Voigt Posted September 26, 2012 Share #1 Posted September 26, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like the new M, but I'm not really interested in its live-view or its ability to use R lenses or take motion pictures. That, with an M camera, seems kinda out of place to me. But OK, I'll buy one anyway because it shoots faster, promises better images and might be more weather resistant. I also like the new red or white frame lines and thumb stub that will help me grip it better. But to say that I can just go about my business and shoot the camera just the way I like and that the added features don't interfere with the traditional operation of this camera is really putting a very positive spin on a rather sad story. If you've had the opportunity to handle an old film Leica M camera, you must realize that what this camera is missing is a lesser weight and smaller size. Live-view and motion pictures require more battery power as the built-in microphone and bigger Rear Screen require greater size. If such features hadn't been added, the camera could have been made smaller and lighter and that's really what we gave up for all these additional bells and whistles. So although, I think the M is a good camera, I'm saddened by what we've given up to have it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 26, 2012 Posted September 26, 2012 Hi Voigt, Take a look here What we gave up for the M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted September 27, 2012 Share #2 Posted September 27, 2012 Well, as the camera is pretty much the same size and weight as the M9, it would be fairer to say that you gained these things up with the move to digital, wouldn't it? Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 27, 2012 Share #3 Posted September 27, 2012 Well, as the camera is pretty much the same size and weight as the M9, it would be fairer to say that you gained these things up with the move to digital, wouldn't it? Cheers John Exactly right. The size is the same as the M9, the weight a little heavier. To wish for a camera with the size and weight of an old film camera is to wish for a film camera. We can't have a digital camera with everything the same as a film camera, at least not with today's technology. A digital camera necessarily interferes with the "traditional operation of this camera." The traditional operation involved loading, winding and rewinding film, and cocking the shutter. Those functions have been interfered because we don't replicate them for the sake of tradition. If someone feels those things are important, film cameras are still available — one doesn't have to give them up. However, despite the change to an entirely new capture medium, so much of the traditional operation of M cameras has been preserved. Everything that is relevant to making photographs in the traditional way is still there. That is what is so amazing. I don't find anything "sad" about that. And the microphone and larger screen don't make the camera even a bit larger than its predecessor. If one feels sincerely saddened by the new technology, then the M7 or MP are the solution, not the new M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted September 27, 2012 Share #4 Posted September 27, 2012 I guess the SONY RX-1 disproves that statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 27, 2012 Share #5 Posted September 27, 2012 I like the new M, but I'm not really interested in its live-view or its ability to use R lenses or take motion pictures. That, with an M camera, seems kinda out of place to me. But OK, I'll buy one anyway because it shoots faster, promises better images and might be more weather resistant. I also like the new red or white frame lines and thumb stub that will help me grip it better. But to say that I can just go about my business and shoot the camera just the way I like and that the added features don't interfere with the traditional operation of this camera is really putting a very positive spin on a rather sad story. If you've had the opportunity to handle an old film Leica M camera, you must realize that what this camera is missing is a lesser weight and smaller size. Live-view and motion pictures require more battery power as the built-in microphone and bigger Rear Screen require greater size. If such features hadn't been added, the camera could have been made smaller and lighter and that's really what we gave up for all these additional bells and whistles. So although, I think the M is a good camera, I'm saddened by what we've given up to have it. Everybody bitches and moans about the size and weight of cameras these days. Yeah, maybe film cameras were a bit smaller but compare traveling with a half dozen memory cards vs 100 rolls of film. Makes the M look skinny in comparison. And personally I'd rather have a larger battery that fits in the same size body vs always having to carry double the number. Or maybe more people just need to spend some time at the gym.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 27, 2012 Share #6 Posted September 27, 2012 I guess the SONY RX-1 disproves that statement. Only if you can establish the size of the M without all the things that make it an M - ie, optical rangefinder and interchangeable lenses. The camera to compare with the RX-1 is the X2. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #7 Posted September 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, after reading all these replies, I guess I have to admit that this argument all depends on whether you've convinced yourself that the glass is half full or half empty. Is less really more or merely less? In the end it doesn't matter. We have what we have and we'll use it as it is and I'm sure all of us will enjoy it in our own way. I always found the M9 to be a bit chubby. This one's just a bit chubbier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted September 27, 2012 Share #8 Posted September 27, 2012 If you've had the opportunity to handle an old film Leica M camera, you must realize that what this camera is missing is a lesser weight and smaller size. My film M feels heavier than my M9. The M9 also appears to be thicker (I do like the film M ergonomics better and the sound of the rubberized cloth shutter), and it sounds like it's hollow inside. However, a current MP film camera body weighs exactly the same (585 grams) as the M9 with the battery. The dimensions of the MP film body is 138mm x 77mm x 38mm. The M9 is 139mm x 80mm x 37mm (Leica's printed specs.) According to Leica, the weight of the new M is at 680 grams (but it's not specified as to being with or without the battery.) A Fuji X-Pro 1 is 450 grams w/battery. But of course it's not made of the same materials as the M. The Nikon D3s is 1,240 grams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 27, 2012 Share #9 Posted September 27, 2012 Well, after reading all these replies, I guess I have to admit that this argument all depends on whether you've convinced yourself that the glass is half full or half empty. Is less really more or merely less? In the end it doesn't matter. We have what we have and we'll use it as it is and I'm sure all of us will enjoy it in our own way. I always found the M9 to be a bit chubby. This one's just a bit chubbier. Lot's of discussion elsewhere about the thickness of the M - consensus (and statements from Leica) seems to be that while it looks bigger, it isn't. There might be 1 mm difference in the base plate (from to back), the distance from the mount at the front to the back of the LCD is less, and it is 1 mm (?) taller. The 5 mm quoted seems to be in protrusions. That said, I'm not in the market. I have an M9, and I have a Monochrom coming in a bit over a month, and I'll happily sit there. The CCD sensor is fine for me, not worried about high ISO (particularly, though it will be interesting on the Monochrom), and I'm crap at video. I don't need to trash the new camera not to buy it. It's probably going to be very good (most Leica products are). I will almost certainly buy a later iteration, once the new technology is settled. If I was going to make the switch to video, live view and all the rest, I'd like to know that IQ remains outstanding, and the EVF needs to be extremely good - then I'd ditch the optical viewfinder and all the other legacy M features. So, M9 & Monochrom is going to keep me going, and happy for a while! Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #10 Posted September 27, 2012 All these weights and measures showing up now. Interesting. Let me add another small comparison. A Canon 5D MkII with a 50mm f1.4 Canon lens weighs just 3 ounces more than a Leica M with an equivalent lens. The Canon kit weighs 38.8 ounces while the new Leica kit comes in at 35.7. That three-ounce difference is just what separates the M9 from the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted September 27, 2012 Share #11 Posted September 27, 2012 A body build to last, the technology inside not. I wouldn't mind a slimmed down and significantly lighter M. The weight difference would have to come from using other materials. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted September 27, 2012 Share #12 Posted September 27, 2012 But to say that I can just go about my business and shoot the camera just the way I like and that the added features don't interfere with the traditional operation of this camera is really putting a very positive spin on a rather sad story. I don't see why this would be a sad story at all and I don't understand the sappy nostalgia. The M will [undoubtedly-we still need to see the final product] be a much more advanced and powerful imaging device than any M ever, including the the M9 (we are expecting better DR, high ISO performance, live view, faster frame rate and faster buffer) allowing the user (IF he/she chooses) to do much more while still using any M lens. It is custom designed for M lenses and will mount R lenses. All in a package that is essentially the same size and a few ounces heavier than the M9 and at the same price. A sad story?? Really? What is so sad about it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 27, 2012 Share #13 Posted September 27, 2012 Lot's of discussion elsewhere about the thickness of the M - consensus (and statements from Leica) seems to be that while it looks bigger, it isn't. There might be 1 mm difference in the base plate (from to back), the distance from the mount at the front to the back of the LCD is less, and it is 1 mm (?) taller. The 5 mm quoted seems to be in protrusions. My understanding, based on comments from Stefan Daniel, Erwin Puts and others, is that there is about a 1mm difference in thickness at the top due to the thumb protrusion, and that all other dimensions are identical (except for the added weight due to the new battery). We of course won't know for sure until the final version ships. In any case, I prefer the added thickness of the M8/M9 to film Ms, which I now find a bit too skinny. And I prefer a heavier camera for balance and stability. The test for me will be the IQ; if that holds and there aren't significant teething issues, this will a home run for me. Unlike the OP, I will not have given up anything (except the top display of the M8.2, which might not matter given the M's extended battery power), and I'll have gained a faster, quieter and weather resistant M that acts like an M9 with better framelines, and that happens to have additional camera capability built in for free if desired. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted September 27, 2012 Share #14 Posted September 27, 2012 Everybody bitches and moans about the size and weight of cameras these days. Yeah, maybe film cameras were a bit smaller but compare traveling with a half dozen memory cards vs 100 rolls of film. Makes the M look skinny in comparison. And personally I'd rather have a larger battery that fits in the same size body vs always having to carry double the number. Or maybe more people just need to spend some time at the gym.... I agree that its easier to travel with memory cards than 50 rolls of film, but if you are travelling in an area without mains electricity, you'll be pleasantly surprised just how many weeks your single set of film M batteries last! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 27, 2012 Share #15 Posted September 27, 2012 If you've had the opportunity to handle an old film Leica M camera, you must realize that what this camera is missing is a lesser weight and smaller size. Live-view and motion pictures require more battery power as the built-in microphone and bigger Rear Screen require greater size. If such features hadn't been added, the camera could have been made smaller and lighter and that's really what we gave up for all these additional bells and whistles. So although, I think the M is a good camera, I'm saddened by what we've given up to have it. As the M is pretty much the same size as the M9, how would omitting these features reduce the size? What would the size and weight be exactly? Do you have some inside knowledge from a design point of view that you can share with us, or is it more a case of wishful thinking on your part? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 27, 2012 Share #16 Posted September 27, 2012 I guess the SONY RX-1 disproves that statement. The fixed-lens RX-1 does not have an internal optical VF, is not back-compatible with over 60 years of legacy lenses, and does not have the versatility of using over 60 years worth of extraordinary lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted September 27, 2012 Share #17 Posted September 27, 2012 For R and M users like me, I am excited about this product. I do not care about the movie part but that's just me. Yes, it is not perfect .....but nothing is perfect. I use couple of Leitaxed R lens and APO extenders on my Nikon but sometimes the focus confirmations are inaccurate for long lenses especially using the 2X APO. It's too early to say however I am hoping that the M would provide some solution needed for R users. The weight and size? Well I shoot Leicaflexes, Nikons and Rollei 6xxx so it doesn't really bother me. I have my film Ms if I want a lighter slimmer camera or M May add that I enjoy using the M5? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaqpau Posted September 27, 2012 Share #18 Posted September 27, 2012 The dimensions of the MP film body is 138mm x 77mm x 38mm. The M9 is 139mm x 80mm x 37mm (Leica's printed specs.) I have the MP and the M9 in front of me right now, and the MP i definitely thinner. I just measured the top plate and the M9 is 4mm thicker. Maybe those specs are considering the wind lever of the MP, but the body is thinner. Anyway.. I love my M9 too. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted September 27, 2012 Share #19 Posted September 27, 2012 What we gave up? I am a little bit worried about the new illuminated frame lines and how these dim on very dark scenes. Weight and dimensions change is an obviously unwelcome, but as many say, you get more batt life, so we can live with that. We gave up some looks with that rotation disk on its back and that slot for the live EVF. But true, you get a lot in return for giving these away Also, let me add: where is the USB port? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 27, 2012 Share #20 Posted September 27, 2012 After these loyalist outpourings, some facts. The baseplate of a film M (I measured my old M4-P) is 138x31mm. That of my M9 is 138x35mm. It is not yet clear how deep the M-nothing is. Some say, the same as the M9. Others say 1mm deeper. Some say 5mm deeper, but that seems to be the thumb shelf. The point is that the baseplate dimensions define the body we actually grip. We don't grip any protrusions, like the monitor screen. Our fingers grasp the body that is a vertical projection of the baseplate. That is what we feel. Well, you say, what are four millimeters? I am reminded of the old tale of the straw that broke the camel's back. In human perception, to our muscular sense, all millimeters are not created alike. There are limits, thresholds, that change what we feel. And frankly, all digital M cameras to date do feel clumsy. When you handle a M4 or M6, and then grip a M9, then that is very obvious. The taller top plate ushered in by the M6TTL is simply ugly, and we can resign ourselves to that. But the M8, 9 FEEL ugly. And if the actual body of the M-nothing is really another mm deeper, then it has passed the M5 limit. My M4-P feels like an alert, lithe animal, ready to follow my intentions. The M8, M9 feel like brick. A small one, to be sure. But an inert, unwieldy mass. Not something alive. Slimming the M should be high on the Leica agenda. I don't know what my final reaction to the M-nothing will be. The Devil is in the details, they say, and I agree. I won't make any decision until I have seen and grasped (!) the details. What I know is that the IQ now produced by a 24x36mm sensor is so great, far beyond what I could do with 6x6cm or even 6x9cm film, and actually more than I can reasonably use, that I would gladly accept a smaller sensor size if this would give me back the Leica feeling. The old man from the Age of the M3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.