UliWer Posted September 28, 2012 Share #141 Posted September 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...What matters to me is what the camera does, if it does it reliably and well, and how the thing feels in my hands. I used Leica cameras before there was any red dot, except the one on the lens. A Leica M to me is not an investment, it is not a status object, it is not a love affair, it is not a fetish. It is a tool, and I judge it as such. ... I can only agree with you - in general. Though this thread has a topic. My question about the levers on the front of the "old" M-models and what they might cause for tactile feel came from the statement that "My M4-P feels like an alert, lithe animal, ready to follow my intentions. The M8, M9 feel like brick." It is true that the M4-P had no red dot; this was only the original M4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28, 2012 Posted September 28, 2012 Hi UliWer, Take a look here What we gave up for the M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted September 28, 2012 Share #142 Posted September 28, 2012 [...]I would like to know if you think the attached picture would have been better, or would have had a different impact on the 20th century photography & culture if it was taken with a new M, carrying EVF and LV and... A battery charger of course ? A stupid question deserves a stupid answer. Would have the Ancient Roman Airborne Army been more successful with better jumping boots? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 28, 2012 Share #143 Posted September 28, 2012 It is true that the M4-P had no red dot; this was only the original M4. Backwards. The M4-P has a red dot, the M4 does not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 28, 2012 Share #144 Posted September 28, 2012 +1. The first red dot was that of the M4-2. Was stuck on the vulcanite and was easy to remove then. Hard to say the same about the big redeye of the M 240 unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 28, 2012 Share #145 Posted September 28, 2012 +1. The first red dot was that of the M4-2. Was stuck on the vulcanite and was easy to remove then. I think that removing it will leave a hole in the covering. It is also metal, not plastic, flat, no expressed lettering, and it does not spell 'Leica'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 28, 2012 Share #146 Posted September 28, 2012 Damn history again - of cause you are right. And the M4-P had no lever for the self-timer on the front. This was the original M4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 28, 2012 Share #147 Posted September 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) (Picture by René Burri, 1963, Leica M of course) Why "of course?" It seems to me that many cameras of that era could have made that photo. If that photo was of my uncle Bob would anyone think it is very special? And pretty much any camera today could have done it. We could also say that Joe Rosenthal's shot at Iwo Jima could only have been made with a Speed Graphic and that would be the best camera to use for reportage today. The reality is that neither the M3-M7 nor the Speed Graphic is used much for that kind of work today and this is something that Leica realizes and is trying to do something about. BTW a battery charger is about the size and weight of 2 rolls of film at most. A charged battery and a single tiny card can be good for hundreds of photos. I have no idea what you are getting at regarding weight and bulk when digital is so far superior in this regard. Compare what you need to carry in order to shoot 1,000 images on an M3 with what you need to shoot 1,000 photos using the new digital M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 28, 2012 Share #148 Posted September 28, 2012 I think that removing it will leave a hole in the covering... Mine looked like this and removing it did not leave any hole fortunately. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/188824-what-we-gave-up-for-the-m/?do=findComment&comment=2127805'>More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 29, 2012 Share #149 Posted September 29, 2012 I don't have a problem with that image being removed for "copyright purposes" if that is required. Especially because the image is not necessary for this discussion... IMHO. And I guess this forum has rules of better safe than sorry. Perhaps a simple solution would be to leave the images up for a period of just a few days in order to facilitate a discussion, and then remove those images so they don't become a permanent part of the archive. I doubt if any copyright holder would have a problem with that. I don't know how international laws apply. But my understanding is that the US Copyright exception for "Fair Use" applies to images that are simply referenced as part of commentary and discussion. So I'd be curious if anyone can explain why fair use would not apply here. Section 107 of the Copyright Act states: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Source: 17 USC Section 107. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M6Mann Posted September 29, 2012 Share #150 Posted September 29, 2012 I think we may have forgotten why we bought Leica in the first place. I see a lot of talk about size and weight comparisons, This many gm that many mm, what the hell? These are cameras. Are they that big and heavy? I guess if we have to talk about equipment and not photography this is the place to do it. I bought an M6 because It was a gift to myself as a reward for accomplishing some photo goals. I still have it and use it. I have an M9P to have a digital compliment. I don't think I thought about the size and weight once. I'm starting to feel by reading this thread that I should go and measure and weigh them to see if I got the right ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 29, 2012 Share #151 Posted September 29, 2012 I don't have a problem with that image being removed for "copyright purposes" if that is required. Especially because the image is not necessary for this discussion (...) my understanding is that the US Copyright (...) That's it in a nutshell. Since the server is located and operated in Germany, it's German law which applies, but the result is the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted September 29, 2012 Share #152 Posted September 29, 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. All true, but is there not a less expensive model with the anthracite finish that would satisfy you. Wait a year and it will probably be available in traditional finishes. Or just use or keep using a M9 which I consider the the finest digital camera I ever owned. I just bought the M9P in bright chrome with the discount and the DNG files files just fall out ready to use. They are amazing. None of my Nikons do this, although I can get them to look close with some photoshop work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy2 Posted September 29, 2012 Share #153 Posted September 29, 2012 There's very little wrong with the M's aesthetics that some black gaffer tape can't cure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 29, 2012 Share #154 Posted September 29, 2012 That's it in a nutshell. Since the server is located and operated in Germany, it's German law which applies, but the result is the same. I guess that is my question. Does German law not have a similar "fair use" exception? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 29, 2012 Share #155 Posted September 29, 2012 I guess that is my question. Does German law not have a similar "fair use" exception? I am not a lawyer and not German. As far as I am informed, however, there are indeed situations where you can use copyrighted material without an explicit permission. I do have some doubts whether the question posed above would qualify as "fair use". I agree with your assessment that the presence of the image is immaterial for the discussion of the questions posed in this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share #156 Posted September 29, 2012 I I'm starting to feel by reading this thread that I should go and measure and weigh them to see if I got the right ones. You shouldn't bother. You seem oblivious or at least insensitive to the weight/size thing. Some of us feel the extra bulk and weight every time we pick up our digital Ms. Others feel the extra bulk only occasionally, when we have to carry around the camera for hours. And then some of us happily go on about our business not being affected in any way. Consider yourself fortunate and just enjoy what you have.. and don't feel at all smug believing you've minimized this discussion with mere passing sarcasm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 29, 2012 Share #157 Posted September 29, 2012 Well, if a mere 100 grams (the weight of a backup battery which if carrying around all day you might want to have on you anyway) is really gonna break your back that much maybe best to hit the the gym between now and January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 29, 2012 Share #158 Posted September 29, 2012 Well, if a mere 100 grams (the weight of a backup battery which if carrying around all day you might want to have on you anyway) is really gonna break your back that much maybe best to hit the the gym between now and January. That's funny since through just a little exercise you should be able to lose the entire weight of the camera too. Three rolls of film weigh about 100 grams and can only record 108 photos. This is sounding like the "weight weenies" on some bicycling forums who measure out each bolt in grams. It can be very expensive to buy the lightest weight bicycle components. Maybe Leica should see about using carbon fiber and cutting the weight of the body substantially. They could charge a couple thousand more for a CF Leica M. A 9 element 16-50 Sony Nex motorized zoom with AF motor only weighs 116g whereas a 6 element Leica 35mm f2.5 lens weighs 220g. Their physical size is similar too. So design and choice of materials makes a big difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 29, 2012 Share #159 Posted September 29, 2012 ...Maybe Leica should see about using carbon fiber and cutting the weight of the body substantially. They could charge a couple thousand more for a CF Leica M. The carbon idea is not bad. Does carbon have the same stability against breaking? From byciclists you hear different opinions. My tripod doesn't look as if it would be good to maltrate the open tubes by lever force - though I didnt try I understood that the M is built more robust to ensure that heavy R-lenses can be safely adapted (weather sealing is the other reason). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voigt Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share #160 Posted September 29, 2012 Well, if a mere 100 grams (the weight of a backup battery which if carrying around all day you might want to have on you anyway) is really gonna break your back that much maybe best to hit the the gym between now and January. It was at the gym that I learned it's best to keep the weight off. Maybe that's what this camera company needs to learn. A 15% increase in weight certainly makes a difference, but perhaps not to some of the witty numbed-fingered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.