factory” starting next year after they move to their new facility at the Leitz Park in Wetzlar. They also haven’t decided yet if they will get rid of the current facility in Solms. They might keep it to further increase production capability.

      • My understanding is that they will keep the factory in Solms.

  • Patrick Bateman

    I hope for a M mount camera a bit
    like the 70’s CL.

  • Gard

    A digital CL would be pretty awesome — but I presume that a reasonably priced M-mount camera from Leica isn’t going to happen. I’m expecting a new boring compact/expensive jewelry hybrid.

  • Video

    Will actually ship in June of 2015.

  • M

    There is a new Panasonic GX2 – m43, electronic viewfinder, 18MP. It’s not an ‘existing’ Panasonic body. Could that be it?

    If not – APS-C and ILC is the only way to position it above the X2.

    • Nick

      FF fixed lens… Think RX1 with a 35 cron (or 35 summarit to keep it pocketable, or the cracking lens from a minilux/cm, a boy can dream) rather than a zeiss sonnar.

    • I don’t think so. Leica said on several occasions that they will not go the m4/3 route.

      • MJr

        Do we even know if it’s interchangeable? It think that’s the big question now then. The way i see it, it’s either M-mount and APSC, or fixed-lens and Fullframe. There are no rumors about a new APS-H sensor either by any chance?

      • llll

        I don’t need interchangeable, that would be for hikes. I need a viewfinder and proper manual focus tho. Can you tell us something more?

    • joe

      that would be bad and a cheap thing to do but it would fit in the company’s line :/ they would introduce another sensor line of lenses and cameras. the co with panasonice sounds unfortunately reasoned

  • waterengineer

    ‘Bout time. It has been rumored nearly forever. I hope it is exciting and we are not disappointed.

  • MJr

    This is great news! I’ve always hated how weird the small Leica glass looks on the digital M’s. When you compare the M-240 to a M2 for example it’s shocking how big it has become, it’s way off balance (at least aesthetically). However if it isn’t fullframe, that would be quite a letdown. Still, having a second choice ‘made in germany’ quality body to take M glass to choose from, can’t wait to see what they come up with. Even if it’s ‘just’ a M-mount version of the X2 – that might put some spark back into Leica …

    • El Aura

      All digital cameras have a noticeably deeper depth due to the thickness of the sensor, its associated electronics, and the display. Depending on the actual implementation that adds between 10 to 15 mm in thickness. The mount to back of the camera distance on my Nikon D800 is 12 mm thicker than on my Nikon F90X and 15 mm thicker than on my Nikon F-301. For cameras with a shorter flange distance than SLRs, eg, Leica M, this extra depth is naturally more noticeable. The M2 is listed as having a depth of 33.5 mm (which might include protrusions of one or two millimetres), ie, 6.7 mm more than the flange distance. The M-240 is 15.2 mm thicker than the flange distance, which is actually at the lower end of what sensor and display add to the thickness (the actual numbers might differ because I don’t know how much of the thickness in these cameras is due to protrusions).

      • MJr

        True, i realize that. But look at the top view of the Sony RX1, the flange back distance is marked with the icon next to the hot-shoe. Now, doesn’t that look like there’s only about 6.7mm behind it ? 😉 photo:

        • El Aura

          Yes, with the RX1, Sony seems to have managed to reduce that sensor + display thickness somewhat compared to other cameras. Measuring things on the from-top photo at, I arrive at 7.6/7.7 mm (depending on whether the thumbrest is counted in the official 69.6 mm thickness).

      • fjfjjj

        Leica would be wise to introduce a digital camera with no rear LCD. It would match up with the film purist attitude of paying attention when you shoot, and not having to check the display. Small monochrome LCD on top deck for settings and histogram.

        • Starsailor

          Exactly this! I think this would make such a great camera. I’ve been dreaming of a similar camera for years.

          • Changing settings with such will be impossible.

          • Starsailor

            What kind of settings exactly are we talking about?
            Think of film cameras, a digital camera without rear display could very well have an ISO-dial. And even this could be left out, since sensors (like any type of film) have only one real ISO-value.
            Any adjustment of the raw sensor data could be made on a computer after the picture was taken. There is no need for OOC-Jpegs from a professional camera.

          • MJr

            It’s true that most sensors don’t go beyond ISO6400, but what you’re saying would mean that if you underexpose a ISO100 shot 6 stops and push it back in raw, it would look the same as ISO6400? Yeah no that doesn’t work. All ISO’s from 100 to 6400 are true iso values.

          • Starsailor

            Until more recently manufacturers like Nikon would even explicitly state their sensor’s native ISO in the data sheets of their cameras. The physical attributes of a sensor (including its sensitivity to light) are fixed. The only reason that pushing an ISO 100 exposed raw to 6400 doesn’t work well is because of how most photo processing applications are designed to work.

          • MJr

            Far as i know its sensitivity is controlled by the currency running though it. Meaning that at maximum power of ISO6400 there is a true and physical difference to its light gathering capability, though with slightly more disturbance. Resulting in additional information that a base iso shot would not have captured.

          • Starsailor

            Depending on the sensor’s technology and design this can be correct. However, all I’m saying is that instead of amplifying the input signal during the analogue stage, it might be adjusted later with digital methods. The results might not be exactly same, but they will be close enough with a good a/d-stage. I’m confident the best current sensors would allow this.

          • MJr

            Ok so you’re in fantasy land, good to know.

          • MJr

            Ok so you’re in fantasy land, good to know.

          • El Aura

            The sensitivity of a sensor is only how the number of electrons generated in each photodiode are translated into brightness numbers. For the same amount of light, always the same amount of electrons are generated in each photodiode, the ISO setting does not change that one bit. The ISO setting usually to some extent changes the way the electrons are ‘counted’ which affects read noise and the ‘effective saturation capacity’.

        • El Aura

          You know, a little bit of black gaffer tape also relieves you of the ‘need’ of having to check the display (or just switch image review off in the settings). I guess, you’d also prefer a phone with a cord attached so you don’t ‘have to’ wander around in the room while having a call. Or a car with an unsynchronised gearbox.

          • fjfjjj

            The gaffer’s tape won’t save the weight, cost, and size of the rear LCD. But you didn’t read the thread, did you?

          • El Aura

            I think I was the one who actually put a number on the size a display adds. You did not make the argument that leaving out the display would save weight, cost, and size. You made the argument that it would save you from the compulsion to review the images just taken. And I can ensure that no-one, not even you if you had the option would want to use a camera without a display. It all makes for some good grandstanding because you’d never have to follow through on your words.

          • fjfjjj

            Please try again with more put-downs.

          • Martin Brooks

            Totally agree. Purists claim they want this and a few might even buy one just to prove how pure they are, but anyone who is really that pure would still be shooting film.

            I claim to “love film” and I still have a bunch of film cameras, but I haven’t actually shot with one in years and every time I’m annoyed with having to download images from the camera and process them in Photoshop, I think as to whether I’d want to be standing in a darkroom with my hands in the chemicals trying over and over again to get a good print, and the answer is a resounding “no”.

            A digital camera with no LCD would have no sales. Let’s get real. Having said that, a far simpler digital camera would be welcomed. I’ve personally always wanted the digital equivalent of the Olympus OM-1.

  • joe

    probably an M without viewfinder unit (just EVF) and “old” m9 sensor. As fullframe camera it would be quite a nice present, especially for sony 🙂
    i doubt that it will have the new “M” fullframe sensor, it would be to much competition to the “big new M”. The M9 sensor would make it stale though.
    I don’t think it will have the aps-c X2 sensor, that would mean leica needs a whole new line of lenses.

    • MJr

      Doesn’t ‘need’ a whole new line of lenses, though they might add one or two to match. The M8 wasn’t fullframe either that’s why they released the 18mm and fast 21 and 24mm lenses didn’t they ? Also, NEX users seem to enjoy using Leica glass on apsc. But i agree, the glass is way too expensive to throw away any part of the frame by sensor crop.

  • If it is ‘M’ then it should have a rangefinder … ie ‘Sony RX1’ with a “Messsucher”

    • MJr

      They’re calling the X2 a ‘Micro M’ and the D-LUX a ‘Nano M’ now. It’s bad enough they’re putting the Leica badge on Panasonic cameras but now they’re calling everything M as well ? 🙁

      • OMG, I didn’t even notice that – talk about devaluing a brand (Apple does not have all the answers for Leica)

        • Henry_3_Dogg

          Maybe it does.

      • To me this means that the new Mini M will not be a rangefinder – they call their whole line “M”. If it was going to be a true “M”, they wouldn’t have done that.

        • MJr

          Was just thinking the same thing. If it was really something big like that, it would be totally irrelevant to picture the D-Lux or even X2 next to it as part of the line-up.

          • So remind me why I should buy a Leica body then. My enthusiasm for the brand is rooted in the coupling of the rangefinder with a great range of lenses. The M already does not ‘need’ a rangefinder. Then they have a bunch of others that are either Panasonics or unremarkable in their range (X2).

            That leaves the MM and the S as reasons to plan your future with Leica.

            Call your bank manager now!

          • MJr

            S and MM as in Monochrome only ? You mean to say that the M-240 is no good because it has live-view ? It still has the worlds best and only rangefinder in a digital fullframe you know. Doesn’t look like that will ever change. And that can’t hurt value. Nor will whatever is to be announced.

          • By all accounts (I don’t have one) the M is quite a good camera. However focus (forgive the pun) is moving away from the rangefinder – it’s USP. The irony is that as it opens more avenues for viewing/framing and accepting all sorts of other lenses it begins to raise the question of why the extra cost and effort of a rangefinder and coupled lenses in the first place.
            Having said that Leica is niche and as long as demand outstrips supply they can do whatever they want.

          • MJr

            Well yeah. But that question isn’t new. People like rangefinders for many reasons, even if it isn’t always the most logical thing. Even SLRs back in the day offered live-view right through the viewfinder, why would anyone still use a Rangefinder, but up to this day we still do anyway. Now with the option to ‘fall back’ to invaluable conveniences like live-view or even a EVF when you need to only makes it easier to stay.

          • fjfjjj

            Best *and* only? Wow, how did they manage to do both?

          • MJr

            Best compared to various analog rangefinders, and the only one for digital, which today is even better.

          • Exactly, if it was a “true” M, they would not have listed the compact Leica cameras. Also, the box seems to be too small 🙂

        • Martin Brooks

          Well calling the Panny D-Lux an “M” is really pushing it. I think that’s a big mistake. I understand why they’d want the association, but I think it damages Leica’s credibility. And that’s aside from the fact that using Mini and Nano is a direct steal from Apple’s branding.

  • stefano60

    the smartest choice would be an X body and sensor with M mount and viewfinder – the new “CL” … another option could be a smaller M with fixed lens to go after the RX1.
    either one could/would be appealing, if priced reasonably for once.
    i hope it will not be a disappointment (maybe a ‘lunar’ inspired M??) 🙂

  • Al

    Perhaps not an EVIL /”mirror less” camera, but an X with a Tri-Elmar kinda lens?

    • This is exactly what I am hearing too – a new X with a zoom lens.

      • MJr


      • Gorodish

        If true, I hope it is a zoom starting at 24mm wide-angle. I’ve often dreamed of having a wide lens similar to the fast D-Lux 6 zoom lens on the X body and sensor.

  • kmhb

    ich tippe auf GX2 lizenzfertigung in deutschland, alles andere macht recht wenig sinn. eine billig M wird leica nicht produzieren, für wen und was auch. die neue M-(light) mit MFT-sensor ist allerdings schwer vorstellbar.
    alternative: erneute partnerschaft mit fuji???. damit wäre die sensorfrage mit APS beantwortet. nun, mal abwarten was in der pipeline steckt.

    • Lollus

      Mia, chie parlemmu tütti angleise. Ün pitin de considerasiun…

  • TopShelf_1

    Can I just get my 240

  • Karen G.
  • J Shin

    I would like to see a rangefinder-less M or even M8, but that’s probably too much to ask.

  • dannybuoy

    Flange. Ahaha

  • Nobody Special

    My guess is an X body (APS) either with a zoom as mentioned elsewhere, or a lens mount that can (perhaps/maybe) use M lenses or a new lens line.
    It may have a built in live view finder or just the detachable EVF. Seems that just putting a zoom on an X body would be a let down market-wise.

    I doubt very highly, that it would be a rangefinder-esque CL body, and the only thing that would surprise me is that the body IS full-frame 35.

    The craziest idea I have, is a M 240 body without the rangefinder, with the live-view, and a removable EVF – not likely – but you never know, but it could bring the M ‘platform’ for less money and all the legacy glass…. At least we won’t have to wait long to find out – and to see just how ‘innovative’ Leica can be in the fast changing market.

  • caasols

    Will be made in Germany…..? Actually I believe it will be made in Portugal.

  • Pepe

    Interesting.. i guess the positioning is just an indication of the price range.. somewhere between the ME and X2..
    Maybe a rangefinder with a good fixed lens, but with full frame sensor, competing with the Sony RX1.. Could be good !

  • kmhb

    only 19 days and a new star is born

  • Endo

    That Nano M killed my excitement.

  • X

    My vision!
    Full Frame without rangefinder

    • I like it but focusing will be a problem.

      • MJr

        It would be some getting used to. Just like actual rangefinders are. Definitely different, but not a problem per se. Many mirrorless cameras that are not rangefinders are proof of that. Who says that besides Manual SLR’s, Rangefinders, TLR’s, Zone focusing, Macro bellows, and AF systems, the Focus Peaking feature can’t grow into a true stand-alone system. 😉

  • Gorodish

    I vote for option 5. Why not a new mount? Are we assuming that Leica will be locked into the manual M mount forever? Leica has shown it is willing and able to create AF lenses with the S. I am hoping for a small mirrorless FF camera with state-of-the-art OLED EVF, focus peaking and the ability to take M and R lenses with adaptor, i.e. a FF Leica version of the NEX 7. With a new AF lens line optimized for digital sensors, similar to what Zeiss is offering with their new Touit line, this could be the camera to carry Leica into the future. Keep the M as a legacy system for rangefinder fans and position this camera as a platform for future growth.

  • fjfjjj

    Now the M comes in 4 sizes: Leica, Mini, Micro, and Nano.

    Way to dilute the brand name.

  • Shojib Ashrafi Na Ashrafi

    Congrats on this beautiful product! Its uses for filming movement genres in new exciting ways is endless and very
    exciting. Looks like the opening scenes were filmed at Hybrid Movement Company’s Creative Lab in Brooklyn,
    which is a great space for filming. The cast from Hybrid Movement Company, known for their performance diversity are
    superb as always, great team players to to work with, it’s fun to see Jillian and Françoise in these roles this week
    in contrast to their aerial performances on “SMASH” also this week. This is a brilliant product which enables huge
    savings in production costs.

  • Back to top