Is a Leica M still a “Leica M” today?

johnwolf said:
"We will leave the 'feelings' we get while shooting out of this room."

Sorry, Giorgio, but I stopped reading at that sentence. While not 100%, the pleasure of an M has a lot to do with how we fee about cameras and photography. To dismiss that fact is missing something crucial, IMO, something at the heart of the M experience.

John
Click to expand...


I also stopped there. On the way to that sentence, while I was reading, I thought "Yeh, but shooting with a particular camera can be kind of a love affair with the thing, and that's the bond right there." Then I hit that sentence and decided I was going to bail out.
The topic ("He loves his camera ?? ") does not lend itself well to a clinical analysis.
 
The essay’s four-part approach oversteps some critical camera characteristics (e.g., functionality and haptics) and has significant problems in application, especially when it comes to size and IQ.

Most of the alternative cameras mentioned in the essay are, IMHO, terrible with it comes to functionality and haptics. For example, the RX1 is quite menu-drive and has terrible functionality, including auto focus and operation for manual or zone focusing. And, in terms of size, it’s way too small and toy-like (even with a half case) for normal "feel" and functionality IMHO. The same smallness critique can certainly be well applied to the GR. In terms of “high quality” images, only two of the noted alternatives (i.e., the RX1 and Sony A7) permit high-quality FF images, but they both have massive shortcomings in terms of functionality and haptics. At least for me, using an RX1 or GR is a joyless and even painful experience.

Thus, while I’m always looking for a good and cheaper alternative to the Leica RF, the noted alternatives aren’t about to push the Leica to an early death.
 
giganova said:
Here's an example: yesterday I saw a cute looking little girl, raised the camera to my eyes and make a picture. It took 5 sec. The guy standing next to me saw it, too, but by the time he turned his DSLR on, went though a menu to set us his shot, I was long gone and the girl had turned around and walked away.
Click to expand...

If the DSLR is off and needs "setting up" via the menus, then we should assume the M is also in a similar state of non-readiness and needs to be loaded with film first. ;)
 
jsrockit said:
Except you forgot about all of that functionality in the menus.
Click to expand...

i didnt "forget" but it's a set it and forget it for how I use the camera.
At most I might go change the ISO from auto to something, but that's it for actual using menus during shooting.
 
daveleo said:
I also stopped there. On the way to that sentence, while I was reading, I thought "Yeh, but shooting with a particular camera can be kind of a love affair with the thing, and that's the bond right there." Then I hit that sentence and decided I was going to bail out.
The topic ("He loves his camera ?? ") does not lend itself well to a clinical analysis.
Click to expand...

Well said. Cameras that generate some sort of emotional attachment are pretty rare. Among recent offerings, in addition to Leicas, I'd say the GR, X100 series, and maybe the X-Pro. Most others are your basic commodity products. I like cameras to which I feel a personal bond. I'm sure others here have their own love affairs.

John
 
I know articles today are made for short attention spans of people who only read in lines at the coffee shop. But it says something when the comments on your article are longer than the article itself. You bring up 4 items to compare historical M advantages to those they may offer today: it’s small, it’s quiet, it makes high quality pictures, and using rangefinder focusing can be quite fast. Then you briefly make one argument against those attributes, and summarily deduce the M is no longer relevant. Your mistake is you choose the parameters to measure, but there are more than those you picked. Then you didn't convincingly argue that the modern M fails in those 4 parameters.

You make a very flimsy argument, and it appears your purpose is just to start a discussion, not to win any real debate.
 
pechelman said:
i might even go so far as to say that the current M is even more of an M than the previous.

In terms of stripping things away down to the essentials, the M240/262 have fewer external knobs, controls, and levers than the original film M's. Less stuff to fiddle with and get in between the photographer and the subject. (big reason why I sold my xt1)

I'm with ferider/Roland on this one. It's simply all about the framelines and viewfinder.

Someone else mentioned it's all about the results, but I couldnt disagree more; To me, it's all about the process.

edit: also your comment about weight in the article
The M is ~680g. An M3 is ~580g.
Add in the space and weight to carry along ~20 rolls of film, and thats about another ~4-500g worth of weight.
And you're still not even but about halfway to the number of pictures one would take in DNG with a ~32gb sdcard on the m240.
If you're going to compare, compare apples to apples.
Click to expand...

The Leica M 262 100 grams lighter than the M 240. That would put it really close to 580 grams.

And if you want a real stripped down M there is now the M-D.

So I would argue that Leica Ms are still very much Leica M. They are the only true digital alternative out there.
 
ferider said:
You are missing the most important Leica feature for me: nothing like a clear view of the world with a frame-line hanging in front of you.
Click to expand...

Whereas one can not prove that this feature affects the final pictures, I personally think it does.

So I think understand the point Roland is making. (I also think I understand what Griorgio is saying.)
 
giganova said:
Here's an example: yesterday I saw a cute looking little girl, raised the camera to my eyes and make a picture. It took 5 sec. The guy standing next to me saw it, too, but by the time he turned his DSLR on, went though a menu to set us his shot, I was long gone and the girl had turned around and walked away.
Click to expand...


Anyone who has to open up a menu to take a shot after turning their camera on is a fool. I would never shoot in the street with my D4 because it's a monster but if I was going to it would be prepared ... it would be turned on for a start and probably in sleep mode which means a touch of the shutter will wake it up in an instant. It would be on AF with matrix metering and from the time I saw the subject I wanted to capture the focus would have locked on and the shot taken in a second or two. It's all relative and about being prepared so the problem of missing the shot of the 'cute' girl lay firmly with the photographer and not the camera.

Just out of curiosity I grabbed my D4 and tried this test. With the camera hanging by my side but in my hand I can look at an object twenty or so feet away, bring the camera to my my eye and frame and shoot in a second. Admittedly not all DSLRs have the blinding speed of the D4 but they aren't far off.
 
The M262 I use today is as much an "M" as the M4 and M6 I continue to run 2-3 rolls of film through each month. Absolutely.

Trying to compare any digital camera to one that exposes film instead is the fallacy. Nikon D professional DSLR's that cost $5,000-$6,000 today and will be worth $200-$400 7-9 years from now are no match for the longevity of an F2AS that came off the assembly line in 1978 and are still as viable today (and worth more than the D2 now, the D3's not too long from now, etc) as they were back then, or any "M" film camera.

Are Nikon D professional cameras still "F" quality? What about Canon professional DSLR's compared to the F1?

I don't think those current users really care either, but I do think my M262 will continue to be worth more to me over time since I won't be looking for improvements like 4K or better video, live view with 3D quality screens, or any of the other features not included that make current models obsolete virtually overnight, and makes the M262 or any other M to those people, already "obsolete".

OK by me...
 
pechelman said:
. . . the M240/262 have fewer external knobs, controls, and levers than the original film M's. .. .
Click to expand...
Hardly.

Film Leica, L/ to R., top plate: rewind, shutter speed dial, winding lever, shutter release (4 controls). Front: rewind clutch, self timer, lens lock, frame selector (4 controls). Bottom: base lock. Back: film reminder. Total: 10

M typ 240. Top plate: shutter dial, on/off switch, shutter release (3 controls). Front: lens lock, and a button I've forgotten the use of (I no longer have a Type 240). Back: 6 buttons, "Info" button, thumb wheel (8 controls). Bottom: base lock. Total: 14. This for a camera that doesn't have a frame selector...

Cheers,

R.
 
I thought all Leica M were real RF.
It seems the new digital are electronic.
So at that point, only the older are true "M's".

I like that even when tired I can easily focus.
My M3 and M2 make me feel part of the process.
My M6 makes me feel like a passerby, with guess finder. :D

I use SLR and love them.
My Canon A series, built a little later than my M3,
are technology and reliability, far ahead of my Leica M's.
In terms of ease, quickness, beautiful viewing, the RF not come close!
RF focuses excellent.
SLR sees beautifully.
My most used camera a M3.
 
Last edited:
Reason can't beat emotion ... but my purse can :)

I shoot film with IIIg and M6 and, within a few weeks, I will mount my lenses on a Nex 5N as well ... my little poor man's M9 :)
 
leicapixie said:
I thought all Leica M were real RF.
It seems the new digital are electronic.
So at that point, only the older are true "M's".

I like that even when tired I can easily focus.
My M3 and M2 make me feel part of the process.
My M6 makes me feel like a passerby, with guess finder. :D

I use SLR and love them.
My Canon A series, built a little later than my M3,
are technology and reliability, far ahead of my Leica M's.
In terms of ease, quickness, beautiful viewing, the RF not come close!
RF focuses excellent.
SLR sees beautifully.
My most used camera a M3.
Click to expand...

Huh? All Leica Ms are "true" RFs. Some models use LED frameline illumination but they're still mechanical rangefinders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom