M9: Do you want a dust reduction system?

[Lord Fluff]

Umm.. Leica offers a professional service for M cameras, has done so for years - if you are a professional that has bothered to register with them. Have a look at their website. I think the Leica representative was misunderstood in this case.
Professional service with Leica means 48-hour turnaround door to door - and a loaner if that target cannot be met.

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]

...
If I'm being a Luddite, so be it. But if you want an M to still be an M, then at some point you'll have to leave well enough alone. Otherwise , you might as well buy another brand of camera...
...

So what makes an M an M?

 

[Paul Luscher]

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]

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]

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]

people will find all sorts of what seem like rational reasons for buying stuff when in reality the purchase is purely driven by want and can and not need.
For example, smokers will rationalise smoking. Rolls Royce owners may say they only bought it for its quietness but do you really believe that is the driving force (pun intended) behind the buying decision? Personally I don't and I rekon Roger must know an awful lot of Rolls Royce owners for his statement to have any validity. It's as rational smoking. You buy stuff, any stuff except food, out of pure want rather than need. That is why advertising is so effective. It is a purely psychological reponse driven out of conditioning. For most of us anyway, unless we actually engage our brains which is a rarity. And most of us, even those who like to think we have engaged our brains can rationalise anything to suit our wants rather than our needs.
For what its worth I don't think dust removal system is a necessity. Regular cleaning will suffice and you'll have to clean it anyway as you don't want your camera full of accumulated dust which is easily shaken up. Might be a nice to have though and it will save me lots of post dust removal except that I'm going to have to check the whole image anyway if doing a careful job which kind of kills that little rationalisation.

So why are you celebrating Christmas? If the answer is because you are a Christian then fair enough. Everyone else celebrating will give all sorts of reaons none of which have any validity except to suit themselves.

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]

So what makes an M an M?

That is actually a philosophical question, and an excellent one. It gets right to the philosophy of camera design.

 

[Paul Luscher]

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.....

 

[Nikon Bob]

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

 

[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.
...

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]

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.

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.

 

[Nikon Bob]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Well.. at least IS would make the camera thicker - I think that would be a nono for most users.

 

[tlitody]

Well.. at least IS would make the camera thicker - I think that would be a nono for most users.

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

 

[jaapv]

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

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.

 

[Ben Z]

Highlight 1:

Look at it this way.

Most people have cars.

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

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.

 

[jaapv]

From what I can find in their website it says nothing about a loaner and the service offered doesn't include warranty repairs. i.e. If it takes 6 weeks it takes 6 weeks and no come back.
Methinks there are different levels of service in different parts of the World.

No - you have it wrong...