Leica M( ) and M-E: first impressions

[cosmonaut]

I totally agree as I have a D800 and the image quality is amazing. It could easily last me for many many years. I do however think Leica is one or maybe two generations from the digital MP. But one other issue the digital M couldn't be my stand alone system as sports and wildlife shots would be harder. It would purely be more of a luxury item to me. But I do understand that some could use it as their only system.

Cosmonaut,

Someday you'll come to the realization that, once past a certain threshold, how "obsolete" a particular camera might be means nothing.

Sure, later cameras have more capabilities and can produce even better results. And all my current digital cameras are 12 to 18 Mpixel machines that are faster, slicker, and have more dynamic range. But I'm still printing photos made with the Olympus E-1 and Pentax *ist DS that shocks me with its vibrant quality and detailing.

Even an M8, the first Leica digital RF, is still a very fine photo making machine. Using one is nothing like using an A99 or any other TTL electronic camera. They're just an entirely different kind of camera.

A M9 might be technically obsolete and amazingly sparse of 'features' by current digital camera standards. But it produces absolutely stunning image quality and will do so for many years to come. I haven't found much that compares to what I see coming out of it, regardless of the number of pixels or the proliferation of convenience features. ;-)

"Equipment often gets in the way of Photography.

G

 

[_goodtimez]

Leica M get's big

Leica M get's big

I think it just gets bigger and bigger, just like the car production !
With 5mm added in thickness it's really going to take some room.
From the very first Leica to the current M they really grew in every aspect, size and weight.

 

[krötenblender]

But the M is not really bigger. The 1mm thickness comes from the thumb-rest on the back, the main body has the same size as the M9. This at least was, what I got from the interview at Overgaards site: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-M10-d...Leica-M10-Monochrome-Digital-Rangefinder.html

 

[luuca]

if you look at side pics of the new M you can see the wheel thumb doesn't protrude more than the lcd.

so, yes, it's simply thicker than M8/9, too bad.

 

[krötenblender]

May be, but it did not feel thicker, when I played with it at Photokina. So I think, there is a little bit too much argumentation based on numbers, than on experience.

 

[jtm6]

so, yes, it's simply thicker than M8/9, too bad.

Well that does it... I'm out! 😉

 

[Godfrey]

if you look at side pics of the new M you can see the wheel thumb doesn't protrude more than the lcd.

so, yes, it's simply thicker than M8/9, too bad.

The question when you're looking at specs always resolves to "what are they measuring?" Every reviewer who has held the new M has said it's the same thickness as the M9, regardless of what the specs say. A mm or 5mm means nothing if that measurement isn't where your hands hold the camera.

It looks to be about the same size but a little heavier due to the much larger battery. I'm ok with that for double the per charge working time and the reported much more responsive camera operation; the M (film or digital) has never been the smallest camera out there, but it's a good, portable size and weight compared to many others of comparable capability and quality anyway.

 

[krötenblender]

The question when you're looking at specs always resolves to "what are they measuring?" Every reviewer who has held the new M has said it's the same thickness as the M9, regardless of what the specs say. A mm or 5mm means nothing if that measurement isn't where your hands hold the camera.

Correct. I played some time with the new M at Photokina and I had my M9 with me. So I compared the two and they did not feel very different. In fact, the thumb-rest was an improvement, I would say.

To the weight: I think, it is wrong to just emphasize the weight-gain of the body only. You use the camera with a lens on. And with my favourite lens, the combination is only just over 9% heavier. When I had it in my hands, I could not tell the difference.

 

[luuca]

The question when you're looking at specs always resolves to "what are they measuring?" Every reviewer who has held the new M has said it's the same thickness as the M9, regardless of what the specs say. A mm or 5mm means nothing if that measurement isn't where your hands hold the camera.

It looks to be about the same size but a little heavier due to the much larger battery. I'm ok with that for double the per charge working time and the reported much more responsive camera operation; the M (film or digital) has never been the smallest camera out there, but it's a good, portable size and weight compared to many others of comparable capability and quality anyway.

for my tastes my M9 is already too thick.
I wished the new M was more similar to my MP. perfect for my hands, so I can't be happy if M is "only" 5 mm thicker than my M9...

 

[Godfrey]

for my tastes my M9 is already too thick.
I wished the new M was more similar to my MP. perfect for my hands, so I can't be happy if M is "only" 5 mm thicker than my M9...

I guess you're uninterested in reading krötenblender's statement, or that of everyone else who's actually handled the new M.

I would love it if they could make the new M the same size and weight as my M4-2, or even better, my CL. I doubt that it is possible ... a digital sensor assembly is simply thicker than a piece of film and a pressure plate, the mount registration cannot change, and the LCD has to go somewhere too. Unlike with a fixed lens camera, the mount registration on an interchangeable lens camera plus the thickness of the sensor assembly places a minimum constraint on how thick the body must be.

The only way to change that is to change the mount, and then you've lost half of the concept, which is to be compatible with the existing lenses.

 

[luuca]

they could make a 5mm ring in front of the camera, behind the bayonet... non so nice, but a working solution I think to keep the body thinner...

I don't know mr. Krotenblender... but I know my tastes 😛

 

[krötenblender]

I think, it is okay to say, that the M9 or the new M is too thick to like (that is in fact a matter of taste, and I too like the body dimensions of my Zeiss Ikon better that the M9's dimensions).

But IMHO it is completely wrong to say that the new M is a totally different beast and incredibly thicker that the M9, and while one can handle the one, it were totally impossible to handle the other. My impression from some postings here is, that this is the essence of some peoples statements (though not said this explicit) without even ever handled the new M.

I think, there may be valid reasons not to like the new M when compared to the M9 (although I currently do not know any for me), but the body size only can't be it.