pico Posted March 9, 2015 Share #921 Posted March 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) This thread (and a number of other similar ones) could be a casebook for behavioural psychologists. How can any Leica owner challenge another for choosing a camera that is limited in functionality and overpriced compared to notionally comparable cameras? :D:D:D I appreciate the smileys. Your statement could be a case for logicians as an example of redirection. Yah, I get it but I just had to give you some grief. When two old rich ladies were arguing about how they clean their dusty diamonds, a third chimed in, "When my diamonds get that way I just throw them away." New Pico product! Your old digital Leica in a presentation box - a scaled-to-fit trash bin. Oh, but what colour? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Hi pico, Take a look here What do you want in the next digital M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share #922 Posted March 10, 2015 By possible analogy, the Monochrom is based on the M9 and many people report that they like it not just because of the IQ, but because they can shoot b/w without ever thinking about color since the option isn't available. It changes the psychology of shooting. Others, like me, can use the M240 (or M9) and get into the b/w 'zen mode' despite the camera's capacity to also shoot color…we just ignore what we don't need. In the case of the MM, though, the innards are different, and so are the resultant files; with the M60, the files are identical to the M240. Different strokes….no right or wrong, which is why choices are good. I agree with this. The bit you don't really seem to be prepared to acknowledge is that despite what you quote from Leica's publicity material (remember the camera for life?), the fact that the camera has buttons for Africa, a sodding great LCD on the back and a whole host of things I don't want and don't like does change the camera for me - it spoils it. Not you, but it does for me. Odd, maybe, but that's why I like the M60 (and because it has a great sensor and rangefinder). I think we all understand that you really don't get why the M60 appeals and the M(240) doesn't. It's not just the functions it has that I don't like, it's also the discipline that the camera imposes. You have that discipline, or you don't want a camera that is crippled in that way, that's fine. But to say it's the same camera is, frankly, fatuous. Yes, the sensor, processor and rangefinder and lots more is the same, but it's obviously not the same camera from a user's perspective. Otherwise, I'd better ask for a refund. Back on topic, it would be great if the M60 was made a production model. The M lineup could then look like this: M-A MP M7 M(?) all singing all dancing digital with sensible MP and electronics worthy of the Leica name and price Monochrom (?) with a CMOSIS sensor? Live view? video? focus peaking? Exactly how crippled would this camera be? M-E entry level? Would Leica bother continuing with the CCD based M cameras? or would the M(240) be continued, and what "improvements" would be made? M60 production model, based on the current flagship M(?) sensor - frankly, I doubt it. Note, the first three all use the same sensor and the other four might have the same sensor with or without a CFA, but will all have rangefinders (they wouldn't be M cameras otherwise). I think it is worth remembering that historically, it took Leica almost 20 years to introduce an internal light meter (and the M5 was only in production for 4 years, as the change in form was too much for Leica's customers to take) and 30 years to produce the M6 with the M3 form factor and a meter. From the introduction of the M3 in 1954 to the current day, the biggest change in the lineup has been the internal light meter. Leica's most recent film camera ditched that controversial development. Meantime, compare the Nikon F, introduced in 1959 (I know it isn't a rangefinder), with the latest iteration, the F6. Not saying it's a good thing, just while Leica owners were getting shitty about a red dot appearing, the Nikon acquired autofocus, auto winder, DX ISO reading off the film canister, electronic remote controls, focus confirmation, a moveable focus point and lots more (while still being a film camera) But here, many Leica diehards bemoan the fact that the M(240) is 3mm thicker than the M4. Ii think it must be very tough being the ceo of Leica, but I love the attention to detail and the passion these cameras generate. No, I don't want an F6 - I turned one down for an M9. But I do want Leica to be faithful to the traditions of the film generation when developing their next M digital - that is what they're trading on. Those people who love the simplicity, the quality and the direct manual control of a Leica M camera. Do not clutter them with stuff that does not add to the end product - a still image. That does not mean that innovation is a bad thing. It is when it gets out of control (pick up an F6 and you'll get the point). Electronic additions (functionality, options, or accessories if you prefer) need to make a positive contribution to the still photography process, and they need to match the quality with which the Leica name has (had) become synonymous. That's why we pay so much more than CaNikSony owners do, and get less - we're happy to get less because it does what it does better! I think if you don't get that, then you probably bought the wrong camera ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted March 10, 2015 Share #923 Posted March 10, 2015 So we agree then, you have an M240, or rather, an M240P, without the bits you don't like/ want... and therefore you consider it a different camera altogether? That's fine... no-one is arguing with you about that. I, in fact, said earlier in the thread that I can see exactly why the M60 would appeal... It appeals to me for exactly the same reasons. To others, many of the additions that you feel are unnecessary, DO add to the value of the camera and are fully embraced by their owners and aid their creative process. That's fine too... each to their own... M/M-P or M60... each version of the same base model will have its adherents...and for perfectly valid reasons... no need to be so defensive. But no matter how much you protest, your M60 is still a M (type 240) without the bits you don't like. Fatuous? As a continuing discussion, I completely agree! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 10, 2015 Share #924 Posted March 10, 2015 I think we all understand that you really don't get why the M60 appeals and the M(240) doesn't. It's not just the functions it has that I don't like, it's also the discipline that the camera imposes. You have that discipline, or you don't want a camera that is crippled in that way, that's fine. But to say it's the same camera is, frankly, fatuous. I never said it was the identical camera, but an M240 without a screen (and of course all the user differences that implies). If you think of it as a wholly different camera as a result, that's obviously your prerogative, which is why I said there is no right or wrong and that choices are good. I do understand why it appeals to some, and I acknowledged that you and others see it as a different camera. Obviously, or you would have bought the far less expensive M240. Funny how you're so annoyed by others' referring to your camera as an M240 (even without meaning that in a bad way), yet you're more than happy to bash the M240 in countless ways. I have never bashed the M60, or any other camera for that matter ….they're only tools that people choose…or not. The M240 isn't perfect for my needs and preferences, but I haven't found a perfect camera yet. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share #925 Posted March 10, 2015 No, I'm not annoyed. If I was annoyed, I wouldn't bother responding. You don't really need to personalise these discussions - they're interesting enough on their own. Bash the M(240) in countless ways? Hyperbole really doesn't add to the discussion either. My reservations about the M(240) have been consistent, and I believe fair. And, no, there is no perfect camera. I think the Leica M cameras come close, but not perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted March 10, 2015 Share #926 Posted March 10, 2015 And, no, there is no perfect camera. I think the Leica M cameras come close, but not perfect. It comes close. But have a few criticisms. For example you can't move the position of the zoomed in focus view in live view. It doesn't have a built in sensor cleaning feature. The sensor could be a little better too, I would like a 36MP sensor with an ISO of up to 12800. Lenses like the 50mm APO are wasted on 24MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 10, 2015 Share #927 Posted March 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It comes close. But have a few criticisms. For example you can't [...] Thus continues a habit worse than beating a dead horse: pissing on its remains, marking territory. Got anything new? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share #928 Posted March 10, 2015 Hi Pico, how about returning to the topic? What would induce you to trade your M9 for the latest M digital? Apart from eternal youth? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 10, 2015 Share #929 Posted March 10, 2015 No, I'm not annoyed. If I was annoyed, I wouldn't bother responding. You don't really need to personalise these discussions - they're interesting enough on their own. Bash the M(240) in countless ways? Hyperbole really doesn't add to the discussion either. My reservations about the M(240) have been consistent, and I believe fair. . Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 15, 2015 Share #930 Posted March 15, 2015 Jeff I'm with Jeff. It isn't a problem for me that you felt the M60 was better for you and way you want to work. I hope it makes you very happy and that the results are satisfying to you. But John, you do sound annoyed by someone saying that your M60 is a M(240) without a screen, with different cosmetics, and with a higher price. But that is a fact. The innards are the same. The sensor is the same. The shutter is the same. The way it records images is the same. The postprocessing is the same. What reservations do you have about the M(240) that you don't have about its M60 sibling? Is it simply that the screen is a distraction? You're not going to say they are not siblings are you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted March 15, 2015 Share #931 Posted March 15, 2015 Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 15, 2015 Author Share #932 Posted March 15, 2015 What reservations do you have about the M(240) that you don't have about its M60 sibling? Is it simply that the screen is a distraction? You're not going to say they are not siblings are you? Hi Al, If you really want to know the answer to your questions, can I suggest you use the search function?i have been consistent and reasonably vocal in my views on the M(240), and I guess that is why I seem to have upset some here. It wasn't my intention, I assure you. But, I have always been interested in this sensor. People whose opinions I respect here have been very positive about the sensor, and I like the output it produces. What's left? Processor? Well, I guess I'm not a person who picks up a camera and says, Gee nice processor. I don't machine gun images and I don't do video. The processor on the M9 was fine for me. Rangefinder? All my M cameras have a rangefinder - that's the point, isn't it? So, why is it a different camera for me? No JPGs, no video, no screen - nothing but what I want - good sensor, proven form factor and direct manual control. Pretty? Yes, but if it had the traditional silver chrome of the M3, I'd still have bought it - for what it does and the way it does it. Same camera? No. Same sensor and processor? Yes. Same firmware? No. You don't think it's different? Or different enough in what counts? That's okay. It's not your camera. I hope that clarifies my view. Can you respect that? Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 15, 2015 Share #933 Posted March 15, 2015 No strap lug issue, zero risk of coffee stain... the M60 can even do microphoto! Just a dream come true . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 15, 2015 Share #934 Posted March 15, 2015 the M60 can even do microphoto! And in 3D stereo ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 15, 2015 Share #935 Posted March 15, 2015 The M60 makes people who own it feel different than people who own an M240. In that sense, it is a very different camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 15, 2015 Share #936 Posted March 15, 2015 You can buy a never used M4?. The virtue of black painted M4s is that use shows easily, in particular look at the rewind release latch which shows brass almost immediately. I have not seen any so-called pristine original black enamel Leicas without such evidence - except one of mine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 15, 2015 Author Share #937 Posted March 15, 2015 Yawn. Okay, I'm done giving considered responses. I guess I rather fell for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 15, 2015 Share #938 Posted March 15, 2015 Hi Al, If you really want to know the answer to your questions, can I suggest you use the search function?i have been consistent and reasonably vocal in my views on the M(240), and I guess that is why I seem to have upset some here. It wasn't my intention, I assure you. But, I have always been interested in this sensor. People whose opinions I respect here have been very positive about the sensor, and I like the output it produces. What's left? Processor? Well, I guess I'm not a person who picks up a camera and says, Gee nice processor. I don't machine gun images and I don't do video. The processor on the M9 was fine for me. Rangefinder? All my M cameras have a rangefinder - that's the point, isn't it? So, why is it a different camera for me? No JPGs, no video, no screen - nothing but what I want - good sensor, proven form factor and direct manual control. Pretty? Yes, but if it had the traditional silver chrome of the M3, I'd still have bought it - for what it does and the way it does it. Same camera? No. Same sensor and processor? Yes. Same firmware? No. You don't think it's different? Or different enough in what counts? That's okay. It's not your camera. I hope that clarifies my view. Can you respect that? Cheers John Yes, I can respect that. Not sure there is that much disagreement. I happen to respect all individual choices of preferred tool. Can you respect that I do not consider the M60 superior to a M(240) for my purposes? I don't care much about processor either. I look at the results achievable. I don't do video by the way, nor do I shoot in anything but DNG (mostly at least) and I don't machine gun. I am very deliberate (ask anyone who accompanies me on a trip). And I grew up with a rangefinder starting in 1959. I even sometimes turn off the LCD. I would say you and I are not so different in working style. But I am getting to be an old fart with eyes that don't always work properly and I like live view and/or the EVF for those times when I think I need it -- as a crutch or otherwise. I also work a lot in manual mode but like having a meter there for when I need it. In other words, I like the flexibility of using the technology offered or not using it. For that reason, even if M60 and M240 were priced equally, I would take the latter. You have obviously chosen differently because something else suits you. That does not make your choice "better" than mine or your camera "better" (which is a pointless debate anyhow). It just means we have chosen different paths. When the print is hanging on the wall and someone likes it, they are not going to care much about firmware or whether it was shot in DNG or DNG/JPG or whether the photographer focused with a rangefinder or an evf or a knotted rope. Whatever gets you to where you want to go is fine with me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 15, 2015 Author Share #939 Posted March 15, 2015 Yes, I can respect that. Not sure there is that much disagreement. I happen to respect all individual choices of preferred tool. Can you respect that I do not consider the M60 superior to a M(240) for my purposes? I don't care much about processor either. I look at the results achievable. I don't do video by the way, nor do I shoot in anything but DNG (mostly at least) and I don't machine gun. I am very deliberate (ask anyone who accompanies me on a trip). And I grew up with a rangefinder starting in 1959. I even sometimes turn off the LCD. I would say you and I are not so different in working style. But I am getting to be an old fart with eyes that don't always work properly and I like live view and/or the EVF for those times when I think I need it -- as a crutch or otherwise. I also work a lot in manual mode but like having a meter there for when I need it. In other words, I like the flexibility of using the technology offered or not using it. For that reason, even if M60 and M240 were price equally, I would take the latter. You have obviously chosen differently because something else suits you. That does not make your choice "better" than mine or your camera "better" (which is a pointless debate anyhow). It just means we have chosen different paths. When the print is hanging on the wall and someone likes it, they are not going to care much about firmware or whether it was shot in DNG or DNG/JPG or whether the photographer focused with a rangefinder or an evf or a knotted rope. Whatever gets you to where you want to go is fine with me. Absolutely, Al. I agree with every word you say, though I can't say whether we're similar or not. Not sure where you get the idea I might not respect your choices. Nothing could be further from the truth - actually, I'm generally very interested in why people make the choices they do. I'm less interested in bald, swingeing statements that any particular camera is "better" than another. Better for you or me, maybe. Hopefully better for the person who bought it than the alternatives. I think Ming Thein showed recently that you can take pretty good pictures with pretty crappy gear, and cellphones really are something amazing, for what they do. One point I was trying to make (badly) is I find the determined insistence that the M60 is the same as the M(240) curious. Why this perception gets repeated here, particularly in this thread is beyond me. Historically, M camera owners were very sensitive about the smallest changes to their cameras - some say the M2 is much better than the M3 (really? and the significant difference is ...). If you line up all the M film cameras from the M3, through M2 to M6 (in all its variants), the differences were relatively modest (with the exception of the M5 which had the misfortune to have avery good built in meter and a different body - shock horror). As many have pointed out, it is hard to pick the difference between the M3, M2, M4 and M-A, but they are different cameras separated by age, if nothing else. The M-A probably has more plastic than the M3 (something which bothered the Mp owners a lot in the day), but it also has the updated rangefinder that is in the M(240), which is a significant step. By those traditional standards, my camera is very different from the M(240), and has less in common with that camera than the M-A has with the M7 or MP. I guess the other way of looking at it is to say that the Leica T is the same camera as all other Sony 16MP APS-C based cameras. Now that would be a stretch. You asked why the M(240) isn't for me - I loathe the clutter and distraction which modern electronics often bring, and I prefer the purity of the M60. There are no menus for me to get wrong, no buttons for me to press by mistake - it only takes DNG files in a way that I am used to. As LCT states above, I'm unlikely to get lug failures, colour balance issues, coffee stained LCD, or lock-ups (I'll keep you posted on that one), or more critically, I'm not going to take a video or a picture with EC, white balance or any other setting wrong by mistake (I do this often with the T). This makes me sound ancient - I'm not at all. I was just raised on film, and my early experiences with digital cameras was with the Canon G10 and the like, where the aperture setting was buried in a menu system I never got my head around, and I continually seemed to take pictures which did not work for some fundamental reason (usually related to some setting I'd changed by mistake). Read the F-ing Manual? I have better things to read. In my view, products should be designed to be intuitive, not for what the product can do, but for what the user wants them to do. To make the G10 and its ilk work, you're better to just go with what the camera does - take snapshots and let the camera do the rest. No thanks. Early Sony handicams were a bit like that. They took video, but because they were electronic, their capabilities were limited only by the imaginations of their designers. They offered a multitude of options - still, video, time lapse, scene, landscape, portrait etc, you could almost play your MP3s through them if you wanted to, and they did it all pretty badly. The lens was extremely average and because the camera was trying to do so much the battery life was rubbish. And the menu system impenetrable. I threw mine in the bin. So, what do I want in the next M - for the cameras to do what they're really designed to do impeccably. The M camera is a still camera, designed around the rangefinder (I've changed my view on this over the years), and anything that dilutes that is not a positive thing, particularly if the result is fundamental problems with the operation of the camera (lock-ups?). Now, I'm not insisting that the M(240) is there yet, but for me it is headed in the wrong direction. I can see the benefit of live view, particularly for those wanting to use their R lenses. Focus peaking? It wasn't that great on the Sony cameras I had, and I remain unconvinced that it has been as good as the excellent rangefinder on the M(240) from what I've read. So, what I'm suggesting is that the camera should be based around taking still images using the optical rangefinder and the CMOSIS sensor, and not around what is technically possible using the available electronics. If it isn't state of the art and if it doesn't contribute to the still taking process as well as the rest of the camera (beautiful body, fabulous lenses etc), then it shouldn't be there. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 15, 2015 Share #940 Posted March 15, 2015 Alan, as I've noted, I always shoot DNG (without JPEG), never use video, almost always disable LV, rarely chimp and always shoot deliberately (never use continuous mode). For me, the M240 is a fantastically simple tool, because the camera allows me to make it so without ever getting in the way. It's a key reason I've used Ms for 35+ years...and the M240 is the best built and unobtrusive (quietest) digital M I've used. That said, I care primarily about print results, and the camera is just the start of the chain…that part hasn't changed since my darkroom days, except that the digital workflow after camera capture has become increasingly more capable in determining the final print result. For my needs, I'd probably get much more benefit from a better printer or editing software than from any improvements to the M. I will, though, look forward to testing a monochrome version of the M for b/w print results compared to the M240. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.