An expensive decision

Bill Pierce said:
... But today, especially for digital users rather than film, we have to ask not only does an extremely expensive rangefinder camera make sense, but does a rangefinder makes sense. There’s no clear cut answer. ...
Click to expand...

I was surprised Puts did not mention Leica lenses in his essay.

In my view, the value-added aspect of an M10 body comes from the value of M/LTM lenses one already owns.

Additionally, the M10's technical performance (analog dynamic range and S/N when the sensor must be underexposed) is similar or better than other 24 X 36 mm sensor alternatives. It is clear a monochrome M10 would beat everyone.

Otherwise, any rangefinder adds value when one prefers to compose while viewing what's outside the frame lines. I prefer to work this way. Many others could care less.

I say buy the M10 if it will increase enjoyment. Life is short.

Otherwise use your FUJIFILM gear as you use/used your Leicas.
 
Erwin's prose is, as usual, impenetrable.
  • If you want to buy a Leica M10, buy it.
  • If you can't afford it but want it anyway, save up and then buy it.
  • If you don't want it, buy something else if you must buy something.
Everything else is just rationalization and ambiguity.

G
 
I want a M10 and figure I'll get a used one shortly after the M11 or M12 is released :) Until then my M9 meets my needs very nicely.
 
Godfrey said:
Erwin's prose is, as usual, impenetrable.
  • If you want to buy a Leica M10, buy it.
  • If you can't afford it but want it anyway, save up and then buy it.
  • If you don't want it, buy something else if you must buy something.
Everything else is just rationalization and ambiguity.
Click to expand...
Or, you want an M10, and can afford an M10, but know that wanting an M10 is irrational, so you vacillate. This is Bill's struggle, and I dare say the struggle for many of us who try to regulate our impulses in our daily lives. Not always successfully I might add.
 
I agree with what was stated earlier that 'why shoot Leica' has been infinitely discussed and will keep on being discussed...

But since I feel like it, I'll offer my reasons for why I still shoot Leica (digital - sorry film guys, I have no interest in film :) ).

It started off for a technical reason: I was fed up with DSLR AF waffling with wide angle lenses. Turned out RF focusing with wides was great and I always knew where the focus would be. I didn't have to constantly over-shoot just in case AF waffled and missed, because it was really difficult to see AF misses with wide lenses through DSLR viewfinders. I'm not talking about way out of focus, but enough out of focus to not be recoverable in post...

The more I shot with the M9, the more I liked the RF experience, even though technologically it was about 8+ years behind the curve with respect to electronics, performance, etc. The way of seeing through the viewfinder really did it for me. I learned the RF was a great tool for instantly knowing how close or far off focus was, which I could then correlate with the shooting aperture and an idea of DOF to determine whether or not I really needed to get perfect RF coincidence.

For me it's a fast and direct way to shoot. No focusing screen onto which an image is formed, rather, I'm looking directly through the viewfinder at the subject and the RF patch naturally just floats there in the middle. And never mind EVFs... even worse IMO at detaching me from the scene.

But it's also horses for courses. I sometimes do shoot the M240 with the EVF if I want to line up something nicely with certainty, or use a polarizer and see the effect. It's also the only way I can shoot non-RF lenses on the M. I still have my DSLRs because they are bread and butter for AF with tele lenses and won't be giving them up any time soon (though will eventually transition to a comparable mirrorless system).

I agree Leica service/support is terrible, compared to CPS and NPS. There is no apologizing for this, but it seems Leica doesn't care. Because I want to use my gear rather than have it sitting in a bin at the service department for a couple months, I carry on despite RF mis-calibration and some other annoyances here and there.

But while it's not perfect, it still works. I know how much each lens is off and adjust RF coincidence accordingly on the fly. In a way, I 'know' my Leica kit and how to get the results I need, despite any problems.

Sure, this would drive many crazy, given the cost of the gear and that for many the correlation between cost and expectation for perfection is proportional. But I gave up that expectation long ago. So long as it keeps working - i.e. I can focus via the RF predictably and it still records images correctly. To me that's part of the beauty of the RF system - it's still possible to get 'perfect' results from a flawed, mis-calibrated set of hardware. And if the RF totally went out of whack, I could still fall back on scale focusing. Try that with a misbehaving or mis calibrated AF camera.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Or, you want an M10, and can afford an M10, but know that wanting an M10 is irrational, so you vacillate. This is Bill's struggle, and I dare say the struggle for many of us who try to regulate our impulses in our daily lives. Not always successfully I might add.
Click to expand...

I don't share in that vacillation. And wanting an M10 is hardly irrational unless you're a capricious sort of person who just buys things willy-nilly without good reason or a plan to use them.
  1. I get interested in something, do my research on it, and decide whether I want it or not.
  2. If I want it, I look at my finances and the other things I need to spend money on to determine whether I can afford to spend the money.
  3. Then I figure out what on that list of things I want to spend money on should come first.
  4. If the item is on the buy list at the top, I order it. If it's on the buy list and I don't have the money immediately, it drops a notch and I wait until I have the money in hand.
Life is so much simpler when you let go of vacillation and impulse, and act directly, with intent and sense applied to purchases.

G
 
Godfrey said:
I don't share in that vacillation. And wanting an M10 is hardly irrational unless you're a capricious sort of person who just buys things willy-nilly without good reason or a plan to use them.
  1. I get interested in something, do my research on it, and decide whether I want it or not.
  2. If I want it, I look at my finances and the other things I need to spend money on to determine whether I can afford to spend the money.
  3. Then I figure out what on that list of things I want to spend money on should come first.
  4. If the item is on the buy list at the top, I order it. If it's on the buy list and I don't have the money immediately, it drops a notch and I wait until I have the money in hand.
Life is so much simpler when you let go of vacillation and impulse, and act directly, with intent and sense applied to purchases.
Click to expand...
I have highlighted where all the rationalization you don't want to admit you indulge in occurs. Decisions about wants are inherently either impulses or rationalizations. All that deciding which comes first and notch dropping is vacillation, unless you never change your mind.
 
Being clear about what you want and why is a skill that needs practice. It is the best defence against feeling you have irrational GAS, but doesn't alter the fact that sometimes some of us need to buy things to try them out for size, fitness for purpose etc. Renting can seem expensive and trying out in a shop doesn't suit all of us even where it is practical.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I've often wondered about the appeal of an M in the digital world. Even in the film world I've drifted away from Leica over the years. Still have a few pieces, an M3, a lonely M mount Summicron, some Leicaflex SL, ect., but other stuff too, from "C" and "N", and they're all capable of taking great pictures, which primarily depends on light and composition anyway. It's nice to have the options though, because variety is good, and we don't all have to be the same (another good thing). For me, Leica don't make a whole lots of sense, but others see if different, and that's ok. I suppose it's sufficient that someone just likes shooting a digital M and being part of the Leica club.
 
If I were a Leica boutique manager, I'd loan Bill the M10 for a week or two for no charge and let him decide if it's worth it to him to purchase. With his body of work, I'd be interested to know his thoughts and suggestions for improvement. It would be a smart business move.
 
ellisson said:
If I were a Leica boutique manager, I'd loan Bill the M10 for a week or two for no charge and let him decide if it's worth it to him to purchase. With his body of work, I'd be interested to know his thoughts and suggestions for improvement. It would be a smart business move.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I think a lot about the phenomenology of machines, which will not interest most photographers.

Machines such as the film Ms have a kind of harmony of parts. Everything in the machine "makes sense" for what it does and harmonizes seamlessly with the semblance of parts. There is a unity in the plurality, so to speak.

The M rangefinder (or rangefinders in general, maybe) do not make for good digital cameras as machines. The digital rangefinder is a false idiom, at least in its present design. I weep woefully in particular for those poor souls maladroitly adapting EVFs to their M10s. The tragedy of this arrangement is the phenomenological equivalent of driving a Hummer on smooth well-paved suburban parkways, or of Al Pacino doing Gigli. What once made the film M great (and makes it still great) has made the digital M clownish and irresponsible.

I could go on; but, like the fool in Lear, I feel it's necessary at times to give voice to the obvious (as I see it).
 
Last edited:
LCSmith said:
I think a lot about the phenomenology of machines, which will not interest most photographers.
Click to expand...
I used to study phenomenological thought until it dawned on me that phenomenology had devolved into theology. The same might be said to have occurred with certain small photographic machines.
 
I'm a pure amateur...I was used to the M7 and other film cameras.
I was not convinced about the M8s, the m9s, the M240 etc...and I didn't buy any of them.

But when I tried the M10 I realized this was the digital camera I wanted. Simple, no unnecessary gadgets, I could us exactly as I used the M7, or more or less the Nikon FM2T...
select iso (sometimes), aperture, shutter speed, focus...done!

I knew I could take almost same pictures with a much less expensive cameras, even more flexible and with a better customer service. I was in doubt...but still the M10 was for me the equivalent of a film camera plus the benefits of digital...

I bought it and one year later I'm very satisfied...

Is the rational or not? I do not know but for more at my age the joy to use it was, is worthwhile the price...

robert
 
ptpdprinter said:
I used to study phenomenological thought until it dawned on me that phenomenology had devolved into theology. The same might be said to have occurred with certain small photographic machines as well.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I don't understand your meaning.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I have highlighted where all the rationalization you don't want to admit you indulge in occurs. Decisions about wants are inherently either impulses or rationalizations. All that deciding which comes first and notch dropping is vacillation, unless you never change your mind.
Click to expand...

I disagree. "Reasoning" is not "rationalizing". There's a huge difference. It has nothing to do with impulse or vacillation; it has to do with logic, intent, and understanding.

G
 
joe bosak said:
Being clear about what you want and why is a skill that needs practice. It is the best defence against feeling you have irrational GAS, but doesn't alter the fact that sometimes some of us need to buy things to try them out for size, fitness for purpose etc. Renting can seem expensive and trying out in a shop doesn't suit all of us even where it is practical.
Click to expand...

(bolded) Yes.

G
 
LCSmith said:
Interesting. I don't understand your meaning.
Click to expand...
When I was studying for a Masters in Philosophy following my retirement, we read all the phenomenologists. It my opinion, its history traced an arc from the consideration of the reality of things (Husserl) to an imposition of responsibility on the self for the other (Levinas). The history of Leica in my view has traced an arc from a focus on the camera as machine to the veneration of the brand. I prefer old phenomenologists and old Leica users. A lot less theology all around.
 
Godfrey said:
I disagree. "Reasoning" is not "rationalizing". There's a huge difference. It has nothing to do with impulse or vacillation; it has to do with logic, intent, and understanding.
Click to expand...
Rationalizing isn't an inherently pejorative proposition. Of course, you can make it so. Logic can be a tricky thing when dealing with desire. The mind is a marvelously flexible thing. It is largely a matter of being honest with yourself when considering your motivations. For example, I admire Robert's forthrightness. I am happy to entertain your dispassionate logic for moving to an M10 with its attendant cost from its immediate predecessor. Perhaps it will be of some benefit to Bill as he weighs his decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom