Is a Leica M still a “Leica M” today?

[iammine]

Hello mates,
It's been almost one year i didn't write on my blog my thoughts about photography.
Yesterday i finished an article about an interesting discussion i had with Robert about digital Leica M cameras and their value today.
I'd love to hear your opinion about this, and I hope this article may generate an interesting and friendly discussion between us.

You can check the article here


Peace,

Giorgio

 

[cz23]

"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

 

[FrozenInTime]

If Ricoh got their act together and make a GR equivelent of a Barnack Leica with 50mm elmar the tables would definitely tip in their favour.

I frequently carry a M with 50 plus a GR.
If I want to really compact it's the 0-replica plus GR.

But there are many times where I want two M bodies with fast glass.
Tried EVF not the same a optical RF.

What the article does not consider is just how much better a film M feels in the hand compared to a digital M.

 

[iammine]

John, first of all thank you for stopping by. Love your enso pic. I'm sorry you didn't continue reading because you'd probably find a surprise at the end of the article.

 

[ferider]

Sorry, I'm usually not a Leica fan-boy, but I find your article biased, so here goes:

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. If you like looking at the world through a computer screen - good for you, but it doesn't work for all of us.

Plus, a new 262 is US 5100, a new 240 US 5400, and you can get a refurbished M9 for less than US 3500.

AF has worked for 20+ years, it's very useful, but doesn't justify not using an RF for what it was made for.

And then, how is that 21 Summilux working out on your A7 ?

Roland.

 

[iammine]

Dear ferider, sorry but sounds like you didn't get the sense of my article.
If you read it carefully you will find the answer itself.

But we have to be honest and say that it’s still damn so sexy and functional, and most of the time we don’t need “results”, we just shoot for the pleasure we receive during the process. Considering that, Leica M is still a super nice camera. Try to put your eye through a M’s viewfinder and you will be ****ed up.

 

[zuiko85]

If it's just the final results that count then a Holga meets those requirements......

In the right hands.

Just ask David Burnett.

 

[Bill Clark]

A few reasons I like Leica film cameras:

Quality and long trouble free life. When I pick one up to make photographs it always works.

It can be rebuilt after decades of use. Youxin rebuilt a Barnack for me and I suspect it will outlast me! I'm not a big fan of planned obsolescence, throw alway mentality. I can buy used, far less than new, knowing I will have a quality product that, when the time arrives, can be rebuilt.

The lenses are outstanding. I buy used and I still can find what I'm looking for and with reasonable prices.

Now, that I can afford Leica equipment, I realize what I have been missing all those years.

Currently all my Leicas are 100% mechanical.


.

 

[giganova]

I find it truly liberating when I look through my M's viewfinder and there is nothing but frame lines. Not even the f-stop or exposure time, not LED, and I certainly don't need any menus. Nothing distracts from framing my shots. I know that a sunny days is EV15 and in the shadows its EV11. I can make pictures an entire day, completely forget about my camera and its settings, and can fully focus on the subjects and how I frame them. The perfect camera for me is an M4 or its modern day equivalent, the M-A. It's photography reduced to its purest level.

 

[giganova]

So my answer to "Is Leica M still a Leica M today?" is a resounding "yes": you have the same gear as "yesteryears", but new, and they offer the same as digital options. What's not to like about that? 😀 In terms of gear, we live in the best times -- ever -- whether you prefer film or digital.

 

[giganova]

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.

 

[Michael Markey]

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.

I use two M`s as well as a dslr.
The dslr is always turned on and set to whatever I`m taking that day.

The problem was with the shooter not the dslr.
It would take me a lot less than five seconds with a dslr.

I use M`s because they are enjoyable to use but I wouldn`t call them fast and yes I know about pre focus ...great when the light is good and you`re using a wide .

 

[JOCO34]

I have several DSLR's a few mirror less cameras and my Leica System. The joy of being connected to the process is really different for me with the M. I feel more like a spectator with my other camera systems.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Trash talk.

 

[zuiko85]

If the OP is asking if the current digital M offerings from Leica are still a 'true M' then I'd have to agree that, while still unique in that they provide traditional manual, superimposed image, RF focusing and bright frames to show the picture area, no, there are many mirrorless and fast DSLR's that could be just as useable for a small, quite lens platform. But, to a large extent, by the late 60's and on into the 70's a growing number of 35mm SLR's were supplanting the Leica M as a camera of choice for reportage and just general photography. With the advent of the Olympus OM-1 even SLR's started to become as compact as an M. Declining sales almost killed the M in that decade, but, with a little help from Midland, they pulled out of a near death experience.

 

[YYV_146]

Sorry, I'm usually not a Leica fan-boy, but I find your article biased, so here goes:

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. If you like looking at the world through a computer screen - good for you, but it doesn't work for all of us.

Plus, a new 262 is US 5100, a new 240 US 5400, and you can get a refurbished M9 for less than US 3500.

AF has worked for 20+ years, it's very useful, but doesn't justify not using an RF for what it was made for.

And then, how is that 21 Summilux working out on your A7 ?

Roland.

The 21mm Summilux works fine.

Was going to get an M-P. Deal didn't quite go through. Bought a APO-summicron ASPH instead. Will wait to see what Leica has for 2016 - but it's still two A7rII's for now.

 

[jsrockit]

I've moved on from using Ms, but they are special cameras and they are fun to use.

 

[borge]

I own and use an M240, and have had an M9-P and MM before.
I also own an MP (film).

In my opinion - Leica M cameras function best in their analog form.
I don't think digital M's are worth it, and I don't think they work well as digital cameras. I'm selling my M240 and sticking with my MP. As for digital cameras, I will move on to a different system.

 

[pechelman]

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.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Except you forgot about all of that functionality in the menus.