Leica M-D: Pure for the sake of . . . purity?

[Godfrey]

Three from this morning's quick walk around the neighborhood.

Leica M-D typ 262 + Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4
ISO 400 @ f/4.8 @ 1/500


Leica M-D typ 262 + Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4
ISO 400 @ f/4 @ 1/3000


Leica M-D typ 262 + Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4
ISO 400 @ f/5.6 @ 1/500​

The more I use it, the more I like it!

enjoy! G

 

[Doug]

Very nice, gentlemen! How are you getting on with the "back to basics" user interface? Inhibiting at all? The apparent simplicity is attractive...

 

[Vince Lupo]

No not inhibiting at all. If anything, it's liberating.

 

[Godfrey]

Same here: not inhibiting at all. The M-D is exactly what I've been hoping for in a digital camera for years. There's nothing about the "user interface" that wouldn't be instantly recognizable to an M7 or even M6 owner, other than the lack of film.

It's at the opposite end of the spectrum from my SL, but is every bit as wonderful a camera.

G

 

[Vince Lupo]

BTW Godfrey I really like those last three shots you posted.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Frederick Porches by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[Sumolux]

Interesting thread and some great shots...
But I have a stupid question: doesn't the M-D have the same sensor as the M?
Apart from the interface questions (no LCD, etc.) shouldn't it give the same quality of pictures as the M?

I mean, people are discussing the 'colors' of shots with the M-D... So what is different about those colors compared to M ?? Apart from the experence of making the pictures, are we fooling ourselves here?

 

[Vince Lupo]

Interesting thread and some great shots...
But I have a stupid question: doesn't the M-D have the same sensor as the M?
Apart from the interface questions (no LCD, etc.) shouldn't it give the same quality of pictures as the M?

I mean, people are discussing the 'colors' of shots with the M-D... So what is different about those colors compared to M ?? Apart from the experence of making the pictures, are we fooling ourselves here?

I don't know what there is to 'fool' -- I'm going under the premise that the sensor is the same as the M (if it's not, please do correct me), and I can't compare the colours that the M-D is delivering relative to the M (as I don't have an M). I'm probably comparing it to what I get from my D4 and D800, and I quite like the colours that I'm getting out of the M-D. I guess it would follow that if it has the same sensor as the M, then I'd probably like the colours from that camera too. BTW I'm also pretty happy with the b+w images I can get out of the M-D.

I am definitely working differently with it than I am with my Monochrom 246, and I'm quite enjoying the experience (and I enjoy the 246 as well). And for me the 'experience' is definitely part of the equation, so I don't think I'm being 'fooled'. If I didn't enjoy the experience of using the camera, the final image quality wouldn't really make a difference. I had an Alpa 9d (actually two), and while it did deliver top-notch images with its Macro-Switar lens, I didn't particularly enjoy the experience of using it. Consequently, I sold the 9d after about a year of ownership.

I happen to like the M-D in its entirety - from its handling, appearance, use and results - and the fact that it's different than my Monochrom 246. And really, that's good enough for me.

 

[willie_901]

...
But I have a stupid question: doesn't the M-D have the same sensor as the M?
...

Which M are you thinking of?

The M-D sensor is completely different from the M9 variants. The sensor is similar to the M-240 sensor.

However a well-known Leica blogger reports:

"...I asked the Leica M product manager at Leica Camera AG, Jesko Oeynhausen, if it's the Leica M 240 sensor that is in the Leica M 262?

'It has the same image quality as the Leica M 240.' was the comforting, but also cryptic answer I got.

In the upcoming LFI magazine he adds a little more to the mystery in that he says in that interview that the sensor is 'technically different'.

So essentially Leica has not discussed the differences which may be trivial (post-acquisition electronics related to live-view or not (different sensor photo-diode bed, color filter array or IR filter).

None of this matters.

What matters is people enjoy the minimalistic experience of the M-D. Regardless of the brand or model I think people do better work using a camera they enjoy.

 

[Godfrey]

Interesting thread and some great shots...
But I have a stupid question: doesn't the M-D have the same sensor as the M?
Apart from the interface questions (no LCD, etc.) shouldn't it give the same quality of pictures as the M?

I mean, people are discussing the 'colors' of shots with the M-D... So what is different about those colors compared to M ?? Apart from the experience of making the pictures, are we fooling ourselves here?

...So essentially Leica has not discussed the differences which may be trivial (post-acquisition electronics related to live-view or not (different sensor photo-diode bed, color filter array or IR filter).

None of this matters.

What matters is people enjoy the minimalistic experience of the M-D. Regardless of the brand or model I think people do better work using a camera they enjoy.

The sensor and/or the sensor to DNG processing is demonstrably different between the M typ 240 and M typ 262—the same reference photo made with the same lens on both the M-P and M-D produce very similar but observably different results with the same settings. When you compare the two camera calibration profiles, they are different. They're not wildly different, but they are different.

Yes, it does not matter. And yes: the "minimalistic" experience of the M-D is why you buy this camera.

I wouldn't call the experience minimalistic. It is, after all, the same experience of using a Leica M that was the ONLY experience—closest to the M5/CL/M6 because it has a meter in it, closer yet to the M7 because of the aperture priority exposure automation—until the M8 surfaced. Focus, set exposure, frame, make photograph ... That's a pretty rich experience in my view. There's simply little in way of the distractions of setting up JPEG and camera operational parameters, that's all. You pick it up, turn it on, and go make photographs. 🙂

G

 

[Ken Ford]

I seriously considered an M-D when I recently bought my M-P, but it is missing one key feature that I feel it really should have - an EVF port. I've found the EVF-2 to be far superior to using optical VFs.

If I can ever justify having a second digital M (very doubtful) it would probably be an M-D.

 

[Godfrey]

I seriously considered an M-D when I recently bought my M-P, but it is missing one key feature that I feel it really should have - an EVF port. I've found the EVF-2 to be far superior to using optical VFs.

If I can ever justify having a second digital M (very doubtful) it would probably be an M-D.

Right now I have the M-D, the M-P, and the SL bodies. (An embarrassment of riches, I agree ...it won't stay that way for long.) I find that when I want to use something that needs TTL viewing, I *always* pick up the SL—it's the right camera for anything that I do needing a TTL viewfinder.

Since I bought the M-D, using the M-P makes it clearer to me what I didn't like about it: the large LCD and all the control buttons get in my way. I don't need them, and without them the M-D is far nicer to hold and use.

I basically use the M-D or M-P with just three lenses now (the WATE, a Summilux 35, a Summarit 75) and I don't bother with the EVF when using them on the M-P. I use an M for the rangefinder focusing and viewing (with the WATE I use a little Voigtländer 21/25 combination finder for framing).

The M-P will be sold soon, as will a very large array of other now-unused equipment. My future photography is revolving around use of the SL, the M-D, a couple of instant film cameras, and a Hasselblad SWC.

Personal choices, that's all.

G

 

[Vince Lupo]

I seriously considered an M-D when I recently bought my M-P, but it is missing one key feature that I feel it really should have - an EVF port. I've found the EVF-2 to be far superior to using optical VFs.

To each their own, but personally I don't think the camera needs an EVF port. Heck, the M3-M7 didn't have one, so I don't see why the M-D would need one (I'm going under the premise that the M-D is the digital offering which most closely emulates the experience of using those cameras). It would just add unnecessary complexity to the camera, in my opinion, and run counter to what I think is the essential purpose of the camera.

How about a Visoflex III instead 🙂

 

[Doug]

Opinions differ... a good thing! I have used the (Olympus) VF-2 on my M(240) and found it an unpleasant experience. I learned something there about seeing the subject and gained a better appreciation for optical viewfinders.

Having an EVF port on the M-D would seem to add versatility... but hold on a sec, that means it would have to feature live view as well, wouldn't it? With live view, maybe it should also have a rear LCD... 🙄 🙂

 

[Vince Lupo]

Opinions differ... a good thing! I have used the (Olympus) VF-2 on my M(240) and found it an unpleasant experience. I learned something there about seeing the subject and gained a better appreciation for optical viewfinders.

Having an EVF port on the M-D would seem to add versatility... but hold on a sec, that means it would have to feature live view as well, wouldn't it? With live view, maybe it should also have a rear LCD... 🙄 🙂

And video! Gotta have video!

 

[Godfrey]

Opinions differ... a good thing! I have used the (Olympus) VF-2 on my M(240) and found it an unpleasant experience. I learned something there about seeing the subject and gained a better appreciation for optical viewfinders.

Having an EVF port on the M-D would seem to add versatility... but hold on a sec, that means it would have to feature live view as well, wouldn't it? With live view, maybe it should also have a rear LCD... 🙄 🙂

Nope, don't need any of that on my M. Never used it when I had it. Other cameras do that stuff better.. I use them instead when I want that.

G

 

[Ruhayat]

Once they thin that body and create a digital M7, my wallet will really be in serious trouble. But only if the colour science is similar to what I keep seeing out of the Q.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Once they thin that body and create a digital M7, my wallet will really be in serious trouble. But only if the colour science is similar to what I keep seeing out of the Q.

You know how much thicker the body is? 4mm. Height and length are about the same. Try holding one first, then decide.

 

[willie_901]

Once they thin that body and create a digital M7, my wallet will really be in serious trouble. But only if the colour science is similar to what I keep seeing out of the Q.

A digital M will never be that thin. So your wallet is safe.

 

[Ken Ford]

To each their own, but personally I don't think the camera needs an EVF port. Heck, the M3-M7 didn't have one, so I don't see why the M-D would need one (I'm going under the premise that the M-D is the digital offering which most closely emulates the experience of using those cameras). It would just add unnecessary complexity to the camera, in my opinion, and run counter to what I think is the essential purpose of the camera.

How about a Visoflex III instead 🙂

Once you've gone EVF, inaccurate shoe mount OVFs are a letdown - or at least they are in my case. Then again, I've never liked accessory OVFs.