CSG123
Established
I'm quite tickled, so far, with my 43 year old M4 and 53 year old DR Summicron. Not sure I'd buy a Leica digital camera unless it was one of the Panasonic made P&S versions. I own an LX3 and like it quite a bit. Has a nice lens. 
Last edited:
ruslan
Established
i'll be more happier if my digital rangefinder will be manufactured by Canon with M mount or even M39 mount.
Howarthp
Member
It took Leica 10 weeks to realign the rangefinder which I find unacceptable. Initially Photokina was the cause of the delay but it then took an additional 5 wks to fix.
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I'm only speaking for film as I don't care for digital.
I am happy with my Leica M2 (with original seal) because it is what I expect. A fine sensual artifact of exquisite manufacture that still works perfectly today.
I am not happy with Leica when I use my Zeiss Ikon because I realize how much better Leicas could be. The ZI should have been done by Leica.
All the competitors to Leica show the many ways the rangefinder & M system can be improved. And there is still a lot more room to explore.
I think the true hurdle to Leica's innovation is not their imagination, but their user base that has a very specific idea of what a Leica can and cannot be.
I would love to see all the sketches and ideas Leica engineers have had over the years in ways to improve the M line that never made it to production.
I am happy with my Leica M2 (with original seal) because it is what I expect. A fine sensual artifact of exquisite manufacture that still works perfectly today.
I am not happy with Leica when I use my Zeiss Ikon because I realize how much better Leicas could be. The ZI should have been done by Leica.
All the competitors to Leica show the many ways the rangefinder & M system can be improved. And there is still a lot more room to explore.
I think the true hurdle to Leica's innovation is not their imagination, but their user base that has a very specific idea of what a Leica can and cannot be.
I would love to see all the sketches and ideas Leica engineers have had over the years in ways to improve the M line that never made it to production.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Desr Martin,
I'm not arguing, but I'd be interested to see your specific suggestions for improvements. I own Leica, ZI and Voigtländer, and I can't quite see how "All the competitors to Leica show the many ways the rangefinder & M system can be improved. And there is still a lot more room to explore." Some improvements, possibly. Lots of improvements: I think not.
Cheers,
R.
morback
Martin N. Hinze
Dear Roger,
"A lot more" might indeed be an exaggeration, but I like to think there are people out there with ideas bigger than mine and a drive to see them come to life...I also believe that in 2010 (today) we can fit (some) additional technology in a 1950s body's dimensions.
As you have noted yourself there are too many variables as to what constitutes an improvement based on each person's experiences and preferences, for example: Is AE good or bad? Small or big shutter dial?
Well, here are a few things I know of (I'm by no means a reference) that exist already and that I think would improve user experience (the ones I consider important are bolded):
+variable magnification viewfinder depending on the mounted lens (Contax G, Canon)
+single framelines (Contax G, Canon, ZI)
+big eyeglass-wearer friendly viewfinder, ie. Let me see 35mm frames with my glasses on! (ZI, at .74 and not .58)
+field of view compensating framelines (Konica iiia)
+film canister window (would save the M7 the 2second boot-up sequence and frustration with the film speed reader)
+easy exposure compensation dial (ZI, Contax, Bessa, Hexar, CL/CLE)
+easy AE lock (these last two points seem to be a direct result of using a body made in the age of non-electronics and trying to fit new features in a body not made for it)
I'm leaving things out that I don't necessarily care for (auto load/wind —I actually like loading my M2—, high flash synch/top shutter speed, flash sockets not poking left-eyed shooters in the forehead, autofocus with manual override, ect...) or duplicates (backlight compensation switch as in the Contax G and Contax T would be a sub category of exposure compensation).
The improvement I can see?
+LED assisted framelines when in the dark
+focus distance indicators / dof
I have a feeling Leica has exploited all there is from this M body shape. Some idiosyncrasies of the M7 seems to indicate that, and the full loop back to the origin with the MP might be a confirmation of that feeling...But, I'd love to be proven wrong with the next film M (or something really new?) release...
"A lot more" might indeed be an exaggeration, but I like to think there are people out there with ideas bigger than mine and a drive to see them come to life...I also believe that in 2010 (today) we can fit (some) additional technology in a 1950s body's dimensions.
As you have noted yourself there are too many variables as to what constitutes an improvement based on each person's experiences and preferences, for example: Is AE good or bad? Small or big shutter dial?
Well, here are a few things I know of (I'm by no means a reference) that exist already and that I think would improve user experience (the ones I consider important are bolded):
+variable magnification viewfinder depending on the mounted lens (Contax G, Canon)
+single framelines (Contax G, Canon, ZI)
+big eyeglass-wearer friendly viewfinder, ie. Let me see 35mm frames with my glasses on! (ZI, at .74 and not .58)
+field of view compensating framelines (Konica iiia)
+film canister window (would save the M7 the 2second boot-up sequence and frustration with the film speed reader)
+easy exposure compensation dial (ZI, Contax, Bessa, Hexar, CL/CLE)
+easy AE lock (these last two points seem to be a direct result of using a body made in the age of non-electronics and trying to fit new features in a body not made for it)
I'm leaving things out that I don't necessarily care for (auto load/wind —I actually like loading my M2—, high flash synch/top shutter speed, flash sockets not poking left-eyed shooters in the forehead, autofocus with manual override, ect...) or duplicates (backlight compensation switch as in the Contax G and Contax T would be a sub category of exposure compensation).
The improvement I can see?
+LED assisted framelines when in the dark
+focus distance indicators / dof
I have a feeling Leica has exploited all there is from this M body shape. Some idiosyncrasies of the M7 seems to indicate that, and the full loop back to the origin with the MP might be a confirmation of that feeling...But, I'd love to be proven wrong with the next film M (or something really new?) release...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Martin,
+variable magnification viewfinder depending on the mounted lens (Contax G, Canon)
+single framelines (Contax G, Canon, ZI)
+big eyeglass-wearer friendly viewfinder, ie. Let me see 35mm frames with my glasses on! (ZI, at .74 and not .58)
+field of view compensating framelines (Konica iiia)
+film canister window (would save the M7 the 2second boot-up sequence and frustration with the film speed reader)
+easy exposure compensation dial (ZI, Contax, Bessa, Hexar, CL/CLE)
+easy AE lock (these last two points seem to be a direct result of using a body made in the age of non-electronics and trying to fit new features in a body not made for it)
Fair enough. I won't argue with the desirability of any of that. I will however raise a couple of practicality issues:
The Contax isn't an RF camera, and therefore has no RF window. Changing both the viewfinder and the rangefinder patch is a non-trivial problem.
The IIIa (I had one) 'solves' the problem by moving only the outer framelines, and leavng the inner framelines fixed. Good -- but arguably not better than the Leica approach. As far as I recall the Linhof Tech 70 moves both, and compensates for frame size reduction. But look at the size of a T70 finder...
LED assists, yes, without hesitation, unless the window lights up like a Chrismas tree. LED as a substitute (as in the Titan), coming on only when you touch the shutter release, a thousand times no.
Hardly anyone used the DoF indicators when they existed -- I suspect that this, rather than cost-cutting, was why they were dropped -- and autofocus obviously involves a major change (and slower, less reliable focus, in my view).
As I say, I don't disagree for a moment that there's room for improvement. I just have deep suspicions as to whether it's possible without turning an M into a bloated parody of itself, like the BMW Mini, or simply a poor imitation like the 'new' Beetle. Like you, I'd love to be proved wrong.
Cheers,
R.
+variable magnification viewfinder depending on the mounted lens (Contax G, Canon)
+single framelines (Contax G, Canon, ZI)
+big eyeglass-wearer friendly viewfinder, ie. Let me see 35mm frames with my glasses on! (ZI, at .74 and not .58)
+field of view compensating framelines (Konica iiia)
+film canister window (would save the M7 the 2second boot-up sequence and frustration with the film speed reader)
+easy exposure compensation dial (ZI, Contax, Bessa, Hexar, CL/CLE)
+easy AE lock (these last two points seem to be a direct result of using a body made in the age of non-electronics and trying to fit new features in a body not made for it)
Fair enough. I won't argue with the desirability of any of that. I will however raise a couple of practicality issues:
The Contax isn't an RF camera, and therefore has no RF window. Changing both the viewfinder and the rangefinder patch is a non-trivial problem.
The IIIa (I had one) 'solves' the problem by moving only the outer framelines, and leavng the inner framelines fixed. Good -- but arguably not better than the Leica approach. As far as I recall the Linhof Tech 70 moves both, and compensates for frame size reduction. But look at the size of a T70 finder...
LED assists, yes, without hesitation, unless the window lights up like a Chrismas tree. LED as a substitute (as in the Titan), coming on only when you touch the shutter release, a thousand times no.
Hardly anyone used the DoF indicators when they existed -- I suspect that this, rather than cost-cutting, was why they were dropped -- and autofocus obviously involves a major change (and slower, less reliable focus, in my view).
As I say, I don't disagree for a moment that there's room for improvement. I just have deep suspicions as to whether it's possible without turning an M into a bloated parody of itself, like the BMW Mini, or simply a poor imitation like the 'new' Beetle. Like you, I'd love to be proved wrong.
Cheers,
R.
I had a Nikon S3-2000, and just sold it. Lovely exquisitely made collectors' item, IMO. Even giving allowance for the 1958 design, it had awkward compromises that might have been avoided. Could be its best "fate" was being turned into an SLR...
For many years I've had a button-rewind M2 also dating from about the same time, with I think a superior design and easier user experience. I also use a 1958-vintage Pentax K, and there's another sleek user-friendly design.
I don't know how you'd get on with an M9, Fred, but for me it's relatively familiar territory and far easier to understand than the typical dSLR.
FWIW... My uncle had the MGTD, but my twin-SU's were on a Swedish car I thrashed around for 9 years; it didn't smoke and the carbs were no bother. I daresay the new Mini, while it may be "bloated" in comparison with the original, is a far better car in every way but size. For littler, try a Smart!
For many years I've had a button-rewind M2 also dating from about the same time, with I think a superior design and easier user experience. I also use a 1958-vintage Pentax K, and there's another sleek user-friendly design.
I don't know how you'd get on with an M9, Fred, but for me it's relatively familiar territory and far easier to understand than the typical dSLR.
FWIW... My uncle had the MGTD, but my twin-SU's were on a Swedish car I thrashed around for 9 years; it didn't smoke and the carbs were no bother.
I daresay the new Mini, while it may be "bloated" in comparison with the original, is a far better car in every way but size. For littler, try a Smart!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
If you want all this - there are dozens run-of-the-mill cameras out there offering vast amounts of bloatware. Why do you want to destroy the concept of about the only minimalistic quality camera that exists?
morback
Martin N. Hinze
Dear Jaap,
That being said, you'll have to explain to me how a bigger brighter viewfinder or how less framelines is bloatware...
It sounds to me I'm offending your view of what a M should be. In that case please refer to the partial quote (from my post you yourself quote) above.
m.
That being said, you'll have to explain to me how a bigger brighter viewfinder or how less framelines is bloatware...
It sounds to me I'm offending your view of what a M should be. In that case please refer to the partial quote (from my post you yourself quote) above.
m.
CSG123
Established
As I posted earlier, I love my M4 for what it is and don't worry too much as to what it's not. That said, I marvel at the tiny shutter speed dial and wonder why it was not designed larger or taller so as to be easier to change. I too wonder if the VF designers never considered those who wear glasses. One reason I like the M4 is that the 50mm framelines are perfect for me with glasses. The 35mm framelines, not so much. Fortunately, I'm not so blind that I can still focus due to the rangefinder patch brightness without glasses if I want to use a 35mm lens.
The weight is indeed lead (silver?) bricklike but that's OK, it's a solid piece of equipment and I like the weight.
The selftimer arm is in a place that I constantly hit with my fingers when adjusting the camera so I get an occasional buzz from moving it.
Are Leicas perfect? Not at all but for their time there was nothing better and using one takes me back to when photography was simpler. Just remember when Leica tried something new with the M5 and how it was roundly rejected then. While it's a cult classic today, it was a failure when it was introduced. The way I look at Leicas is the same as any other classics, (Rolex comes to mind) - you get it or you don't.
The weight is indeed lead (silver?) bricklike but that's OK, it's a solid piece of equipment and I like the weight.
The selftimer arm is in a place that I constantly hit with my fingers when adjusting the camera so I get an occasional buzz from moving it.
Are Leicas perfect? Not at all but for their time there was nothing better and using one takes me back to when photography was simpler. Just remember when Leica tried something new with the M5 and how it was roundly rejected then. While it's a cult classic today, it was a failure when it was introduced. The way I look at Leicas is the same as any other classics, (Rolex comes to mind) - you get it or you don't.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Simplicity. If the camera has to be bigger and more complex in order to accommodate a bigger, brighter finder and fewer (not less) framelines, it's bloatware.
Cheers,
R.
luuca
Well-known
there's always something to improve, but I'm very satisfied with my leica gear, I don't need something else at the moment... maybe some more skill
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I guess I must be happy with mine. I have seven M cameras and four Barnacks. Oh, and a Digilux 3 and a Digilux 4. No intentions of making any changes.
Oh, Yeah. They could put a decent 50mm frameline in my M6 and MP.
That's about it. Really.
Oh, Yeah. They could put a decent 50mm frameline in my M6 and MP.
That's about it. Really.
richfx
Member
After reading a recent thread on Leica Camera Forum on 50mm Summilux ASPH FLE aperture blades sticking en route to f/1.4, I recently began to experience the phenomenon after nine months of flawless performance with the lens.
I called Leica on Thursday and spoke with Sarah Mayville, who scheduled an appointment for me today - only four days later (I live only 50 miles from Leica's US headquarters). Last night, while boxing the lens, I also noticed a small mark / scratch on the front element which puzzled me, as I fitted a B+W MRC 007 filter on it the moment it came out of the box when new.
In I went this morning. I was met at 7:30 am (fifteen minutes earlier than my appointment) by Bill Weier, Leica USA's chief technician, who examined the lens and chatted about Leica and other things over coffee. Bill could not have been nicer or more professional (BTW, he's been with Leica 28 years), and said that he would repair the aperture blades and replace the front element. As luck would have it, all required parts were on hand.
Brenda Olesin called me at noon - four hours later, to tell me that the lens was repaired and ready to be picked up. When I arrived, Bill met me again and explained that he had replaced all nine aperture blades (the rivet on one was apparently a bit high) and replaced the front element and that the lens came in at .0007mm and went out at .0008mm - both well within Leica's focus tolerances (I have never had any focus shift issues with the lens). Bill also told me that the lens checked out beautifully on the bench and in his other tests.
Since a number of threads and posts I've read involve achieving less than perfection with Leica gear or service (perfection not being attainable in life in my experience), I thought it would be appropriate to share my terrific experience on the Forum. Bill, Sarah and Brenda could not have been more professional, courteous or nice. True pros and genuinely nice people.
Thanks, Leica - great job. You've earned my sincere trust and thanks (you've had my respect for a while now for your amazing products).
Rich
I called Leica on Thursday and spoke with Sarah Mayville, who scheduled an appointment for me today - only four days later (I live only 50 miles from Leica's US headquarters). Last night, while boxing the lens, I also noticed a small mark / scratch on the front element which puzzled me, as I fitted a B+W MRC 007 filter on it the moment it came out of the box when new.
In I went this morning. I was met at 7:30 am (fifteen minutes earlier than my appointment) by Bill Weier, Leica USA's chief technician, who examined the lens and chatted about Leica and other things over coffee. Bill could not have been nicer or more professional (BTW, he's been with Leica 28 years), and said that he would repair the aperture blades and replace the front element. As luck would have it, all required parts were on hand.
Brenda Olesin called me at noon - four hours later, to tell me that the lens was repaired and ready to be picked up. When I arrived, Bill met me again and explained that he had replaced all nine aperture blades (the rivet on one was apparently a bit high) and replaced the front element and that the lens came in at .0007mm and went out at .0008mm - both well within Leica's focus tolerances (I have never had any focus shift issues with the lens). Bill also told me that the lens checked out beautifully on the bench and in his other tests.
Since a number of threads and posts I've read involve achieving less than perfection with Leica gear or service (perfection not being attainable in life in my experience), I thought it would be appropriate to share my terrific experience on the Forum. Bill, Sarah and Brenda could not have been more professional, courteous or nice. True pros and genuinely nice people.
Thanks, Leica - great job. You've earned my sincere trust and thanks (you've had my respect for a while now for your amazing products).
Rich