M(240) Edition 60

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Therein, perhaps, lies part of the problem. And I'm really not (well maybe partially not) trying to make too much of this: I use a camera to take photographs.

 

Really.

 

If my camera is imperfectly formed; if it is a piece of "plastic-blob ugliness" that's OK.

 

My Leica's aren't. But many of my other cameras are. That's fine. I don't use a Leica camera because it is an attractive piece of industrial design (though I can appreciate that, and it is an added bonus) - I use the camera because it allows me to take better photographs for some styles of photography.

 

I would choose an ugly camera that took a pretty photograph, every single time, over a pretty camera that takes ugly photos.

 

I know that sometimes isn't the aesthetic around here. I'd like to say I'm OK with that, but I suspect I'm not. In the same way I'm not OK with a pretty car that's lousy to drive or a nice-looking yacht that should never be taken near a breeze. I like function. I prefer an attractive device that functions well, but I'd take a functional yet unattractive device over an attractive disfunctional device every single time.

 

Perhaps that's just me...

 

...Mike

 

Ah but Mike that's because you're obviously a much better and less superficial person than I am.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mfunnell]

Ah but Mike that's because you're obviously a much better and less superficial person than I am.

Not at all. Perhaps more task-oriented. That can be useful, but is often unattractive.

 

...Mike

[zlatkob]

Did you really trawl a couple of videos on youtube and note various times just to counter what looked like a casual comment?

 

More generally, I don't understand why a 'screenless' digital camera seems to bother you so much. It's not as if the other manufacturers are all going to follow suit or you will be forced to use such a device.

 

Obviously I noted the times in order to respond to the comment. Having watched those videos recently, the comment didn't ring true, whether casual or not. Why does it bother you so much that I shared that information?

 

A screenless digital camera raises interesting philosophical questions about camera design, so I'm very interested rather than "bothered". The eccentricity of the Edition 60 is a strong statement and makes it a great collectors' item. But if form follows function, it's a poor design. Why does it bother you so much that I express that opinion?

[pop]

... if form follows function, it's a poor design.

 

If the customer has a work flow which does not call for using a display, it's a splendid design.

[TomB_tx]

It's a camera that appeals mainly to us dinosaurs, and I find the form perfect for the functions I actually use in a camera. I still shoot mainly film, and use my M9 the same as a film camera. I do use the LCD - but only to change ISO and select my un-coded lenses. Shooting RAW I don't care about white balance - but find auto works to minimize later processing. (I spent a long career working on a computer screen, and don't care to do more than tweak a shot now and then.) I like a digital Kodachrome. I don't worry about card space, as I remove images from the card within a day or so, and don't reformat in the camera. The M9 battery has never quit on me shooting at "film pace" and recharge before heading out.

Yes, I can use an M9 or 240 the way I want, but I'd opt for the 60 with just the functions I need if it were the same price. I use an A7 as a digital SL - with the LCD shut off.

I also prefer a small flip-phone to a smart phone, and drive a 1973 VW Beetle, because both do all I want.

If a company like Leica offers a product that suits me but not you, what's the problem? I'll buy it and you won't.

[mfunnell]

If a company like Leica offers a product that suits me but not you, what's the problem? I'll buy it and you won't.

True enough. But the time they spend developing a product that suits you is time they won't spend on a product that suits me. Which, in this case, is a bit of a wash: my M type 240 suits me just fine, and they probably won't get any of my dollars for the next 10 years (judging by the time I spend with "good enough" cameras - and my M is more than good enough). Yet I'd prefer they spend their time developing niche products which advance and enhance the art (eg. the M Monochrom) rather than collectors pieces like the Edition 60 or gold-plated cameras covered with the left-over leather from 23 (closely-stitched and somewhat surprised) newly-circumcised hippopottomi. Suprised though they are, maybe those hippos are paying the bills so I'm not blaming them...

 

...Mike

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I still don't get why this seems to rattle people so much, or why it should automatically be a matter of ridicule. There's really no natural law of the universe to say that all digital cameras have to come with a screen and a mass of buttons on the back.

 

And if people seriously think that owning a digital camera without all these ugly distracting bits on the body is the same as taking some crappy tape and sticking it all over the back of the camera, then we might as well all drive around in Skodas from now on, because apparently the experience of using a perfectly formed object*, attuned to a person's individual tastes and aesthetic sense has no value.

 

* and by "a perfectly formed object" I mean the theoretical future standard-production version of this camera, looking like a film MP, not this impractical and too-sleek (for my taste) Audi design.

 

I think you might be taking it a little too seriously.

[JohnJWhite]

If the customer has a work flow which does not call for using a display, it's a splendid design.

 

Thousands of dollars/euros more to save yourself the trouble of turning off the rear screen, and the indignity of formatting cards in the camera? I fail to see how this is an example of splendid design.

 

Though the lack of strap lugs does make it more aerodynamic, I suppose. ;-)

[thrid]

No histogram for exposure? Not even a small LCD for a histogram?

 

Unlike film, digital is very unforgiving to exposure errors. Digital has no gentle roll off in the shoulder and there is no compensating action from the developer. If you clip in digital you're out of luck; game over.

 

Coming from a film background I'm accustomed to not be able to 'chimp', but correct exposure is more critical with digital than with film. And without a histogram you're flying blind.

 

On the other hand I think we all know that the vast majority of these M60 cameras will probably never be taken out of the vault to shoot a single frame. Not even of a cat.

 

 

Looking forward to the new Monochrom and M-E replacements.

[Guest odeon]

Can you tell me that how it informs us when the battery is low or the memory card is almost full?

At the analog ages, we had knew more information about that parameters.

[coz]

shown in the finder if you hit the video button

[VictoriaC]

Hmmm, I've done a very speedy glance/read through of some very long comments. My thought is that the camera is Leica's attempt to give us the closest digital equivalent of the film M. Like the film M we can't see the photo we take until processing time, and you get the same controls - the same dials.

Unlike the film M, we get an as-flexible-as-it's-ever-going-to-get ISO and we don't have to deal with chemicals to process out negatives. We get to see the photos as soon as we can get the sd card into the computer. The whole concept seems pretty perfect to me. Only question: why not make it a regular camera or a run of say 2000 units and charge say £3500 or £4000 for it? Oh, but that would be too kind of Lieca!

[aeturnum]

The M60 strikes me as a huge lost opportunity. Leica had the chance to demonstrate that screens are superfluous even on digital cameras, but this camera is a joke. The M60 is a digital camera, not a film camera, and this has needs in terms of the interface. Here's a short list of things you can't adjust or access that are important to digital:

 

• Remaining battery / storage
  
• White balance! (has no one at Leica shot the m240 over ISO 1600?)
  
• Auto Power Off settings (hope you like the 2.5 second startup time)
  
• Color space (a concern for people who actually print)
  
• Metering modes (though I really do love the classic)
  
• Flash settings
  
• Formatting the SD card! (Every digital camera suggests you format regularly)
  
• DNG compression
  
• Settings for aperture-priority mode
  
• Which lens the camera thinks is attached (or manual lens selection).
  

 

I also also add that Leica realizes how silly the M-P screw looks - so they took it off the M Edition 60 for a mere $5k extra. This camera is such a missed opportunity. Digital isn't film, don't pretend it is.

[Mr. Thompson]

There are some very appealing elements to this camera. One thing that has not been mentioned is chimping is very handy when dealing with the internal reflections with longer lenses. I guess that's why the spendy collectors version comes with a 35 Lux.

[IkarusJohn]

Some interesting comments.

 

Here's my take on it:

 

• It's expensive. You could put together a "normal" silver chrome M(240) M-P (prices yet?), and silver chrome Summilux 35 FLE for somewhere a bit over $12,650 (with the premium for the M-P). That means you're paying between $5,000 & $6,000 for stainless steel, the Audi design, the case & white gloves (oh, and what is actually a new design for a digital camera without LCD).
  .
  
• This camera won't make general production. Some bits might, but the overall concept of a digital camera with no LCD won't become a general production model for all the reasons outlined above - yeah, buy some black duct tape, I get it; it's stupid. Who wants a camera that only produces raw, and no JPegs ... Well, actually I do.
  .
  
• Park the Audi design and lack of lugs and the white gloves, what is it as a camera? As mentioned above, it's a digital MP - exactly the same workflow as a film M, but without the chemicals (more or less).
  .
  
• The frame lines are set by the camera's electronics through the lens code - this is very neat. All the normal corrections will presumably be done for coded lenses, and the right framelines come up. I guess it's too much for only the right frames to come up. I guess they'll come up in the usual pairs, which shows a bit of lack of imagination, but that's the way the M(240) works, right?
  .
  
• So, how does it work in practice? To me, this is where it gets interesting - no JPegs, so white balance, chimping and everything else becomes completely irrelevant; no video; no live view? (someone mentioned that you can still fit the EVF, which would require live view to work); actually none of the stuff that really turned me off the M(240); but you do get the new sensor, the new processor and buffer (?), the new rangefinder, and you can monitor SD card capacity and battery levels through the optical viewfinder (?) With a centre weighted meter, ISO, aperture control, shutter control and manual and aperture priority, all the basics for raw image control is there.
  .
  
• What's missing? Discrete advance, Auto ISO, exposure bracketing and exposure compensation (which you'd need to do manually) and the histogram, which is more critical, sensor cleaning (Presumably you get your own butler or sensor cleaner who trots along doing this for you) and formatting SD cards.
  

 

I think this is a cool camera. Sure, Leica has charged to remove things, but this isn't a bog standard M(240) with a new top and bottom plate - there's more to the changes than that, and I seriously doubt that Leica will make a standard digital without an LCD - it's a low production model with very limited appeal. Yes, you could just buy a standard M(240) and not buy the EVF (the one on my Leica T seems better anyway) and buy a leather cover which covers the entire back of the camera, buttons and all. Oh, and disable the video button. Where's the fun in that?

 

No, I guess this doesn't really work for "professional" photographers - why should I care? Call me a dilettante, or not a serious photographer; you could even call me a collector if you like (pretty bad at it, if that's the case), provided I'm allowed to use my cameras, but I think this is actually a pretty cool idea, and really only Leica would do it. The World would be pretty dull if the only choice we had was the bewildering array of Japanese offerings.

 

As to cost, well that's the real problem. My Nikon gear is for sale anyway, and if I add my (as new) M9-P and 35 Summilux (also as new), I'm a long way there already ... but sadly not quite! The choice of medium format (oaky, 6x6) and M3 film, Monochrom and M60 digital, and Leica T for more electronic assistance is rather appealing.

 

Cheers

John

[Universalb50]

For buyers who just want to have a camera like this to look at, why don't they consider making a "dummy" as with the old time Attrape dealer display models? It could be much less expensive without any internal components?

[kdriceman]

The M60 strikes me as a huge lost opportunity. Leica had the chance to demonstrate that screens are superfluous even on digital cameras, but this camera is a joke. The M60 is a digital camera, not a film camera, and this has needs in terms of the interface. Here's a short list of things you can't adjust or access that are important to digital:

 

 

 

• 
   
  
• Remaining battery / storage
   
  
• White balance! (has no one at Leica shot the m240 over ISO 1600?)
   
  
• Auto Power Off settings (hope you like the 2.5 second startup time)
   
  
• Color space (a concern for people who actually print)
   
  
• Metering modes (though I really do love the classic)
   
  
• Flash settings
   
  
• Formatting the SD card! (Every digital camera suggests you format regularly)
   
  
• DNG compression
   
  
• Settings for aperture-priority mode
   
  
• Which lens the camera thinks is attached (or manual lens selection).
   
  

 

 

 

I also also add that Leica realizes how silly the M-P screw looks - so they took it off the M Edition 60 for a mere $5k extra. This camera is such a missed opportunity. Digital isn't film, don't pretend it is.

 

 

I agree it is a missed opportunity, but for different reasons. With the exception of battery charge indicator and formatting SD card, most of what you note can be managed in post if shooting DNG (which I understand is the only option) or can be managed through good old fashioned photography practices (eg - I still use a flash meter and manual flash with my M240)

 

But the missed opportunity was to set price at a substantial discount to the M240 so as to give the market a real choice: full featured M240 at $7000 or save a couple thousand and get an M60.

[pop]

They just have introduced the essence of selection: Buy a real camera at a real price or - if you don't want to spend as much - buy the bargain thingy with all the bells and whistles.

 

Reminds me of The Midas Plague.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CheshireCat]

The only things I like of this camera is the look and the fact it does not default to JPEG

 

I wonder if the EVF is functional on this camera.

Apart from Live View and image review, it could also be used to access a mini-menu (navigation with single button) for essential functionality like formatting the SD.

[pop]

There appears to be no socket for an EVF.