M Edition 60: the terrorists have not won

Dante_Stella said:
You're in the magic window where the Monochrom is that camera and it's not $10,000 yet. .... If you shoot the equivalent of 400 rolls of film, or 14,400 shots (easy to achieve in a year or two), it pays for itself in what you don't spend on film and processing (or film, chemicals and labor for doing it yourself).
Click to expand...

Actually, for the price of Monochrom one can easily buy 1300-2300 rolls of B&W film and chemicals. Depends on what film does one use. I just recently calculated that the amount what I am shooting annually my personal stuff (roughly one third of a 35mm roll per day, every day), for the price of a new digital M, I could get a used good condition M6 and film stock for at least 11-13 years. Those prices where counted for individual rolls, not 100ft bulk rolls.

Whatever happens in the world of "pro" digital cameras, I hope the trend of making tiny small cameras with a ton of tiny little buttons goes away. Recently tried the Sony A7 series cameras and really hated the compact camera feel of it. I would choose lcd-less M anyday over those Sonys.
 
Regarding the 240 metering, in fact it favors overexposure with 50+ lenses, spot on with 35s, and slightly underexposes with 28-.

I don't need an LCD to know that the metering is off. I don't use auto mode blindly and I keep an eye on the shutter speed all the time. If something is wrong I know it immediately.

One can shoot without LCD without any problems, unless someone lacks or lost his photographic skills. This is truly a problem in the digital age. I used to remember around 200 phone numbers in analog phone days, now I barely remember my own number. I used to memorize the right metering for every conceivable situation during manual exposure camera days, and when in doubt use an incident light reading. Now I just lost this skill, I can't remember anything. That is the real problem. Digital is turning us into idiots.
 
people who make a point of maintaining their photographic “integrity” by using some “less automated” form of digital
Click to expand...


I can't think of many digital cameras on the market that don't allow you to make this choice for yourself by rotating a dial from P or A to M .... and of course an LCD can be covered over with black tape or if you prefer some of Luigi's finest leather.

The M60 was a clever attention seeking move by Leica as pointed out ... I hadn't really thought of it this way but I have to agree. It was never meant for taking photos!
no.gif
 
And regarding the 240 metering ... I have mine set to centre weighted classic and find it as good as any of my SLRs incuding the OM-2 which I rate as having the best metering of any camera I've used.
 
VertovSvilova said:
As we know, E-6 film and digital capture have similar demands with exposure yet many of us have been using E-6 film successfully for decades. Bracketing was often employed when using transparency film, but it wasn't always possible depending on the situation.

e.g, I used only reversal film for a funded documentary project (thanks to the JP Getty Trust and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts) and did not have the luxury (events were unfolding too quickly in front of me) to be bracketing, checking exposure, or even looking at an LCD. I had no frames (out of hundreds of rolls) that were not useable. I think one gets to know their materials. And in commercial instances where time and big money are at stake, one did use Polaroid and performed snip tests with the film. There's no denying that the LCD is the equivalent of that, and that having it can be beneficial for sure. But nonetheless we lived without it for a long time and our production was still stellar (look at the history of images before digital.)

I have no horse in this race, but I don't think designing a camera (or any product) that attempts to make it more 'basic' and perhaps more tactile, etc., is always going to be a bad thing. Although in the case of this particular Leica camera it's really about the retail cost, its 'limited production run,' and what the real purpose behind it is all about. To discuss it in that way is interesting and it then becomes more about companies building limited specialty editions as an exercise and for marketing and publicity, etc.. But now you're morphing it into: "people get very hung up on the orthodoxy of tradition vs. stasis vs. progress." That's also interesting but it's a phenomenon not limited only to cameras (or even consumable products.) And using film cameras as an example, the Nikon F4 and the F5 was being built, sold, and used while the FM/FM2 (and also the Leica M6) film cameras were being built, sold, and used. And Contax was building and selling the S2 and S2b after they had introduced the RTS III. Car manufacturers have done the same thing (selling 'stripped down back-to-basic' versions and which have a higher price tag.) This is nothing new.

In your subsequent posts, you seem to be dwelling more the 'missing' LCD aspect of all this. I'm getting a bit perplexed about the article itself and the actual point behind it. Maybe it's more about "the importance of an LCD screen with digital capture."

But to be honest, cut out the fluffy language employed and there's not that much really being said in the article that we don't already understand.
Click to expand...

I wish you had written the article instead. What you have to say is more clearly expressed and interesting than the article itself.
 
VertovSvilova said:
Maybe it's more about "the importance of an LCD screen with digital capture."
Click to expand...
It appears so, and the premises seem to state that everyone works the same and the screen must be on the camera.

A screen is hugely important for my digital photography, too. That screen however stays on my desk. For some types of my photography, for example video work, it is important also on the camera.

I don't particularly need or want a camera without a screen. But given the current state of technology, I still wish to have a camera that gives me direct, uncompromised access to all exposure parameters. The common screen-centric design does not really deliver. The design of the Edition 60 is an improvement in this respect (although it lacks exposure compensation and automatic ISO, both of which can be quite useful, and is therefore also flawed).

There are many ways to tackle the problems that smaller screens or having no screen present. For a certain type of camera/photography, the functionalities related to the LCD screen are secondary. In such case, a design that accommodates the screen first is likely not optimal.
 
People that talked about this potential design wanted to see something thin with some sort of built in thumb rest like the film bodies, what they got was basically the same digital camera with the screen removed. I will stick to my M6 thanks.
 
VertovSvilova said:
fwiw, the first section of this article talks a bit about that phenomenon: http://leicaphilia.com/why-a-mechanical-film-camera-in-a-digital-age/
Click to expand...

The linked piece you referenced above (written by someone who clearly gets great satisfaction from his camera) is an entertaining read. To avoid dragging this thread sideways yet again, I'll stick to the first section.

Occam's Razor - not actually cited in any of its formulations - is not historically a principle of industrial design but one of epistemology. And the maxim is not quite that the simplest solution (or explanation) is always best. It is entia non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem - "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." The logical implication is that if there is a necessity, there can be complication.

The Leicaphilia writer doesn't get to digital camera feature sets (one vs. the other) because most of the piece is a critique of digital cameras (and digital photography). But assume the William of Ockham principle applies to industrial design too. You would still have to account for the necessitas - whether there is something functional that calls for complication. I would argue that an M6 might support all essential controls (and many people's needs) in film photography, but where the technical side of digital photography is not chemical but now a computational (and frequently a volume- or productivity-driven) exercise, it may well call for an interface that is more like a computer.

Digital pictures do not spring fully finished from sensors - image processing has to happen somewhere to stand in for film characteristics, development, and darkroom work. And if the most efficient or effective place to control/verify that process (in whole or in part) is at the time the picture is taken, then arguing that a camera should be stripped of the corresponding features comes off as arbtrary if not contrarian. All you are doing is moving the complication from a camera to the computer. There may be affective reasons for doing that; you might not have faith in your own ability to avoid distraction at the time of shooting. Were it me, I would rather spend less time in front of Lightroom.

The one point of this linked page that I completely agree with is that people get attached to their tools in a way that transcends their usefulness. That would keep you working with a film camera, but switching from a film M to a digital one is indeed changing tools. My Craftsman slot-head screwdrivers are constantly disappearing, and every time I buy a new one, it's exactly the same as the one lost. But though they serve some of the same goals, I don't demand that my cordless drill with a slot bit look or operate anything like that manual driver.

Dante
 
Article is pointing out the obvious and making incorrect assumptions on behalf of shooters--I would use the heck out of the M60 and would prefer it to the M240. The only good point it brought up was the lack of strap lugs, which I hadn't realized and makes little sense to me.

It's only a collectors item because it is so bloody expensive.
 
Samouraï said:
Article is pointing out the obvious and making incorrect assumptions on behalf of shooters--I would use the heck out of the M60 and would prefer it to the M240. The only good point it brought up was the lack of strap lugs, which I hadn't realized and makes little sense to me.

It's only a collectors item because it is so bloody expensive.
Click to expand...

The M Edition 60 is being provided as a limited-run kit with matched-styling lens and leather half-case; the half-case has the strap attachment points on it. The matched lens is what puts it into the hyper-expensive "collectible" position because you're buying a special edition body ($8000+), lens ($5500+) and half-case ($300+) along with the limited edition premium (about 30%).

If they start producing something similar as a standard production run, I'd bet you will be able to buy the body for around $8000 and it will have strap lugs like the standard M type 240.

I don't know whether I'd buy one ... but I like the concept. Unfortunately, I'd tend to cheap out and buy the M-P for its greater versatility.

G
 
Samouraï said:
Article is pointing out the obvious and making incorrect assumptions on behalf of shooters--I would use the heck out of the M60 and would prefer it to the M240. The only good point it brought up was the lack of strap lugs, which I hadn't realized and makes little sense to me.

It's only a collectors item because it is so bloody expensive.
Click to expand...

I think that is the point of why it would not be shot - it's only available (and replaceable) as a set costing $20 grand, and they are only making 600. It's also made of stainless steel, which though pretty is far more prone to scuffing than chrome. If it were priced like a Typ 240, it would probably sell more and to people who might use them - but it's unlikely that it would be priced that way because it lacks economies of scale.

Dante
 
I have to admit that I can't fathom why anyone would buy an expensive digital camera that is purposely crippled. I understand that this is a collector's item, but it's a silly sort of collector's item. The Ive Leica M made more sense as a limited-production gadget to stick in a display case.

Randy
 
zauhar said:
I have to admit that I can't fathom why anyone would buy an expensive digital camera that is purposely crippled. I understand that this is a collector's item, but it's a silly sort of collector's item. The Ive Leica M made more sense as a limited-production gadget to stick in a display case.

Randy
Click to expand...

It's all very amusing.

- People on this forum descry that Leica is abandoning film with all these digital cameras. So Leica announces the M-A film camera ... and people here slams it.

- People on this forum whinge and whine that they want an utterly basic, simple digital M—no LCD, no JPEGs, just focus, sensitivity, shutter, aperture. So Leica announces the M Edition 60 ... and people here slam it.

- People on this forum descry that there are few affordable Leicas and just want a modestly priced Leica digital camera with simple controls and a 35mm lens. So they make the Leica X ... and people here slam it as being "too far behind the times, not enough features, too expensive" etc etc.

Someone else said it first, but Leica announcement time is without a doubt "the divisive moment."

If I win a lottery, I'll buy an M Edition 60 and see how good it is to use.

G
 
Godfrey said:
It's all very amusing.

- People on this forum descry that Leica is abandoning film with all these digital cameras. So Leica announces the M-A film camera ... and people here slams it.

- People on this forum whinge and whine that they want an utterly basic, simple digital M—no LCD, no JPEGs, just focus, sensitivity, shutter, aperture. So Leica announces the M Edition 60 ... and people here slam it.

- People on this forum descry that there are few affordable Leicas and just want a modestly priced Leica digital camera with simple controls and a 35mm lens. So they make the Leica X ... and people here slam it as being "too far behind the times, not enough features, too expensive" etc etc.

Someone else said it first, but Leica announcement time is without a doubt "the divisive moment."

If I win a lottery, I'll buy an M Edition 60 and see how good it is to use.

G
Click to expand...


it's like that on any forum. The nikon folks slam Nikon. The Canon folks slam Canon. I'm hoping that all these special edition models all sell out fast and Leica decides to put this puppy because of that into full production and have it maybe replace the current ME and at a price point lower than the M240. I would buy one. Maybe two.
 
The M-A was a terrific idea and in the years to come everyone will recognize that Leica was trying to stay true to its roots.

Likewise I think that the Edition 60 could be a wonderful idea, if it actually reaches production. Right now it is really just a collector camera. Maybe some of the ideas in that camera will make their way into actual production cameras. Until then it is only speculation.

What I personally find exciting about Leica right now is their willingness to step outside the box. A small, full frame, digital in the M9. A digital rangefinder with a monochrome sensor with the MM. An M with video and live view with the Type 240. An M film camera with no meter at all in M-A. And now a digital M with no LCD in the Edition 60. I know they are all expensive, but the sheer fact that they exist at all is pretty fascinating. You gotta admit, for a company that is so tied to their traditions, this is all pretty innovative. :)
 
Pioneer said:
The M-A was a terrific idea and in the years to come everyone will recognize that Leica was trying to stay true to its roots.

Likewise I think that the Edition 60 could be a wonderful idea, if it actually reaches production. Right now it is really just a collector camera. Maybe some of the ideas in that camera will make their way into actual production cameras. Until then it is only speculation.

What I personally find exciting about Leica right now is their willingness to step outside the box. A small, full frame, digital in the M9. A digital rangefinder with a monochrome sensor with the MM. An M with video and live view with the Type 240. An M film camera with no meter at all in M-A. And now a digital M with no LCD in the Edition 60. I know they are all expensive, but the sheer fact that they exist at all is pretty fascinating. You gotta admit, for a company that is so tied to their traditions, this is all pretty innovative. :)
Click to expand...

Never mind the superlative S system, the innovative T system, and the X1/X2/X-E and X at the low end (and without getting into the debate on the V-Lux and D-Lux cameras at all). I agree, Leica is doing a great job of broadening their offerings and stepping up to the need for ongoing innovation within the framework of sensible traditions.

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