Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

  • Total voters
    613
Godfrey said:
The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G
Click to expand...

Then are viewfinder cameras and point and shoot film cameras also fake rangefinder marketing things?

A corner window viewfinder is simply the most practical way of making an integral compact OVF, there's nothing conceited about it. Also, while most people compare the XP1 and X100 to Leicas, they have a lot more in common with Kyocera Contaxes. I'm sure the company is happy to have the public associate their product with a more famous and respected brand, but I'm pretty sure their design team paid far more attention to the Contax T and G series than the Leica M - which frankly I think is just as well.
 
Money are not the problem. The problem is what you get in return. After using a M9 for a month, I found nothing which could justify the price.

With much less money you get at least the same result in terms of quality of pictures.

Those used to film rangefinder and unable to learn how to properly use other systems -like fuji- are the perfect prey of Leica marketing guys.
The range finder alone, with all the quirks and problems affecting the digital Leica tools, does not, and by far, justify the outrageous price.

Just like Harley or Lacoste, Leica is now charging brand more than quality of products.
If you buy Leica you will be part of the Leica experience, you will be a Leica selected customer and all this crap. Just look at their stores and marketing activities.

To me it makes sense to fork out the right amount for a Porsche GT3 RS. You get a technically sophisticated tool, with performances way above cheaper cars. I'll bring it to the racetrack and I get the fun no VW GTI could deliver.

Paying for the digital Leica and maybe adding the absolutely necessary Billingham... would make me look a funny prey of fashion.
 
I'd have the GTI VW over the Porsche any day ... think of the savings I can put towards Leica glass for my 240! :angel:
 
really, talking true, i never decided to NOT buy one. i knew i could not afford it - nor a lens - and never would be able to afford it. so i make do, like most of us. have fun ... :)
 
I chose "other." I like the M form factor for a film camera, and particularly the shape of the body. Still shoot with an M6 on a regular basis.

As a digital it makes little sense. With film, the Leica always had a state of the art sensor and some of the best lenses available. But Leica digital sensors have always been behind the curve. Where's the upside on dropping a pile of money for the same -- or worse -- image quality?

Moreover, the M interface, always a compromise (sometimes a good one, sometimes not), is poorly suited to digital photography.

Finally, the fatter body is, rather than being "just right," "just wrong." With the M3, Leica got the proportions exactly right. Even the slightly-taller TTL was a step in the wrong direction. The bloat of the M digitals is really unfortunate. I hate the way they feel in the hand, particularly in light of the unavoidable comparison to an M2/3/4/6.

Oh, and I loathe the conceit of the removable baseplate. That "feature" pretty much says everything about who the target market for the digital M's is.
 
I have not voted in my poll. I bought a used M8 first, followed by a used M9. They sre not the same as my M3 or M6 film cameras, but this because they are digital RF cameras. Both types of cameras are dear to me. It is a personal choice to buy or not buy a specific camera. Often, the main factor is the cost that makes potential buyers not buy such an expensive toy.
 
My film M is an M6ttl. Wonderful in the hand (never held or used a film M I didn't like). I have been through the M8/M9/MM cycle over the last 5+ years and, once I adjusted to their difference, found them wonderful to shoot as well. Size variation is nothing consequential to me. Other things on the digi models, like shutter actuation and recocking and continued use of the anachronistic bottom plate, bothered me a bit, but not enough to make me move from Leica. I'm rethinking my loyalty now (which is why I'm posting but not voting on this poll).
 
semilog said:
I chose "other." I like the M form factor for a film camera, and particularly the shape of the body. Still shoot with an M6 on a regular basis.

As a digital it makes little sense. With film, the Leica always had a state of the art sensor and some of the best lenses available. But Leica digital sensors have always been behind the curve. Where's the upside on dropping a pile of money for the same -- or worse -- image quality?

Moreover, the M interface, always a compromise (sometimes a good one, sometimes not), is poorly suited to digital photography.

Finally, the fatter body is, rather than being "just right," "just wrong." With the M3, Leica got the proportions exactly right. Even the slightly-taller TTL was a step in the wrong direction. The bloat of the M digitals is really unfortunate. I hate the way they feel in the hand, particularly in light of the unavoidable comparison to an M2/3/4/6.

Oh, and I loathe the conceit of the removable baseplate. That "feature" pretty much says everything about who the target market for the digital M's is.
Click to expand...

That is now pretty much my feeling about Leica digital, too. Unfortunately I wasn't thinking very pragmatically and bought into the whole M9 thing. Like a lot of people, I had assumed I could replicate the Leica film experience with the M9 (the M9 shutter sounds like a toy camera!! :eek:) After a year I bailed out of Leica digital (fortunately I was able to sell mine at a decent price compared to what they are selling for now.)

The M9 was a mistake for me, personally (I also had to have it serviced 2x due to manufacturing faults.) However, I've kept my M4 and M6 and a couple of lenses which I use a lot. To me this is the original 'Leica experience' that I feel comfortable with (although to be honest, I can also get equally good images from a Nikon F3 and Nikkor lenses :).)

With digital there are many other options that offer me functionality + image quality, and for a lot less money. I have no desire anymore for a digital Leica, whether it's the M240 or whatever else they come up with.
 
semilog said:
As a digital it makes little sense. With film, the Leica always had a state of the art sensor and some of the best lenses available. But Leica digital sensors have always been behind the curve. Where's the upside on dropping a pile of money for the same -- or worse -- image quality?

Moreover, the M interface, always a compromise (sometimes a good one, sometimes not), is poorly suited to digital photography.
Click to expand...

After a lot of soul searching considering a digital Leica that about sums it up for me too.
I look to other makes for my digital shots.
 
The sensor horror stories scared me away. That and I should really use the 400+ rolls of film stashed in my fridge anyway.
 
Godfrey said:
The digital Leicas are not "rangefinder-style cameras"—they ARE rangefinder cameras. The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G
Click to expand...

"Is that Mt. Kilimanjaro sticking up into the jet stream? I did not know it was so high."

"No, it is Godfrey's nose. Apparently he is dreaming so it is pointed straight up."

"I think some friends of mine are actually planning to climb it...."

"Oh dear...tell them to be really careful. I have heard it is very avalanche prone due to the snowpack being comprised of mostly Koolaid."

"OK, I will pass it on. It kind of looks like Mt. Fuji come to think of it."

"Yeah....don't say that to the climbers...they won't Leica it one bit."
 
1) it is too expensive
-> In my country a film Leica costs about 2 average salaries (after taxes). This is the highest amount of money I could somehow imagine to spend. Given the fact I get a very long lasting product. A digital M is both - much more expensive and obviously much less durable.

2) there are other (digital) camera options that suit me better
-> Honestly I do not really need a rangefinder in a digital M (M stands for the german word "Messsucher", meaning "rangefinder", doesn't it?). Take the concept of a Sony 7, add some kind of split image of an X-T1 and you are fine. For the time being I am fine with a Fujifilm X.

4) other reason ... [explain]
I do not trust in Leica's competence in producing high quality electronic products. An R-Leica of any age will most probably be faulty (I have tried 5 so far, all being junk). They weren't even able to implement a DX readout properly, decades after invention. And the DX coding is certainly not high sophisticated technology.
 
jamais said:
2) there are other (digital) camera options that suit me better[/I]
-> Honestly I do not really need a rangefinder in a digital M (M stands for the german word "Messsucher", meaning "rangefinder", doesn't it?). Take the concept of a Sony 7, add some kind of split image of an X-T1 and you are fine. For the time being I am fine with a Fujifilm X..
Click to expand...


Fuji (specifically an X-T1) is what's making me think about dropping digital M's. I've used one on-and-off for nearly a year. A fine, reliable camera with great support for a reasonable price. Doesn't give what a digital M does, but gives a lot of what a digital M doesn't.

I'm sure my view is self-centric and limited but it seems to be a dangerous time for Leica's FF digital platform. So many alternatives are available - small form dSLRs and mirrorless products - that threaten their functional niche (as opposed to their luxury and brand cachet).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom