53 thoughts on “Updated: Images of new CCD M-mount camera.

  1. Peter, are these just computer generated? Having a flat head screw (why not torx) holding down the Flash Hot Shoe does not seem like a smart design choice, all the cameras I have ever had, do not have an external screw, so this feels like its been designed by someone who does not really understand good design, or engineering, If real how far away is the camera from going into production, is this Kickstarter type company or a company with a pedigree for producing cameras? You see lots of fancy CGI camera designs but 99.999% of them never see the light of day.

    1. I don’t know about which screws are suitable for the flash hot shoe but the M6 and M3 both have flat-head screws holding down the shoe (I haven’t checked the others).

      (and yes I know the M3 had a “cold” shoe)

        1. Thanks Curtis. I just verified that on my M9 as well. But hey, what does Leica know about designing cameras?… LOL.

          Seriously, I couldn’t care less about the hot-shoe screw… or flash.

  2. Believing in CCD won’t make it happen. Sorry.

    In this context CCD is dead.


    CCD developement has been almost non existent for more than a decade.
    CCD is more expensive due to lower volumes.
    CCD offers much lower image quality.
    CCD based system uses more battery and offers inferior live view possibitilies
    There is no “CCD look” some folks think there is.

    You might hope for steam powered car to appear while you’re at it 🙂

    1. LOL, but tell me what you really think!

      Obviously many photographers, myself included, disagree with many of your points. Why you would bother to read about a new CCD camera and then write all of the above, I can only speculate.

      But here’s what I do know: between my M9 and D810, I prefer the sensor in my M9. I’m sorry that you don’t see the difference, but many of us do.

      1. Hmm Peter – Well I agree that the sensor in the M9 is nicer than that in the D810 . . . but that doesn’t mean that it’s because it’s a CCD!

        I think it’s to do with the processing, not the sensor, which isn’t colour (in either case) . . . . and whilst we’re about it I don’t believe it’s to do with the Bayer filter either. I haven’t spoken to anybody with real knowledge and experience of camera development who will accept that there is a CCD ‘look’

        Of course, there is quite a strong marketing reason for a CCD based camera (because of the semi-religious belief in it), but I also agree with Anu that the complications of doing it in this day and age would be too great (for a small company like Konost at least).

        As for the pictures – the one with the hot shoe looks so much like an M9 hotshoe that I think that’s what it is, the dial also looks exactly like an M dial(again, too much like it), the P- numbering looks like a Leica prototype code, which suggests that this is a Leica . . . if it were true . . . but my strong feeling is that this picture at least is cobbled together out of bits of an M9.

        Hate to be a wet blanket and everything . . . . on the other hand, this is total speculation on my part, if I actually knew anything about this I wouldn’t be able to say anything!

        1. Jonathan, I sincerely thank you for your comments.

          The only thing I take exception to is your use of the phrase “semi-religious belief” in CCD. I find that a little heavy-handed.

          By the way, I’ve already ruled out Leica in this project.

          In any case, regarding your last point: “…if I actually knew anything about this I wouldn’t be able to say anything!“… well, I can’t actually say anything 🙂

          1. Ah! Peter
            Well I stand corrected, and whatever the fundamental truth about the CCD / CMOS argument there is one thing we can really agree on, which is that a new rangefinder camera with good image quality and straightforward controls by a different manufacturer must be a good thing! I certainly have no objection to CCDs!

            Perhaps worth noting that I still have both my M9 and my MM – both with shiny new sensors and much loved.

            All the best

        2. I can’t imagine that the group of CCD religious believers is large enough to justify producing a camera on its own. To make any sense economically the camera will have to have sufficient image quality to convince some of the non-believers to buy, too. Personally, I’m intrigued (and I haven’t upgraded from my M9 yet, because I do think there’s some greatness in that sensor).

          1. But if the camera is aimed at “everybody” and the group of people wanting ccd are just additional benefit? Certainly ccd can’t be the only reason to build/sell/buy a camera. This one would be targeted to photogs wanting M-mount possibly little cheaper than Leica and the ccd folk come on top + generate lot of discussion & acts as marketing.

        3. @jonathanslack

          The semi-religious belief in the CCD is only matched by the semi-religious belief that holds against it.

          I’ve seen the output of video cameras with CCD and with CMOS. Both using RAW. The CCD has a noise pattern that when handled well in the imaging engine, gives the image an aesthetic missing from CMOS. I find the same thing in still camera samples. I think the noise pattern resides in the signal, not the software or the bayer filer, but I’m no expert.

          I’d love to see the CCD come back from the grave.

      2. Placebo effect Peter. If you had to differentiate between multiple images coming from a variety of sensors and not knowing which was which, you would not be able to tell the difference.

    2. Small rebuttal (with just as much validity)

      Even more Simply:
      CCD developement has been almost non existent for more than a decade.No there are a few sensor manufactures actively developing them

      CCD is more expensive due to lower volumes. – They are cheaper for limited runs

      CCD offers much lower image quality.the exact opposite of what you said

      CCD based system uses more battery and offers inferior live view possibilitiesyour eye is “live-er” view, which is better for a rangefinder

      There is no “CCD look” some folks think there is. There is a difference and it’s mostly due to the algorithms that are used to process cmos after the sensor has fired. In essence there is a time difference between the first and last pixel capturing the image with cmos. you can’t tell from the poor attempts online to show no difference. Print a photo from an M9 and from an M240, you’ll see the difference.

      1. HI There Curtis
        Good point about short runs – which would certainly support the Konost theory . . . but they haven’t done a status update since last December – and only two updates in 18 months – it looks great, but I just can’t get myself to believe!

        As for the M9/M240 difference I agree you can see it, and I agree that it’s to do with the processing algorithms after the data has been collected . . . . . . . . . but I still don’t believe that has anything to do with the M9’s CCDness!

        All the best

        1. Jonathan, my other CCD sensor cameras (Nikons) had this image advantage too, at base ISO.

          If some don’t see it that’s okay. Those of us who do certainly won’t berate them for it, but we do want the opportunity to choose our sensors. I find it puzzling that that seems to infuriate quite a few people (not referring to you) — have a look at some of the nasty comments out there in other fora as a result of my post. It’s insane… we’re talking about camera sensors, not life and death!

          What’s wrong with choice?

          1. Hi Peter
            See my answer to your other comment – I’ve absolutely no objection to CCD sensors (it would be pretty irrational if I don’t believe there is a fundamental difference!). Anyway, you’ve piqued my interest, and I’m now rather excited by this new camera – it’ll be great to have more choice in the rangefinder world.

            All the best

          2. Hi Peter,

            Always a good read and love the photos. Please keep them coming.

            I too saw the CCD/CMOS difference between my Nikon D200 and D300–at base ISO, under low and medium contrast conditions, the D200 just had better/more natural tonal rendition compared to my D300. I would equate using a CCD based camera akin to shooting slide film–have to nail exposure and understand/control contrast range.

            BTW Don’t let the internet experts get you down. Life is too short and precious.


            M8/M240 User in Brooklyn

  3. That exclusive leather texture framed with chrom in pic. 1 hints at a lifestyle camera. I hope for a John Average workhorse version, rugged but plain simple. Thanks!

  4. Antonio, I’m not saying you are incorrect, but when you look at what Konost is working on, that camera body sure doesn’t appear to be curved like this one. Peter…any more manufacturers you can rule out for us, besides Canon and Nikon 🙂 ?

    1. Antonio,
      If you enlarge the third picture, you can see the back (note what appears to be the LCD screen) of the camera and it appears to be concave. If anything it’s the exact opposite of what your photograph shows.

      1. Steve. The Konost shown is a prototype. Who knows what changes the body has been through since then?

        The shutter speed dial says it’s a Konost – down to the layout of the speed numbers, the insertion of the flash symbol between 125 and 260, plus the speed range 1 – 1/4000. But the Konost site says they are using CMOS. Could they have changed the spec? Or could the CCD rumour be wrong?

      1. I guess I’m not seeing what you are. Yes, the Konost is curved, but unless you have a photo of the back, I’d have to disagree. The back of the mystery camera is concave. The Konost, at least in the image posted, would appear to be convex.

  5. A few arty sketches, a few fragments (“are these just computer generated?”, “do you have it in your hands yet?” – no reply). No specs, no roadmap. Ernst Leitz, Oskar Barnack … they were actually building things. They did care about the hot-shoe screws and flash. They created many prototypes and working models — with their hands, using tools and materials. If you serious, get your hands dirty. A few month is plenty to go much closer to reality. Yet… you still do not have a physical proof of concept, no prototyle which can be further developed. Until you do, you will remain in the 99.999% category.

  6. Thank you for the update Peter. This is exciting news in stark contrast to the incessant “new” releases from existing brands which are simply a shuffling around of the same old technology and concepts. There seems to be little real innovation these days and it is no wonder camera sales are down. Perhaps if corporate CEOs had more than a few years interest in their companies, and didn’t have to answer to short term shareholders we would see more real R&D. Here, what’s old may be new. If there is no new “new”, I’ll take it over more of the same “new”. And by the way, no question even at web sizes, there is a clear CCD advantage and I will vote with my wallet.

  7. I sold my M9 for an M240. The 240 went to fund another M9 after 6 months. I’m just hoping you’re right Peter! A quieter shutter would be nice.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s