Lord Fluff
Established
I am looking at their website.....
Could you please point me to where they offer professional support on the M system and I will register right now....
dfoo
Well-known
So what makes an M an M?
Paul Luscher
Well-known
dfoo: Well, sir, your question reminds me a little of the phrase "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford to own one." If you have to ask what makes an M an M, well then....
kevin m
Veteran
dfoo: Well, sir, your question reminds me a little of the phrase "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford to own one." If you have to ask what makes an M an M, well then....
Why the sarcasm? It's a good question, and one I'd wager the engineers at Leica have spent long hours contemplating: What makes an M an M even though the film is gone?
dfoo
Well-known
dfoo: Well, sir, your question reminds me a little of the phrase "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford to own one." If you have to ask what makes an M an M, well then....
Great reply! In other words you don't really know.
According to you adding a dust removal system and IS makes an M not an M. That makes no sense to me. An M, to me, is dictated by the ergonomics of the camera and the lenses. Something passive such as IS, and dust removal (and even focus confirmation for that matter) has nothing to do with that and therefore does not reduce the M'ness of the camera.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1:
Look at it this way.
Most people have cars.
If you can afford one, and want a large, comfortable, quiet car, why not an RR? I think I'd prefer a Bristol, but as I can't afford either, any answer would be meaningless.
Not, however, quite as meaningless as the statement that the only reason to buy an RR is to show off. No doubt some do. Maybe most. But the RR owners I've known -- which is not many -- tend to regard them as nice cars. The point is, I've known none who buy them to show off. 'Advertising'? Not in most cases. Knowing other RR owners; driving an RR; counts for more than advertising. I've also had at least two friends who ran RRs as tools of their trade (undertakers on the one hand and wedding cars on the other).
A lot of it comes down to whom you know personally, and how they present their arguments. I'm not pretending that my sample is statistically significant, but I'd still say it's more significant than a sample of zero -- unless you personally know people whom you are sure bought them to show off.
Highlight 2: well, food... and clothing... and heating oil or gas or wood... and some way of cooking your food... and, actually, if you live in the country where there's no public transport, some means of private transport... and...
Cheers,
R.
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
That is actually a philosophical question, and an excellent one. It gets right to the philosophy of camera design.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Dfoo & Zlatko: Damn, boys, don't take this all so seriously! It's beginning to sound like Photo.net in the bad old days. Let's just say we can agree to disagree.
I think you might be misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying I'm against ANY improvement in the M design--certainly the move to digital was a big step--certainly one I was thankful for....
I'm just saying we have to be careful HOW FAR we go with with "improving" the M camera. I WOULD SAY the essence of a Leica M is a small, quiet, relatively SIMPLE camera that leaves much of the work of picture-taking up to the photographer--and which is focused (ahem) manually by means of the unique process of a rangefinder (will that do for you for starters, dfoo?).
What I am saying is that beyond a certain point in makng so-called improvements, what you do is lose the basic characteristics of an M that make it worth having, at least to an M photographer.
When you reach that point, whatever it is, you simply have another camera altogether...Kinda like demanding that a lean and mean manual shift motorbike be "improved" into something like those Honda Goldwings I see with all the junk on them, right up to a (very loud) stereo system....
That's where I see this: I love my DSLR and all the conveniences it has. BUT Leica appeals to a certain type of shooter, who is happy to do without all the bell and whistles your DSLR has. And it would be a shame if the M lost it's appeal--and its essence--because of constant demands for "improvements, improvements, improvements..."
As the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions..." And I'm sure you guys mean well. But just be careful how far we go with it.
'Nuff said.....
I think you might be misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying I'm against ANY improvement in the M design--certainly the move to digital was a big step--certainly one I was thankful for....
I'm just saying we have to be careful HOW FAR we go with with "improving" the M camera. I WOULD SAY the essence of a Leica M is a small, quiet, relatively SIMPLE camera that leaves much of the work of picture-taking up to the photographer--and which is focused (ahem) manually by means of the unique process of a rangefinder (will that do for you for starters, dfoo?).
What I am saying is that beyond a certain point in makng so-called improvements, what you do is lose the basic characteristics of an M that make it worth having, at least to an M photographer.
When you reach that point, whatever it is, you simply have another camera altogether...Kinda like demanding that a lean and mean manual shift motorbike be "improved" into something like those Honda Goldwings I see with all the junk on them, right up to a (very loud) stereo system....
That's where I see this: I love my DSLR and all the conveniences it has. BUT Leica appeals to a certain type of shooter, who is happy to do without all the bell and whistles your DSLR has. And it would be a shame if the M lost it's appeal--and its essence--because of constant demands for "improvements, improvements, improvements..."
As the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions..." And I'm sure you guys mean well. But just be careful how far we go with it.
'Nuff said.....
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Maybe it would be better if somebody, other than Leica, brought a FF mirrorless interchangable lens camera with a good EVF offset to the left to the market. That would allow people who are more amenable to change to have a rangefinder like experience at a greatly reduced cost. I don't think that such a camera need be much larger, if at all, than the M9. That would leave the M9 to the dedicated M users who do not seem to be too interested in a lot of change.
Bob
Bob
dfoo
Well-known
I don't disagree with that fundamental premise. What I do disagree with is that the addition of a dust reduction system (and IS and even focus confirmation) would cause those basic characteristics to be lost.
tlitody
Well-known
And I suppose colour saturation control and switching between B+W or colour without using film and choosing raw for greater dynamic range or header processing don't lose the basic characteristics of an M. If you were the purist you would have us beleive you wouldn't be using a digital M at all. You can't have it both ways. A digital bears little resemblance to the basic characteristics of a film M. At least not if you are rationalising with your brain in gear.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Maybe Leica have done it right after all. Introduce new technology in small incrimental steps so as not to panic their traditional user base with too much too soon. You don't want the loyal customer base snivelling about having too much tech. Eveyone has a limit as too how much change they will tolerate at anyone time.
Bob
dfoo
Well-known
The hilarious thing is what actionable change would a dust reduction system and in-body IS add? Its not a new button the user would have to press. Its not a new feature the user would have to use/activate. Its something passive that makes the images (more) dust-free and allows less shake at lower shutter speed.
tlitody
Well-known
I'm all for IS. I can take or leave the dust removal. I don't think it should be necessary but wouldn't object to it..
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well.. at least IS would make the camera thicker - I think that would be a nono for most users.
tlitody
Well-known
Why? the thing has only been out a short while and everyone accepted it as it was when it came out without complaint. And it wasn't the same as film Ms. Its a digital camera not an M in the "True" sense. Now its set in stone and musn't be touched. If they were so purist they wouldn't have accepted it. But no they all wanted digital and took whatever was thrown at them without regard for its Mness or purity. And now it mustn't be changed at any price its so perfect. LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I guess you weren't around on the forums when it came out - the screams of outrage at the thickess are still echoing in Solms.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ben Z
Veteran
And that's why I think the analogy with Leica fails. Just about everyone knows what a Rolls is. But very few people on the street know that an M9 is a $7K current digital camera. The odds of conveying your wealth and discriminating taste through carrying an M9 around, are a whole lot slimmer than by driving around in a Rolls. In fact, most of the time people think my M9 is a quaint old relic, and by association, that so am I. Not my definition of a status symbol.
Likewise, had I bought my 911 to show the world I've got money and taste, I clearly made the wrong choice, because when strangers see me in it they most likely take me for a pitiful old has-been who's desperate to impress young women.
Honestly, I think assuming and implying that those who own expensive things do so for the status symbolism, is more telling of the person assuming and implying than it is of the people they're judging.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ben,
I am sure you are right on all counts.
The things that impress young women never cease to amaze me. My favourite was a girl (well, 27-year-old) who came up to me at a party on the 90s and said, "I like your teeth" (there's quite a lot of gold in my mouth). She had brilliantly coloured hair and rode a Harley...
EDIT: It's really an a fortiori argument about RRs and Leicas. Probably quite a lot of RR owners buy RRs because they're good cars. Probably even more M9 owners buy M9s because they're good cameras.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No - you have it wrong...