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

I'm liking your flower and cat photos, but yes: you need to get out more. Just as I do. Been too busy... :-\
 
I had an interesting conversation just now with my Leica 'pusher' regarding the M-D. Prior to his having received any cameras, he thought the concept of this camera was a bit silly and didn't think it was going to be a good seller.

He has since been really surprised by the number of people who are interested and subsequently purchasing this camera, and believes that Leica has definitely tapped into something (maybe much like the Monochrom did?). He's shipped out a lot more M-Ds than he thought he would!
 
If it wasn't for the cost, I wouldn't mind getting one, unlike the Nikon Df. I think Leica did the right thing with this model.

PF
 
Vince Lupo said:
I had an interesting conversation just now with my Leica 'pusher' regarding the M-D. Prior to his having received any cameras, he thought the concept of this camera was a bit silly and didn't think it was going to be a good seller.

He has since been really surprised by the number of people who are interested and subsequently purchasing this camera, and believes that Leica has definitely tapped into something (maybe much like the Monochrom did?). He's shipped out a lot more M-Ds than he thought he would!
Click to expand...

Vince, I think that the MM and now this camera are so different and in my opinion a breath of fresh air compared to the gadget heavy alternatives that are what dominate camera world now. Those that have the more options mentality that want more gadgets on their camera instead of less ( like me) don't get it. And thats OK. They certainly have plenty of options already. Now folks like me that want something that doesn't push us farther away from the process now have some options to. I really like the idea off this camera and glad it is selling.
 
Godfrey said:
That doesn't mean that I'd want to buy one, however.

There's nothing wrong with it, but in looking at it and handling it I found I wasn't the least bit interested in owning or using one.

G
Click to expand...

Well of course... I can say the same thing about 99.9% of cameras that are out there. But for all of the flack the Df gets, it's actually a pretty nice camera. But then again, so is the M-D.
 
jsrockit said:
Well of course... I can say the same thing about 99.9% of cameras that are out there. But for all of the flack the Df gets, it's actually a pretty nice camera. But then again, so is the M-D.
Click to expand...

Yeah I liked the Df too -- I was really tempted by it, but in the end decided to stick with the Nikons I already have.
 
jsrockit said:
There is nothing wrong with the Df.
Click to expand...

I for one think it looks too cluttered, like they just stuck buttons in every open space they could find. It just didn't feel right in my hands, and what I was hoping for with all the hype that led up to its introduction was something more like a Nikkormat, not a D610 crammed into a smaller body.

PF
 
farlymac said:
I for one think it looks too cluttered, like they just stuck buttons in every open space they could find. It just didn't feel right in my hands, and what I was hoping for with all the hype that led up to its introduction was something more like a Nikkormat, not a D610 crammed into a smaller body.

PF
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get what you mean, but once you get over the fact that it doesn't feel like or look like Nikon film cameras, it is still the closest a DSLR has come to being like a pre-F4 type of camera. The fact that Lieca made the M-D may help other brands take a chance and go further towards a DSLR camera we all can like.
 
Not a lot different between those two Joes. :)

It's much as Egor's testing way back when the MM246 came out showed: at modest ISO settings, there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between an M typ 240, an MM9, and an MM246. The MM246 does better when you get up into the stratospheric ISO range ... ISO 6400 and beyond.

You're making me want to push the button and order an M-D, ya know? This isn't good for my financial health...

G
 
Godfrey said:
Not a lot different between those two Joes. :)

It's much as Egor's testing way back when the MM246 came out showed: at modest ISO settings, there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between an M typ 240, an MM9, and an MM246. The MM246 does better when you get up into the stratospheric ISO range ... ISO 6400 and beyond.

G
Click to expand...

I find the difference quite evident at base ISO with the 246 -- it is much cleaner than the MM9. Almost too clean in fact. Better shadow detail and highlight rendering than the MM9. And I'm comparing this on 11"x16" prints, not on the computer's screen.

It's interesting, but when I did those two shots of Joe today, I first took the M-D photo. Just focus, click. Then I took the Monochrom shot -- oh wait a sec, I have to change the ISO to match the M-D. Hit the ISO button, then adjust the ISO. Oops, I have to go through the menu to set something else, wait a sec Joe.......you get the idea.
 
Vince Lupo said:
I find the difference quite evident at base ISO with the 246 -- it is much cleaner than the MM9. Almost too clean in fact. Better shadow detail and highlight rendering than the MM9. And I'm comparing this on 11"x16" prints, not on the computer's screen.

It's interesting, but when I did those two shots of Joe today, I first took the M-D photo. Just focus, click. Then I took the Monochrom shot -- oh wait a sec, I have to change the ISO to match the M-D. Hit the ISO button, then adjust the ISO. Oops, I have to go through the menu to set something else, wait a sec Joe.......you get the idea.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. I had an MM246 on order for a long time, gave up and cancelled, then bought the SL instead. It was the right move for me.

And regards the M-D ... yup. And sigh.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom