diogenis Posted September 27, 2012 Share #21 Posted September 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is also another aspect to this. Younger generations (me included) will never get the feeling of a film Leica, so we will never know what we miss. What we can compare however and this is very direct is the modern DSLR with the digital Ms and now the new M. And if we whine for 100 grams more or for another mm thicker, then just imagine for a change what you save by choosing Leica over almost any other dSLR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 Hi diogenis, Take a look here What we gave up for the M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted September 27, 2012 Share #22 Posted September 27, 2012 Btw, the M weighs 680 g including the battery, compared to the 585 g of the M9 (also including its battery). So there’s a difference of 95 g or 16%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 27, 2012 Share #23 Posted September 27, 2012 My lllf is smaller and slimmer than my M2. Why oh why did Leica make the M2 bigger and fatter? C'mon Leica sort it out! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 27, 2012 Share #24 Posted September 27, 2012 Isn’t it funny? After all the clamouring for a bigger, higher resolution LCD, now there are complaints about the larger display. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 27, 2012 Share #25 Posted September 27, 2012 My lllf is smaller and slimmer than my M2. Why oh why did Leica make the M2 bigger and fatter? C'mon Leica sort it out! Well, they did complain about the bulk and weight of the M3 … But frankly, you cannot increase bulk and weight indefinitely ("if you can take that, you can take that …" like the camel and the straw). During the 1960's and 1970's cameras tended to grow and put on weight for no discernible technical reason, but rather in order to give the clueless first customer a feeling of getting more for his money. Then a reaction set in. People would not drag these clunkers around. Such a reaction is due now too. When Canikon start shrinking their present bloated monsters, then the Leica M will be in a bad way. The old man from the Age of the M3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reds Posted September 27, 2012 Share #26 Posted September 27, 2012 I really don't understand all this fuss about extra features. To make a comparison - as I'm sure a lot of people do here, I shoot Nikon as well. There are many and deep menu options in a D4, but I pretty much it in a similar fashion to my M9 the vast majority of the time. Once your initial menu settings are done, on purchase of a new camera. All I mostly end up changing is ISO, aperture and shutter speed! Just like on an M - and all the buttons for this are on the camera anyway. As for the size - a couple of mm won't make much difference to me and I don't mind a bit of weight in my hand anyway for stability. It's still much lighter than a DSLR, especially a pro spec sized one. What's not to like? Better high ISO, Higher res screen to check critical focus, more resolution, faster operation, bigger buffer. WIN !! The other stuff is there if you want it, if not - it's just not going to get in the way. For occassional macro or tele use - Bonus with the R lenses!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #27 Posted September 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) As I see it, the problem with "the other stuff" in there is that it makes it bigger and heavier and we will always have to carry it around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 27, 2012 Share #28 Posted September 27, 2012 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 Yes - therefore never trust any specs you havn't put up yourself. And even more important: don't draw any conclusions from specs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted September 27, 2012 Share #29 Posted September 27, 2012 I'm waiting for Leica to get serious about new technology. Looking for an M with carbon fiber top and bottom plates and frame . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 27, 2012 Share #30 Posted September 27, 2012 I'm waiting for Leica to get serious about new technology. Looking for an M with carbon fiber top and bottom plates and frame . Good idea! Perhaps the colouring of the M-E is an early test how Leica's customers would react if carbon fibre for the top and bottom plates was introduced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #31 Posted September 27, 2012 Regarding the complaints about the bigger screen: I thought most complaints had been more about the quality of the M9 screen rather than about its size. I believe it would have been preferrable to increase the pixel count without increasing the overall dimensions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miessli Posted September 27, 2012 Share #32 Posted September 27, 2012 the m9 is the perfect tool........ but i would buy a tool with a better iso behavior and a better screen.....that's it folks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted September 27, 2012 Share #33 Posted September 27, 2012 I'm waiting for Leica to get serious about new technology. Looking for an M with carbon fiber top and bottom plates and frame . No doubt an F1 carbon fiber special edition for $25,000 is just around the corner. Maybe it will even include a laser rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #34 Posted September 27, 2012 Some of the older Leica Ms I've used feel like compact precision instruments, like good microscopes, vernier calipers, micrometers etc. They feel small and solid, mechanically well-designed, elegant and exact. They belong in velvet-lined hinged mahogony cases, where they can show off their engravings while not in use and, in the hand, they instill confidence, pride of ownership, and a sense of continuing tradition that only the hands of a skilled and dedicated craftsmen can provide. With greater bulk and weight, the M8 & 9 began to feel clumsy, more common, less distinctive. The jewel-like quality seemed to be missing. The bodies were bigger and hollower. And now the Leica M - technically the best camera Leica has ever made - may take us still farther from the pure sensual/visual enjoyment that leica M series once provided. Was Leica's pride in its SIMPLICITY designed only as a rouse to hide its once financial inability to provide more, or have they now become more willing to join the Japanese in competition for a larger market? In either case, I still will buy the new M, but, as I said when I started this thread, I am saddened by what we have had to give up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted September 27, 2012 Share #35 Posted September 27, 2012 Isn’t it funny? After all the clamouring for a bigger, higher resolution LCD, now there are complaints about the larger display. Are there really complaints about the larger display? I thought the complaints revolved around the fact that the M is more bloated than the 8 and 9, which in turn were more bloated than the classic M3 to 6 body form. Companies like Fuji and Sony have shown that the inclusion of a decent sized display does not have to come at the expense of an over-sized body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 27, 2012 Share #36 Posted September 27, 2012 Isn’t it funny? After all the clamouring for a bigger, higher resolution LCD, now there are complaints about the larger display. In Italy we say "Non puoi avere botte piena e moglie ubriaca" "You can't enjoy a full up bottle AND a drunk wife..." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share #37 Posted September 27, 2012 In Italy we say "Non puoi avere botte piena e moglie ubriaca" "You can't enjoy a full up bottle AND a drunk wife..." That saddens me too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted September 27, 2012 Share #38 Posted September 27, 2012 Some of the older Leica Ms I've used feel like compact precision instruments' date=' like good microscopes, vernier calipers, micrometers etc. They feel small and solid, mechanically well-designed, elegant and exact. They belong in velvet-lined hinged mahogony cases, where they can show off their engravings while not in use and, in the hand, they instill confidence, pride of ownership, and a sense of continuing tradition that only the hands of a skilled and dedicated craftsmen can provide. With greater bulk and weight, the M8 & 9 began to feel clumsy, more common, less distinctive. The jewel-like quality seemed to be missing. The bodies were bigger and hollower. And now the Leica M - technically the best camera Leica has ever made - may take us still farther from the pure sensual/visual enjoyment that leica M series once provided.Was Leica's pride in its SIMPLICITY designed only as a rouse to hide its once financial inability to provide more, or have they now become more willing to join the Japanese in competition for a larger market? In either case, I still will buy the new M, but, as I said when I started this thread, I am saddened by what we have had to give up.[/quote'] Awwwww. A tear rolls down my cheek. Go buy an M3. Save yourself $6,000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 27, 2012 Share #39 Posted September 27, 2012 I believe it would have been preferrable to increase the pixel count without increasing the overall dimensions. Try finding a smaller display with the same pixel count … (And as a matter of fact, customers wanted a bigger, not just a higher resolution display. The display used in the M has a pixel density of 267 ppi and I suppose we wouldn’t really want even smaller pixels – in a 2.5" form factor it would be 320 ppi.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 27, 2012 Share #40 Posted September 27, 2012 Regarding the complaints about the bigger screen: I thought most complaints had been more about the quality of the M9 screen rather than about its size.I believe it would have been preferrable to increase the pixel count without increasing the overall dimensions. This has been gone over and over again: There does not exist a 2.5" screen with better specs. So if Leica wanted a better quality screen they had to go with the more popular and better spec'd 3" therefore being bigger. I also think their choice to finally go with gorilla glass has added a bit of width but at a better price point than sapphire (wish they had just done gorilla all along). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.