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

[Ariefb]

because sensor technology in a Fuji / Sony / even smaller format like m43 is already beyond sufficient to most of my photography. to me, the world of M is all about the lenses.

when Leica first introduced the M60 concept, i thought its gonna be a perfect digital M for everybody. And then they announced the price... oh well..

 

[coelacanth]

So I picked up my second MM (v1) very recently but I just traded that for a lens.

At this point of my life I'm choosing not to use digital M because

• I'm a b/w guy and I just can't get used to how highlight is treated even with MM.
• Thinking of residual value, future technical problems, etc is something I don't want to deal with.
• Figured using $$$ on lens rather than digital body.
• Got BEOON copying stand that made my scanning process a lot quicker. (and I still prefer to wet print when I can)

Technical problems can happen to film Ms, but it's a lot cheaper to have 2nd film M body while one is in repair, and there are several options of repair technicians around, usually with quicker turnaround than having Leica NJ for digital M fix. I am not a digital M hater at all, but at the moment, I'm choosing to go with film Ms for now.

 

[Tijmendal]

I had an M8 for a little while, but the quality was just abysmal. Maybe I'm spoiled by my 5D mk II (which I use profesionaly), but that camera just didn't cut it for me. B/W conversion was ok, but color was really bad. Now I find myself sometimes wanting an M9. Who knows. They're still a tad too expensive for me, but maybe after the new digital M will be released prices will drop sufficiently.

 

[kkdanamatt]

I've had the M8, M9 and M240.
I thought each time that I upgraded that the user's experience (mine) would improve.
Not so.
Digital M cameras are just not for me.
I'm still shooting film with my CLE, M2, M3, and M5.
When I need a digital image, my Nikon D7000 does the job at a fraction of Leica's price, along with many more features that are important for me.
If I want/need to use my Leica legacy glass, I may buy a mirrorless Fuji or Sony body down the line.

 

[vincentbenoit]

No low-magnification viewfinder option.

 

[coreydiego]

I bought a M3 because an old couple was selling it.(good vibes)
Also film is king.

 

[starless]

Other: Results from a film Leica are good enough for my work.

Also I find digital bodies lack in build quality, longevity and reliability, which is a major turn off.

 

[BillBingham2]

Way too much money.

For what I use a RF for (wide angle glass, close in) I can shoot with a GR-D (some day a GR) or my iPhone for a lot less money.

I still think that much money is a car.....

 

[jsrockit]

Oops, bought a M9.

Sold the M9. Ordered the Q. Makes more sense for me these days vs. the M.

 

[ajuk]

I just don't really see the advantage of having such a well made camera with digital innards.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

The decision was made for me when I saw the price and the word "Digital"...

Regards, David

 

[Erik van Straten]

I dislike digital photography profoundly.

Erik.

 

[maxmadco]

Too much money and it is digital.

 

[richard_l]

The film M is a masterpiece of mechanical engineering. The digital M is a mechanical-electronic mongrel, and it tends to be beset with issues with which the traditional M camera was not plagued. I still have respect for their products, and I am the proud owner of a Leica X2, which functions perfectly, but to spend a great deal of money on an admittedly beautiful camera of uncertain reliability is definitely not within my budget.

 

[phatnev]

Too many issues. Too much hassle getting them repaired. Poor performance for the price. If I want to shoot digital a DSLR like the D750 will give me superior results with better handling for much, much cheaper. I love my M6, and the M2 I had before it, they're phenomenal, dare I say perfect cameras.

Digital Leica bodies do not have the same magic that the film Ms do. They're too thick, too heavy, have terrible battery life, and are generally one generation behind other digital bodies while costing 3x more. Just not worth it.

 

[kbb]

Simple: I wear +2 diopter eyeglasses, and that prevents me from seeing the entire frame of anything wider than about 50mm in the classic Leica finder. 50mm is the beginning of telephoto for me.
I am suspicious that a good, reverse-Galilean finder that accommodates eyeglasses could be designed now in the 21st century, but Leica has chosen to maintain the retro design at the expense of progress.

 

[Rayt]

Too expensive for me. I can see Leica spared no effort with machining the body from a block of metal thus contributing to the costs but why go all out for something that will be replaced in 5 years time? Make it out of poly-whatever and charge less.

 

[lxmike]

Other hobbies, coupled family expenses and one of my sons at university means money is 'tight', (guess l am not alone with that regard), also l was drawn towards the Fuji X system, love the Fuji optical finders and they are not so 'expensive'

 

[jaapv]

Strange thread. Even limiting myself to cameras, there must be thousands that I decided not to buy for many reasons. Why I should post self-justification for those decisions on the internet is quite beyond me...

 

[daveleo]

Absurdly overpriced equipment.
My personal view is "Never buy photo gear that you can't afford to toss in the trash".
If you can toss a $5000 - $10,000 camera and lens setup into the trash, I salute you.

EDIT: If I were shooting film, no doubt I'd buy a used Leica camera/lens package right now.