Timmyjoe
Veteran
Years ago, I used to build houses, actually I was a finish carpenter (I made them look pretty). And I had this Vaughn hammer that I used, fit my hand perfectly, never left a mark on a piece of siding or trim. In my mind it was perfect. It was a simple tool designed to do one thing, and it did that one thing perfectly well. Had a roofing hatchet for doing the occasional shingle job, and a framing hammer for when I had to "put up sticks". Worked with guys who tried to convince me that they could do all those jobs with just one hammer. But the single hammer they used nicked up siding and trim, didn't have a spacer for setting shingles, and really wasn't heavy enough and slid off 16 penny nails when they were framing.
I see the new M10 (or M) as that single hammer.
Wherever I am, I always have my M2 w/5cm cron loaded with Tri-X with me. It is light and simple, gets out of the way, and allows me to create images anytime, anywhere.
When I have more time and am considering making particular images, I take my M8 and a few Leica lenses with me and they work great.
And when I am working in the fast paced world of political coverage, where there are split seconds to get the shot and no "do-overs", I would be lost without my D4, the zooms and the flash.
One of the reasons I have been such a big Leica fan for so many years is that I believed Leica had the same philosophy that I do. Horses for courses.
But the Leica M appears to me to be the polar opposite of that philosophy. One camera trying to do all those things (as well as video). And I can't see it doing any of them as well as the three cameras listed above.
Best,
-Tim
I see the new M10 (or M) as that single hammer.
Wherever I am, I always have my M2 w/5cm cron loaded with Tri-X with me. It is light and simple, gets out of the way, and allows me to create images anytime, anywhere.
When I have more time and am considering making particular images, I take my M8 and a few Leica lenses with me and they work great.
And when I am working in the fast paced world of political coverage, where there are split seconds to get the shot and no "do-overs", I would be lost without my D4, the zooms and the flash.
One of the reasons I have been such a big Leica fan for so many years is that I believed Leica had the same philosophy that I do. Horses for courses.
But the Leica M appears to me to be the polar opposite of that philosophy. One camera trying to do all those things (as well as video). And I can't see it doing any of them as well as the three cameras listed above.
Best,
-Tim
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I once spoke to a carpenter doing mainly woodwork for roof trusses. I asked him what brand of drill he uses.
I was expecting something like a Hilti.
He said he always buys the cheapest Chinese drills in supermarkets, because once they fall from the roof they all look the same anyway.
Moral: sometimes the best tool is not the best tool for the job
I was expecting something like a Hilti.
He said he always buys the cheapest Chinese drills in supermarkets, because once they fall from the roof they all look the same anyway.
Moral: sometimes the best tool is not the best tool for the job
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Funny story. Not the point I was trying to make, but funny story.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
furcafe
Veteran
From what I've seen of the new M, I disagree. I think all the new (for Leica) features as mainly optional, not built-in. Once they decided to go w/CMOS, live view (& therefore video), for example, was a no-brainer. Yes, they're using the possibility of mounting R lenses & using them w/the EVF as a selling point, but that's for the same people who would have used the old optical Visoflex, i.e., a small portion of the M user base (& I'm pretty sure there are 1 or 2 people using a Visoflex on occasion w/the M8/M9).
Yes, it's 5mm fatter than the M8/M9, but I would guess that has as much to do w/the new sensor & processor as any new functionality. As far as I can see, the only downside (other than slightly larger size) w/the new features are the added buttons (& I assume extra menu items), which appear to be relatively unobtrusive. Anyone who really wants/needs dSLR/mirrorless-type versatility would not be swayed by the new M, i.e., I can't see anyone using it w/the EVF to routinely shoot sports or wildlife. Are we seeing the beginnings of some feature bloat? Possibly, but "polar opposite" of the traditional M, not IMHO.
I'm agnostic re: the LED frameline illumination as I've never had the chance to look through that weird, experimental Porsche-designed special edition of the M9 that had them.
Yes, it's 5mm fatter than the M8/M9, but I would guess that has as much to do w/the new sensor & processor as any new functionality. As far as I can see, the only downside (other than slightly larger size) w/the new features are the added buttons (& I assume extra menu items), which appear to be relatively unobtrusive. Anyone who really wants/needs dSLR/mirrorless-type versatility would not be swayed by the new M, i.e., I can't see anyone using it w/the EVF to routinely shoot sports or wildlife. Are we seeing the beginnings of some feature bloat? Possibly, but "polar opposite" of the traditional M, not IMHO.
I'm agnostic re: the LED frameline illumination as I've never had the chance to look through that weird, experimental Porsche-designed special edition of the M9 that had them.
John Bragg
Well-known
My M6 is my perfect fit camera. I am always immensly happy to use it, but not under any illusions that it will do all things all of the time. I also get great pleasure using my Nikon FM2n and even Olympus Mju cameras I bought for pence from ebay. They all have their place.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Furcafe, I hear what you're saying, but let's look at all previous M cameras (the ones I love and the ones I compare to my Vaughn finish hammer). They were built for one thing, taking pictures with an optical rangefinder and recording those pictures either on film or on a CCD sensor. Simple and straight forward. And they could be coupled with, what I believe, is the finest glass on earth.
The new M is a total different philosophy, and I believe the polar opposite of the previous M's. First, I would argue that the CMOS sensor cannot compare to the CCD sensor (especially when converting images to B&W). Others may disagree, and I accept that.
Second, the whole live view, focus peeking, etc., all involve framing and focusing the camera via the LCD screen on the rear of the camera, not through the optical viewfinder. Could there be anything that is more the antithesis of the Leica M design?
I've worked as a videographer in the past, and I'd be hard pressed to think of two types of cameras that could be more opposite than a video camera and a Leica M. Yet here we have Leica designing the M to shoot video.
I have seen a number of quick reviews for the new Leica M where it is described as a "DSLR camera". Again, couldn't be further from the theme of all Leica M cameras previous to this.
And although many camera manufacturers have designed adapters so folks could use Leica M lenses on their designed cameras, I had yet to see Leica design an adapter to use non-Leica M glass on a Leica M. Until the new Leica M.
And with the new optional digital viewfinder and live view, the Leica M can pass for a DSLR, because it performs like a DSLR with the viewfinder attached. Could there be anything further from the Leica M history.
The new Leica M looks like something designed and marketed by Sony or Fuji, that follows their design philosophy. IMHO it is trying to be all things to all people. Which the Leica M never was.
Best,
-Tim
The new M is a total different philosophy, and I believe the polar opposite of the previous M's. First, I would argue that the CMOS sensor cannot compare to the CCD sensor (especially when converting images to B&W). Others may disagree, and I accept that.
Second, the whole live view, focus peeking, etc., all involve framing and focusing the camera via the LCD screen on the rear of the camera, not through the optical viewfinder. Could there be anything that is more the antithesis of the Leica M design?
I've worked as a videographer in the past, and I'd be hard pressed to think of two types of cameras that could be more opposite than a video camera and a Leica M. Yet here we have Leica designing the M to shoot video.
I have seen a number of quick reviews for the new Leica M where it is described as a "DSLR camera". Again, couldn't be further from the theme of all Leica M cameras previous to this.
And although many camera manufacturers have designed adapters so folks could use Leica M lenses on their designed cameras, I had yet to see Leica design an adapter to use non-Leica M glass on a Leica M. Until the new Leica M.
And with the new optional digital viewfinder and live view, the Leica M can pass for a DSLR, because it performs like a DSLR with the viewfinder attached. Could there be anything further from the Leica M history.
The new Leica M looks like something designed and marketed by Sony or Fuji, that follows their design philosophy. IMHO it is trying to be all things to all people. Which the Leica M never was.
Best,
-Tim
icebear
Veteran
Hello Tim,
I can absolutely follow your drift. Once I got my M9 and had to get through the digital menu learning curve and actually consult the owner manual, I thought on my good, I love my M6 / MP what have I done. Compared to whatever Canikon the curve wasn't too steep though and I have never shoot a single roll of film since then. The M ilestone does offer a few options to make it very versatile but it does not take away the pure form of the basic RF "hammer" at any time - at least my impression from the info available about the prototypes and w/o having handled one of course...
Hi there,
I have also not seen it live but the smart thing is that you have only ONE type of frame lines and not a pair for two focal length at the same time. This uncluttered M3 style frame lines should be pretty neat.
icebear
Veteran
Hi Tim,
the important thing is that everything is optional:
live view, video, EVF, R adapter etc.
You can get it and use but you don't have to and then it is not at coming in the way if you want to use it as a pure RF -M.
It 's like putting a rubber piece on you metal hammer to make pavement stones snugly fit into position. You turn your hammer into a rubber mallet for a special purpose but you can take the attachment off and go back to your pure hammer at any time.
sig
Well-known
Leica has turned the M into a DSLR
(and if you do not agree, you may be in denial)
(and if you do not agree, you may be in denial)
furcafe
Veteran
I would again disagree to the extent that the traditional film M bodies were not really designed from the start as some sort of Zen, minimalist tools, they were actually intended as general purpose cameras. That's why even "Barnack" bodies had all kinds of crazy add-on accessories (e.g., close-up attachments, original Visoflex, waist-level & other VFs, etc.). Before the advent of the Nikon F & other SLRs, all system rangefinders were just that, system cameras that were intended to be used for all sorts of photography. Once the SLR took over for most serious photographers, amateur & professional, Leica was forced to embrace a minimalist market.
And again, I would also disagree that the new M could, in any serious fashion for any serious photographer, "pass for a DSLR." With the EVF, it could maybe pass for a very pricey Fuji X-Pro1 in manual focus mode. Re: video, like I wrote, once you have live view, adding video is easy; as you point out, they haven't changed the basic form factor, so that tells me that it's not intended to be used for serious videography, i.e, as a primary video camera, either.
And again, I would also disagree that the new M could, in any serious fashion for any serious photographer, "pass for a DSLR." With the EVF, it could maybe pass for a very pricey Fuji X-Pro1 in manual focus mode. Re: video, like I wrote, once you have live view, adding video is easy; as you point out, they haven't changed the basic form factor, so that tells me that it's not intended to be used for serious videography, i.e, as a primary video camera, either.
Sparrow
Veteran
... well, Roy Rogers carried two guns ... and I wouldn't disagree with Roy myself
gshybrid
Well-known
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Yes I am. I'm saying I'm not a fan of the "Single Hammer Theory" as I believe there is not one hammer that will "do it all" as well as hammers that were designed for specific uses, (i.e. finish, framing, shingling, etc.)
My impression of the new Leica M is that it was designed to be a "do it all" camera, like something designed by Sony or Fuji. Whereas previous versions of the Leica M did not try to be everything to every photographer.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with "do it all" for folks that "do it all" works for, I'm just not one of those folks.
The thing I loved about Leica until they were acquired by Blackstone, is that the design of the Leica M's, even the digital ones, were with specific uses in mind, (i.e. optical rangefinder photography).
The new Leica M is all over the map.
Even though technically the new Leica M is not a reflex cameras (as it doesn't have the mirror) with the optional finder it can be used exactly like a DSLR. Again, the antithesis of the original M design.
Best,
-Tim
zauhar
Veteran
Tim, your points are well-stated. I do not have a digital camera at this point, but feel it is inevitable that I will eventually get one. So I looked at the M with interest.
I was surprised at the video feature. Do they expect that the M is used by the kind of person who takes "snapshots", and uses the camera like an iPhone? And it would not surprise me if the increased bulk of the camera is indeed needed to accommodate the extra electronics.
Regarding carpenters, I have my own story. I sold a house years back that had a beautiful wraparound porch with impressive columns, but which had a lot of water damage accumulated over decades. I hired a master carpenter as the general contractor to restore the porch as best as possible.
He had no end of trouble with the guys he farmed out work to. He blew up at one fellow who wanted to replace the wooden columns with tin "equivalents" that were both cheap and ugly. Finally, despite being in the midst of some painful back trouble, he ended up doing much of the work himself. The result was more than I could have hoped for - the 100-year old structure looked good as new, and greatly increased the value of the house.
Moral: There are different grades of carpenters, just like cameras. Just because two guys both swing a hammer does not mean they are doing the same job.
Randy
I was surprised at the video feature. Do they expect that the M is used by the kind of person who takes "snapshots", and uses the camera like an iPhone? And it would not surprise me if the increased bulk of the camera is indeed needed to accommodate the extra electronics.
Regarding carpenters, I have my own story. I sold a house years back that had a beautiful wraparound porch with impressive columns, but which had a lot of water damage accumulated over decades. I hired a master carpenter as the general contractor to restore the porch as best as possible.
He had no end of trouble with the guys he farmed out work to. He blew up at one fellow who wanted to replace the wooden columns with tin "equivalents" that were both cheap and ugly. Finally, despite being in the midst of some painful back trouble, he ended up doing much of the work himself. The result was more than I could have hoped for - the 100-year old structure looked good as new, and greatly increased the value of the house.
Moral: There are different grades of carpenters, just like cameras. Just because two guys both swing a hammer does not mean they are doing the same job.
Randy
gshybrid
Well-known
I might agree with you if Leica had sacrificed anything to add the new features. It looks to me like the new M can be used in the exact same manner as the M9 with(still TBD) the same if not better IQ and high ISO performance and at the same price. Even Vaughn hammers have evolved over the years.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
So ... if you were framing a house, would you use the "M" or the "M-E"?
~Joe
~Joe
Timmyjoe
Veteran
My twenty some year old Vaughn still works exactly as it did brand new, and still is the perfect hammer for finish work. My Leica M2-S, which saw service in Vietnam, still works exactly as it did brand new, and still is the perfect camera for black & white film photography. Heck, my iiif is still working as new and it's nearly sixty years old.
Everyone has their own opinion on image quality, but for me, I have yet to see a CMOS sensor that could hold a candle to a CCD sensor as far as image quality goes, unless you are taking a picture of said candle. I'll admit that a CMOS sensor is a better "extremely low light" image capture device than a CCD sensor. But I would never spend $8000 (what it looks like the new Leica M will sell for) for a camera for low light capture. That's what my D4 is for (which costs $2000 less), and it will run circles around the new Leica M when it comes to low light capture. Can you say ISO 204,800?
My whole point is that a "do it all" camera can't do any one thing as well as the purpose build camera that was built to do that one thing, just like the "do it all" hammer that I talked about in my original post.
And Leica used to make a beautiful purpose built rangefinder camera. It's a shame, IMHO, that they decided to go a different direction with the new Leica M.
Best,
-Tim
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I'd use my old Canon F-1. My buddy used to always tease me, "You could pound nails with that camera."
Best,
-Tim
gshybrid
Well-known
No offense but my point was that you are trying to boil the whole thing down to the metaphor of a do it all hammer and I say it's a false equivalence. Even comparing the M to a film M is irrelevant. Comparing it to an M9 or any other full frame digital would be more to the point.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
No offense taken, but since the title of the thread is "Single Hammer Theory", and I'm the one who started the thread, I think my writing about the metaphor with the single hammer is kind of the point of the thread.
Okay, I'll bite. Comparing the new Leica M to the Leica M9. The analogy is the same. The Leica M9 was a purpose built rangefinder camera that did not try to be a DSLR, did not try to use any glass save the fine Leica M glass, did not try to shoot video, did not try to emulate a P&S with it's LCD screen used for focusing and framing, and was built to do one thing, take great pictures on a superior digital chip (the CCD, that few other cameras were using) with an optical rangefinder viewfinder. Plain and simple. It wasn't an attempt to build a "do it all" camera like Sony and Fuji were doing. And I respected that.
The new Leica M appears to be an attempt to compete against Sony and Fuji with DSLR capabilities, Optical viewfinders, Focus Peeking, Video, GPS, P&S style framing and focusing, etc.
That's a "do it all" camera in my book, compared to the purpose built M9.
Best,
-Tim