Leica M Edition 60 - Your opinion

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While Leica may tout the M camera as a professional camera, I don't believe that for a minute.  It rather begs the question of what a "professional" is. 

 

A professional photographer can be someone who sells their images as fine art, and a Leica M may be perfect for that (though an S might be better), they may be photojournalists (yeah right - fiddling with focus and exposure while the princess walks past - they all look like they machine-gun dSLRs to me) or studio photographers (there are a lot of cameras which would be better for that too as they can be used tethered with strobes and all that goes with that).  Leica's reference to "professional" in the context of the M camera is to lure wealthy amateurs in my view.  It has nothing to do with a jobbing professional photographer - there are cheaper and more effective cameras to get the money shot than an M.

 

I agree that you use what you have, but the professionals I know don't rely on the LCD to make sure they've got the shot.  They may look at the LCD to check what they have, but they are pretty sure they got the shot before they look, in the same way we did when we had film - or if they are in the studio, they check their monitor rather than the LCD.  That's not to say they don't look down at the LCD after each shot, but if they're relying on the LCD for their quality output, they're going to go hungry, in my view.  The shot is formed before that.

 

An M camera without an LCD for a professional is even worse that not being able to tether.  But for an amateur (the real market for M cameras), it's no different from shooting film and I can tell you from experience, it is weirdly liberating.  I check the ISO, think about the aperture, check the shutter speed and then spend more time thinking about composition - composition is the critical bit, and I don't miss the LCD for a minute.  Not having the LCD means I am watching what is going on far more critically and I concentrate on what is around me, rather than fiddling with yet another piece of electronics (or in the case of the Sony A7, fighting with it).

 

Standing admiring my last shot on a small screen on the back of my camera has never improved my photography.  Being careful about exposure, focus and composition before I take the shot always has.  The M Edition 60 might not suit some, but as an old film photographer it has helped me.  For the rest, I use my iPhone.

 

Cheers

John

[pop]

... fiddling with focus and exposure while the princess walks past (...) Standing admiring my last shot on a small screen on the back of my camera has never improved my photography. ....

Perhaps you should bother less with your photography and more with just the photographs. The rangefinder has many advantages over many other systems, and that's of course why I use an M. However, due to the frame lines and the offset of the finder from the optical axis of the lens, checking the perspective and whether everything is within the frame becomes critical from time to time.

 

Princesses being as abundant as they are hereabout, I would not worry about missing one or two. If they want to be on my picture, they can very well wait until I'm all set. Anyway, when shooting princesses you should take care that your horse isn't higher than theirs.

[colonel]

Professional means that people being paid for photography use it. Many people do use Leica M for paid photography, even as I discovered recently the film backs !!!! Predominantly it is used by amateurs, but apparently most of Nikon and Canon models are as well. The high end Nikon and Canon market wouldn't exist without amateurs. A bit like 35mm film only existing for Kodak because of motion picture sales.

[Mornnb]

I agree that you use what you have, but the professionals I know don't rely on the LCD to make sure they've got the shot. They may look at the LCD to check what they have, but they are pretty sure they got the shot before they look, in the same way we did when we had film - or if they are in the studio, they check their monitor rather than the LCD. That's not to say they don't look down at the LCD after each shot, but if they're relying on the LCD for their quality output, they're going to go hungry, in my view. The shot is formed before that.

 

Cheers

John

I'm from the younger generation that grew up with DSLRs. The idea of shooting with film and no LCD seems strange to me.

The purpose of the LCD however is not to make the shot, that happens in your mind and through the viewfinder. The purpose of the LCD is rather to check that the shot you got is free of technical flaws and is the shot that you imagined. In this way I find the the LCD provides a sense of security and control, that you got the shot right before you leave sight of the subject and get home.

I must also admit that I prefer to use liveview on the LCD for wide shots on a 21mm or 18mm, rather than a detachable viewfinder that adds bulk to the camera.

[IkarusJohn]

Perhaps you should bother less with your photography and more with just the photographs. The rangefinder has many advantages over many other systems, and that's of course why I use an M. However, due to the frame lines and the offset of the finder from the optical axis of the lens, checking the perspective and whether everything is within the frame becomes critical from time to time.

 

Princesses being as abundant as they are hereabout, I would not worry about missing one or two. If they want to be on my picture, they can very well wait until I'm all set. Anyway, when shooting princesses you should take care that your horse isn't higher than theirs.

I'm not too worried about frame lines. Approximate is usually enough. That rather vague approach has been inherent in the M rangefinder for over 60 years.

[A miller]

I think this camera is a stupid idea for general photography given the cost.  Not having an ability to have live view robs the camera of the essential tools of a landscape, etc, photographer - the use of ND grad and polarizing filters. 

Even with the very old medium and large format cameras, there is an ability to have live view by using a ground glass adapter. This is an essential tool as it allows the photographer to position an ND grad and/or polarizing filter in the exactly correct place in order to achieve the optimum exposure that will preserve max detail in the sky/horizon, etc. Every modern digital camera carries on this ability.  

 

Granted, film M bodies dont have any "live view" capability.  But with all due respect to Leica, its film M bodies do not really excel in the landscape,etc, arena as they do with reportage, street and general portraiture areas relative to its competition.

Landscape photographers with the knowledge and means will much more commonly gravitate to a medium or large format camera system (or one of the powerful canon or nikon dslr systems) for landscape photography.

 

The digital M240 is a game changer in this regard.  The power and resolve of the large sensor is quite capable of serving an an effective landscape, etc, photography tool. The live view function brings it all together to give the photographe what is needed to use all the conventional tools and tricks that gave been available yo film photographers for the past century.

 

the M60 robs the photographer is this critical functionality while excessively ovecharging for the features that the camera does contain.  This is why is think it is stupid. 

[kkonkkrete]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IMO the ONLY issue with not having a screen is not being easily able to change menu items, like WB that occur on digital cameras.  

 

I would LOVE a new camera with no screen, but M60 is sadly too expensive for me.

[Exodies]

You can simulate not having a screen on your normally priced M camera. Don't switch on live view.

Not having a screen doesn't give you any more than this.

[kkonkkrete]

By that logic, all cameras should have all features that have ever been invented: if you don't want to use those features then just don't.

 

That reasoning is the exact opposite of what makes a Leica appealing to me.  Less is more.  When I'm shooting film, I don't stop to worry about the shot I just took.  When I shoot digital, I do, because the option is there.  Perhaps you have will of iron and can happily ignore the screen.  I, sadly, have will of blancmange, and would appreciate having no screen.  

[A miller]

By that logic, all cameras should have all features that have ever been invented: if you don't want to use those features then just don't.

 

That reasoning is the exact opposite of what makes a Leica appealing to me.  Less is more.  When I'm shooting film, I don't stop to worry about the shot I just took.  When I shoot digital, I do, because the option is there.  Perhaps you have will of iron and can happily ignore the screen.  I, sadly, have will of blancmange, and would appreciate having no screen.  

Ergo, I would be logical to pay the price of a Ferrari for a car that doesn't have the feature of driving on the highway just b/c you don't drive on the highway anyway and you love the way it looks and drives.  9 out of 10 people would say that this makes no sense as a general matter.

[Exodies]

You think Leica can charge less to make a small production run which involves redesign, new parts and discards only a cheap lcd screen?

 

And will of iron? If you say you don't want to look at the screen but then find that you really do, I'd say that is doing what you want to do, not being wishy washy.

[jdlaing]

Ergo, I would be logical to pay the price of a Ferrari for a car that doesn't have the feature of driving on the highway just b/c you don't drive on the highway anyway and you love the way it looks and drives.  9 out of 10 people would say that this makes no sense as a general matter.

Same as buying a Ferrari in Manhattan to race up and down the island at 1.1 miles per hour. :-)

[Adam]

Same as buying a Ferrari in Manhattan to race up and down the island at 1.1 miles per hour. :-)

 

1.1 mph is only possible late at night. During the day it is more like 0.2mph. The upside is you can freely hurl insults at the Maserati owners in front of you.

[IkarusJohn]

Ergo, I would be logical to pay the price of a Ferrari for a car that doesn't have the feature of driving on the highway just b/c you don't drive on the highway anyway and you love the way it looks and drives.  9 out of 10 people would say that this makes no sense as a general matter.

 

Ferrari FXX?

 

I don't really see the M60 as an indication of future cameras, except perhaps special editions. It's made of stainless steel, and has no strap lugs. Some have bought the camera and they are enjoying taking pictures with it (in the same way people still use film, field cameras and Leicas without coupled rangefinders or SLRs). 

 

If if you don't have or want an M60, what I don't understand is why this camera bothers you so much. You have an LCD, and you wouldn't want to be without it. Similarly, your camera probably has strap lugs. I'm very happy for you. What I and others have done is try to explain why this camera works for me - not you, me. 

 

I'm not sure that I, or anyone else, can explain it better that has been explained already. 

[A miller]

Ferrari FXX?

 

I don't really see the M60 as an indication of future cameras, except perhaps special editions. It's made of stainless steel, and has no strap lugs. Some have bought the camera and they are enjoying taking pictures with it (in the same way people still use film, field cameras and Leicas without coupled rangefinders or SLRs). 

 

If if you don't have or want an M60, what I don't understand is why this camera bothers you so much. You have an LCD, and you wouldn't want to be without it. Similarly, your camera probably has strap lugs. I'm very happy for you. What I and others have done is try to explain why this camera works for me - not you, me. 

 

I'm not sure that I, or anyone else, can explain it better that has been explained already. 

Hi John - I am not bothered by the camera at all.  I just came across this thread for the first time a couple of days ago and decided to play along with Andreas' solicitation of opinion.  I don't have any LCD screen b/c I don't own a digital camera.  I am sure that your and other M60 owners love you camera.  I am not trying to change your mind or argue with you.  I wish you only the happiest of shooting and I am sure that you are getting amazing results given your shooting style/genre.   I am simply responding to Andreas' solicitation of my opinion and expressing that I think that the camera is a stupid idea for a general purpose camera and like, as JD puts it, someone going out and purchasing a Ferrari to drive only in Manhattan.

 

 

Same as buying a Ferrari in Manhattan to race up and down the island at 1.1 miles per hour. :-)

spot on. 

[IkarusJohn]

I am simply responding to Andreas' solicitation of my opinion and expressing that I think that the camera is a stupid idea for a general purpose camera and like, as JD puts it, someone going out and purchasing a Ferrari to drive only in Manhattan.

 

 

Hi Adam,

 

While I quoted you, my comment was more general.

 

I'm not really that keen on car analogies as, taking the Ferrari example, many Ferraris are purchased and never driven.  What is interesting about the M Edition 60 is that it appears to have been a flop for that sort of investment.  Had it been a Hermes Edition, it might have ended up in glass cases over the World, but it hasn't sold well.  That may be a reflection of a more complex economic environment, or a change in Leica customer interest.  From what I understand, many of these cameras are actually being used.  The Ferrari in Manhattan analogy is probably more apposite to owning an S camera for taking snapshots ...

 

So, the suggestion that the M Edition 60 is bought, but never used, may be reasonable for general criticism of collectors, but I'm not sure it really is that relevant.  We might dislike collector's editions, but they seem to have kept the company afloat.  I admire some of the collector's editions, but have no interest in them other than as a design exercise.

 

The more interesting part of the discussion for me is that I like using the camera, for all the reasons I've outlined.  The biggest single issue is the lack of an LCD, and like it or hate it, the simple point is that this is a digital camera with the same simplicity of control as a film M.  I like that, as I have zero interest in all the other geewiz things that the M(240) does.  For me, live view, chimping and video are negatives.  They're not just features, they are negatives; with one small exception.  Live view makes macro, non-crf lenses, legacy R lenses, long tele's and zooms possible.  I don't have any of those, and to be honest I would rather these functions were somewhere other than the M.  I believe that Leica will be releasing a digital camera which does these things better (without the limitations of an optical viewfinder) shortly.

 

As for cost, there is a premium over the base cost of an M(240) and 35 Summilux, and that is for a limited edition camera made from stainless steel.  Compared to other limited editions, it was;t that bad, though not as good as the Safari Edition.

 

Cheers

John

[A miller]

Hi Adam,

 

While I quoted you, my comment was more general.

 

I'm not really that keen on car analogies as, taking the Ferrari example, many Ferraris are purchased and never driven.  What is interesting about the M Edition 60 is that it appears to have been a flop for that sort of investment.  Had it been a Hermes Edition, it might have ended up in glass cases over the World, but it hasn't sold well.  That may be a reflection of a more complex economic environment, or a change in Leica customer interest.  From what I understand, many of these cameras are actually being used.  The Ferrari in Manhattan analogy is probably more apposite to owning an S camera for taking snapshots ...

 

So, the suggestion that the M Edition 60 is bought, but never used, may be reasonable for general criticism of collectors, but I'm not sure it really is that relevant.  We might dislike collector's editions, but they seem to have kept the company afloat.  I admire some of the collector's editions, but have no interest in them other than as a design exercise.

 

The more interesting part of the discussion for me is that I like using the camera, for all the reasons I've outlined.  The biggest single issue is the lack of an LCD, and like it or hate it, the simple point is that this is a digital camera with the same simplicity of control as a film M.  I like that, as I have zero interest in all the other geewiz things that the M(240) does.  For me, live view, chimping and video are negatives.  They're not just features, they are negatives; with one small exception.  Live view makes macro, non-crf lenses, legacy R lenses, long tele's and zooms possible.  I don't have any of those, and to be honest I would rather these functions were somewhere other than the M.  I believe that Leica will be releasing a digital camera which does these things better (without the limitations of an optical viewfinder) shortly.

 

As for cost, there is a premium over the base cost of an M(240) and 35 Summilux, and that is for a limited edition camera made from stainless steel.  Compared to other limited editions, it was;t that bad, though not as good as the Safari Edition.

 

Cheers

John

Hi John - Thanks for your reply.  To be clear, my analogy to having a Ferrari in Manhattan was with the understanding that the Ferrari owner drove it every day, and not that it would let it sit and collect dust.

 

With regard to the live view - I think that the phenomenon of chimping is so blown out of proportion.  I assume that you have considered the possible benefits of using a polarizing filter from time to time.  W/o live view, there is no way to tell if the polarizing filter is rotated to the correct position and you are left with a lot of guess work which will cause a lot of frustration.  Why subject yourself to this?  So that you can't be accused of chimping??  I take it that you are not much of a landscape photographer, or perhaps have just not familiarized yourself with the power of ND grad filters, but the use of these filters really requires the use of some type of live view (whether an LCD screen, a ground glass or polaroid back).  A true landscape photographer would be very hard pressed to give up his or her ND grad and polarizing filter gear just so that he won't be accused of chimping.  This is what I don't understand about the wisdom of Leica with this camera. 

 

If you do most of your shooting of people, I suppose that the filters discussed above are irrelevant to your workflow.

 

Don't get me wrong, the camera is beautiful in every way. 

[IkarusJohn]

Straw man - I can't use polarising filters, therefore I give up polarising filters so I won't chimp, therefore I'm not a "true" landscape photographer. 

 

Hmm, hard to respect that line or reasoning, I'm sorry, Adam. 

 

First, is it possible to take good landscape photos without a polarising filter?  Of course. Might they be better with a filter?  Yes, but not always. I can't use a polarising filter with my SWC either. The truth is, I carry filters with B&W  cameras (Monochrom & film), but not with my M Edition 60. 

 

That  may mean I'm not a true landscape photographer - along with every other pre-M(240) M camera owner, I'm comfortable with that. I have the photographs to prove it. 

[A miller]

Straw man - I can't use polarising filters, therefore I give up polarising filters so I won't chimp, therefore I'm not a "true" landscape photographer. 

 

Hmm, hard to respect that line or reasoning, I'm sorry, Adam. 

 

First, is it possible to take good landscape photos without a polarising filter?  Of course. Might they be better with a filter?  Yes, but not always. I can't use a polarising filter with my SWC either. The truth is, I carry filters with B&W  cameras (Monochrom & film), but not with my M Edition 60. 

 

That  may mean I'm not a true landscape photographer - along with every other pre-M(240) M camera owner, I'm comfortable with that. I have the photographs to prove it. 

of course you can use a polarizing filter with your SWC!!   I use one with mine all the time, through the use of the 41050 ground glass focus adapter.    Pretty straightforward stuff...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Actually the Leica 180 degree polarizing filter system is rather elegant.