What's so good about the M8/M9 anyway?

[sprokitt]

The M8 vs M9 post got me thinking. What's so darned special about either camera. I mean really, all Leica did was manage to produce the digital equivalent of a 1972 Nikkormat EL, or since it has TTL flash a 1980 FE. Aside from the digital sensor, there isn't a single feature of these camera
that hasn't been available since the 1980s.

So think about what makes the M8 and M9 great cameras. Its the specific LACK of and the digital doo-dads that we're paying extra for. These are CAMERAS - not computers. They require us to think, and see, and interact. They do exactly what Leica says - the camera lets me concentrate and control every aspect of the imaging process. The cameras get the heck out of our way and let us be photographers, which is what we really love to do.


In all seriousness, who on this thread wouldn't go out TODAY and be willing to spend $2500 on a <yourFavoriteName> camera body with the following specs:
1) full-frame sensor, 10-18 MP
2) great low ISO performance with even just decent high ISO (although we would pay extra for great high ISO too)
3) allows me to use ALL of my old lenses...the ones I LOVE so much
4) manual and AE (maybe even full Program)
5) A couple of simple metering modes (CW + spot)
6) DNG or RAW only (no JPG, TIFF, crap)
7) NO digital crap (no WB, sharpening, GPS, other crap, crap, crap.)
8) solid build with mostly manual controls that I can easily use and understand
9) easy to use exposure comp / shift + bracketing
10) half-way decent TTL flash

That's all the M8/M9 really are. They're a really solid camera without all digital crap we don't need, use, or want.

I'm not trying to be a Luddite, but it seems Leica seems is the only company that realizes we're all willing to pay $4000-7000 for a decent camera that lets us photographers again. Seriously, how simple was that formula?

 

[Roger Hicks]

So think about what makes the M8 and M9 great cameras. Its the specific LACK of and the digital doo-dads that we're paying extra for. These are CAMERAS - not computers. They require us to think, and see, and interact. They do exactly what Leica says - the camera lets me concentrate and control every aspect of the imaging process. The cameras get the heck out of our way and let us be photographers, which is what we really love to do.

Exactly.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rya]

Yes, and as another recent thread pointed out: the camera could do well without a screen, either.

 

[bene]

Cheers!! but I'll like GPS =P

 

[Keith]

Leica had a waiting market for this camera and as good as it is it won't cause a mass defection from the DSLR brigade. People who buy it do so because they like rangefinders and are well aware that digital is the future like it or not.

If Canon or Nikon were to bring out an equivalent stripped down bare essentials SLR it would sell in limited numbers because ninety percent of the photo taking consumer population wouldn't have a clue how to use it ... they want the current DSLR technology because it's all they know!

The constant comparison between the digital M and the DSLR has gone round in circles on this forum for far too long IMO. They are different cameras for different purposes and no amount of rhetoric is going to convince me that a modern DSLR is actually a hinderance to taking pictures!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, and as another recent thread pointed out: the camera could do well without a screen, either.

I don't agree with that one, though. I always liked Polaroids, and the screen on the back gives me very good Polaroids if I'm not in a hurry. If I am in a hurry, I can ignore it. It's also nice to know that the shot is 'in the can'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

They do exactly what Leica says - the camera lets me concentrate and control every aspect of the imaging process. The cameras get the heck out of our way and let us be photographers, which is what we really love to do.

[...]

That's all the M8/M9 really are. They're a really solid camera without all digital crap we don't need, use, or want.

I'm not trying to be a Luddite, but it seems Leica seems is the only company that realizes we're all willing to pay $4000-7000 for a decent camera that lets us photographers again. Seriously, how simple was that formula?

I dunno, I have an XSI and it doesn't get in my way, contrarywise. Great sensor, good color, lightweight, quiet, excellent flash controls, and the best raw convertor in existence comes with it free. I'm personally not willing to spend 4 grand on a Leica, plus the lenses, when an XSI can be had for 630 bucks with the lens. Oh, it has stabilization too.

Leica makes good equipment, but that doesn't mean other manufacturers are not making cameras that are just as effective in use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I dunno, I have an XSI and it doesn't get in my way, contrarywise. Great sensor, good color, lightweight, quiet, excellent flash controls, and the best raw convertor in existence comes with it free. I'm personally not willing to spend 4 grand on a Leica, plus the lenses, when an XSI can be had for 630 bucks with the lens. Oh, it has stabilization too.

Leica makes good equipment, but that doesn't mean other manufacturers are not making cameras that are just as effective in use.

Depends on how you define 'just as effective'. And on what sort of camera you like to use.

Obviously there's room for both, or they couldn't sell both. It's just that a lot of us want a traditional user interface, because we find it (a lot) easier to use.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

Depends on how you define 'just as effective'. And on what sort of camera you like to use.

Obviously there's room for both, or they couldn't sell both. It's just that a lot of us want a traditional user interface, because we find it (a lot) easier to use.

I like to use both, I like being able to see so much outside the frame with a 50 on an RF. I also like the traditional controls of older cameras. However, the canon doesn't cough up any problems, and the main draw for me is dpp and that particular sensor. There is also some question of the Leica's effectiveness, the M8 sensor specifically. Perhaps the M9 is more robust in that area, I don't know. You're right that it does have a lot to do with a person's preferences, but beyond a certain level I don't bother about it. If the thing does what I want, when I want it done, then I'm good. Digital is not my favorite thing...

Cheers!

🙂

 

[sig]

A traditional camera user interface is not effective on a new camera with a lot of functionality. Like it or not, that is the reason for the more complex user interface on new cameras.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I like to use both, I like being able to see so much outside the frame with a 50 on an RF. I also like the traditional controls of older cameras. However, the canon doesn't cough up any problems, and the main draw for me is dpp and that particular sensor. There is also some question of the Leica's effectiveness, the M8 sensor specifically. Perhaps the M9 is more robust in that area, I don't know. You're right that it does have a lot to do with a person's preferences, but beyond a certain level I don't bother about it. If the thing does what I want, when I want it done, then I'm good. Digital is not my favorite thing...

Cheers!

🙂

Probaby just old age on my part, but when I compare my D70 (my only DLSR except the M+VISO) with a Nikkormat, the Nikkormat is just VASTLY easier and more intuitive to use. Reading shutter speeds and apertures on LCDs or through an overcrowded viewfinder while twiddling knobs and pressing buttons really does get in the way for me, as does the choice of things like AV, TV, M and all the other things I've forgotten.

Hell, I don't even like the C and self-timer functions on the M-digi cams. On-Off is bad enough (my M2s and M4-P don't even have that) and yet more controls that I don't use are a distraction. I keep meaning to suggest to Leica that they offer a menu choice to disable both C and self-timer, so that when the camera is on, it's on, and it doesn't matter where the switch is set. Menus and LCDs are fine when I'm not shooting - I really like being able to adjust speed and white balance - but when I'm actually shooting I want (a) the bare minimum (b) under my control.

This is where your 'when I want it done' comes into play. If I have to piddle around with controls and menus, instead of the three basic controls (shutter speed, aperture, focus), it's not happening 'when I want it done' for me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A traditional camera user interface is not effective on a new camera with a lot of functionality. Like it or not, that is the reason for the more complex user interface on new cameras.

What do you meany by 'a lot of functionality'? Or indeed 'effective'?

Cameras take pictures. That's it. Clearly a traditional interface can work, as demonstrated by the M8/8.2/9. Or indeed by a digital back on an Alpa.

See my post above.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sig]

What do you meany by 'a lot of functionality'? Or indeed 'effective'?

Cameras take pictures. That's it. Clearly a traditional interface can work, as demonstrated by the M8/8.2/9. Or indeed by a digital back on an Alpa.

See my post above.

Cheers,

R.

E.g. changing AF point, meter mode, displaying pictures on your screen etc.
Most dslr have the traditional interface right there, but on top buttons have been added to get easy access to new stuff.

Effective: I want to change metering mode, press the metering mode button and spin the wheel. Done.

 

[Roger Hicks]

E.g. changing AF point, meter mode, displaying pictures on your screen etc.
Most dslr have the traditional interface right there, but on top buttons have been added to get easy access to new stuff.

Effective: I want to change metering mode, press the metering mode button and spin the wheel. Done.

Um...

That was the point made by those of us who like traditional controls.

AF? No thanks.

Meter modes? No thanks.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

This is where your 'when I want it done' comes into play. If I have to piddle around with controls and menus, instead of the three basic controls (shutter speed, aperture, focus), it's not happening 'when I want it done' for me.

Makes sense to me. I certainly wouldn't mind putting 'digital film' in my Nikkormat. Might be time to upgrade that D70 though 😉. I have a D200 that runs like a top in operation compared to the D70, but even that is a bit outdated these days. After going through thousands in the digital rat race, these days I just pick the manufacturer's raw converter I like best, and buy a good sensor with the expectation that it will be outdated in a couple years. Like a bic lighter, works great, when it doesn't buy another.

The thing Leica has going for them of course is the lenses, these days for film I buy manual focus lenses that I like across manufacturers and buy a body to use them. Much better than the old way when generally this just wasn't cost effective.

I would suggest to Leica that given the realities of the digital market, it might be in their interest to manufacture a camera body similar in spirit to the Leica screwmount bodies. Nothing unnecessary, a couple framelines, but works in a simple manner with their lenses. I'd buy one.

Cheers!

 

[rya]

Roger,

What if there were a way to show histograms without having a full-out screen? (For example, a colorful screen placed on the top of the camera--similar to that on the S2.)

I suggest this because I do not like the way in which the screen changes the layout of the camera back. I imagine a camera where there is only dial and direction buttons on the back, in place of the ISO selector on the MP, M7, M6 etc. The direction buttons could help select ISO, last image histogram, lens and so forth.

Despite my desires, I did chimp while shooting today at a zoo (literally), as my company complained that I must ensure I had all approved smiles in the frame before departure.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Makes sense to me. I certainly wouldn't mind putting 'digital film' in my Nikkormat. Might be time to upgrade that D70 though 😉. I have a D200 that runs like a top in operation compared to the D70, but even that is a bit outdated these days. After going through thousands in the digital rat race, these days I just pick the manufacturer's raw converter I like best, and buy a good sensor with the expectation that it will be outdated in a couple years. Like a bic lighter, works great, when it doesn't buy another.

(Highlight) Not really. It wouldn't do anything that I need which the D70 doesn't, and if I need more resolution and an SLR, I'm seldom in a great hurry, so the Viso on the M9 is fine. I'll not replace the D70 until it definitively stops working, and maybe not even then. A good example of what a camera does for you (or of course for me) rather than what it can do.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

What if there were a way to show histograms without having a full-out screen? (For example, a colorful screen placed on the top of the camera--similar to that on the S2.)
I suggest this because I do not like the way in which the screen changes the layout of the camera back. I imagine a camera where there is only dial and direction buttons on the back, in place of the ISO selector on the MP, M7, M6 etc. The direction buttons could help select ISO, last image histogram, lens and so forth.

Despite my desires, I did chimp while shooting today at a zoo (literally), as my company complained that I must ensure I had all approved smiles in the frame before departure.

I fully take your point about the bulk of the back but I sincerely doubt there's room on top of an M to do what you suggest, and even if there were, I think I'd rather put up with the rear screen (which we agree is in a way a drawback) in return for the 'Polaroids'.

My professional career started in advertising, and I always used Polaroids with both LF and MF; I even have a Polaroid back that lives on a Nikon F.

I like the idea of chimping at a zoo...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

(Highlight) Not really. It wouldn't do anything that I need which the D70 doesn't, and if I need more resolution and an SLR, I'm seldom in a great hurry, so the Viso on the M9 is fine. I'll not replace the D70 until it definitively stops working, and maybe not even then. A good example of what a camera does for you (or of course for me) rather than what it can do.

Which is exactly why I have an XSI, but no M8! Or more correctly, an RD-1. I'm not that fond of ACR/Lightroom or C1.

Cheers!

🙂

 

[Ming Rider]

In a nutshell, the reason the M8 is so good is because `I` like it.