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

Leica Monochrom 246 instruction book on the left, Leica M-D instruction book on the right. Both German and English are contained within each manual, so divide each in half for the actual size of the instruction manual.

 
I have always thought this sort of camera would be the only digital camera I would ever need - my only wish is they would of implemented some sort of wi-fi/iphone/android app to see photos when you needed to. I don't think I'd use that feature very often, but I could see using it for landscape or long exposures. For day to day people photos, or general travel photos, I don't think the screen would be necessary at all. I'm perfectly happy with how my M2 operates in those instances.

I have never used the eye-fi/transcend or wi-fi enabled cards before, would those work in a pinch with the M-D since it only shoots in RAW and no .jpg? Not exactly sure how the cards work..
 
Eye-Fi Pro cards will transmit raw files to a receiving device, but I found it too flakey a system to try to depend upon. It's easy enough to carry the SD card reader for my iPad and transfer files for viewing that way.
 
Godfrey,

Thats also a valid point - one that seems to works really well as far as I have read on the interwebs.

My only concern was in the field, so hiking someplace, backpacking, etc. Places I normally wouldn't carry an iPad or want to open the camera up to the elements. Again, I don't think this is something I, or maybe most people who find the M-D appealing, would use often - but it would be a nice feature to have.
 
jkjod said:
Godfrey,

Thats also a valid point - one that seems to works really well as far as I have read on the interwebs.

My only concern was in the field, so hiking someplace, backpacking, etc. Places I normally wouldn't carry an iPad or want to open the camera up to the elements. Again, I don't think this is something I, or maybe most people who find the M-D appealing, would use often - but it would be a nice feature to have.
Click to expand...

You can get a reader that works with iPhone or Android devices. I used an iStick when I was in Paris.
 
Out of curiosity, I was interested in comparing the dimensions of the M-D to a film M body, like the M6. I don't have an M6, but a little online searching revealed these measurements: 138 mm × 77 mm × 38 mm, 585g. I just measured and weighed the M-D's dimensions and came up with this: 138mm x 79 x 37mm, 696g. So yes, the M-D is just over 100g heavier than the M6, but look at those other numbers -- am I dreaming? Did I just measure the M-D to be thinner than the M6? Is this possible???? The M-D's instruction manual claims the body thickness is 42mm, but I have no idea how they come up with that. Even if I took the frame selector lever and the ISO dial into consideration, I'd only come up with just under 40mm.

Can someone please confirm the M6 dimensions for me? If these numbers are correct, then by gosh, the M-D is actually thinner than the M6 (I honestly can't believe that). I'm measuring the top and bottom plates, edge-to-edge, so perhaps that is not the 'proper' way to measure an M body (Do I need to also include the frame selector lever, ISO dial, eyepiece etc). Please do clue me in if that is not correct.
 
on the M6 weight, I think that may not include the weight of film.

I think film's about ~30g per 36exp canister, some variance depending on film type, so that would bring the functioning M6 weight to ~615g.

So the M-D weighs in at about ~80g more than an M6.

Or to put it another way, the M-D weighs the same as an M6 loaded with film and ~3 extra rolls of 36exp film in your pocket or bag.
 
maggieo said:
Without a screen, is there a way to input non-coded lenses? I like my Zeiss glass and old Leica glass.
Click to expand...

No, uncoded lenses cannot be coded. According to the instructions: "They (lenses) can be used regardless of lens features, and whether it does or does not have the 6-bit coding on the bayonet. In the case of lenses with coding, the camera uses the information transmitted to optimize exposure and image data. Even without this additional feature, i.e. when using Leica M lenses without identification, the camera will deliver excellent pictures in most situations."
 
Vince Lupo said:
Out of curiosity, I was interested in comparing the dimensions of the M-D to a film M body, like the M6. I don't have an M6, but a little online searching revealed these measurements: 138 mm × 77 mm × 38 mm, 585g. I just measured and weighed the M-D's dimensions and came up with this: 138mm x 79 x 37mm, 696g. So yes, the M-D is just over 100g heavier than the M6, but look at those other numbers -- am I dreaming? Did I just measure the M-D to be thinner than the M6? Is this possible???? The M-D's instruction manual claims the body thickness is 42mm, but I have no idea how they come up with that. Even if I took the frame selector lever and the ISO dial into consideration, I'd only come up with just under 40mm.

Can someone please confirm the M6 dimensions for me? If these numbers are correct, then by gosh, the M-D is actually thinner than the M6 (I honestly can't believe that). I'm measuring the top and bottom plates, edge-to-edge, so perhaps that is not the 'proper' way to measure an M body (Do I need to also include the frame selector lever, ISO dial, eyepiece etc). Please do clue me in if that is not correct.
Click to expand...


I think you must be mistaken somewhere. I have an M3, M7 and they are much thinner than the M240, which is just a little bit thicker than the MD. (only difference in thickness between MD and M240 is the lcd screen sticking out)
 
Vince Lupo said:
...
Can someone please confirm the M6 dimensions for me? If these numbers are correct, then by gosh, the M-D is actually thinner than the M6 (I honestly can't believe that). I'm measuring the top and bottom plates, edge-to-edge, so perhaps that is not the 'proper' way to measure an M body (Do I need to also include the frame selector lever, ISO dial, eyepiece etc). Please do clue me in if that is not correct.
Click to expand...

I measure the thickness of the body by the baseplate outside front to rear edge dimensions, 30.5mm for M4-2 and 36.5mm for M-P typ 240. The back surface of the body is a bit thicker on the M4-2 due to the way the film door fit (2-3 mm or so) and the M-P LCD and buttons similar add a few mm to the total thickness, although I try not to grip the camera in those locations. So overall the M-P is about 6-7 mm thicker than the M4-2; the latter is probably the same as the M6 or very close, and the M-D is probably the same as the M-P at the baseplate.

G
 
Huss said:
I think you must be mistaken somewhere. I have an M3, M7 and they are much thinner than the M240, which is just a little bit thicker than the MD. (only difference in thickness between MD and M240 is the lcd screen sticking out)
Click to expand...

Well I don't know what to say about this - unless my ruler is wrong!



Two online sources say the M6 is 38mm thick -- I am assuming now this is in fact not accurate. How are they coming up with that number? I know, I have a hard time believing that the M-D is thinner, but I can't find any other figures for the M6. Something ain't right....
 
flyingpalm said:
The M6 TTL is 32mm thick.
Click to expand...

Many thanks! Wonder where they're getting the 38mm measurement from? Very odd.

So the difference between the M6 and the M-D is between 4 and 5mm. The length and height seem more or less the same. Not too hateful, I think.

I'd say that if you were used to handling a film M body and you went immediately to the M-D body, you'd probably notice the difference. But, if you're like me (who hasn't touched a film M body in a while), you'd likely pick up the M-D and think that it felt just right. At least I did.
 
I just measured my M6...its about 33mm thick at the top plate..but when you add in the iso dial and rear door..its about 38mm and 590gm w/strap and no film.
Those digital Leicas are fat lil buggers..and heavy too..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom