Is the ME ugly?

Is the ME ugly?

  • Strongly disagree

    Votes: 108 26.9%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 114 28.4%
  • Agree

    Votes: 116 28.9%
  • Strongly agree

    Votes: 63 15.7%

  • Total voters
    401
I've seen some photos of the M-E apart from the official ones and noticed no cyan tint, just a darker gray M. I like it. I don't miss the preview lever as well.
 
The M-E is a nice design, slightly more modern and something different without being too far removed from traditional design. I think it's fine but about $500-1000 overpriced. At $1500 below the new M and M9P, why would you? I do know that some dealers will be offering a special where they can buy the M-E with the Summicron 35/2 ASPH for about $7k, so not such a bad combo deal....for those not needing to shoot over ISO 640.
 
I check this thread every day to really find out from the experts whether the camera is ugly or not. I hope we have a consensus soon because I'd like to see the matter resolved once and for all.
 
I saw one today in person. It is more of a neutral (no tint) dark grey. The color goes well with the red dot and without any lettering. Even the silver knobs look nice. I'd rather have an M9-P, but this looks special to me without being too far out there.
 
Most of us haven't seen the camera, so how can we vote? I guess that life is lived over the Internet. I think that a better question is why buy it? If you can pony up that much money, why not just save a bit more, or sell a few more items and get the 'M'?
 
Can`t vote as I have not seen one except on the net. It is ok I guess as long as it is not painted.

Anthracite on the R9 did not look anywhere close to this color.
 
Yes, the color scheme is vulgar. Like when auto manufacturers try to doll up a cheap cars by putting gold or chrome accents on them. Vulgar! But nothing a can of spray paint wouldn't fix.
How is slate grey more vulgar than black paint or chrome? I REALLY don't understand this. And, unlike many, I have seen the camera. Looks fine to me.

What next: is an olive drab M1 ugly? Or a Three Crowns IIIg? Grey USAF M2? MP Anthracite? De gustibus non disputandum.

As for those saying, "Why not spend a bit more on a...?" Well, that's easy to say if you're not planning on spending ANYTHING on a new Leica, but just standing on the sidelines. But if you're thinking about putting yoir hnd in your pocket, unless you're richer than most of us, a price differential of $1000 or more does give some pause for thought.

Cheers,

R.
 
Compare

Compare

leicam9.jpg



leica-me-01.jpg


Leica-M-black.jpg


I think a Steal Gray may look better... BUT, the Bluish Color does say what model it is... no need for front plate monograms IMO. Top Plate Monograms are OK.

I [Somewhat] Disagree... could be better, but a [that] ugly.
 
How is slate grey more vulgar than black paint or chrome? I REALLY don't understand this. And, unlike many, I have seen the camera. Looks fine to me.

What next: is an olive drab M1 ugly? Or a Three Crowns IIIg? Grey USAF M2? MP Anthracite? De gustibus non disputandum.

...

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Well, I don't really take this seriously. But yes, I find the blue-slate grey with the chrome accents and the red dot kind of ugly and crass. A color scheme that tries too hard. Just an opinion, laced with humor since it does not really matter what color they paint a camera.. why is that hard to understand?
 
I took the above posted image of the ME into PS and desaturated the blue and cyan turning the top-plate neutral gray. It looked much better. Alternatively I desaturated and darkened the red which also made an improvement.

It's the bad combination of red and blue which renders the camera ugly, vile and cheap.
 
To answer the question in the thread title: having seen an ME in a shop yesterday for the first time, it didn't look too bad to me. As for the red dot, well I think that aesthetically it would look better without it but that is a matter of very subjective taste.
 
Back
Top Bottom