Ricko of Fla
Established
People who complain about a Leica M camera,really want a DSLR and bash Leica for not having all the bells and whistles that the other guys add every year. So they make you want a new and improved camera every year, same as the Auto companies try to do.
Steve Ash
Established
I wish I had not wasted so much money on other cameras. I love the M-system. One of the few cameras and lenses for life.
Regards
Steve
Regards
Steve
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
My M8 has been adequate, but in 2009 and beyond, I am not going to buy another simulacrum of a film camera from 1953.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dante,
What improvements do you suggest? Limiting yourself to those that can actually be incorporated using current technology and staying within the confines of a small, light, quiet, manual-focus camera?
For my money, Leica got it so close to right in 1953, and then again in 2009, that it's hard to see what improvements they can make outside details (faster ISO, external; battery/card back, usw).
It's a bit like asking why bicycles don't have more wheels.
Cheers,
R.
bene
Established
I am unhappy with my M7 but its because I ain't that good a "photographer" yet. So can't complain. I love my M7
Damaso
Photojournalist
I'd love to change my vote right about now...
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Roger,
Let's start the discussion this way: the essence of M photography is a compact camera with superb lenses, manual focus, and a coupled range finder. Isn't everything else is window-dressing - especially when the digital versions share virtually no hardware (or even basic operation) with their referents?
In my view, it is inappropriate to benchmark digital cameras against film cameras, especially those from the past. An M3 was different from - not slower or less convenient than - its 1953 competition. So why are we aren't we benchmarking against current digital cameras? Really, we should be - only making allowances for the different viewfinder/focusing system.
This is not a question about bicycles with more wheels - this is discussion of a Leica's selling 10-speed with a huge front wheel when everyone else's wheels are equally sized to each other.
My questions:
1. Is the M mount itself is capable of delivering the best results in a compact, interchangeable-lens camera? By that, I mean looking at the flange distance and incidence angles and determining the load on the DSP and the effect on the resulting pictures. I would also evaluate the long-term prospects for acquiring up-to-date sensors and electronics. Leica seems to have gone through this kind of analysis for the S2.
2. Is a focal plane the right type of shutter? If the basic M mount proved limiting, I would consider changing the lenses to leaf-shutter operation: quieter, less-vibration prone, and synching flash at all speeds. This might sacrifice some top end speed for stopping action, but you could pull down the ISO. A Leica is not a sports or fast-action camera by any stretch anyway.
3. Is the RF mechanism too inaccurate and too expensive? I would target the M2-style rangefinder for critical analysis. On a flat sensor, it is not capable of accurately focusing lenses whose focus shifts with aperture changes. It would be useful to evaluate it against something like the passive, TTL system of the Contax G series (though I don't believe that compensates for aperture - but with an updated data-transmitting lens mount, it probably could).
And independently of the above, isn't it time to go to LCD projected framelines that (a) can be shown one at a time and (b) can automatically correct for field size? Take a look at how this works on the Fuji GA645zi.
Even if I kept the M2-style finder, I would evaluate whether using the Leica version was consistent with keeping the cost of the camera under control. The Japanese design-around (found in the CLE, the Hexar, the Bessa, the Mamiya 6/7, Fuji GSW690III, etc.) is perfectly functional and a lot cheaper to manufacture.
4. Is the Leica digital camera made from the right materials? Although a lot of people seem to think that the M8/M9 are lightweight, I think they're actually piggishly heavy. An M8 with a 35/1.4 ASPH is just as heavy as a Fuji GA645. It seems that part of this weight comes from the brass covers, which comprise (according to Norton) 25% of the weight of the camera. Why not epoxy-painted titanium or some other lightweight, indestructible finish? Not everyone wants a camera that will start brassing from day 1.
5. We can't do IS? On image stabilization, we know that sensor-based IS can fit in a box the size of the Olympus EP-1 (with its APS-C sensor). So if stabilizing a 24x36mm sensor is a problem from the standpoint of physical layout, limit the sensor size to 18x27. And if the issue is corner quality with a shifted lens on a 24x36mm sensor, then limit the corrected area to the 18x27 area of an M8 sensor, just as Nikon has a DX setting on many of its cameras.
6. What about dust removal? Leica buys its sensors as complete assemblies (sensor plus electronics), mounted to boards. There is no cover glass replacement, meaning that scratching the sensor cover glass (replacememt cost: $1,800) is a big deal. Putting in an ultrasonic cleaner would go a long way toward fixing this. Digital Ms are poorly sealed against dust anyway, and having a cleaning mishap late in the life of an M8 or M9 is going to mean discarding the camera.
7. And sealing? I'm waiting for the explanation of my M8s and M9s can't be sealed against dust.
8. Controls? Why are users beholden to a control layout that originally was dictated by a mechanical shutter the camera no longer has? How about that bottom-plate loading? Why is Leica (for the first time in the M8, M9 and X1) imitating vestigial aspects of film cameras? I look at the Minolta CLE and Hexar RF control layouts, and both do a better job than the M6-style one, particularly when you don't want to turn on a screen to check things. Both of these cameras, incidentally, were excellent restatements of the Leica M philosophy in more modern form. What it would take in digital, however, might be a little more radical.
At the end of the day, I think it would be worthwhile for Leica to partner with a Japanese manufacturer that has access to modern technology - the same way Leica did with the R series - and build a new body, with a truly cutting-edge sensor - from the ground up. Take what is worthwhile from M lore; leave the rest on the operating table.
Why a more modern body? Conquest sales are going to count: with only a small number of pros using digital Ms, a dying user base, and a price point that means that most users will only buy one digital M a decade (if ever - you can only cash out your camera collection once for an M9...), I wonder how many repeat customers Leica would have. In the current competitive context, the less you have to explain about how things were done in the time of customers' grandfathers, the better.
I think Leica needs to think harder about taking the core tenants of M photography into the 21st century. For Leica (or its acolytes) to keep saying "this is all you need because this is how we did it in 1953" is little more than religion without spirituality. Or it's something like that early motor car that had a stuffed horse's head mounted to the front so it wouldn't scare people.
Regards,
Dante
Let's start the discussion this way: the essence of M photography is a compact camera with superb lenses, manual focus, and a coupled range finder. Isn't everything else is window-dressing - especially when the digital versions share virtually no hardware (or even basic operation) with their referents?
In my view, it is inappropriate to benchmark digital cameras against film cameras, especially those from the past. An M3 was different from - not slower or less convenient than - its 1953 competition. So why are we aren't we benchmarking against current digital cameras? Really, we should be - only making allowances for the different viewfinder/focusing system.
This is not a question about bicycles with more wheels - this is discussion of a Leica's selling 10-speed with a huge front wheel when everyone else's wheels are equally sized to each other.
My questions:
1. Is the M mount itself is capable of delivering the best results in a compact, interchangeable-lens camera? By that, I mean looking at the flange distance and incidence angles and determining the load on the DSP and the effect on the resulting pictures. I would also evaluate the long-term prospects for acquiring up-to-date sensors and electronics. Leica seems to have gone through this kind of analysis for the S2.
2. Is a focal plane the right type of shutter? If the basic M mount proved limiting, I would consider changing the lenses to leaf-shutter operation: quieter, less-vibration prone, and synching flash at all speeds. This might sacrifice some top end speed for stopping action, but you could pull down the ISO. A Leica is not a sports or fast-action camera by any stretch anyway.
3. Is the RF mechanism too inaccurate and too expensive? I would target the M2-style rangefinder for critical analysis. On a flat sensor, it is not capable of accurately focusing lenses whose focus shifts with aperture changes. It would be useful to evaluate it against something like the passive, TTL system of the Contax G series (though I don't believe that compensates for aperture - but with an updated data-transmitting lens mount, it probably could).
And independently of the above, isn't it time to go to LCD projected framelines that (a) can be shown one at a time and (b) can automatically correct for field size? Take a look at how this works on the Fuji GA645zi.
Even if I kept the M2-style finder, I would evaluate whether using the Leica version was consistent with keeping the cost of the camera under control. The Japanese design-around (found in the CLE, the Hexar, the Bessa, the Mamiya 6/7, Fuji GSW690III, etc.) is perfectly functional and a lot cheaper to manufacture.
4. Is the Leica digital camera made from the right materials? Although a lot of people seem to think that the M8/M9 are lightweight, I think they're actually piggishly heavy. An M8 with a 35/1.4 ASPH is just as heavy as a Fuji GA645. It seems that part of this weight comes from the brass covers, which comprise (according to Norton) 25% of the weight of the camera. Why not epoxy-painted titanium or some other lightweight, indestructible finish? Not everyone wants a camera that will start brassing from day 1.
5. We can't do IS? On image stabilization, we know that sensor-based IS can fit in a box the size of the Olympus EP-1 (with its APS-C sensor). So if stabilizing a 24x36mm sensor is a problem from the standpoint of physical layout, limit the sensor size to 18x27. And if the issue is corner quality with a shifted lens on a 24x36mm sensor, then limit the corrected area to the 18x27 area of an M8 sensor, just as Nikon has a DX setting on many of its cameras.
6. What about dust removal? Leica buys its sensors as complete assemblies (sensor plus electronics), mounted to boards. There is no cover glass replacement, meaning that scratching the sensor cover glass (replacememt cost: $1,800) is a big deal. Putting in an ultrasonic cleaner would go a long way toward fixing this. Digital Ms are poorly sealed against dust anyway, and having a cleaning mishap late in the life of an M8 or M9 is going to mean discarding the camera.
7. And sealing? I'm waiting for the explanation of my M8s and M9s can't be sealed against dust.
8. Controls? Why are users beholden to a control layout that originally was dictated by a mechanical shutter the camera no longer has? How about that bottom-plate loading? Why is Leica (for the first time in the M8, M9 and X1) imitating vestigial aspects of film cameras? I look at the Minolta CLE and Hexar RF control layouts, and both do a better job than the M6-style one, particularly when you don't want to turn on a screen to check things. Both of these cameras, incidentally, were excellent restatements of the Leica M philosophy in more modern form. What it would take in digital, however, might be a little more radical.
At the end of the day, I think it would be worthwhile for Leica to partner with a Japanese manufacturer that has access to modern technology - the same way Leica did with the R series - and build a new body, with a truly cutting-edge sensor - from the ground up. Take what is worthwhile from M lore; leave the rest on the operating table.
Why a more modern body? Conquest sales are going to count: with only a small number of pros using digital Ms, a dying user base, and a price point that means that most users will only buy one digital M a decade (if ever - you can only cash out your camera collection once for an M9...), I wonder how many repeat customers Leica would have. In the current competitive context, the less you have to explain about how things were done in the time of customers' grandfathers, the better.
I think Leica needs to think harder about taking the core tenants of M photography into the 21st century. For Leica (or its acolytes) to keep saying "this is all you need because this is how we did it in 1953" is little more than religion without spirituality. Or it's something like that early motor car that had a stuffed horse's head mounted to the front so it wouldn't scare people.
Regards,
Dante
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
Interesting you mention Contax. Its 13 years since the G2 and it really was a highly developed system. Not perfect by any means but certainly innovative and at least attemtping to modernise the rangefinder concept. I am convinced there would be a lot of interest in a digital G3.
Regarding the M series, you are pretty much proposing a root and branch contemporary re design for digital. Certainly this was Hasseblad's thinking rather than to keep shoring up the v system with references to great photographers of the 1950's. I think Leica have to move on. They can keep making the film m for those in need of a 'classic' product and make something cuttiing edge for m lenses. Id certainly buy into this. I realise leica did not suceed with the M5 but this should not be used as an excuse for lack of innovation now.
Regarding alliances with a Japanese Company I think this is inevitable at some stage as a very substantial R and D investment is needed which Leica simply do not have. We should remeber that if it were not for Epsom Leica would still be in denial claiming that a digital M was impossible.
Best wishes
Richard
Nemo
Established
I have a M8 camera and it is unreliable (i will send it to Germany for repair for the second time), the image quality is good only until ISO 320, the LCD isn't good, it doesn't focus properly, the technical service is a disaster... etc, etc... I want japanese electronics in a rangefinder camera as soon as possible. The lenses is the same story: I returned a 24mm Summilux because the aperture ring had a play and Leica was unable to fix it after 5 months in Solms (5 months!!!!). My 35mm Summilux backfocuses wide open and has focus shift... My 75mm Summilux backfocuses wide open... we are talking of lenses of more than 3.000 euros each (more than 4500 euros the 24mm)...
I only want a Zeiss Ikon Digital with a full frame CMOS sensor. I cannot trust Leica anymore. It's enough!
I only want a Zeiss Ikon Digital with a full frame CMOS sensor. I cannot trust Leica anymore. It's enough!
Last edited:
Mongo Park
Established
Ich bin ein Happy Bunny - (all film) 2 M s, 2 R s and a Contax IIA interloper. They'll do me until I'm dead then my daughter can have them as they'll still be working then and forever more - erm, perhaps not the R s!
weser
Member
The key word being reported. I'm unhappy with internet forums..
That's why you spend so much time on so many of them, isn't it.
:bang:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Not really, there are very few that are worth the trouble of logging on.
_mark__
Well-known
Film yes, digital no, wait time on certain lenses, again, no!
larmarv916
Well-known
I agree that the "FILM" cameras should be treated as a different animal, from the Digital M's. Then there would be a factual way to sample owners feelings about product lines.....SO it should actually go like this.
Do you own an M8.2 and are you happy with this model. OR Did you buy an M9 and are you still happy and how would you rate the camera?
As I own only the film M bodies...M3's, M5's and M6's The M3 has the best viewfinder...best build quality. M5 the best meter in low light. M6 & TTL have the easiest loading and most flexible viewfinder framing. But not better in build or accuracy than the original M3 DS
Do you own an M8.2 and are you happy with this model. OR Did you buy an M9 and are you still happy and how would you rate the camera?
As I own only the film M bodies...M3's, M5's and M6's The M3 has the best viewfinder...best build quality. M5 the best meter in low light. M6 & TTL have the easiest loading and most flexible viewfinder framing. But not better in build or accuracy than the original M3 DS
elmer3.5
Well-known
Hi!
Hi!
Hi, i have rather old equipment, m6 1988, m4 w/ metrawatt lightmeter 1969, and summicron 50 plus summilux 50.
Had a leica iiif and that´s superb shooter for me with the elmar 50, 90 elmar, the only issue was with the summaron 35, too flary.
Everytime i use them it´s a delight.
Recently had a cle, but for xmas it run out of batteries, and i understood why lots of people have in such regard the 100% manual side of leicas! (after i realized the batt of my m6 will do on the cle, but`s another story)
Anyway when i had some money to purchse an m8 or a rd1s, i wen´t for the epson after reading so many problems m8 has, by the other hand almost no complaint for the rd1s whatsoever.
So i`m really happy with my leica gear!
Bye
E
Hi!
Hi, i have rather old equipment, m6 1988, m4 w/ metrawatt lightmeter 1969, and summicron 50 plus summilux 50.
Had a leica iiif and that´s superb shooter for me with the elmar 50, 90 elmar, the only issue was with the summaron 35, too flary.
Everytime i use them it´s a delight.
Recently had a cle, but for xmas it run out of batteries, and i understood why lots of people have in such regard the 100% manual side of leicas! (after i realized the batt of my m6 will do on the cle, but`s another story
)Anyway when i had some money to purchse an m8 or a rd1s, i wen´t for the epson after reading so many problems m8 has, by the other hand almost no complaint for the rd1s whatsoever.
So i`m really happy with my leica gear!
Bye
E
flyalf
Well-known
M9 wishlist for improvement:
1. Automatic dust removal
2. Automatic dust removal
3. Automatic dust removal
4. Automatic dust removal
5. Automatic dust removal
and perhaps quick format dedicated button?
1. Automatic dust removal
2. Automatic dust removal
3. Automatic dust removal
4. Automatic dust removal
5. Automatic dust removal
and perhaps quick format dedicated button?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
What is so difficult about giving your sensor a quick blow or swipe
flyalf
Well-known
Its less difficult NOT to put any object into the sensor. I have been cleaning the RD-1 sensor, and my experience is cleaning leads to added dust as opposed to solutions like D700 or similar that I have owned.What is so difficult about giving your sensor a quick blow or swipe
Steve M.
Veteran
I'm not really happy with the cameras. I gave up on the SLR's and thank goodness Leitax came up w/ a lens mount to put my wonderful Leica R glass on a Nikon body. I have a Nikon N6006 w/ a 50 and 90 R summicron and it couldn't be better. The camera Leica SHOULD have made.
The LTM cameras I've owned had one annoying thing or another w/ them so I quit buying them. W/ the M's, I've only owned the M3 varieties, and while I marvel at the quality materials and workmanship, these cameras are too old. A lot of repairmen are going to retire wealthy from all the overhauls they have done and are doing on these. That they lasted this long is a testament to Leica's craftsmanship, but I don't see them as a very good value for your money. The M6 or M7 are about as old as I would want to go w/ the M cameras, but they cost too much. It's a source of wonderment that you can buy a wonderful SLR from a lot of different companies that will have high shutter speeds, motor drive, auto exposure, spot metering and all sorts of features for 100 bucks. But when you get into the rangefinder cameras you don't get all this w/o paying a mint.
One thing I'm happy with are Leica's lenses. The best optics you can buy for any amount of money, as someone once said. It's true.
The LTM cameras I've owned had one annoying thing or another w/ them so I quit buying them. W/ the M's, I've only owned the M3 varieties, and while I marvel at the quality materials and workmanship, these cameras are too old. A lot of repairmen are going to retire wealthy from all the overhauls they have done and are doing on these. That they lasted this long is a testament to Leica's craftsmanship, but I don't see them as a very good value for your money. The M6 or M7 are about as old as I would want to go w/ the M cameras, but they cost too much. It's a source of wonderment that you can buy a wonderful SLR from a lot of different companies that will have high shutter speeds, motor drive, auto exposure, spot metering and all sorts of features for 100 bucks. But when you get into the rangefinder cameras you don't get all this w/o paying a mint.
One thing I'm happy with are Leica's lenses. The best optics you can buy for any amount of money, as someone once said. It's true.
gnuyork
Well-known
Oops I voted, but I thought it was for Leica in general. I don't have a digi. Extremely happy with my M6 and Summicron