Jump to content

M(240) Edition 60


IkarusJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought I'd start a new thread (Mods feel free to combine it with the other, but if you do, can you rename that thread?).

 

Call me daft, but this M60 version appeals to me more than the standard M(240) or the M-P version. I appreciate that it is a premium limited edition model, and I wish it didn't come with that over the top box and white cotton gloves (a turn-off if ever there was one), but I like the concept.

 

I do wonder if Leica will pass down these enhancements at any stage - from past experience, some might, some won't.

 

Has anyone found any detailed specs or anything like that? Buffer? Processor? What's on the B&H website seems a bit thin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you have the $, buy what you like. This type of camera only appeals to collectors. No serious shooter in their right mind would pay that premium for a camera that makes picture taking harder than it has to be.

 

Why does the box and gloves turn you off? Eggelston handles his Leica's with white gloves...don't you want to be like him? If I was a collector I'd be using gloves on it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the box and gloves turn you off? Eggelston handles his Leica's with white gloves...don't you want to be like him? If I was a collector I'd be using gloves on it.

 

Are you sure? Check this video of Eggleston ... at 3:02 handling Leica and shooting without gloves ... but at 6:45 handling prints with gloves:

And here at 9:49 shooting without gloves and with lit cigarette in hand:

Edited by zlatkob
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the box and gloves turn you off? Eggelston handles his Leica's with white gloves...don't you want to be like him? If I was a collector I'd be using gloves on it.

 

 

Hmm, well let's see. I'm not a collector, and I guess I'm not really that interested in what Eggleston does or doesn't do.

 

I guess I'm more interested in hearing more about the camera because I like the look of it - not the price.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy enough to make fun of this, and I have. But to be fair I think the concept (if not the stainless-steel, white-gloved and OTT-priced "Boxed for the experience of unboxing" special edition) needs to be assessed on it's own merits or lack thereof.

 

Some have tried to compare the "screenless M" concept with that of the M Monochrom, and there is a point to that, although I might draw different conclusions from those who have made the comparison. With the M Monochrom you give up one thing (and it's a big thing: colour) as a trade-off for other things ("better" B&W rendering, for whatever taste of "better" takes you, higher usable ISO, sharper cleaner details as demosaicing isn't necessary etc.) I can easily see that losing colour to gain other photographic benefits is quite rational as the benefits seem substantial and many shoot primarily black and white or can dedicate one camera to B&W and use another, or others, for colour.

 

So what is the "equivalent" tradeoff for a "screenless M"? I must admit to wracking my brain somewhat on this and coming up with few-enough answers. The best that occur to me are that it provides a direct and directly-observable external ISO control and that it avoids a scratchable, breakable screen which may be prone to failure (as may it's supporting electronics, buttons etc.) - something there's precedent for in the Leica line-up. To me, that seems little enough gain to suffer the far more substantial loss of the features supported by having a rear screen - starting with a reviewable histogram and proceeding through various menu-based functions for camera configuration and operation to no-doubt more things besides.

 

Hand-waving about "distraction" and "pure experience" and suchlike leave me cold: I'm quite capable of ignoring the screen if it suits me to do that; and the less said about "I'm more purist than you" games the better. I'm happy to use any technology that suits my way of working and enhances my chances of taking a decent photo. I need all the help I can get and I'm happy to take it if it's available. As to arguments about the reduced thickness of the camera body: (a) removing the LCD won't do that (yet, if ever); and (B) it doesn't bother me: I like my M type 240 just fine. I can only feel sorry (in a rather abstract way) that there seems nothing much that can alleviate that irritation, for those who feel it, while trying not to think things like "overly precious" (I'd like to think I'm better than that, but I'm not).

 

So that's it, as near as I can tell. You trade off the (to me) substantial advantages of a screen, including most (though not all) of the advantages of digital photography in favour of what seems, to me, to be the minor convenience (if that) of an external ISO control and a somewhat theoretical advantage in longevity and robustness. That's not a trade-off I'd make and I really can't understand those who would make it. That may be a failure of my imagination. If so, so be it.

 

...Mike

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So what is the "equivalent" tradeoff for a "screenless M"? -- -- The best that occur to me are that it provides a direct and directly-observable external ISO control -- -- To me, that seems little enough gain to suffer the far more substantial loss of the features supported by having a rear screen - starting with a reviewable histogram

Fair enough, and for me that's pretty much it in terms of features. On a higher level, it is about ergonomics and usability. The Epson R-D1 remains the easiest to use design in digital still photography for me personally. It is worth noting that getting there does not actually necessitate the removal of the screen. However, the usability needs to be there regardless of the screen, and the screen should not dictate the locations of the physical controls. No camera other than the Epson has achieved that so far. This special edition Leica is a nice design, but I cannot see it quite there in terms of actual usability. It is a special edition, and I guess beauty comes first.

 

The histogram is the one thing current digital still cameras offer that I would miss in a completely screen-less design. It is not necessary for many applications, but it can be useful. One solution to have it in a similar design as the new Leica is a small round screen in the middle of the ISO wheel. Another option is a small screen in the top plate. These solutions allow for uncluttered design that does not harm straightforward usability.

 

Having no screen, or just a tiny one, is not the only simple approach we can currently have. At least conceptually I am equally or more interested in re-inventing the camera user interface through the touchscreen. The simplicity there comes from minimizing the physical controls. It is an approach that better allows more complicated features and use cases than traditional still photography. Setting the exposure, framing, and focusing is a very limited set of settings and controls to handle.

 

To summarize, the key for me is to have the physical controls where they feel most in place, and allowing uninterrupted use of the camera and its core features via them only. The histogram, for example, is not at the core. A large screen pushing everything else to periphery is not part of the concept. I guess one can call it "pure experience", I call it usability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hand-waving about "distraction" and "pure experience" and suchlike leave me cold: I'm quite capable of ignoring the screen if it suits me to do that; and the less said about "I'm more purist than you" games the better.

 

I agree. The Monochrom provides a clear advantage. The Edition 60 provides an odd disadvantage.

 

The experience of actually being distracted by the screen on a digital camera wears off after about one's first day or two with a digital camera. After that, one learns to photograph without frequent staring at the screen. And one learns to turn it off when it serves no purpose.

 

Also, the concept of missing significant photos due to distraction is falsely blamed on the screen. Distraction is a fact of life and comes from many sources. A screen that you can turn off is among the least problematic. It's not as if photographers were never distracted in the screenless film era. Plenty of photos were missed with film cameras as photographers attended to film loading and winding and rewinding and unloading, checking film tension, checking frame count, checking ISO, etc., or even just changing lenses. That "pure" photographic experience always involved a lot of administrative details with a potential to distract from actually making a photo.

 

Finally, what is "pure" about not being able to turn on a preview? Arguably a screen provides a purer photographic experience, as everything from exposure to composition to content to camera function can optionally be checked in-camera, on-location and nearly contemporaneously during a moment that the user determines, without the need for external devices or processes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A thought or two that I think haven't been mentioned here so far; and, no, I am not going to buy this or any other M in the near future.

 

The absence of the screen also brings the absence of a largish number of controls on the back of the camera. From an engineering point of view this is an increase in potential reliability. There are fewer elements that can fail and fewer openings in the shell. From the point of view of the user, there are fewer switches that can be inadvertedly actuated and one surface less to keep clean.

 

If one thinks the presence of a screen distracting and realizes that the fault lies with himself and not with the screen, then he is in my opinion very wise to seek a camera which caters for his particular preference.

 

When I observe how users of RF cameras are regarded by many users of other cameras, black kettles come to mind.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The absence of the screen also brings the absence of a largish number of controls on the back of the camera. From an engineering point of view this is an increase in potential reliability. There are fewer elements that can fail and fewer openings in the shell.
I agree:
(as may it's supporting electronics, buttons etc.)
and think you're right to give it perhaps more prominance than I did.
From the point of view of the user, there are fewer switches that can be inadvertedly actuated and one surface less to keep clean.
Fair point, and one that I missed.

 

...Mike

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a quixotic camera indeed. All perceived (in?)practicalities of the design aside I think we can all agree that the only people who would ever actually buy one of these are folks with lots and lots of spare cash to burn. Of course one could say this of Leica M cameras in general- but everything is relative in such debates... This is a camera aimed squarely at a minute elite within an elite - those who can afford to dabble in such eccentricities and no one else:p.

 

As I can't justify ever buying such a piece of frippery:(- I will leave it at that and refrain from commenting on the cameras utility one way of the other:cool:.

 

And at the end of the day... one can always stick a half case on their M240 and replicate the experience of this 'back to basics' approach...

Edited by jaques
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been very little specific released about the camera. I, for one, wonder what the dimensions are. Believing that one of the reasons that some people wanted a screen-less camera was to get more close to the thickness of the analogue M cameras.

 

Does anybody know the dimension of the Type 60?

 

I also think it is a pity they made it as a collector's item. I would have been keen to try one to see if it would work for me not having the screen, but with this collector's item situation and the target price this is now totally out of the question.

 

Best, HP

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been very little specific released about the camera. I, for one, wonder what the dimensions are. Believing that one of the reasons that some people wanted a screen-less camera was to get more close to the thickness of the analogue M cameras.

 

Does anybody know the dimension of the Type 60?

 

I also think it is a pity they made it as a collector's item. I would have been keen to try one to see if it would work for me not having the screen, but with this collector's item situation and the target price this is now totally out of the question.

 

Best, HP

 

 

Other than for the rear screen & buttons and the right thumb-rest the dimensions are identical to the M240

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should consider buying an Edition 60 and after that a new car with windows you cannot open and a new house without doors, both for triple the price as both will be "limited editions" and have less parts that could fail :D At least an Iphone6 Edition 60 might be useful, with a 0,5" screen in b/w and not to forget just a screen no touchscreen. This new "heavy-retro-sadomasochism trend" is quite funny :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure? Check this video of Eggleston ... at 3:02 handling Leica and shooting without gloves ... but at 6:45 handling prints with gloves:

And here at 9:49 shooting without gloves and with lit cigarette in hand:

 

Did you really trawl a couple of videos on youtube and note various times just to counter what looked like a casual comment?

 

More generally, I don't understand why a 'screenless' digital camera seems to bother you so much. It's not as if the other manufacturers are all going to follow suit or you will be forced to use such a device.:confused:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you John. I'm waiting for specifics but it's very appealing to me as an additional body that I'm sure will would be my main body.

 

I don't look at the screen when I'm shooting personal work and I have it turned off. For my work I am mostly always tethered because it's necessary to direct the production team (stylist, makeup, hair) and for the client too (if they are well behaved) so the screen is useless anyway.

 

I shot a very long time, commercially, with film only and I never needed to see the shots and I never once had an issue or a reshoot. I don't look at my screen now because I do actually believe it makes you better. It makes you more present in the moment of shooting. Stopping to look ruins the flow of shooting and changes the focus, flow and energy. There have been many times I've looked and got excited about a shot while shooting so stopped shooting, thinking I got it, but then a week later I don't like it and wish I had of kept going. I could go on I guess but it's either something you feel or don't. I understand why people want the security of it, but to me the lack of security is what keeps you on your toes and makes it more exciting too. I think it hones your skills and that follows through on many levels with your shooting.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd start a new thread (Mods feel free to combine it with the other, but if you do, can you rename that thread?).

 

Call me daft, but this M60 version appeals to me more than the standard M(240) or the M-P version. I appreciate that it is a premium limited edition model, and I wish it didn't come with that over the top box and white cotton gloves (a turn-off if ever there was one), but I like the concept.

 

I do wonder if Leica will pass down these enhancements at any stage - from past experience, some might, some won't.

 

Has anyone found any detailed specs or anything like that? Buffer? Processor? What's on the B&H website seems a bit thin.

 

I like the idea too.

 

But I think this M60 is a limited series for collectors.

 

An useable model should have a battery and frame counter (like that of the M8) and a button for SD card formatting. I would love to have one.

Edited by rosuna
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea too.

 

But I think this M60 is a limited series for collectors.

 

An useable model should have a battery and frame counter (like that of the M8) and a button for SD card formatting. I would love to have one.

 

Send me your M or M9 and I'll do a conversion for you.

 

PS. I'll give you a discount if you supply your own black tape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why this seems to rattle people so much, or why it should automatically be a matter of ridicule. There's really no natural law of the universe to say that all digital cameras have to come with a screen and a mass of buttons on the back.

 

And if people seriously think that owning a digital camera without all these ugly distracting bits on the body is the same as taking some crappy tape and sticking it all over the back of the camera, then we might as well all drive around in Skodas from now on, because apparently the experience of using a perfectly formed object*, attuned to a person's individual tastes and aesthetic sense has no value.

 

* and by "a perfectly formed object" I mean the theoretical future standard-production version of this camera, looking like a film MP, not this impractical and too-sleek (for my taste) Audi design.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why this seems to rattle people so much[...]

And if people seriously think that owning a digital camera without all these ugly distracting bits on the body is the same as taking some crappy tape and sticking it all over the back of the camera[...] apparently the experience of using a perfectly formed object[...]

Therein, perhaps, lies part of the problem. And I'm really not (well maybe partially not) trying to make too much of this: I use a camera to take photographs.

 

Really.

 

If my camera is imperfectly formed; if it is a piece of "plastic-blob ugliness" that's OK.

 

My Leica's aren't. But many of my other cameras are. That's fine. I don't use a Leica camera because it is an attractive piece of industrial design (though I can appreciate that, and it is an added bonus) - I use the camera because it allows me to take better photographs for some styles of photography.

 

I would choose an ugly camera that took a pretty photograph, every single time, over a pretty camera that takes ugly photos.

 

I know that sometimes isn't the aesthetic around here. I'd like to say I'm OK with that, but I suspect I'm not. In the same way I'm not OK with a pretty car that's lousy to drive or a nice-looking yacht that should never be taken near a breeze. I like function. I prefer an attractive device that functions well, but I'd take a functional yet unattractive device over an attractive disfunctional device every single time.

 

Perhaps that's just me...

 

...Mike

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...