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
Been following this thread for awhile, so I guess I might as well pitch in.

Speaking strictly about the M240:

1. Horrible attachment EVF. In my experience with using the M240 I use the EVF for 40-60% of my shots. Some of my lenses are uncoupled, others are too wide for the window, and yet others are just too damn hard to focus with the RF patch. The M240's EVF is slow, has strong tearing effects, cannot accurately reflect color and contrast, and just feels aged in general. For a $500 piece on a $6000 camera, I expect better.

2. Shallow buffer. Way shallower than most other FF digital bodies (about half as many RAWs as the A7, 1/4th as many as the D750). I shoot concerts and occasionally find the need to spray shots. The M240 doesn't handle this well.

3. Metering. The traditional neutral gray metering is prone to underexposing with highlights in the scene. The sensor metering is considerably better, but using that mode means extended shutter lag. Leica should make sensor metering the standard and implement some type of electronic front curtain (as almost all other brand have).

4. Banding at high iso levels. pushing from 3200 can be painful because of the banding. The M240 is not really capable of producing usable 20,000 iso equivalent shots. I'm probably in the minority when I worry about this, though.

5. Size, weight and handling. The 240 is definitely much heavier than any film M, and approaches DSLR territory in terms of weight. With a grip and thumbie the body is heavier than a Canon 6d. I would like to see the body be kept closer in profile and weight to the M6. If that's not possible, at least go back to the slightly more trimmed profile of the M9.

I'm actually fairly optimistic in believing that most of these issues will be addressed by the next generation M digital. I can afford the camera, but when I'm spending four times the price of an alternative full frame, I expect nothing but the best in both user experience and performance.


Oh, and I want a manual frameline switch and/or rear iso dial...:D
 
The high cost was my first stumbling block for me for Leica digital bodies. I bought a used (like new) M8.2 in 2009. The lens coding and UV/IR thing was a real turn off for me. I liked the camera OK, but I hadn't used digital cameras much before that and it just didn't fit with my shooting rhythm the way that film did. I often shoot when there is strong high contrast lighting and I just was so frustrated with blowing highlights since it didn't have near the latitude that film had. I went back to using my M6 and shooting film again and stayed mostly with that for several years. Now I think I have finally adjusted to using digital and I shoot mostly with a Sony NEX 7 and just this year bought a A7r. I am very satisfied with the images and the hightlights stay under control much better and my total investment is only a fraction of what a Leica digital would cost. I have made some 12X18 prints from these cameras that are excellent. - jim
 
Out shooting with the M9 for a moment this morning, catching the fog using the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH (LTM) ...

Whatever the reason all'y'all chose not to buy one, I'm happy I did buy one. :)

Happy Holidays! Señor M9 and I head to Tijuana tomorrow for a few days with family and friends, and then ride the train home again. Can't wait!

G
 
For me it's only cost. I'm pretty happy with my Fuji X100T though, so I don't really have the desire for a digital M anymore to be honest.
 
jaapv said:
Hmmm...

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...mas-post-your-christmas-card.html#post2847291

ISO 5000 , basically out of camera, no noise reduction. Actually I took the same shot with a NEX 7 first and ran into horrible banding in the sky @ ISO 6400.
Click to expand...

if we are going on ISO and noise, thats a shocker, not good at all, but it is ISO-5000 for a leica.

here is ISO-5000 (by trenchmonkey) from a now $600 camera, and completely OOC,
http://s244.photobucket.com/user/rvrsbnd/media/de8c4ba4.jpg.html
 
robert blu said:
...and organize a quicker technical service in case of failures...
robert
Click to expand...

I don't think that will really happen in terms of a true drf.. The cheaper Leica cameras are going to be their apsc cameras like the new T. Remember what happened to the Minolta/Leica CL? Lost money on their M bodies to the CL from what people have told me.

Gary
 
The cheaper Nikon D5300 offers better features, reliability dependability and disposability. Leica digital M is a special camera, will not fit everyone's expectation or needs, but it has its own market.
 
it only has its own market because no one else has joined it. if anyone did leica would p*** their pants. as it stands the rd1 at 6 mps has much to recommend it over the m8. to quote pink floyd: is there anybody out there?
 
There is nobody out there. Why? Because nobody knows how to build a DRF at a price to compete with Leica ...
 
rbelyell said:
it only has its own market because no one else has joined it. if anyone did leica would p*** their pants. as it stands the rd1 at 6 mps has much to recommend it over the m8. to quote pink floyd: is there anybody out there?
Click to expand...

The fundamental issue, and the reason why Leica alone is in this digital rangefinder market, is that building a digital rangefinder to use existing LTM and M-Bayonet lenses is freekin' HARD if you're going to get the kind of quality these lenses were intended to deliver. It is FAR more sensible—more doable, less expensive, easier to develop, etc—to design a new body and a new lens line than to try to make a compatible body for the existing lens line. Any attempt to build an opto-mechanical RF rather than an EVF/LCD based new body/lens lens is going to be shot down on the basis of development cost and perceived marketability by any company other than Leica.

If you don't care whether what you buy is a rangefinder, and all you're looking for is image quality, there are plenty of other perfectly good choices available at much lower prices.

Leica is never going to have any competition for a digital rangefinder compatible with existing lenses. Those that want a digital rangefinder, well, suck it up and buy the Leica. Warts and all, it is now, has been, and will be the only game in town. Aside from the short-lived Epson R-D1 (built in very small numbers for a short period of time based on existing Cosina body parts), no one else has even attempted. Or will; my understanding is that Epson lost money on every one of those cameras, despite how expensive they were.

G
 
Given the steadily increasing prices for film I would love to see an affordable and reliable digital RF with FF sized sensor for about US$2000 new. Considering the price range and reliability problems of Leica`s digital rangefinder cameras I would rather buy a Nikon Df and Fuji x100 as a digital substitute and skip the RF experience.
 
rbelyell said:
it only has its own market because no one else has joined it. if anyone did leica would p*** their pants. as it stands the rd1 at 6 mps has much to recommend it over the m8. to quote pink floyd: is there anybody out there?
Click to expand...

This is true, and Leica is such a small market hence the price, due to the manufacturing numbers, the others know this so why join a very small market.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom