michaelwj
----------------
I would definitely keep the AE option and then add Auto to the ISO wheel. I have a strong preference for including exposure compensation as well to enhance the usefulness of the automatic mode(s). Just staring at the camera, I can see at least three easy ways to implement that rather elegantly.
On the other hand, I think Leica should embrace customization as long as they keep the traditional M design. Then we both win.They should have all the bits and pieces in place (M 60 is one obvious proof for all relevant meanings of 'bits'), and this even allows for inflating prices in a way that many buyers would agree with. They already have the M-E category for the simpler experience. Currently, M and M-E both make sense as they are quite different products. Assuming the current M is the next M-E, differentiation may become much harder.
I suppose where do you stop?
Exposure compensation should go with AE, which is why I don't see a reason for AE. Once you add in Auto ISO, you need to be able to set high and low limits, then have the limits depend on shutter speed. To set all this we probably need a dial and a screen and all of a sudden we're looking at an M240. Its a slippery slope.
They already do customization of certain aspects, but yeah, imagine if the a la carte included all the options - screen, framline preview lever, and so on. It could be done with not to many extra parts, you'd just need two body casts (screen and no screen), the preview lever is a hole that gets plugged. Now we're talking!
YYV_146
Well-known
No, I'm not. Leica is delusional if it believes that you can have a camera with no screen operate so well that its OOC DNG converts are perfect works with no need for post processing. If you have to correct white balance and adjust exposure and tinker with files after the shooting, what is the point of a deliberately crippled camera?
And no, I don't find the lack of a screen comfortable. In fact one of the reasons why I stopped using DSLRs was because I couldn't constantly have a good idea about exposure and other parameters - so I switched to EVF cameras.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I guess I wonder why it's such a slippery slope.
I have an M240 which I've set up the way I like to use it, and mostly do so without pushing buttons (aside from the shutter release) or looking at the screen - except to change the lens info when I change lenses (I don't have coded lenses and all too often I don't even remember to change settings). Oh, and to format the card after I've downloaded photos (but I don't do that when I'm out shooting).
Sure my camera has a screen, but that doesn't mean I have to spend all my time staring at it. Sure it has buttons, but that doesn't mean I have to push them. Sure it has menus, but I hardly ever navigate them.
Occasionally I'll glance at the histogram after I've taken a shot, especially in tricky light. While I don't have to do that, sometimes I find it useful, and I'm glad to have the capability. More occasionally (though I can't remember when last I did it) I'll change some other setting. My only problem then is remembering to change it back (which may be why I so seldom do this). None of which makes me want a camera without screens and buttons. I'd gain nothing from not having them, and lose something if they weren't there.
That doesn't mean I'm "against" such a camera. While the concept doesn't float my boat I really don't care if it does appeal to somebody else. The only thing I guess leaves me slightly miffed (I'll get over it) is the idea that someone who doesn't have a screen on their digital camera (or just doesn't want one) is somehow more pure, and better and real a photographer than someone who does. I can't quite see the 'logic' there, though apparently some can.
...Mike
Lss
Well-known
There is more than enough traction. These are typically set-once-and-forget type of adjustments, and can therefore be implemented without any additional dials or screens (there are dials for both ISO and shutter speed, and there is a viewfinder with LEDs). Perhaps an additional button under the bottom plate is needed for access. Of course, USB connection may also be provided for such settings and other advanced features that Leica preferably should provide (such as pixel mapping).
thegman
Veteran
A screenless digital camera is kind of interesting to me, but I've got to say, I don't much like the 'Audi designed' appearance of it. Audi make some beautiful cars, but Leica make some of the best looking cameras ever made, and I just don't think they need any advice on that front.
It almost sounds like Breitling seeking watch design from Sony, Sony make some nice stuff, but I'd probably leave designing a watch to Breitling.
It almost sounds like Breitling seeking watch design from Sony, Sony make some nice stuff, but I'd probably leave designing a watch to Breitling.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The thing that annoys me about the 60 is the fact that Leica have chosen to make it a limited edition .... once again showing their willingness to pluck a wad of cash from the affluent few who really want it by making it 'exclusive.' Personally I'm not interested in a digital camera with no display but I accept that there are people out there who are ... but fairly obviously they won't be the ones ponying up the eighteen grand to own one.
They (Leica) are fast becoming a company with their heads so far up their own backsides it's amazing they can breathe!
Enter Roger ... to shoot me down in flames for being a knocker.
They (Leica) are fast becoming a company with their heads so far up their own backsides it's amazing they can breathe!
Enter Roger ... to shoot me down in flames for being a knocker.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mike,
Digital photographers have to have someone to look down upon, as they are quite low on the totem pole of "real" or "pure" or "better" photographers. It's just like social class: some people are desperate to differentiate themselves from other quite similar people. Consider
Those who coat their own sensitized materials, some of whom look down upon
"Ordinary" large format photographers, some of whom look down upon
Users of medium format, some of whom look down upon
35mm users, some of whom look down upon
Digital photographers
The great thing is that if you try hard enough, you can always find someone else to look down upon. For example, some Leica users are reputed to look down on users of lesser cameras, and certainly, plenty of people look down on Leica users.
Admittedly I regard film as more "real" than digital, but that's because I had over a third of a century of film experience before I even tried digital; early digital cameras were rubbish (low resolution, overpriced); early digital evangelists were idiots ("14 megapixels equate to medium format quality!"); and I was much better at using film. Today the main reason I regard it as more "real" is that film cameras last longer: I don't like being forced to buy new tools because the old ones are no longer reparable. But I still have an M8, an M9 and a Nikon Df (and a dead D70). And several dozen "real" cameras, from a Minolta 16 to a 12x15 Gandolfi.
Cheers,
R.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Quite right! And by your progression I'm not quite as low as a snake's belly, but I'm pretty close. Sure, I shoot film as well as digital (though not as often as I 'should') and I even develop my own (B&W only). But [whisper it!] I scan and inkjet print, I don't wet print. There are many more to look down on me than I'd be able to look down upon. If I were so inclined.
Which, of course, I'm not. I could hardly afford to be, now could I?
...Mike
michaelwj
----------------
Hi Mike,
I don't know, but looking around at modern cameras it appears to be very slippery!
zuiko85
Veteran
Roger, thanks for your post on this topic. It came just in time! You see, I just bought a Minox IIIs and I'm desperate to find someone to look down on. I think I'm at the end of my format size having already used from 4X5 to Minolta 16, any help greatly appreciated.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You can look down on owners of any other submini. The Minox IIIS is the ne plus ultra of subminiature cameras, it has more panache than the later models with their built-in meters (Real Photographers don't need meters ...)!
... ]'-)
Actually, bravo on acquiring a delightful camera! I hope you enjoy it and make many satisfying photographs with it. You remind me that I haven't taken a Minox out for a walk in a very long time ...
G
"Subway Ride" — San Francisco 1999, on the MUNI
Minox IIIS
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
To what bad end, though? I can enjoy using the kind of camera that took this:
(almost the anti-Leica; quite recent and modern in all the supposedly bad ways)
...while still enjoying the camera which took this:
...yet enjoy both, using one or the other (or yet a different camera again) based on which is more suited to the task at hand or as the whim takes me. Certainly some types of camera make it easier to take certain shots than others, including modern cameras (nasty auto-focus SLR-y things, or digital versions of older-style cameras, such as my M240).
...Mike
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Mike,
I don't think the author of the blog articles is in any way saying that the design concept of the M Edition 60 or any production derivative is the only way cameras should be. He refers to it as a "Jimi Hendrix moment" ... re: the story told by Eric Clapton in the second article's introduction, listening to Jimi play changed Eric's perception of what guitar music could be, it expanded on what he was doing with his own music. It didn't replace it; it enriched it by providing another perspective that Eric hadn't imagined before.
I certainly wouldn't expect a camera like this to replace the Olympus E-M1 or even the Leica M-P model, both of which have versatility far beyond what this kind of minimalism can accommodate for when you want or need it. Why does it seem so anathema to some people commenting here that this minimalism, this notion of a "jimi hendrix moment" fostered by the design of a simple camera, should exist?
The M Edition 60 is no more limited a camera than the original M3 that its existence as a special edition celebrates. And how many times a day do I read people on this forum saying, "Yeah, all you really need is an M3 (or M2 or M4, pick your favorite film M) and a lens ... the rest is folderol"?
Creativity is only limited by our imagination.
G
I don't think the author of the blog articles is in any way saying that the design concept of the M Edition 60 or any production derivative is the only way cameras should be. He refers to it as a "Jimi Hendrix moment" ... re: the story told by Eric Clapton in the second article's introduction, listening to Jimi play changed Eric's perception of what guitar music could be, it expanded on what he was doing with his own music. It didn't replace it; it enriched it by providing another perspective that Eric hadn't imagined before.
I certainly wouldn't expect a camera like this to replace the Olympus E-M1 or even the Leica M-P model, both of which have versatility far beyond what this kind of minimalism can accommodate for when you want or need it. Why does it seem so anathema to some people commenting here that this minimalism, this notion of a "jimi hendrix moment" fostered by the design of a simple camera, should exist?
The M Edition 60 is no more limited a camera than the original M3 that its existence as a special edition celebrates. And how many times a day do I read people on this forum saying, "Yeah, all you really need is an M3 (or M2 or M4, pick your favorite film M) and a lens ... the rest is folderol"?
Creativity is only limited by our imagination.
G
airfrogusmc
Veteran
They are just tools. Finding one that works with your way of seeing and the way the you work is priceless. For me and only me because I have been doing it for so long and it is really second nature the less automation the better. My Canon DSLRs that I shoot most of my commercial work with are looked in manual. Not because of any other reason than it's my way of working and has been for decades. So find something that works and don't worry about what others find best for them. The present M60 is just to pricey for me but if we are lucky Leica will put this into regular production and put a price point at about where the M-E is now and I would be very happy and would buy at least one. I plan one switching completely over to Leica M in the next couple of years instead of upgrading my Canons. Fell in love with my MM and the range finder shooting experience after a long separation. But if they make a rangefinder that is just another auto everything, menu heavy, Nicanon I will just go Canon instead. No reason to buy Leica.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
AGREE....
Actually the M60 is a real alternative to everything else out there. Like the MM.... Hurray for choices and Leica for making tools that no one else is making. You don't like it, don't buy it. You certainly have a bevy of choices that's not the M60 or MM. Almost the entire other digital camera world.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nah, all you need is a Folderol, a surprisingly little-known version of the Belgian VlimVlams built under license in Albania. The bellows are a little too stiff to fold fully, and the uncoated Folderoldar 105/6.3 is hardly a stellar performer, but a Folderol and some outdated Soviet-era film are all a REAL photographer needs.
Cheers,
R.
back alley
IMAGES
as another example of what and how a camera might look and work...i like it!
i tend to use mu fujis like this...set it up and then just shoot...keepin' it simple.
but the more i see of what's out there the more i think epson/cosina got it right with the rd1...and what amazes me is that no one else is making a new version of that camera!!
i tend to use mu fujis like this...set it up and then just shoot...keepin' it simple.
but the more i see of what's out there the more i think epson/cosina got it right with the rd1...and what amazes me is that no one else is making a new version of that camera!!
mdg137
Established
Roger,
Eloquent as always. However, I might modify your hierarchy as follows:
"Digital photographers, who look down upon
Those who coat their own sensitized materials, some of whom look down upon
"Ordinary" large format photographers, some of whom look down upon
Users of medium format, some of whom look down upon
35mm users, some of whom look down upon
Digital photographers"
airfrogusmc
Veteran
The thing that annoys me about the 60 is the fact that Leica have chosen to make it a limited edition .... once again showing their willingness to pluck a wad of cash from the affluent few who really want it by making it 'exclusive.' Personally I'm not interested in a digital camera with no display but I accept that there are people out there who are ... but fairly obviously they won't be the ones ponying up the eighteen grand to own one.
They (Leica) are fast becoming a company with their heads so far up their own backsides it's amazing they can breathe!
Enter Roger ... to shoot me down in flames for being a knocker.
Yep Keith and sometimes special editions turn into more affordable regular production cameras and if by making special editions, Leica keeps the doors open and thus allows them the financial stability to make cameras like the MM and hopeful this camera in regular production at a reasonable price (M-E price would be reasonable) then I hope that they keep their heads right up their.