Leica M-D in action

[jsrockit]

It's just the way I photograph Huss. I want to be able to react quickly in very different light here in NYC. It can go from bright sun to dark alley quickly here. I trust my cameras up to a certain ISO, so I always use auto ISO. I wouldn't want to change. That said, I would only buy another Leica (due to manual focus, no shutter priority, etc.) if I decided to do something different in the way I photograph. You never know when you get bored of a certain way of working. Changing to a Leica M like this one could be a very good change if you are currently stagnant in your current way of doing things.

 

[lawrence]

I always thought that getting rid of the screen would be a great idea 🙂 and I also guessed that by removing the screen there would be a substantial price reduction 😕

 

[jsrockit]

I always thought that getting rid of the screen would be a great idea 🙂 and I also guessed that by removing the screen there would be a substantial price reduction 😕

But why? LCDs aren't that expensive I would imagine.

 

[Huss]

But why? LCDs aren't that expensive I would imagine.

And also it now requires a newly machined body case, with a new mechanism (ISO dial) for a camera that will sell in lower numbers.

I get why one could argue it should be cheaper. But I also see the other side to the argument.

I just wish that this was the direction they went to originally...

 

[airfrogusmc]

A cool review
https://fstoppers.com/originals/defense-screenless-digital-leica-m-d-128158

 

[jaapv]

But why? LCDs aren't that expensive I would imagine.

At a guess: about 20$...

 

[jaapv]

And also it now requires a newly machined body case, with a new mechanism (ISO dial) for a camera that will sell in lower numbers.

That is indeed the reason. Plus different machining on the top plate and development costs amortized over a small number of cameras, etc.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

This may make sense if the body is thinner now. Is it? or how much thinner? Do you know?

 

[jsrockit]

This may make sense if the body is thinner now. Is it? or how much thinner? Do you know?

It is not any thinner.

 

[Godfrey]

This may make sense if the body is thinner now. Is it? or how much thinner? Do you know?

It is not any thinner.

It can't be.
But we've been around that May pole a few times already.

G

 

[jschrader]

if the film body wasn't thinner, nobody would care about the digital bodies being thicker. the solution: travel back in time and change the m3's size.

Bad idea. You might change history. The M3 might have got some 10% less sales because of the fat body and Leica went bankrupt long before the M5.

Todays M-D would seem thinner but there would be none.

 

[Ken Ford]

It is not any thinner.

From pics I think it *is* slightly thinner in the area where the screen would be, but the overall dimensions don't change because of the thumb hump. The thinner area (if it exists) isn't where a human would put their hand, so it's just cosmetic. Maybe left eye shooters with big noses can feel the difference. 😱

I would still love an M-D as a second body, but *that* ain't happening!

 

[jaapv]

The body itself is identical to the 240/9/8 in dimensions, but obviously lacks the protrusion of the LCD/buttons.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Actually its the M 262 that also has the stepped down top plate and a really quiet shutter like the 262.

 

[maggieo]

It's gorgeous, and as a left-eyed shooter, it'd be nice to not have to see a big smear of nosegrease on the screen. 😉

Too bad it doesn't come in silver.