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

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

  • Total voters
    630
I found the digital Leicas prior to the M240 performed too poorly (frame rate, buffer, high iso, bugs) for general use no matter the price. The M240 is, 'good enough,' and is a rangefinder (which is what I really care about).

That said, would it kill Leica to put the ISO, aperture estimate & shutter speed into the viewfinder? The world is ready for the state of the art in 1980s LCD technology.
 
aeturnum said:
..
That said, would it kill Leica to put the ISO, aperture estimate & shutter speed into the viewfinder? The world is ready for the state of the art in 1980s LCD technology.
Click to expand...

I'd rather they didn't. I much prefer the "quiet" of my M4-2 viewfinder, with only one or at most two frame lines showing and just the rf patch. No distractions.

It's funny because with my EVF cameras I like having the histogram and other data at my disposal. But even there I turn most of it off, most of the time.

G
 
The reasons I haven't bought a digital M:

(1) Cost
(2) I enjoy shooting film too much to spend that kind of money on a digital camera (see #1 above)
(3) I've bought into the m4/3 system, and my E-P5 and GX1 are all I (currently) need in the digital department. And their small size compared to a digital M is a plus.
(4) I've read a lot of user commentaries on problems with the M8 and the M9, which seem discouraging in cameras that are so expensive.
(5) That said, I would consider an M Monochrome or an M240 if they weren't so expensive (see #1 above).
 
Godfrey said:
I'd rather they didn't. I much prefer the "quiet" of my M4-2 viewfinder, with only one or at most two frame lines showing and just the rf patch. No distractions.

It's funny because with my EVF cameras I like having the histogram and other data at my disposal. But even there I turn most of it off, most of the time.

G
Click to expand...

That kind of sounded like my Pentax SV Godfrey.

Quiet shutter, no distractions in the viewfinder, not even any framelines. 🙂
 
If we summarize all the feedback here that explains why people did not choose a digital Leica camera, and then we email the summary to Leica headquarters, maybe there will be a change in how Leica makes their cameras and the way it prices cameras?
 
Leica M is well built and feels good in the hand..nothing like it..
But that said..
Cost is too high...
Unreliability is too high and problematical as well when something goes wrong..as in shipping cam out for weeks etc..
Leica warrantee is great..but..you will probably need it..
Like a fancy sports car..loads of problems..but the wow factor is definitely there....
Didn't buy one after the M6..just went Japanese 4/3 for years now..and perfectly happy w/that..
Just like my cars..Japanese all the way..
I need reliability..
I don't like to get stuck on the road..
 
raid said:
If we summarize all the feedback here that explains why people did not choose a digital Leica camera, and then we email the summary to Leica headquarters, maybe there will be a change in how Leica makes their cameras and the way it prices cameras?
Click to expand...

It cannot hurt to try.

Not only does the company rely on existing user base to outsource R&D costs, it can also rely on consumers to provide free marketing research.
 
I did buy both the M8 and the M9, new, at the end of their production cycles.

So the question for me is rather: why did I sell my digital Ms? And again, why did I not continue along the Leica upgrade path?

1) I was not convinced of the supposed vaunted superiority of the Leica CCD-based bodies at base ISO. It is entirely subjective, but in side-by-side comparison, I preferred another camera.

2) High ISO performance, even with the M240, is not impressive.

3) The CCD-based models did not have live view.

4) Reliability is too questionable for such a high-priced product given my disposable income.

5) I have been more impressed with after-market service from another brand.

6) I still have awesome film RFs.

7) There is a lot of good glass in other mounts, and a lot of pleasure in other bodies.

The one thing that I really do not want to give up is the coincident RF/VF. I would pay a premium for such a body again, but not at current luxury-niche market pricing, provided it were proven reliable in most cases.
 
This thread shows pretty well the massive distrust in reliability of digital Leica cameras (especially so among non-owners), although it is mostly manifested by only few individuals. While it will surely take time to change that overall perception, it is positive for Leica that so many people anyway care about their cameras (or perhaps the brand). Many of those would probably change their mind if Leica's pricing was more mainstream.

The only Leica camera I have ever owned is the M8 that I still use. It remains the most cost-effective solution for my camera needs. I will switch when something better comes out at a price I can afford, but I really wish to keep using my excellent lenses (many of which are Leica). If the hypothetical better system actually requires AF, I may even sell most/all the lenses.
 
raid said:
If we summarize all the feedback here that explains why people did not choose a digital Leica camera, and then we email the summary to Leica headquarters, maybe there will be a change in how Leica makes their cameras and the way it prices cameras?
Click to expand...

Raid- My thoughts exactly. IF I was a Leica manager who cares about "qualified" market perceptions- these feedbacks are what they pay expensive study groups to compile. Anyone have a contact at Leica?…..
 
For me this is a cost/benefit or value proposition -- a blend of the first and second survey options. After using an M8 and M9 for a few years, I now shoot with an X-Pro and GR. Digital Ms seemed worth the premium over my previous Canon gear, but I really can't see the benefits beyond what the X-Pro and GR offer. I miss RF focusing, but the price difference just doesn't justify it.

John
 
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...

To be fair, the NEX7 is over twice the pixel density on an older manufacturing process compared to the M. It is an older camera (by a year) and the sensor is even older in comparison (two years).

My experience is that the M240 cannot compete with good Canon FF sensors (6d) on chroma noise control, nor with good Sony FF sensors on color noise control. Color noise becomes rather problematic above iso 3200. Not bad performance by any means, but nothing to write home about in the modern days of digital.

The image looks like iso 25,600 OOC from my A7s. Of course, the A7s really has no competitor in the high iso department out there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
ranger9
R
Roastchestnuts
lens decisions?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Roastchestnuts
Roastchestnuts
A
Thinking about a SL2-S yet again vs Panasonic S1
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Archiver
A
das
Why Does Leica Not Make AE M Lenses?
7 8 9
Replies
177
Views
14K
Godfrey
Godfrey
L
Leica Lens List - a new tool to view and compare Leica LTM / M lenses
Replies
0
Views
425
LeicaLensList
L
Back
Top Bottom