Turtle
Veteran
I was pondering my Leica M equipment, while considering what equipment to thin out and what future purchases I was considering and it became clear that my M kit still had a huge future: I not only love using it, but see myself using it more, not less, going forwards.
... so I thought I'd write an article explaining why I feel the M system remains so compelling (for some of us) in this rapidly changing technological era. http://thephotofundamentalist.com/?p=2262
... so I thought I'd write an article explaining why I feel the M system remains so compelling (for some of us) in this rapidly changing technological era. http://thephotofundamentalist.com/?p=2262
Mudman
Well-known
Great photos. I think for many that have never tried the M system, it gives a good outlay of why it's so great to use.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Good and sophisticated article. My respect to the author.
If I didn't go to University with military sub-education in eighties, I most likely ended up not by my choice in Afghanistan as the soldier. My childhood friends did. One never recovered emotionally after it...
The pictures in the article are marvelous. Content matches the media.
I have similar believes why I prefer M-series RF over any SLR for pictures I like to take for my personal amusement.
I prefer DSLRs as quickest way to get quality family pictures, but family moments taken with RF cameras have more "story" in them somehow.
Also if I'm documenting some event for myself and unofficial report on-line I prefer to use film RF, not DSLR. If I ever have extra cash, I'll get digital RF just for it.
If I didn't go to University with military sub-education in eighties, I most likely ended up not by my choice in Afghanistan as the soldier. My childhood friends did. One never recovered emotionally after it...
The pictures in the article are marvelous. Content matches the media.
I have similar believes why I prefer M-series RF over any SLR for pictures I like to take for my personal amusement.
I prefer DSLRs as quickest way to get quality family pictures, but family moments taken with RF cameras have more "story" in them somehow.
Also if I'm documenting some event for myself and unofficial report on-line I prefer to use film RF, not DSLR. If I ever have extra cash, I'll get digital RF just for it.
Photog9000
Well-known
I have thought on many occasions it would be nice to try the M system gear just to see if it makes a difference to me. Initially I used Olympus gear to learn on and eventually used Olympus followed by Nikon to work for a smalltown weekly newspaper. Today I use the Fuji X-System cameras because they are what work for me. AND that is what it is all about.
craygc
Well-known
I have shot with film M's for a long time and certainly appreciate the RF approach along with the compactness and quality of the camera and lenses. However, personally I don't (and can't) see the value in digital M's having now moved to the Sony A7II. I still use RF lenses - and with a considered selection I can avoid problematic lenses. I find I still approach using the camera the same way I used the M; possibly because in the majority of cases I pre-estimate focus distances and rarely relied on the rangefinder for focusing. When I find I do need critical focusing, I usually have the time to use the EVF.
judsonzhao
Well-known
M is special, but bet you will get technically superior shots if you are using A7rII : )
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I'd bet the exact opposite for me -- and I don't think I'm alone. I just prefer rangefinders to mirrorless, and I VASTLY prefer the feel and handling of M-series to... well... just about anything, really. At least in that format. In larger formats, Alpa and Linhofs are good. So are Gandolfis.
Cheers,
R.
gustavoAvila
Established
Excellent, reasonably sized lenses!
codester80
A Touch of Light
Legacy. That's what's special about Leica. They came first in 35mm. That's it. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, and Olympus have all surpassed Leica in advanced photographic tools (TTL, hot shoe, integrated winders, matrix metering, AF, etc.) Leica has been trading on their legacy for a long time. I can't think of any other camera system that has so many apologists. Leica's are terrible for close up work. Telephotos: forget it. Overpriced glass. Terrible film loading. Older lenses are not soft or inferior they exhibit "Leica glow". Yeah....right. Nikonians, Pentaxians, Canonites, etc., are not afraid to call out crap lenses and bodies from their favourite camera and lens manufacturers. But it seems nobody wants to tread on the Leica legacy.
Don't get me wrong. M cameras are well engineered pieces of industrial design as is the Nikon F, Spotmatic, Canon F1, OM1. Leica M's work but let's not go calling them special. In the end they are just another light tight box to hold film and mount a lens to.
And yes I've owned and used M's. Once the excitement of owning one wears off and you're able to look at the system as just a tool the M's become just that; another photographic tool.
Don't get me wrong. M cameras are well engineered pieces of industrial design as is the Nikon F, Spotmatic, Canon F1, OM1. Leica M's work but let's not go calling them special. In the end they are just another light tight box to hold film and mount a lens to.
And yes I've owned and used M's. Once the excitement of owning one wears off and you're able to look at the system as just a tool the M's become just that; another photographic tool.
Ben Z
Veteran
I'm that boat too Roger. Originally I began shooting Leica because there were few SLRs of the day that were compact and light enough to travel easily (especially compared with LTMs, but Ms too). There was Olympus OM1 and Pentax screwmount (which I chose), but those still suffered from dark finders hard to focus in dim light, and mirror slap that made hand holding less effective at slow speeds than the Leica.
Adapting to the rangefinder and "inaccurate" framing was no problem. In those days we were used to having to think, not expecting technology to make everything perfect and easy from the get-go.
In the current age of digital, other capable, quality cameras have gotten smaller, and the Leicas have gotten bigger and heavier, so the advantages that originally led me to choose Leica have mostly evaporated. But like yourself I do not care for mirroless, in fact I prefer the finders of the cheapest entrylevel mirror reflexes over the so-called state of the art EVFs. And the digital M is so close to the film Ms I used for 40 plus years that 95% of my learned experience still applies, and the camera functions as an extension of my eye moreso than any other.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Para 1: Not really. There were well over a dozen 35mm cameras before the Leica, but Leitz was the first company to get it right.
Para 2: A tool that is perfect for some jobs, and useless for others. "The excitement of owning one"? Not really. I bought my first Leica (a 1936 IIIa) in 1969 after 3 years with a Pentax SV, perhaps the closest SLR in feel to a Leica. I wasn't "excited". It just gave me the pictures I wanted. For more about why I still use Leicas (but don't expect everyone else too), see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ben,
Our thinking is identical. Your comment very much supports what I said in an earlier post, even down to the Pentaxes: "I don't think I'm alone".
Cheers,
R.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
I like my (film) Ms because it's a small, relatively light and compact system I can carry easily. It's simple and unopinionated, it does one thing and it's reliable. It also happens to be quite beautiful and a pleasure to use. The rest (equipment value, legacy, famous people who shot M) I don't care about, mine are well used, well travelled, loved and scratched up
codester80
A Touch of Light
Roger, I think you summed up what I was trying to say in my post with your own view on using Leicas.
I never said Leica's are not great cameras or should never be used because of the advances in SLRs, etc. I still use rangefinders myself. I was simply responding to the OPs question about what makes M's so special. As you put it yourself, they're not. If they work for your style, taste, method than they are great cameras and if they don't, they're not special at all. Just as Leicaphiles find nothing special in say a Nikon F or a Spotmatic. However, there is an undeniable propensity to elevate Leicas to a higher plane than other cameras and I would suggest it is the legacy of Leica, being the first to get it right in 35mm combined with a few big names adopting Leicas as their tool of choice (Magnum founders), that has created a myth about the superiority of Leica over others. To illustrate my point one can simply ask why Canon, Nikon, Contax, Zeiss, Cosina, etc. rangefinders are not held as in high esteem (generally speaking) even though they all produced great rangefinders (some of which can be argued are superior in many ways to offerings from Leica).
I never said Leica's are not great cameras or should never be used because of the advances in SLRs, etc. I still use rangefinders myself. I was simply responding to the OPs question about what makes M's so special. As you put it yourself, they're not. If they work for your style, taste, method than they are great cameras and if they don't, they're not special at all. Just as Leicaphiles find nothing special in say a Nikon F or a Spotmatic. However, there is an undeniable propensity to elevate Leicas to a higher plane than other cameras and I would suggest it is the legacy of Leica, being the first to get it right in 35mm combined with a few big names adopting Leicas as their tool of choice (Magnum founders), that has created a myth about the superiority of Leica over others. To illustrate my point one can simply ask why Canon, Nikon, Contax, Zeiss, Cosina, etc. rangefinders are not held as in high esteem (generally speaking) even though they all produced great rangefinders (some of which can be argued are superior in many ways to offerings from Leica).
Turtle
Veteran
It's true, there is nothing magical about the Leica M, but this does not mean there is nothing special or unique about it either. Equally, that a person may prefer another sort of camera for their uses does not change what is unique about the Leica M, only whether it works for a given individual or not (and there are plenty of reasons why a person may prefer a DSLR, or mirrorless, for example).
Regarding why other cameras are not held to the same esteem, I would venture that there is a different explanation to the one above:
1. Most 'other' cameras in the last 40 years, have been SLRs, which has meant a large pack of such cameras sharing common architecture.
2. Out of the rangefinders, Contax/Zeiss was a late comer to the modern film rangefinder era, with their Ikon model. Anyone looking to buy an in production rangefinder in the last 20 years was either looking at the reappearance of the excellent Zeiss or the much more affordable Voigtlanders. But it pretty well stopped there, aside from Leica (ignoring the Epson Rd-1). None are in production now.
3. No other manufacturer has a current digital range finder, with Leica being the only brand left standing.
4. While there are some stunningly good mirrorless alternatives to a digital Leica M, or a DSLRs for that matter, none have quite the same blend of attributes the Leica M has. That's not to say Leica M is better for everyone (far from it), only that they are not the same. For certain applications I certainly prefer using SLRs or mirrorless, but acknowledging that takes nothing away from the reasons when I prefer a rangefinder.
Perhaps by removing 'special' and inserting 'unique' would make it sound less elitist and more pragmatic, which was the intention of my article.
Regarding why other cameras are not held to the same esteem, I would venture that there is a different explanation to the one above:
1. Most 'other' cameras in the last 40 years, have been SLRs, which has meant a large pack of such cameras sharing common architecture.
2. Out of the rangefinders, Contax/Zeiss was a late comer to the modern film rangefinder era, with their Ikon model. Anyone looking to buy an in production rangefinder in the last 20 years was either looking at the reappearance of the excellent Zeiss or the much more affordable Voigtlanders. But it pretty well stopped there, aside from Leica (ignoring the Epson Rd-1). None are in production now.
3. No other manufacturer has a current digital range finder, with Leica being the only brand left standing.
4. While there are some stunningly good mirrorless alternatives to a digital Leica M, or a DSLRs for that matter, none have quite the same blend of attributes the Leica M has. That's not to say Leica M is better for everyone (far from it), only that they are not the same. For certain applications I certainly prefer using SLRs or mirrorless, but acknowledging that takes nothing away from the reasons when I prefer a rangefinder.
Perhaps by removing 'special' and inserting 'unique' would make it sound less elitist and more pragmatic, which was the intention of my article.
goamules
Well-known
To me, here is what is special about the M system (not talking about Barnacks).
- The M lenses are small, and feel precise. They are high quality, equal to a lot of Japanese lenses.
- The focusing system, though archaic, is about the clearest and easiest to use of any rangefinder.
- People say "wow" when they see it.
That's about it. I have carried an M3 now for maybe 50 hours. I've shot a few rolls. It's a precise instrument, with no meter. That means it's more difficult to use than the myriads of SLRs that replaced it. Like driving a 1958 Corvette, it's really cool and very capable, but doesn't compete with every sports car that came after it. Do I have any SLRs? No, not since the 1980s. Because I like old, archaic things, that still work very well.
- The M lenses are small, and feel precise. They are high quality, equal to a lot of Japanese lenses.
- The focusing system, though archaic, is about the clearest and easiest to use of any rangefinder.
- People say "wow" when they see it.
That's about it. I have carried an M3 now for maybe 50 hours. I've shot a few rolls. It's a precise instrument, with no meter. That means it's more difficult to use than the myriads of SLRs that replaced it. Like driving a 1958 Corvette, it's really cool and very capable, but doesn't compete with every sports car that came after it. Do I have any SLRs? No, not since the 1980s. Because I like old, archaic things, that still work very well.
Lss
Well-known
In many markets this would lead to overall energy savings. There are also other benefits in terms of house building. The day may therefore come, and the scale could be significant.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Interesting thoughts - fantastic photos!
Mark T
Established
One of the biggest advantages to me, which I think is often overlooked - or possibly not cared about by others, is that the M works really well with coloured filters. If you're using black and white film (or a monocrom too for that matter), you can use colour filter but still look through a clear viewfinder. If you use colour filters on an SLR (or mirrorless but don't know why you would), you see the world in shades of yellow, or green, orange etc...
kiemchacsu
Well-known
Dear Tom,
I enjoyed your blog very much, lots of fruitful information.
P.S: Glad to be your friend on FB also. (Trung Kiemchacsu)