Why the overbuilt digital M is flawed and why we need less expensive alternatives.

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
10:09 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
View My Gallery
I commented on another thread on this issue, so here is my own. This is about why I think the overbuilt digital M is a flawed concept. Now I own an M8, and may buy an M9, but $7,000 for a camera whose electronics are not top of the line (these stories of failing cameras are not comforting at all for the price) and will be outdated in a few years may not be that logical by the viewpoint of those who just use cameras, and place a higher value on lenses. I have a collection of Leica glass I have been using and collecting since 1990. When the digital revolution surpassed film on many (not all) levels, I resisted (I was using medium format and my M6 with lenses were collecting dust) until the M8 which gave me medium format quality in a small M mount package. I always knew Leica glass was capable of rivaling larger formats, and the M8/9 prove that. Enough said. The problem I see is that the Leica M8 and now M9, although beautiful cameras built extremely well, are still computers with lenses attached. Electronics have a very short life if what you want to do is be up to date. So here, why is it necessary to build a camera body that will outlast the elctronics by generations? This only makes sense if you could upgrade the body with new electroncis and sensor. I would have preferred a modular approach for the M so the rangefinder and body would always be recycled. This was not to be. So here we are in a world where if you want to use Leica and other excellent full frame rangefinder glass, you have no choice but the M9. A $7,000 solution is not for everyone. I can afford the M9, but many others cannot, or may only have the funds for excellent lenses and would like to have a full frame option at a more affordable cost. I must say for me, Lenses have been the priority much more than the camera itself (I am still an M8 user, my spending has gone to lenses since the M8 came out). We see constantly how the Japanese market better and better boxes (cameras with more bells and whistles) but only some of their lenses are excellent. Most are ok and some are absolute dogs. Leica, Zeiss, and to some extent Voigtlander all have excellent lenses regardless of focal length or even age in some cases. So here, there is a market opportunity for anyone who makes a full frame M mount built more with poly carbon than brass (a Voigtlander or Zeiss option is ok too, not quite as tank like as the M9, but what do you really need for 3 years when new electronics come).
 
Stop procrastinating and just buy the damned M9 !!!! 😉 You will have spend more time writing on why not to buy it, instead of simply enjoying it.

Who really cares about 5 years from now ? Carpe diem.
 
I agree. I know this is heresy, but I'm not 100% sure that we need the rangefinder portion on a digital body any longer. Why not just go to an EVF with great focus capabilities? Reduce the price ($2k or less would be ideal), give it a full frame sensor, and I'm in. I think that the mechanics of a rangefinder increase the price of the camera immensely. Drop those mechanics, and you could have a winner.

Obviously, Leica won't build a camera like this for the price I want, but some competitor might...
 
No offense, but I won't read any of that simply because it makes my head hurt trying to read it, please insert breaks for it's far too long for one paragraph.

Regards,

Popeye
 
Here we go again. I´ll never be buying an M9, I can´t afford it. But I don´t go around professing what a bad camera it is just to alleviate my bad feelings about not having the means to get one.
 
Oh, I forgot to say,

More and more photographers want a less heavy camera (pros included) and would like for some situations a smaller more compact full frame camera. The Olympus and Panasonic attempts (and the new Sony) at micro 4/3 are ok, but may not suite the demands of the professional or serious photo enthusiast. Here, the smaller M mount lenses and their counterparts are king, and an affordable full frame modern alternative to the M9 ($7,000). Right now, If Zeiss and Voigtlander got off their asses and smelled the 21st century digital coffee, they could cash in big with a body in the $3,000 or so. I cannot understand why they continue on their film delusions. I love film, and If I were starting in photography, I would learn the darkroom first in that it makes one a better digital photographer. I know the Japanese have a film fettish, and Voigtlander (Zeiss maybe) caters to that, but the professional, for all intensive purposes, has gone digital, and there is no turning back. Leica got it (but only after Epson pressured them with the RD-1) and it is time Voigtlander, Zeiss, or anyone else who wants to compete in the smaller compact pro market.
 
Leica removed the separate top-deck shot/battery guage and the sapphire LCD in the interest of keeping the price down, and IMHO those were two very convenient items. Personally I would've been fine if they'd left those well enough alone, made the M9 with a polycarbonate-clad aluminum or magnesium-alloy body with a fixed bottom and trapdoors for the battery and SD card, and given it a price tag of $4995.
 
I'm pretty sure any company in business currently is "off their asses" or they would be bankrupt in short order.

The fact they aren't offering a camera to suit your every whim is good proof that it isn't financially feasible for them, for any number of reasons.

You want a digital rangefinder that won't go obsolete in 2 years? Buy an M6 and a Nikon Coolscan. Either that or offer your thought process to the companies you mention and go to work as a consultant...I'd love to read that.
 
The quality of the fit and finish of the M9 and it's sturdy construction were a key factor for me. This also affects the balance of the camera, and it feels pretty good. A thumbs-up (brass, not poly) was a great addition.

Modularity would have been / is nice. Thankfully, the lenses are still modular, as is the additional flash unit.

Modularity does make weather sealing more difficult - something that would be very nice to have.

I'd rather see more digitization with the next digital M - an encoder on the focusing cam so the EXIF data can use the cam position and coded lens info to record the focal distance for each frame captured. An enhanced viewfinder, etc.

Gosh, if this thing were plastic it would really worry me, from a durability point of view as well as performance under varying conditions (temp, etc.).
 
hipsterdufus said:
I agree. I know this is heresy, but I'm not 100% sure that we need the rangefinder portion on a digital body any longer. Why not just go to an EVF with great focus capabilities? Reduce the price ($2k or less would be ideal), give it a full frame sensor, and I'm in. I think that the mechanics of a rangefinder increase the price of the camera immensely. Drop those mechanics, and you could have a winner.

Obviously, Leica won't build a camera like this for the price I want, but some competitor might...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree with the OP proposition that there is anything wrong with the M9 per se. It's a niche product, but I think it has its place.

I would love to see a camera like the one described above on the market though. If there were some quality telephoto primes to go with it, which didn't have the size and weight of those on SLRs it would make great system for nature photography. If the sensor wasn't noisy a 1.3 or 1.5 crop sensor might not be a disadvantage in that case. Though FF would be nice for 50/35 and wider.
 
zeiss don't make cameras. They make lenses. They only made the Ikon to hang their lenses on and to sell leica and other M mount camera owners zeiss lenses. A digital zeiss won't happen because with digital you have to constantly release new models or die. That means zeiss would have to get into big time R&D no matter how basic the camera was and you won't buy it if the IQ isn't top quality. So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a digital zeiss. All they may consider is selling branding like they did with Contax. When they get the Contax name back from Kyocera maybe they will sell rights to the name to some company and provide lenses for it but I doubt very much they will manufacture their own digital camera.
 
Unless a digital camera has an interchangeable sensor and no physical controls constrained to numbers (ie shutter speeds, etc), it will be outclassed by new gear down the road. Note that this is different than obsolete. And that ability likely means a bigger camera, etc.

I just don't know if this is practical (physically or financially) in an sub SLR sized camera. That said, the price point makes the Leica one of the only cameras that size where it seems even remotely viable. On the other hand, take a look at the cost of digital backs for other cameras... those cost are huge anyway.
 
tlitody said:
zeiss don't make cameras. They make lenses. They only made the Ikon to hang their lenses on and to sell leica and other M mount camera owners zeiss lenses. A digital zeiss won't happen because with digital you have to constantly release new models or die. That means zeiss would have to get into big time R&D no matter how basic the camera was and you won't buy it if the IQ isn't top quality. So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a digital zeiss. All they may consider is selling branding like they did with Contax. When they get the Contax name back from Kyocera maybe they will sell rights to the name to some company and provide lenses for it but I doubt very much they will manufacture their own digital camera.
Click to expand...

Huh? The ZI is a pretty impressive camera in all its variations.
By your book all cameras would be just to hang lenses on....
Zeiss just don't build digital consumer cameras. In fact they do build professional imaging systems of high complexity and quality. I suspect their rangefinder camera/lens line is not much more than a hobby of limited profitability.
 
Last edited:
What you are complaining about (err talking about) doesn't make sense.

I highly doubt the bulk of the cost of a new M9 is in the body construction. I'm not sure where you think Leica is going to trim costs.

I also don't think that Leica ought to be interested (as a company) in providing all the "on a budget" shooters out there with some low-end body (even if it was possible) that they can attach all their used Leica lenses and new CV lenses to. What's the benefit to Leica?

And, finally, could everyone just remember Leica's market position. They cannot dilute the brand. Just can't. If you don't get that you don't understand consumerism.

So just buy the M9, understand you are fortunate to be able to afford it, use it, enjoy it, realize that it will still be taking great images five years from now.

Brother.
 
I have to disagree. Leica is relatively new in the digital market than Canon/Nikon and its R&D dept is much smaller (various online sources). M9 is very good for what it is and we will only see improvements in future products. Even though I can afford a M9, I will never spend that kind of money on it (personal reasons). Those who want to use will buy it regardless of its price.

And I don't agree that Japanese can't make good lenses, there are some excellent lenses from Canon/Nikon.

Cheers,
Dan.
 
Keep in mind that w/ all consumer electronic products (even electronic rangefinder cameras that, I agree, are essentially little computers w/ mechanical rangefinders) go down in price after a break through model is introduced. The M9 was a break through w/ it's full frame RF package, so just wait a couple of years and I would be surprised if you couldn't buy a similar product for considerably less.
 
Hey, for me, it's good enough that the electronics work. Don't know why they have to be he most "up to date," if they take a good image.

EVF in an M? Nah. Do that , and it ain't an M. If we keep going down this road with these ideas, you won't have an M, but some kind of DSLR...or maybe 4/3 stlyle camera.
 
I'm a film M shooter, and to be honest just came to film less than two years ago from digital. After becoming accustomed to digital cameras being outdated within two or three years, owning a film M was a refreshing experience.

I'm mired in black and white film shooting and wet printing at the moment, but one day see myself returning to digital, especially for colour shooting. Presently, I two biggest obstacles are dynamic range, and cost.

I see the former becoming a non-issue eventually, as well as the latter as the digital market matures. Until then, I could be tempted to invest in a digital M, but only in the eventuality of upgradable electronics.

The original poster makes a good point in noting the electronics will evolve, but rather than the body be scaled down, I would prefer to see the body/ shell remain as well manufactured as possible, with the option to send your camera in for upgraded electronics when the technology curve moves on.

After seeing my investment in digital cameras dwindle for years, this would be the only thing that would tempt me to buy a digital M or any digital camera in this market.
 
An interesting point is that you have to look at digital cameras as computers, not cameras.
That's not a knock against digital (I use both and think the world is big enough for digital AND analog) but a helpful way of thinking of the situation. It just doesn't make sense to project analog values onto a digital reality.

I can only concur with Paddy C, and remind people that if they want a low-cost Leica digital, to buy an LX-3 or LX-5...Leica glass in a small digital wrapper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom