Godfrey
somewhat colored
Why? Particularly on a forum where a big percentage of the folks are supposedly avowed film camera users, using the M-D is no different and quite a lot easier.
If you've ever made photographs with a Leica M film camera, it works exactly the same except that you don't use film and you can control the ISO on a shot by shot basis. And you can see the results within moments of mounting the card onto your computer with no processing fuss ... Just open them in your OS specific viewer or Lightroom or whatever. The M-D 262 sensor has both more dynamic range and more latitude than most film does, and its raw files have tremendous amounts of adjustment headroom too.
What is the big deal? I'm completely mystified.
G
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Similar to Godfrey's analysis, I don't really regard the absence of a screen as necessarily being any big controversy (though I certainly put the screens to full use on all my other digital cameras). Film cameras don't have a screen, so are people who use them more concerned about the process than the results?
I think - just my opinion - that some Leica folks wanted to get closer to a 'flim-like' experience in the physical use of the camera (yet with the convenience of digital), and Leica responded with "Ok, you want the film-like experience? Then we'll take away the screen! And we'll charge you $900 more for the privilege!". Perhaps the additional cost (over the 262 at the time) is where the controversy resided.
Personally, I always told myself that my abilities had to measure up to this special camera (and really for any camera I've owned). Maybe that's why I bought this camera -- to personally challenge myself with a camera like this AND still be able to make meaningful imagery. The thing I really like about this camera is that, for me, the technology gets out of the way and I can better 'focus' on what is actually in front of me. I know I haven't always been successful with the M-D, and my photos in this entire thread are maybe a bit more 'snapshot' than say, a more dedicated and singular project like my 'Mapping the West' series (which has been primarily done with the Monochrom cameras). And that's fine. However, I kinda resent (however slightly) the suggestion that my or anyone else's use of this camera comes down more on the side of the 'process' and use of this screenless digital rather than on the final results that come from it (although I suspect that we all choose particular cameras for - among other things - their handling, appearance and yes, 'process'). I'm assuming that's what was being intimated in that earlier post.
I've used so many cameras over the last 41 years that I've certainly lost track of most of them. For example, I had two Alpa 9d cameras and one Alpa 6c -- loved the results but hated the usage/process. Same thing with any of my large format cameras -- great results, but at times a pain to work with (don't ask me about the Seneca 5x7 or the Toyo 45D). Same with the process of platinum-palladium printing -- beautiful results (mostly!), but very time-consuming and not something I personally feel like going back to doing (I'll add gum bichromate to the list too).
I've been pretty happy with the M-D -- so much so that it's made my Monochrom 246 the #2 camera in that department. I'm all for constructive critiques of imagery and would love advice on how I can personally improve what I'm doing -- after all this time, I know there's still a lot to learn. So if there's something more than blanket statements about people who use this particular camera, let's hear it.
I think - just my opinion - that some Leica folks wanted to get closer to a 'flim-like' experience in the physical use of the camera (yet with the convenience of digital), and Leica responded with "Ok, you want the film-like experience? Then we'll take away the screen! And we'll charge you $900 more for the privilege!". Perhaps the additional cost (over the 262 at the time) is where the controversy resided.
Personally, I always told myself that my abilities had to measure up to this special camera (and really for any camera I've owned). Maybe that's why I bought this camera -- to personally challenge myself with a camera like this AND still be able to make meaningful imagery. The thing I really like about this camera is that, for me, the technology gets out of the way and I can better 'focus' on what is actually in front of me. I know I haven't always been successful with the M-D, and my photos in this entire thread are maybe a bit more 'snapshot' than say, a more dedicated and singular project like my 'Mapping the West' series (which has been primarily done with the Monochrom cameras). And that's fine. However, I kinda resent (however slightly) the suggestion that my or anyone else's use of this camera comes down more on the side of the 'process' and use of this screenless digital rather than on the final results that come from it (although I suspect that we all choose particular cameras for - among other things - their handling, appearance and yes, 'process'). I'm assuming that's what was being intimated in that earlier post.
I've used so many cameras over the last 41 years that I've certainly lost track of most of them. For example, I had two Alpa 9d cameras and one Alpa 6c -- loved the results but hated the usage/process. Same thing with any of my large format cameras -- great results, but at times a pain to work with (don't ask me about the Seneca 5x7 or the Toyo 45D). Same with the process of platinum-palladium printing -- beautiful results (mostly!), but very time-consuming and not something I personally feel like going back to doing (I'll add gum bichromate to the list too).
I've been pretty happy with the M-D -- so much so that it's made my Monochrom 246 the #2 camera in that department. I'm all for constructive critiques of imagery and would love advice on how I can personally improve what I'm doing -- after all this time, I know there's still a lot to learn. So if there's something more than blanket statements about people who use this particular camera, let's hear it.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You said that very well.
The only points I would differ on is that the M-D is actually the digital Leica M I wanted all along ... simple, direct, and easy to use. I never needed an LCD and a half a dozen buttons on an M before—I don't need them now. The M-D gives me exactly what I wanted from the beginning in a digital camera.
The price premium is a controversy for a limited run camera that took a significant bit of retooling, reprogramming, and documentation effort from the base model to produce? I find that ridiculous. Of course it's more expensive—all limited edition products are. It doesn't matter whether you're adding features or removing features, it costs money on top of the base line model to produce a special edition. If you find that abhorrent, well, don't buy it. It's that simple.
I'm more than happy with the M-D: It's my favorite M camera, of all the Ms I've owned. It's not the universal "Do everything, Be everything, Be tiny and light, Be cheap" camera that everyone seems to want ... It's just what I believe an M ought to be: a solid, simple, basic camera with great lenses that disappears in my hands and lets me think of what I'm shooting rather than what I'm shooting with. I don't need, or want, aids and conveniences, gizmos and features when I'm using it. I need vision and the usual intelligence of a photographer to see and understand light, know how to make exposure settings and focus settings, and to know when to push the button. That's all.
G
The only points I would differ on is that the M-D is actually the digital Leica M I wanted all along ... simple, direct, and easy to use. I never needed an LCD and a half a dozen buttons on an M before—I don't need them now. The M-D gives me exactly what I wanted from the beginning in a digital camera.
The price premium is a controversy for a limited run camera that took a significant bit of retooling, reprogramming, and documentation effort from the base model to produce? I find that ridiculous. Of course it's more expensive—all limited edition products are. It doesn't matter whether you're adding features or removing features, it costs money on top of the base line model to produce a special edition. If you find that abhorrent, well, don't buy it. It's that simple.
I'm more than happy with the M-D: It's my favorite M camera, of all the Ms I've owned. It's not the universal "Do everything, Be everything, Be tiny and light, Be cheap" camera that everyone seems to want ... It's just what I believe an M ought to be: a solid, simple, basic camera with great lenses that disappears in my hands and lets me think of what I'm shooting rather than what I'm shooting with. I don't need, or want, aids and conveniences, gizmos and features when I'm using it. I need vision and the usual intelligence of a photographer to see and understand light, know how to make exposure settings and focus settings, and to know when to push the button. That's all.
G
D&A
Well-known
This is of course my personal perspective. For those of us who grew up in the film era, if a camera like the M-D 262 came along as a first itineration of a digital camera, sort of a camera that bridged the gap between film cameras and full fledged digital cameras, I think it would have been viewed as a natural progression of things. Essentially a film camera (in operation) where the sensor and capture of the image replaced the film cassette and subsequent developing. Many same basic principals we applied to capturing a successfully exposed image and the care and techniques we applied when using film, would basically be followed with the M-D 262. That's aside from concentrating on composing the image.
The novelty to some and uniqueness to others regarding the M-D 262, is that it came along many years after the development of the digital camera and thus hawks back to the days of film cameras for some, not only removing the distractions of the myriad of buttons and dials and options of todays digital cameras, but the more deliberate planning and concentration of image capture above most else.
It would be not very different if we took any consumer product, and strip it down to its basics and mimic a good deal of the technology (in terms of operation and capabilities) of it's predecessors from an earlier era. It just so happens this camera (the M-D 262) came along when it did as opposed to being the very first 1st digital M camera, before the advent of rear LCD screens and other technological choices and advancements we find on digital cameras today.
Although I admire the M-10 series of cameras, I sometimes think the additional features and capabilities added to the M10-D is a bit akin to what Leica did to the M240, adding all sorts of additional capabilities to a M camera, that many found un-necessary and unwanted and thus offered the regular production M-262 and eventually the original M10.
Interestingly, although achieved easier with an iPhone, I did manage to find an easy way to remove the SD card from the M-D 262 and quickly view all the images from the M-D 262 on my Android phone, including viewing exposure and enlarging any portion of the image for sharpness. Its still different though than unloading options that a M10-D camera is capable of as a traditional digital camera, and simply making them available on ones cell phone.
I too find the M-D 262 a pleasure to use for all sorts of reasons, but basically does introduce a bit of sanity, and might I say tranquility back to the picture taking process but still retaining the ability to capture digital images.
Dave (D&A)
The novelty to some and uniqueness to others regarding the M-D 262, is that it came along many years after the development of the digital camera and thus hawks back to the days of film cameras for some, not only removing the distractions of the myriad of buttons and dials and options of todays digital cameras, but the more deliberate planning and concentration of image capture above most else.
It would be not very different if we took any consumer product, and strip it down to its basics and mimic a good deal of the technology (in terms of operation and capabilities) of it's predecessors from an earlier era. It just so happens this camera (the M-D 262) came along when it did as opposed to being the very first 1st digital M camera, before the advent of rear LCD screens and other technological choices and advancements we find on digital cameras today.
Although I admire the M-10 series of cameras, I sometimes think the additional features and capabilities added to the M10-D is a bit akin to what Leica did to the M240, adding all sorts of additional capabilities to a M camera, that many found un-necessary and unwanted and thus offered the regular production M-262 and eventually the original M10.
Interestingly, although achieved easier with an iPhone, I did manage to find an easy way to remove the SD card from the M-D 262 and quickly view all the images from the M-D 262 on my Android phone, including viewing exposure and enlarging any portion of the image for sharpness. Its still different though than unloading options that a M10-D camera is capable of as a traditional digital camera, and simply making them available on ones cell phone.
I too find the M-D 262 a pleasure to use for all sorts of reasons, but basically does introduce a bit of sanity, and might I say tranquility back to the picture taking process but still retaining the ability to capture digital images.
Dave (D&A)
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Vince, this is particularly pertinent testimony about your conclusive odyssey through other processes and products. If it keeps me alone from venturing into exotic expensive as-yet-unvisited territories (oxygen-starved heights of Alpa, Palladium with its irritating tour guides, the dread swamp of Gum, those vast emptinesses demarcated only as 8x10 or 5x7 where you need a Land Rover to haul your necessaries), you’ve done your work for the day.
It’s the new year, with its quiet throes of reassessment. I’ve been reconsidering certain envies (Gear X I do not own, Process Y I have not tried, based on what Person Z has produced with X or Y) and their skewed relation to my desires and talents and skills and fulfillment. I know increasingly well what I can do with the gear I have, because I’m the oldest and wisest I’ve ever been; yet I also contain all the selves I ever was—dreamy desirous boy, arrogant scornful young man, the pageant of cherished self-deceiving illusions—and so still prone to the allure of the unowned, the untried. And having reached a point of financial security and free time where I can afford indulgences, the real work now is assessing limits to impose on X and Y as defined above so I can be unfettered as possible in getting the best from the gear and processes I know best.
This is not about constraining lifelong learning, in other words—I enjoy letting my dreamy interior boy borrow the M-D to find out whether it can record what he imagines—but about recognizing (resisting, rejecting) dilettantism, even when it can use the same gear or process that art uses. And once we know what we want, what we live for, is art, we should know that our gear and processes are the tech crew setting the stage for a production of perfectly lit and framed moments of life on earth. Nothing more, nothing less.
In that sense, the gear and the process are immaterial, pertinent really only to those who master them and answerable to their masters—not to sly or superficial questioners, perpetual skeptics, dilettantes insecure in themselves or for whom vision means nothing. I do not mean to single out any person; everyone contains these tendencies and defaults; relatively few get far enough beyond them to the serene space like the one Godfrey inhabits, where image-making and gear and process and an engaging, reasoned perspective about all this contribute to a right-sized life.
In any case, I’m here because I’m indebted to certain visions and wisdoms, and because I like the ambiance and conversation in this particular little internet cafe. Time for breakfast! Cheers.
It’s the new year, with its quiet throes of reassessment. I’ve been reconsidering certain envies (Gear X I do not own, Process Y I have not tried, based on what Person Z has produced with X or Y) and their skewed relation to my desires and talents and skills and fulfillment. I know increasingly well what I can do with the gear I have, because I’m the oldest and wisest I’ve ever been; yet I also contain all the selves I ever was—dreamy desirous boy, arrogant scornful young man, the pageant of cherished self-deceiving illusions—and so still prone to the allure of the unowned, the untried. And having reached a point of financial security and free time where I can afford indulgences, the real work now is assessing limits to impose on X and Y as defined above so I can be unfettered as possible in getting the best from the gear and processes I know best.
This is not about constraining lifelong learning, in other words—I enjoy letting my dreamy interior boy borrow the M-D to find out whether it can record what he imagines—but about recognizing (resisting, rejecting) dilettantism, even when it can use the same gear or process that art uses. And once we know what we want, what we live for, is art, we should know that our gear and processes are the tech crew setting the stage for a production of perfectly lit and framed moments of life on earth. Nothing more, nothing less.
In that sense, the gear and the process are immaterial, pertinent really only to those who master them and answerable to their masters—not to sly or superficial questioners, perpetual skeptics, dilettantes insecure in themselves or for whom vision means nothing. I do not mean to single out any person; everyone contains these tendencies and defaults; relatively few get far enough beyond them to the serene space like the one Godfrey inhabits, where image-making and gear and process and an engaging, reasoned perspective about all this contribute to a right-sized life.
In any case, I’m here because I’m indebted to certain visions and wisdoms, and because I like the ambiance and conversation in this particular little internet cafe. Time for breakfast! Cheers.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Ko shut off all the + and - stuff and meter the snow. Just the snow and open up two stops. If your meter is working properly that should put the snow at Zone VII. If that is still to hot stop down a stop.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Vince nicely put. I totally get the M-D. And as shown by you, Godfrey and many other here can be a wonderful tool in the right hands. Good work everyone here and keep'm come'n. I can only lurk here but this is a very inspiring thread.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Great thoughts from all. Robert I always appreciate your ruminations, maybe one day we might actually sit in a cafe and have that breakfast!
But I think it finally dawned on me what the fatal flaw is with this overpriced and silly camera, and truly with this Leica M-D thread in its entirety. I'm surprised that I hadn't realized it until now, yet this particular recent discussion has finally brought this unfortunate and, quite honestly, embarrassing aspect of this whole endeavour to light.
Not enough cat photos.
Backyard Millie 2018 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
But I think it finally dawned on me what the fatal flaw is with this overpriced and silly camera, and truly with this Leica M-D thread in its entirety. I'm surprised that I hadn't realized it until now, yet this particular recent discussion has finally brought this unfortunate and, quite honestly, embarrassing aspect of this whole endeavour to light.
Not enough cat photos.
Backyard Millie 2018 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
airfrogusmc
Veteran
ZM 35/2, ND .9
These are just wonderful Robert. Love the light and tone and I also like the color shot with the two trees above those two wonderful B&Ws.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
And an excellent one to fill in the lack. Bravo!
I tend to prefer seagulls, however ...
Leica M-D + Summicron-M 50mm f/2
ISO 320 @ f/5.6 @ 1/1500
enjoy!
G
Vince Lupo
Whatever
robert blu
quiet photographer
I always appreciate going through this inspiring thread, thanks for posting your photos and your thoughts.
I fully understand the concept of a screenless digital M. If I had not already the M10 I would go for one, but I cannot justify an additional digital M ! By the way I always like to go out with only one camera! And I do not like the idea to replace the M10 being that an anticipated present from my wife for my 70th birthday!
In fact unless in very difficult and un unusual light situation I almost never chimp when I use the M10.
Please go on posting photos and ideas ! Thanks
robert
PS: never say never! Maybe one day I'll have one...
I fully understand the concept of a screenless digital M. If I had not already the M10 I would go for one, but I cannot justify an additional digital M ! By the way I always like to go out with only one camera! And I do not like the idea to replace the M10 being that an anticipated present from my wife for my 70th birthday!
In fact unless in very difficult and un unusual light situation I almost never chimp when I use the M10.
Please go on posting photos and ideas ! Thanks
robert
PS: never say never! Maybe one day I'll have one...
mcfingon
Western Australia
That M10-D looks tempting robert. Maybe next Wetzlar visit, just after the lottery win...
John Mc
John Mc
D&A
Well-known
Holiday Time at the Train Station (#2)
Leica M-D 262; VC 28mm f1.9
*** Please Note: Link below is to posted pic loaded in RRF Gallery. Thanks!
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/9795/U9795I1548171486.SEQ.0.jpg
Dave (D&A)
Leica M-D 262; VC 28mm f1.9
*** Please Note: Link below is to posted pic loaded in RRF Gallery. Thanks!
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/9795/U9795I1548171486.SEQ.0.jpg
Dave (D&A)
MCTuomey
Veteran
I don't have an MD, but I've read this thread and appreciated the work with a particular mindset. Now, I ride bicycles as much as I can, just love it. The mindset I mention is how I regard fixed gear riders ... with a mixture of awe and admiration. Minimal equipment, maximum output. Bravo, MD users!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Many thanks Mike -- however I kinda regard fixed-gear riders on the street with a sense that, well, they might have a death wish! Does that make any difference?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I dunno about fixies and riding them on the street ... Not for me, I'm too old for that kind of stuff. I do cycle nearly every day, typically between 10 and 20 miles, but my obsession is to ride the street with a nicely tailored Fatbike.
I do carry a camera with me on the bicycle more and more ... it switches off between a Polaroid SX-70, the Leica M-D, the Light L16, and the Leica CL depending upon my mood and what I'm after on a given day. I find I only stop to make one or two photographs on a ride, typically. And when I'm cycling, I'm even more extremely minimal about what I'm carrying than when I'm doing a walkabout ... weight and bulk are anathema.
Personally, I don't see much different about using the M-D vs using nearly any other camera. I rarely "chimp", in fact I rarely change any settings much other than focus. As I've said before in the thread, it's just a very nice camera to me, and not very different from cameras that I've been shooting with since 1968. That's what I like about it.
(BTW: thank you for the nice compliment rhl!)
The mention of the M10-D in the context of the M-D is interesting. I was kind of annoyed about what Leica did with the M10-D, considered as a follow-on to the M-D, until I realized something which I think is essential: It's not supposed to be a camera in the same minimalist notion at all! The M-D, and the Millennium Edition 60, were minimalist in the sense of trying to honor the introduction of the M3 back in 1954 ... the ME60 proved very successful as a limited commemorative set but a lot of folks (like me) didn't want to pay the commemorative premium for the box set with special finish, etc. Leica recognized that and produced the M-D as a limited edition for us, a very minimalistic model but with standard production finish, neck strap lugs, etc.
The M10-D is a different take: It's a full featured M10 that gives the handling feel of the minimalistic camera in use by offloading the LCD and button controls/ configuration options to a smart phone. Considered from that perspective, it gives some nice pluses to the user who wants the in-use feel and handling of the M-D but also wants to be able to use an EVF, get JPEGs out of the camera, and so forth. It has some limitations, of course, since you have to manipulate its configuration with a separate device, but if you have occasional need only for the EVF or whatever, and want the M-D's handling, it seems an interesting alternative.
Whatever... I'm totally happy with my M-D and have no desire to change it for anything else. If I get a very big windfall anytime, then I'd consider adding an M10-D to my kit for the new sensor, the better viewfinder, and the EVF access ... but I doubt that is going to happen.
G
shawn
Veteran
You could always get a Luigi case with the back cover and never open it for almost the same thing with the M10. I do that with the M240 and really only open it to change lens coding or check battery level. The M10 is even better with the ISO dial.
Stitch it closed if you feel like you would be tempted to use it for more than that.
Shawn
MCTuomey
Veteran
Many thanks Mike -- however I kinda regard fixed-gear riders on the street with a sense that, well, they might have a death wish! Does that make any difference?
Not at all, Vince, I have to work on my analogies
I dunno about fixies and riding them on the street ... Not for me, I'm too old for that kind of stuff. I do cycle nearly every day, typically between 10 and 20 miles, but my obsession is to ride the street with a nicely tailored Fatbike.
Yeah, so true, Godfrey - not quite Fat-scale, my bike wears 2.8 inchers. Easy on the my old joints, gotta say.
D&A
Well-known
Not at all, Vince, I have to work on my analogies
Yeah, so true, Godfrey - not quite Fat-scale, my bike wears 2.8 inchers. Easy on the my old joints, gotta say.
I went the other way. When much younger, most of my riding was on Mt. bikes...both single track/technical as well as cross country riding. Slowly I gravitated over to road bikes, where I actively ride as much as I can. All good though, especially when one takes a camera along.
Dave (D&A)