Leica M Edition 60

[Lss]

But if an AE mode is provided, why not do it properly and include an exposure compensation control? Either not do it at all, or do it right.

Of course. This is the one design choice that I don't understand about this camera. Every other change vs. the Leica M is a good/bad design decision based on one's criteria and viewpoint, but having AE and no exposure compensation just makes very little sense.

Perhaps they were simply lazy or someone forgot to order proper shutter speed dials in time.

 

[pmu]

The idea of LCD-less Leica is fantastic, the simplicity is super appealing. But because we are talking about a digital camera, I would want 15-16 stops of dynamic range before feeling comfortable shooting and _knowing_ that I nailed the exposure close enough. There is nothing as ugly as overexposed highlights in digital files...

I guess / hope it is just a matter of time when 16 stop dynamic range becomes reality.

 

[ian_watts]

The idea of LCD-less Leica is fantastic, the simplicity is super appealing. But because we are talking about a digital camera, I would want 15-16 stops of dynamic range before feeling comfortable shooting and _knowing_ that I nailed the exposure close enough.

Have you not shot with transparency film? Less latitude than a CMOS sensor and considerably less DR. I used the stuff for years before getting a digital camera and don't remember having problems nailing the exposure.

 

[Calzone]

If you look at the MTFs of modern Leica lenses, they are really obviously designed for a 43mm image circle (diagonal of 24 x 36mm rectangle) — no more, no less.

With the same image circle you can cover a square 30.6 x 30.6 mm. That is not really a major gain over a 24 x 24mm crop. Only about 25%.

Hence, there is no way you will ever see a 36 x 36 sensor from Leica.

Worth noting, though, is that Leica made a masked, wide-format, black-and-white S2 for Josef Koudelka:

Thanks for your response, your explaination, and your insights.

Cal

 

[Godfrey]

It does but, interestingly, it doesn't seem to allow for any way of setting exposure compensation (eg. by way of an exposure compensation control surrounding the ISO setting dial; a la the M7). This may or may not be of significance to anyone wanting to take a photo with the camera 🙂eek🙂 but might be something to re-consider if a "production" version of a screenless digital were being contemplated.

...Mike

I pointed this out either way up-thread here or on another forum.

A simplistic way around the issue would be to implement AE-Lock with the shutter release half-press, the way the M9 and M (Type 240) have it. Focus, point to the area you want to represent the right metering, lock the value, reframe and make the exposure. Switch to manual exposure when you need more persistent and precise control.

It's basically how I used my Nikon FE2 and F3 when using auto exposure for years. It's not as convenient as having an exposure compensation dial, but in some ways it works as well or better. (Biggest problem with an exposure compensation dial is that you often forget it's set and inadvertently over/under expose.) The half-press AE-Lock has worked well for decades. 🙂

G

 

[Godfrey]

yesterday I had my first look into a Fuji X-E1 EVF. Compared to a good optical finder, it is lightyears behind (in my opinion).

But digital Leicas are unaffordable for an amateur. To skip all the unneeded things from a digital Leica to 1) give it less that can break and make the camera unusable and 2) to make it cheaper would be so welcome.

Give us the equivalent to an M6 with a b&w film!!!!!

But not to make it more exclusive but more affordable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:bang:

EDIT: I do not mean I cannot afford if. It is only that I end up with a price of 10 Euro per printable photo in the long run, calculating my number of shots per year, success rate, and the durability of a digital device

The Fuji X-E1 EVF is well behind the times compared to the Olympus E-M1, Fuji X-TI, or Sony A7/r/s EVFs. The Olympus finder is the best of them, currently, with the best optics and most sophisticated auto-adaptive brightness control. I often forget the E-M1 is using an EVF, it's that good.

As I wrote up-thread, I have had many digital cameras and have made 300,000+ exposures with them over the course of the past twelve years. My Leica M9, purchased in 2012, has recorded over 17,000 exposures (for those who are counting, that would be about 475 rolls of TX135-36, something I've never achieved with a Leica film camera). My Olympus E-1 is now a decade old, has made over 20,000 exposures, and is in perfect, as-new working order. NONE of them have ever suffered a single fault. Meanwhile, every mechanical, film camera I've bought that is more than 10 years old has required cleaning, lubrication, and repair. Some weren't repairable to "as new" since the parts were no longer available. So I feel the supposedly limited "durability of a digital device" meme is pure myth. Many digital devices around my home are 20 years old and still working flawlessly...

All cameras are complex, high precision machines. All complex, high precision machines can break. The fewer moving mechanical parts they have, the more robust they tend to be. For instance, when my last Nikon FE2 started over-exposing, I brought it to shop and had it inspected and repaired. What was wrong? A tiny bit of dirt/dust had gotten into the shutter rails and was slowing the curtains, there was nothing wrong with the shutter timing regulator since it was all electronic. The most common reason for mechanical shutters to need service is that the slow-speed shutter regulator gets gummed up and needs to be cleaned, lubed, and recalibrated.

Leica is trying to give you that ...equivalent to an M6 with a b&w film... but most of what I read on this and so many other RFF threads is that whenever Leica produces something similar to what people here have voiced as their true desire, they get slammed for specious reasons like "oh, it costs too much", "oh, it doesn't have strap lugs", "oh, it doesn't have an exposure compensation dial"—'scuse me, but my M4-2 and M6TTL don't have an exposure compensation dial either; my Nikon FE2 and F3 did but it was too much trouble to use. It never bothered me.

Personally, the more I look at the M Edition 60, the more I would like one. But I'm not wealthy enough to pay for both a second 35mm lens AND the 30% limited edition kit price premium (essentially a third 35mm lens). Or at least, I don't want to pay that tax (I can actually afford to). I'd like Leica to produce this camera as a body-only, standard production piece in black paint finish. If they did, I'd order one tomorrow. As it is, I might even go for one anyway, but I'm more likely to buy the standard M-P and save a bunch of money.

Sorry for the morning rant. It's been a regular Photokina Week feature, I think. ;-)

G

 

[maitani]

handled it at photokina quite extensively, best camera of the fair, feels fantastic, a pity it's so limited and priced so high, i hope leica puts this into series production with another leatherette sooner or later, I'd buy it immediately.

the camera eliminates the flimsy part of the M240 (where dial is worse than on M9/monochrome etc) jumps back and forth in the menus.
build is fantastic, feels like the M7 in operation, if you press the small button besides the button release it shows you the remaining space on the memory card (number of shots left) inside the viewfinder, where the shutter speed is displayed, also there is no way to format the memory stick in the camera.
the iso dial on the back is the best, viewfinder has a standard >0< M7esque display.
so it's feels like a true 'digital M7' although a bit thicker and noisier..

 

[mfunnell]

The half-press AE-Lock has worked well for decades. 🙂

G

And is how I use AE more often than not, especially when working quickly. But exposure compensation does have it's uses and may be someone's preferred way of operating. That makes it's absence worth noting and also a little difficult to understand in that all other Ms with AE, from the M7 on, have incorporated it. With AE and compensation it's a digital approximation of an M7; with no AE it would approximate an MP. As is it seems a bit neither fish nor fowl.

...Mike

 

[pmu]

Have you not shot with transparency film? Less latitude than a CMOS sensor and considerably less DR. I used the stuff for years before getting a digital camera and don't remember having problems nailing the exposure.

Yeah sure, I have shot some slides. Overexposed parts in slide film are million billion times nicer than overexposed parts in digital files. IMO of course.

I am still missing those times when I shot B&W film. I used to overexpose and underdevelop. No worries of having blown out highlights, almost ever. After all these years, I still don't like to shoot with digital mainly because of having to be so careful not to blow out the highlights. That is why I would like to have higher dynamic range if the camera does not have LCD.

 

[jaapv]

The idea of LCD-less Leica is fantastic, the simplicity is super appealing. But because we are talking about a digital camera, I would want 15-16 stops of dynamic range before feeling comfortable shooting and _knowing_ that I nailed the exposure close enough. There is nothing as ugly as overexposed highlights in digital files...

I guess / hope it is just a matter of time when 16 stop dynamic range becomes reality.

How on earth are you going to print 16 stops of DR?😕
You'll be lucky to get half onto paper.
15 - 16 does not make any sense, nor did any film ever spawned get that far. For all practical purposes it is 12-13, the same as the Monochrom, M240 and some other high-end cameras.
Negative film has indeed a gentle roll-off in the highlights, but it will block up the shadows abruptly, digital is just the other way around. A simple matter of adapting your exposure technique.

 

[Turtle]

This is completely ridiculous. I have installed thick felt curtains over my Monochrom display, so that the LCD is visible only when I want it to be. Unfortunately, when photographing in high winds, I sometimes catch an unwelcome glimpse, but otherwise it works just fine and leaves ME in control. 😉

 

[pmu]

How on earth are you going to print 16 stops of DR?😕
You'll be lucky to get half onto paper.
15 - 16 does not make any sense, nor did any film ever spawned get that far. For all practical purposes it is 12-13, the same as the Monochrom, M240 and some other high-end cameras.

I didn't day that I want to print 16 stops of DR. I said I would want it to make the exposing easier and to help to get information into shadows AND to avoid ALL clipping of the highlights. I don't care too much about shadow details and that's why I rather underexposure than use the ETTR method. Underexposure saves me from the highlight clipping headache. Bigger dynamic range = everything gets easier.

12-13 stops is the current limit, because that is what they are able to get out of those sensors, not because that is all what is needed or wanted. There's hundreds of digital images online shot with pro digital cameras with ugly blown out / clipped highlights. I personally hate that look.

I hope this becomes reality: http://petapixel.com/2013/06/11/fuj...ensor-boasts-insane-14-6-stops-dynamic-range/ Pair that with LCD-less M like body and I am all in.

 

[Calzone]

I think with proper exposure everything gets easier.

For me not exposing to the right adds digital artifact and contributes to generous use of post processing as a crutch. I find blown highlights less disturbing than the overuse of post processing to "rescue" images.

Why not perfect proper exposure and minimize post processing AMAP? Learning proper exposure is not hard for optimum results. Shooting digital requires precision.

Cal

 

[pmu]

I think with proper exposure everything gets easier.

Sure. I salute all of you who can always nail it... I admit that I don't always nail it without looking at the LCD if the lightning conditions are very difficult (for example: theater stage with extreme light contrast and constantly changing lights and colors).

EDIT: As it happens, the keeper rate in difficult shooting situations is clearly higher with My D800 than D3. The reason: 2 stops better dynamic range.

 

[Godfrey]

I think with proper exposure everything gets easier.
...
Why not perfect proper exposure and minimize post processing AMAP? Learning proper exposure is not hard for optimum results. Shooting digital requires precision.

Exactly. Proper exposure means knowing and understanding the dynamic range of the recording medium as well as its sensitivity. Know what to expect out of a scene at any given ISO setting. Learn how to set exposure so as not to clip highlights or send the shadows into noise and mess. It's not too hard but it does take some effort to learn.

It's how I shoot all the time. Only the best exposures make the best prints, and I hate spending too much time processing my photos. Most of the digital photos I've posted have taken less than 30 seconds to process, with little to no sharpening or noise filtering, and I haven't found any of my customers complaining about poor dynamic range, noisy shadows, or blown highlights. Works with any camera.

G

Leica X2 - ISO 400 @ f/8 @ 1/160s​

 

[Turtle]

Yes, but perfect exposure with low-speed trees is not the same ball game as sometimes high-speed street photography where lighting and opportunities are measures in seconds or fractions thereof. This is why with the MM you have a choice of either significantly underexposing most frames so as not to clip highlights in those few where there is no time to introduce accurate negative compensation. In scenic application, of course one can expose perfectly for each frame with any camera, including multiple exposures and blending in post, if required (as it often is with Canon cams).

When shooting film, my entire technique revolved around never losing shadows as highlights rolled off nicely and could be dealt with in development to some extent. Increasing overexposure was not really an issue, but I agree that with digital once you are blown you are blown. However, if there is not enough time to get each shot right, one can introduce negative compensation and adjust exposure in post. Sure, you lose some quality, but usually very little and is more than made up for by being slick and quick and thus having more interesting frames committed on your card. The more DR your camera has, the more readily one can strategically place exposure with little penalty during adjustments in post.

Perfect exposure is nice in theory, but is rarely the whole solution when doing demanding 'fast' work. Smart metering is now more important than ever before as some cameras are far better at ensuring they never clip than others. This is the MM's main failing: the metering is a far bigger issue than the lack of highlight recovery, because if the cam adjusted exposure down enough, you could just lift exposure and hold highlights in post!

 

[Godfrey]

Yes, but perfect exposure with low-speed trees is not the same ball game as sometimes high-speed street photography where lighting and opportunities are measures in seconds or fractions thereof. ...

/dripping_sarcasm_on
Gosh, you make it sound as if street photography was invented five weeks ago and is only achievable with the latest and greatest of super high resolution, automated exposure expanding magic gizmos to achieve the maximum detail and dynamic range that will express the pain and mortality of the subjects' pores.

I guess Walker Evans instructions ("1/60 second on the sunny side of the street, 1/20 second on the shady side") don't cut it, and Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and all those other losers with their simple cameras that had nothing but ASA 10 film, focus, shutter time, and aperture just can't meet your modern needs.
/dripping_sarcasm_off

"Perfect exposure" is not a technical measure. It is what works for the photograph. Street photography is successful if the photograph connects the viewer to gesture, expression, and the moment ... maximum dynamic range and pin-prick detailing is way down the list of what makes street photography work.

... When shooting film, my entire technique revolved around never losing shadows as highlights rolled off nicely and could be dealt with in development to some extent. Increasing overexposure was not really an issue, but I agree that with digital once you are blown you are blown. However, if there is not enough time to get each shot right, one can introduce negative compensation and adjust exposure in post. ...

You simply need to learn the new medium of a digital sensor and become as facile with its characteristics and with the image processing tools and techniques as you are/were with film medium and its processing. This allows you to achieve perfect exposure, even though it will be different from perfect exposure settings for your film camera.

The scene below lasted a total of about 5 seconds ... the sun parted on a relatively overcast day for just a few moments before sundown and cast this blindingly strong light into the cafe. I had the X2 on manual focus, manual exposure mode, and had been exposing for the rather subdued light in the cafe. IN a split second, I spun up the aperture, reset the focus, and made one exposure ... which in my estimation, was right on the money.

Leica X2 - ISO 2000 @ f/7.1 @ 1/30 s​

The print required nothing other than that I apply my standard LR preset and touch up the highlights. About 8 seconds work and no degradation in quality.

G

"The only things that are impossible are the things you are convinced you cannot do."

 

[jschrader]

As I wrote up-thread, I have had many digital cameras and have made 300,000+ exposures with them over the course of the past twelve years. My Leica M9, purchased in 2012, has recorded over 17,000 exposures (for those who are counting, that would be about 475 rolls of TX135-36, something I've never achieved with a Leica film camera). My Olympus E-1 is now a decade old, has made over 20,000 exposures, and is in perfect, as-new working order. NONE of them have ever suffered a single fault.

My problem is, I am just a part-time amateur. I do some 20 to 30 films a year at present. That does not justify an MM (which I would like to have) even if it would work for 15 years.

It is not their fault, I know. They try to survive just making cameras. They are doing the best then can, I know.

It is just the world that is wrong

 

[Godfrey]

My problem is, I am just a part-time amateur. I do some 20 to 30 films a year at present. That does not justify an MM (which I would like to have) even if it would work for 15 years.

It is not their fault, I know. They try to survive just making cameras. They are doing the best then can, I know.

It is just the world that is wrong

Think positively: It sounds like an MM would last you for the remainder of your life if you bought one. What's wrong with that? ]🙂

BTW, you shoot about 10x as many photos per year as my mother used to (her average was three) and she considered herself an enthusiastic photographer. She used a Kodak Retina IIIb for at least 20 years. All a matter of perspective...

G

 

[Emile de Leon]

Throw some strap lugs on it..as well as the A7s sensor..and while your at it Leica..put in the A7s silent mode shutter..and I don't care how much you charge for it..I'm in..