Jump to content

Leica M-D(iscussion) : to screen or not to screen. That is the question.


Paulus

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An interesing thing apears to be happening.

 

There are now two cameras Leica M60 and the M-D without a screen. ( except for de film Leica etc. )

 

There is a market for these cameras. Leica nows, that's why they have them, I believe.

 

The thing is, that this marked could be small.  Maybe as small as the people who used polariod cameras in the past? Or smaller?

 

Why did not everybody have a polaroid camera in the film age. Only because it was more expensive?

 

Didn't people have the urge to see what they had made,  the next instant.

 

Has society changed so much? Or is the Leica M-D part of an antropological experiment to test if there are people who are able to resist the temptation of instant satification.  

 

Or are we unsure about our photographic skills, that we need the instand feedback all the time? Can a tool change the way a person reacts?

 

Just a discussion: How eagerly do we need a screen.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best camera is one that disappears in your hands and becomes part of your natural and instinctive relationship with whatever it is you're trying to photograph. But that sometimes requires a little preparation, for which a monitor screen can be invaluable. After that, turn it off, forget about it and get on with the real business of taking photos rather than using a camera.

 

I utterly reject (for myself) the competitive notion of treating photography as an exercise in skill.  I much prefer it to be an exercise in imagination and sensitivity, and to that end removing a potentially helpful and unobtrusive aid like a screen is directly opposed to my ideals concerning photography. 

 

Others clearly feel differently, which is fine of course, it hurts no one, but I shan't readily accept any general statement to the effect that a screen-less digital camera is somehow a purer photographic tool.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speak for myself, and it's not for me to accept or reject the opinions of others - their thoughts are their business, which I will happily discuss. I'm certainly not going to say they're ridiculous or that users of cameras with screens are more or less serious about taking photos. 

 

For me, using the M60 is a breath of fresh air after using the SL. There's no guesswork involved and no particular skill - the viewfinder is an effective focusing tool, and the meter reasonably accurate.  The camera is a model of simplicity. You do need to assess the depth of field and shutter speed, but that is no real hardship. The pleasure is that the camera encourages me to watch the scene and think about composition more and what is going on around me. 

 

It is not a camera for landscape, the studio or anything involving a tripod. But for most photography, for me it disappears into my hands far more readily than the SL ever could.  Why not the M(240)?  I'd be fiddling with AutoISO, bracketing, focus peaking and magnification, I'd set something wrong, take video rather than a still, check the image in review, and the outing would be about photography rather than simply being there and taking photos. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I want a LCD screen

 

Having a LCD screen is not about imitate gratifaction it is about insurance. You don't need to look at the screen every time....and you shouldn't. But as long as you are "making" the photograph...and have a plan.... you may as well see if all your elements are in the places you want them before you move to the next shot....If thats the kind of  photography you are doing. There are many kinds where an LCD  screen can slow your flow, so check your first shot and forget the screen....but check your first shot so there are no surprises .

 

As for polaroid I think you would be surprised how many cases and cases of polaroid film, Pros used in the 70's 80's and 90's to test their shot before committing to film. 

 

If we have the ability to have an LCD...... there is no reason not to have it...  IMHO......The size and weight on the MD is the same as the MP240

Many of this forum don't agree with me but I think Leica made M60 and the MD to feel like a more film camera ........I also think the market, even on this forum is very very small.......I wonder how the resale market will see the MD over the MP240?

 

Having an LCD has nothing to do with being unsure about ones photographic skills.......Why fly without a net if you don't have to?

 

 

IkarusJohn

Why not the M(240)?  I'd be fiddling with AutoISO, bracketing, focus peaking and magnification,

 

Why would you fiddle with the 240 and not the M60?....Just resist the urge to fiddle  ;) 

​Also I'd rather fiddle with the camera a little .... than fix the photo/file later in later in Photoshop

.....my fiddling preference is the camera, get it right and be done with it..

Edited by ECohen
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having thought long and hard about the concept of the M-D, and today having one in my possession, for me the coming weeks will be intriguing ones.

 

As posted elsewhere, I first need to ditch the habit of looking at the rear of the camera after a shot. The casual observer earlier today would have had me down as some sort of loony. 

 

But I'm looking forward to not being able to chimp, even if it just means not walking into lampposts while doing so. I'll be considering the next shot when previously I'd have been fussing over the screen. I realise this doesn't go for everyone.

 

But in the end, none of this is life and death stuff. It's fun. And I intend to enjoy the M-D. The worst thing that could happen is that I lose a bit of money if the experiment fails, or worse still, lose the odd shot.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

ECohen - Because the M60 doesnt have anything to fiddle with. 

 

I should add that I'm not sure I buy into the M60 being more "film-like". Sure, there are similarities in the controls etc, but I don't think in those terms. What the M60 does is to encourage me to think about what I'm doing before I take the shot, and move on once I've taken it. 

Edited by IkarusJohn
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People differ, and it's good that Leica provides choices, assuming it's a profitable (or otherwise business-sensible) endeavor.  Only they would know.  

 

I liken the screen-less M, in some ways, to the Monochrom.  IQ and camera body aesthetics aside, some prefer the MM because it provides for the 'zen' of b/w shooting, with the camera dictating b/w as the available option.  Likewise, some prefer the M60 or M-D because the camera dictates a more limited set of user actions.  (Others of course have their own preferences and rationale).

 

I prefer to have options rather than having the camera limit or dictate them.  I find, for instance, that I can still get into the 'zen' of b/w shooting with an M240.  Part of that comes from shooting b/w film for decades, and maintaining a similarly disciplined shooting style with digital.  And I like having the screen for when I need/want it.   Likewise, I'm comfortable disabling functions on the M240 (always video, 99% LV)  as needed.  All of this remains true for me as long as none of the extra features and capabilities mess up the ergonomics or negatively impact my viewing or shooting experience.  So far, so good.  Others feel differently....no problem.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a future M change in some significant ways.  Perhaps it's a good sign, though, that the company recognizes multiple user audiences, and that choices remain.  As long, that is, as the business model continues to work.  I wonder how accurately Leica predicted the success of the MM, the M60, or even some of the other new product introductions.  (Remember that the M60 was a special edition and was priced accordingly....the M-D is much more accessible price-wise).  [i wouldn't be surprised if the Q has exceeded expectations....and would be very surprised if there weren't variants on the way.]  Sometimes the waters need to be tested.

 

Jeff

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

ECohen - Because the M60 doesnt have anything to fiddle with. 

 

I should add that I'm not sure I buy into the M60 being more "film-like". Sure, there are similarities in the controls etc, but I don't think in those terms. What the M60 does is to encourage me to think about what I'm doing before I take the shot, and move on once I've taken it. 

 

 

I have read this thinking on previous posts and on the odd review or two... and I still don't get it at all.

 

I have a couple of profiles set up that I just select for whatever I want or need at that particular time and it's done. There is NO fiddling to do, no messing around, just a simple camera, set up for that particular moment.

 

My first profile is pretty close to exactly what you get with an M60 or and M-D, screen off, no chimping, no live view, movie disabled, centre weighted exposure, dng only etc., etc.,... (and absolutely no temptation to fiddle!)

 

The difference is, if I need something different, live view or focus peaking for example, I just change the profile. The screen comes on,  all the other settings change in an instant and off I go...

 

My M-P is pretty much a M-D, an M60, a 246 (nearly!), a 262... whatever I need to do at any particular time... AND I didn't  need to pay a premium for it either... I even have the Leica script on the top plate some have asked for as a 'a la carte' option, but free of any additional charge.

 

I am beginning to realise my M-P 240 is the bargain of the century! :p

Edited by Bill Livingston
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

ECohen - Because the M60 doesnt have anything to fiddle with. 

 

I should add that I'm not sure I buy into the M60 being more "film-like". Sure, there are similarities in the controls etc, but I don't think in those terms. What the M60 does is to encourage me to think about what I'm doing before I take the shot, and move on once I've taken it. 

 

 

So does the M240.....but I do respect and understand your preference.

Wondering do you like and use PS and LR? Have you ever made big... really big mistakes when shooting with the M60?

What kind of photography do you see the M60 best suited for ? What do you mostly shoot when you reach for that camera? 

I do truly want to understand your point of view and  I know i tend to be "too" opinionated...so please don't take offense.

 

 

I guess I think too much .....I and want to eliminate as many variables as i can.....choice is something that makes me comfortable.

Choice when shooting and choice once I get back to the computer.....I have been thinking with a camera in my hand for so long I don't even notice I'm fiddling .

And I get better more consistent files.

 

 

I know what works for me doesn't work for all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read this thinking on previous posts and on the odd review or two... and I still don't get it at all.

 

I have a couple of profiles set up that I just select for whatever I want or need at that particular time and it's done. There is NO fiddling to do, no messing around, just a simple camera, set up for that particular moment.

 

My first profile is pretty close to exactly what you get with an M60 or and M-D, screen off, no chimping, no live view, movie disabled, centre weighted exposure, dng only etc., etc.,... (and absolutely no temptation to fiddle!)

 

The difference is, if I need something different, live view or focus peaking for example, I just change the profile. The screen comes on,  all the other settings change in an instant and off I go...

 

My M-P is pretty much a M-D, an M60, a 246 (nearly!), a 262... whatever I need to do at any particular time... AND I didn't  need to pay a premium for it either... I even have the Leica script on the top plate some have asked for as a 'a la carte' option, but free of any additional charge.

 

I am beginning to realise my M-P 240 is the bargain of the century! :p

 

 

I completely agree with you!  Sometimes I fiddle sometimes I don't. 

Amusingly I never fiddled with my  Nikons ...because I could never remember where the functions were.

Thats why I went to Leica.... Simplicity.

 

....I'll get off my soap box and just read others views ...thanks to all for listening.

Edited by ECohen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering how updates are done? Back to Leica? or will a dealer do it?

Perhaps you just download the new update onto an SD and plug it in... auto update?

 

EDIT: Just noticed reply #380 on this thread...

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/259865-the-leica-m-d-thread-merged/page-19

 

("Info is in the v/f for upload etc")

 

Love the idea of the M-D, I have a Luigi case with flip back on my M9, so I try not to chimp with that on.

John

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

Wondering do you like and use PS and LR? Have you ever made big... really big mistakes when shooting with the M60?

What kind of photography do you see the M60 best suited for ? What do you mostly shoot when you reach for that camera? 

I do truly want to understand your point of view and  I know i tend to be "too" opinionated...so please don't take offense.

 

 

More LightRoom than PhotoShop, but that just reflects the lack of effort I've put into PhotoShop. 

 

Big mistakes?  Let's see - leaving aside poor subject matter, forgetting to turn the camera on and leaving the lens cap on; then there's not nailing the focus, having too little depth of field and not noticing I'd left the shutter dial off A; so, pretty much the usual. Provided the image isn't too contrasty, the centre weighted metering does a reasonable job. I always do some adjustment in LightRoom. 

 

I'm a complete dilettante when it comes to photography - it's been my hobby for 50 years. I grab whichever camera is interesting me at the time. At the moment, I'm coming to grips with the SL, but if you want a logical distinction, my preference is for a rangefinder, so I take the M60 or Monochrom (I'm more confident with B&W than colour).  But, if I want AF, weather sealing, a zoom or to use a tripod, I take the SL. Probably the same situations people use a dSLR. The film cameras are for back up and for fun - I have a growing pile of film I need to develop.

 

The advantage of the SL is that it becomes an excellent platform for M lenses if I want all that functionality I don't want on a rangefinder.  I honestly don't miss a thing with the M60 for what I do most of the time - carry a camera, and take pictures of things that interest me. Initially, I thought I'd need a threaded release button and I wondered about auto white balance, but I haven't been bothered about either.

Edited by IkarusJohn
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that

 

................

 

I'm a complete dilettante when it comes to photography - it's been my hobby for 50 years. I grab whichever camera is interesting me at the time. .......................

 

 Have you never found yourself so caught up in your photography that you've found an entire day has passed without your even noticing because the only thing on your mind is the visual and maybe emotional connection between you and what's around you? I bet you have. In which case you'll know that it really doesn't matter very much which camera you have as long as you know how to focus the thing and change the shutter speed and the aperture and maybe one or two other luxurious extra refinements when you are really struggling...Weight and ergonomics are far more important than whether the thing has a screen or a button somewhere the purpose of which you can't remember.

 

As always I take your word on everything you say John, but I really, really struggle to understand how anyone can find the M240 too distracting a camera for serious photography. I suspect you're enjoying your cameras too much to worry about your photography at the moment!

Edited by Peter H
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the M(240) as I was enjoying my M9 when it was released and I didn't like the additional functionality. We've discussed this before, but for me the rangefinder is high quality, and the lenses - the EVF didn't match that quality and video was poor. More critically, the M(240) was heading in the wrong direction for me.  I did want an EVF based camera, but not built around the rangefinder. 

 

Back to your question - it all depends on the camera. You're quite right that if I have the camera set up correctly, and I am familiar with it, it doesn't matter so much what the camera is. To a point. A d800e and 80-400 AF zoom doesn't get smaller or lighter with use. My interest is always the final image, and the camera nothing more than a tool for taking that image. This forum for me is not about the image (though I love seeing what some here achieve). You seem to suggest here and elsewhere that I'm more into flamesondling and admiring camera gear than using it. 

 

The big difference for me is when my FM2 died, I went to an F5. I worked through the menus and the like, set it up the way I wanted it, and then left it at home. When I had the camera with me, I was always looking at camera angles, exposure and viewing the world through the viewfinder. I stopped, and decided that I didn't need to record my life on film, and I just needed to enjoy the moment. Photogra was getting in the way. 

 

I like my Leicas very much - preferably in my hand rather than on the shelf. When I take a picture, all I want is to frame, focus and exposure - I tend to have already made the decision about exposure, and the camera drops to my side once I've taken the image. I'm sure you do the same with your M(240). It's not a case of having the additional functionality and choosing not to use it (in all honesty, who here has put gaffer tape over the LCD screen on their M(240)). I don't want that functionality on my camera in the first place - at least, not that camera. 

 

I still change settings on the SL, and forget, then end up with a complete cockup on the next image. I'm hoping that will bcome more intuitive with use. I'm off to Mauritius at the end of the week, and it's still a toss up whether I take the M60 with just the 35 Summilux (small and I'd probably use it more) or the SL and zoom, which will be more versatile. 

 

I applaud cellphone photography, because it is photography at its most basic and charming. I don't do it so much, but I love the way others do. I like to look at a scene and think to myself what would make a pleasing image, and then take the picture - for that, I need nothing more that the M60 most if the time. It was an extravagance, sure. But I bought it to take pictures, and it appealed to me where then M(240) never has. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The best camera is one that disappears in your hands and becomes part of your natural and instinctive relationship with whatever it is you're trying to photograph. But that sometimes requires a little preparation, for which a monitor screen can be invaluable. After that, turn it off, forget about it and get on with the real business of taking photos rather than using a camera.

 

I utterly reject (for myself) the competitive notion of treating photography as an exercise in skill.  I much prefer it to be an exercise in imagination and sensitivity, and to that end removing a potentially helpful and unobtrusive aid like a screen is directly opposed to my ideals concerning photography. 

 

Others clearly feel differently, which is fine of course, it hurts no one, but I shan't readily accept any general statement to the effect that a screen-less digital camera is somehow a purer photographic tool.

 

(bolded1) I agree completely. 

(bolded2) Purer? That's marketing babble. Simpler ... Yes. It has fewer things to choose from and distract. 

 

I can only speak for myself, and it's not for me to accept or reject the opinions of others - their thoughts are their business, which I will happily discuss. I'm certainly not going to say they're ridiculous or that users of cameras with screens are more or less serious about taking photos. 

 

For me, using the M60 is a breath of fresh air after using the SL. There's no guesswork involved and no particular skill - the viewfinder is an effective focusing tool, and the meter reasonably accurate.  The camera is a model of simplicity. You do need to assess the depth of field and shutter speed, but that is no real hardship. The pleasure is that the camera encourages me to watch the scene and think about composition more and what is going on around me. 

 

It is not a camera for landscape, the studio or anything involving a tripod. But for most photography, for me it disappears into my hands far more readily than the SL ever could.  Why not the M(240)?  I'd be fiddling with AutoISO, bracketing, focus peaking and magnification, I'd set something wrong, take video rather than a still, check the image in review, and the outing would be about photography rather than simply being there and taking photos. 

 

 

Since I have both M-P and SL, for me they both do a nice job of disappearing into my hands and letting me see through them without distraction when I'm not playing with options and such. When I'm out testing, I fuss and fiddle constantly. When I'm out taking photographs, I set the camera and don't look at it again. I always turn auto-review off, rarely peak at the captured exposures until I'm done, etc. With either. 

 

What I appreciate about the M-D is that the lack of buttons and stuff like that makes it easier for me to hold and use. It wouldn't change my picture taking one iota otherwise ... it would make it a little easier to adjust the ISO (need the screen on either SL or M-P to do that). Even on review, what I tend to do is connect the card (M-P) or the camera (SL) to my iPad and look at the photos on that where I can see them much more clearly. Et cetera. 

 

I've been wanting a truly simple, nuts and bolts digital camera since 2001—the functional equivalent of my Nikon F3 or M6 (plus aperture priority AE). I never needed instant review with them and don't need it now. 

 

BTW: I shoot a lot with Polaroid SX-70 with Impossible Project film ... It's not instant review either. I can see an image in a couple of minutes, but it takes a day or so for the image to fully mature. It's all previsualization. I enjoy shooting with it as much as I enjoy shooting with the Leicas, both film and digital, and it is another completely different experience. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the raison de' etre for this new offering from Leica. But then I'm not technical at all, rather more along the lines of intuitive....

from that purely personal perspective I wonder if it's possible that electing not to have a screen might be something of an affectation?  

I must also admit to sometimes thinking that choosing to use a rangefinder in this day and age is rather an affectation in itself.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

I use a rangefinder and shoot with Leica because it takes me back to a simpler time in my photography.

I use the  LCD screen because it helps me get the most out of  what I choose to  photograph 

 

OH my....Platypus..... your work is stunning!!

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

I understand the M-D's rationale to some extent but i much preferred that of the Epson R-D1 with its analogue controls and reversible display. All in all i son't see any problem with screens if they can be switched off but i don't comprehend why i have i chimp to do simple things i could do without screen on film Ms and again the R-D1. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the raison de' etre for this new offering from Leica. But then I'm not technical at all, rather more along the lines of intuitive....

from that purely personal perspective I wonder if it's possible that electing not to have a screen might be something of an affectation?  

I must also admit to sometimes thinking that choosing to use a rangefinder in this day and age is rather an affectation in itself.

 

 

Probably, but then who really cares?  I must confess to getting to an age where I really don't give a toss what others think. In my late 50s, it's a bit tragic if I can't do what gives me pleasure without worrying if it's an affectation or if people may think I care more about gear than taking pictures. 

 

What other people think is their problem.

  • Like 6
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...