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
D.J. said:
It's the bad combination of red and blue which renders the camera ugly, vile and cheap.
Click to expand...

I agree that the cool grey in the product shots doesn't look very flattering. Have you seen one in person? I'm curious what others think. To me, it looked blue-grey in the photos but neutral grey in person (possibly due to warm artificial light). Speaking in terms of just the colors and not logos, the red accent looked good against the dark grey and black.
 
It is the M9 minus a couple of features. No Black Paint or Chrome unless you anti up another $1000.00 or so.

Took a few photographs with the ME on Display at Glazers. A good alternative instead of investing in a new M9.

It is quite nice looking camera, not ugly at all. Perhaps someone ego would be bruised if spotted on the street with a anthracite grey paint Leica-M.

More interested in a Monochrome as a possible (way in the) future purchase vs the ME or M (10) but would not mind owning one.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, the red dot IS ugly and vulgar! Sure, that's opinion too, but I think that most users would agree with me.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Ugly and vulgar?

I'm not a Leica fan myself but I don't find the red dot to be that way. It's Leica's symbol and I don't think it looks any more out of place than the symbolised spinning propellor of BMW or the prancing horse of Ferrari.

I gather you, like many others, don't like it personally though and I'm curious as to exactly why ... do you feel it it detracts from the generally understated look of a Leica or is there some other reason?
 
f6andBthere said:
Ugly and vulgar?

I'm not a Leica fan myself but I don't find the red dot to be that way. It's Leica's symbol and I don't think it looks any more out of place than the symbolised spinning propellor of BMW or the prancing horse of Ferrari.

I gather you, like many others, don't like it personally though and I'm curious as to exactly why ... do you feel it it detracts from the generally understated look of a Leica or is there some other reason?
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it. After all, it's a fairly recent innovation, and it serves absolutely no purpose other than to scream THIS IS A LEICA AND NOT A CHEAP IMITATION. It doesn't get a lot more vulgar than that.

The red stripe on Nikons is equally pointless and vulgar. Both smack of the evil hand of the Stylist (with a capital letter) who isn't a stylist at all but slaps something ugly and pointless onto a perfectly serviceable product in an attempt to justify his unjustifiable existence.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
.... the red dot IS ugly and vulgar!.....
Click to expand...

Yep! - As is the ghastly paint filled indents of the M8/M9. At least, in that respect, we don't have to scratch out 'ME' paint on the front of the camera to improve it's looks. I think all Leicas look better without displaying the corporate graffiti they come with.

............... Chris
 
ChrisC said:
Yep! - As is the ghastly paint filled indents of the M8/M9. At least, in that respect, we don't have to scratch out 'ME' paint on the front of the camera to improve it's looks. I think all Leicas look better without displaying the corporate graffiti they come with.

............... Chris
Click to expand...
Dear Chris,

You feel more strongly about this than I, but I'd certainly agree that an unadorned front-plate looks better.

Cheers,

R.
 
the actual camera does not have a blue tint, from what i've seen from photos apart from the official ones. being dark gray, I quite like it, just stick a black square of tape on the red dot (no pseudo-stealthiness here, it's just that i feel the red dot brings attention to itself) and it's good to go.

i prefer the black M9 or the chrome M9P.
 
Roger Hicks said:
That's pretty much it. After all, it's a fairly recent innovation, and it serves absolutely no purpose other than to scream THIS IS A LEICA AND NOT A CHEAP IMITATION. It doesn't get a lot more vulgar than that.

The red stripe on Nikons is equally pointless and vulgar. Both smack of the evil hand of the Stylist (with a capital letter) who isn't a stylist at all but slaps something ugly and pointless onto a perfectly serviceable product in an attempt to justify his unjustifiable existence.
Click to expand...

Usually the designer/artist/stylist is required to do that by marketing, often times against their advice because it can be vulgar like you said. You nailed the purpose and point of it all: brand recognition. This is not a recent innovation. People have been doing this for millennia. It works (although that can often be unfortunate for the consumer, if they even notice).
 
jtm6 said:
Usually the designer/artist/stylist is required to do that by marketing, often times against their advice. You nailed the purpose and point of it all: brand recognition. This is not a recent innovation. People have been doing this for millennia. It works.
Click to expand...
(1) Sorry, I meant that the red dot was a recent innovation.

(2) Brands? For millennia? I must be misunderstanding, as my understanding is that while brands (in the modern sense) may have made tentative appearances in the 18th century, it was not until the 19th that they became commonplace. Likewise stylists.

(3) A designer/artist/stylist who bows too much to marketing is arguably not doing his/her job.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
(1) Sorry, I meant that the red dot was a recent innovation.

(2) Brands? For millennia? I must be misunderstanding, as my understanding is that while brands (in the modern sense) may have made tentative appearances in the 18th century, it was not until the 19th that they became commonplace. Likewise stylists.

(3) A designer/artist/stylist who bows too much to marketing is arguably not doing his/her job.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

(2) I misunderstood the context of the Leica red dot being a recent innovation (1) and was speaking generally about identity/identification, not the modern sense. Otherwise I would have restricted it to decades, not opened it up to millennia. 🙂

(3) I agree to an extent. With many companies/clients there is a point where the person has to deliver what the people that write his/her paycheck want or else he/her won't be the one to do the job. Often times the requests are much more absurd than what we're talking about in this thread. That's a huge topic though and getting OT.

I completely agree with preferring a plain front, but I'm not sure what being a perfectly serviceable product has to do with a red accent treatment.
 
jtm6 said:
(2) I misunderstood the context of the Leica red dot being a recent innovation (1) and was speaking generally about identity/identification, not the modern sense. Otherwise I would have restricted it to decades, not opened it up to millennia. 🙂

(3) I agree to an extent. With many companies/clients there is a point where the person has to deliver what the people that write his/her paycheck want or else he/her won't be the one to do the job. Often times the requests are much more absurd than what we're talking about in this thread. That's a huge topic though and getting OT.

I completely agree with preferring a plain front, but I'm not sure what being a perfectly serviceable product has to do with a red accent treatment.
Click to expand...
All fair points. What I meant with the highlighted bit was that Leicas were perfectly serviceable before the red dot was added, and that said dot adds nothing. Indeed, by making the camera (slightly) more noticeable, it makes it (slightly) less serviceable. At least for taking pictures, though not as a status symbol...

Cheers,

R.
 
I handled an M-E today, at Newtonville Camera, and it's not ugly. Doesn't look cheap. The grey is understated, the reverse-Panda scheme with the silver knobs looks just fine. Looks loads better than the hammertone Leicas, to my eyes.

I like the lack of frameline preview lever on the front, although having just picked up a 40mm Summicron, I might actually deliberately use my preview lever for once.
 
i don't think it looks ugly. it just looks less attractive than it could be, and leica knows it. in digital, they always bring out a cleaner, better looking version 1.5 years later. just be patient.
 
I have one of the limited special edition "anti-panda" M8s, which I think is quite pleasing. Here it is with the Rollei Sonnar mounted, a dynamite combo...


Anti-Panda M8 by areality4all, on Flickr

Too many colors (black, chrome, red, grey) give the M-E a disconcerted, inchoate feeling. The M-E would probably look even better if the red dot were replaced with a black one. Or if the dials were replaced with black ones.

The black dot and black chrome of the anti-panda M8 lend it depth that holds together well against the chrome accents and chrome lens. I also took out the white lettering, and love the aura that the brassing lends to it.
 
noimmunity said:
I have one of the limited special edition "anti-panda" M8s, which I think is quite pleasing. Here it is with the Rollei Sonnar mounted, a dynamite combo...
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think this anti-panda M8, which you seem to find good-looking, illustrates clearly that different people have different tastes. 🙂
 
pieter said:
To be honest, I think this anti-panda M8, which you seem to find good-looking, illustrates clearly that different people have different tastes. 🙂
Click to expand...


Thanks, Pieter. I was expecting it 😎.

The comparison is relevant of course because the M-E basically is an anti-panda with off-color chrome.

I would like the M-E much better if the leatherette were coordinated with the blue-grey chrome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom