Quality is good, but speed is more important.

[Guest jvansmit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 "Quality is good, but speed is more important.l".

 

I love the M rangefinders but give me speed any day. It's the main reason I'm now almost exclusively using the Q, and my M246 + several lenses are slowly gathering dust. Whenever I take out the M246, it seems slow, clunky, and archaic compared to the Q.

[Adam]

I love the M rangefinders but give me speed any day. It's the main reason I'm now almost exclusively using the Q, and my M246 + several lenses are slowly gathering dust. Whenever I take out the M246, it seems slow, clunky, and archaic compared to the Q.

 

Is that just because of the ~2 sec startup?  Or because the Q is more automated and has a better buffer? The Q does seem to be better at reportage photos like the excellent stuff you have on your page.  I am just curious.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest )-(]

"Quality is good, but speed is more important.l". Imo this is THE weakness of the digital Ms. Their slow and sluggish compared to SLRs. The start-up time allows the photographer to miss the decisive moments. The response time from pressing the shutter until capturing is behind DSLRS even though it ought to be shorter. And so on with regards to buffer and similar.

 

I don't have a stake either way, you think the camera is too slow/too quick, too big/too small, this is your personal experience, good luck to you. 

 

Perhaps the reason you get some strong reactions is that you make some strong assertions, e.g.; "an M is slow and sluggish compared to an SLR" - " its not good enough, and Leica will have to improve" etc.

 

In some contexts this is (of course) true. (Your use case of...) lunch with friends and family, I personally don't find it to be the case at all, quite the opposite in those circumstances but then I tend to give the M the full attention it deserves! capture some moments, then give my friends and family my full attention. I'm not juggling cameras and nappy bags and hors d'ouevres. Or maybe I just set the camera up, place it within reach and then pick it up and use it when the moment is right.

 

Your experience is clearly different there, sounds like a Q might be a better bet, or some other camera system for this situation? 

Part of the appeal with the M system - for me - is that I have it with me in the first place. This is speed for me, no need to go home and collect the camera, it's here! in my bag!

 

I never waited for the camera start-up but I have waited for the buffer to clear and I have definitely waited for me to twist the switch to turn the camera on. I forgive Leica for the buffer, the electronics are handmade by the Smurfs did you know?, I don't expect perfection and I forgive myself for forgetting to turn it on sometimes.

 

"The M is far to slow for me" - you need a much 'faster' camera it sounds like - but which one? You hope for a new, faster 'M', or the Q, or some other system?

 

For me, I would never expect Leica's electronics capabilities to match those of the Japanese electronics giants, I would expect disappoint if you do but I get that the bar is set reasonably low and can sympathise that you are not happy. Good luck!

[Guest jvansmit]

Is that just because of the ~2 sec startup?  Or because the Q is more automated and has a better buffer? The Q does seem to be better at reportage photos like the excellent stuff you have on your page.  I am just curious.

 

it's a combo of features for me, Adam, as well as start-up..... for example, fast auto or manual focus, fast lens, accurate metering even in challenging light which saves a sec or two fiddling with exposure comp (compared with the M's metering).

 

I find that I'm switching between auto and manual exposure & metering several times daily depending on the light and circumstance. Sometimes manual focus, sometimes zone, and sometimes auto focus depending on the situation, and the same with switching between auto and manual exposure. I think it's intuitive 'muscle memory' coming into play after a few weeks of use. When I used the M, everything was just a tiny bit more considered technique-wise so now I can focus more on the scene.

 

I know all this is not rational, it's about being comfortable with the tool and this is subjective. I have a Sony A6000 as a back up when I'm travelling, and used it last week when I was in a slightly unsafe area. After a few shots, my reaction was 'what a dog'....even the AF and shutter button response seemed slow compared to the Q, and the A6000 is not a sluggish camera.

Edited October 6, 2015 by jvansmit

[Adam]

it's a combo of features for me, Adam..... for example, fast auto or manual focus, fast lens, accurate metering even in challenging light which saves a sec or two fiddling with exposure comp (compared with the M's metering).

 

I find that I'm switching between auto and manual exposure & metering several times daily depending on the light and circumstance. Sometimes manual focus, sometimes zone, and sometimes auto focus depending on the situation, and the same with switching between auto and manual exposure. I think it's intuitive 'muscle memory' coming into play after a few weeks of use. When I used the M, everything was just a tiny bit more considered technique-wise so now I can focus more on the scene.

 

I know all this is not rational, it's about being comfortable with the tool and this is subjective. I have a Sony A6000 as a back up when I'm travelling, and used it last week when I was in a slightly unsafe area. After a few shots, my reaction was 'what a dog'....even the AF and shutter button response seemed slow compared to the Q, and the A6000 is not a sluggish camera.

 

Thanks, it is always informative to hear such experiences. I forgot about the metering, on the M it can be unresponsive for me since I cannot figure out the exact area of spot metering vs other modes. 

 

I really enjoy your work, and I am glad you found the right tool. I hope the Q keeps growing. It sounds like a great camera for your kind of work. But I think the Q will be always by design a more responsive model than the M, unless the two merge into one system...

[Mornnb]

From http://overgaard.dk/Leica-Camera-Typ-601.html.

 

I find it a well written and informative history lesson. I also agree on the observation made by Thorstein as seen from pros "Quality is good, but speed is more important.l". Imo this is THE weakness of the digital Ms. Their slow and sluggish compared to SLRs. The start-up time allows the photographer to miss the decisive moments. The response time from pressing the shutter until capturing is behind DSLRS even though it ought to be shorter. And so on with regards to buffer and similar.

 

So this raise two absolute critical questions; will Leica improve the M, and will Leica improve this on coming SL? Perhaps Q can point to some answers. Is the start-up time noticeable by user. If so its not good enough, and Leica will have to improve.

The M is a digital camera and all the points you make above are related to the Maestro CPU and its relatively slow performance compared with what is in the most recent Canon and Nikon bodies. However, I would note that the next M will invietability have a much faster CPU. Yes, CPU performance matters a lot for cameras, not just IPhones and MacBooks.

 

Although I note these issues are easy to work around, set the camera time out to 10 minutes and keep the camera awake with the occasional half press of the shutter. I never have a problem one needs to do the same with a DSLR. Know your camera and keep it ready when you might need to use it.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Mornnb

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A few further comments:

 

- Why complain/comment on perceived deficiencies here, which seems to get some backs up? Well, one could send feature requests direct to Leica, but actually I suspect Leica use LUF, within limits, as a source of market research data. Its as good a place as any for finding out the current concerns of Leica users (I am sure it is not the only source, of course). And I find it interesting to see what other users like/don't like in a design. So I post here rather than email Leica.

 

- Are such comments/complaints intended to rubbish the M design and its designers? Not in my case, nor, I suspect, in Flyalf's case. No, I don't see the M as a work of art, I see it as an excellent tool that does its job well, but could do it better, and I hope some features will be improved in the next iteration. This is just practical product development.

 

- Is the M for slow photography and slow photographers? Not unless you've got too old to work fast (and I'm over 60). The moment I find the M is designed for those who don't want to work fast with a responsive camera I will move to a system that is. And, as one who has an OM-D EM-5-II, IMO the M is designed for speed/responsiveness, and that is why I use it. The Olympus is said to have one of the best EVFs and AF systems around, and I find the M quicker in most situations. (I use the Olympus (i) for AF on fast moving rugrat grandchildren and (ii) for silent shutter photography in concert/theatre performances)

 

- At risk of repetition, can I emphasise that there is a difference between strategies to cope with a fault/feature, and designing that fault/feature out. I prefer the latter, and hope that Leica do as well. I would be surprised to hear that some people actually prefer the former and would rather not have the latter.

Edited October 6, 2015 by LocalHero1953

[algrove]

So far for me the Q has changed my life for the better, but I must admit I have yet to use it for "street". That will come soon.  Like some, I want whatever is new to Leica to use much of the Q technology. I experience no lag with the Q, a silent shutter unless in an absolute no noise environment (and here it is a small snick sound) and a buffer that is so fast you do not even think about the buffer. You think about your image capture and nothing else.

 

I bought the Q for its autofocus capabilities and use it for the same reason. Sure I wish I could turn off jpeg in captures, but that should appeal to those who have e-sites. The cooked jpegs have a warm look to them and often look plenty good OOC to my eye. However, I only use my RAW images. Actually the 50mm FL high resolution option at 8MP is still more than most e-sites need for stellar image quality. Just imagine the 35mm FL high resolution option at 15MP about equals the M9 after a small crop while allowing much higher ISO and shutter speeds at capture.

 

Since the M-240 was released I find 24MP just fine for prints mainly up to 17x22. Some will talk about 20x30 prints being just fine and it is down to personal viewing of the single capture print for one's own level of acceptable quality.  Cropping can affect this quality level in one direction whereas collaging multiple images can help when creating larger image sizes. For many, 24MP is more than fine for their e-sites which could just as well use 6MP cameras for posting, but I like to print, since for me it makes the circle complete from initial capture to final result. The print is fixed at output. That is its strength and appeal to me. It requires viewers to get off their computer chairs and go out to galleries and museums to take in those rich looking prints.  I guess that's what limits print viewing today-the internet. For me, I find on-screen viewing all too dependent upon monitor, be it large & caibrated or a smartphone, not to mention retina versus non-retina.  Do you like back lit or front lit image viewing? 50 years ago, I never thought I would be asking that question, not to mention using and liking a small, AF Leica camera.

 

What does speed mean to me? It means using lovely Summicron lenses with higher shutter speeds combined with higher quality ISO settings. It is an industry trend I see and trust Leica will continue to embarce those Q-like ideas in this new system (if it is a new system) even though the Q uses a 1.7 lens.

Edited October 6, 2015 by algrove

[flyalf]

Thanks to  cron-n, LocalHero1953 and all others,

 

The M is a great camera, and the one best suited for me. Its great in terms of handling (only RD-1 was better). I have missed many decisive moments because of the M. Nobody can deny that's true for me. But altogether I have captured many more moments than I would have done with almost any other camera (haven't tried all of course). As with all other design its room for improvement, and there should be room and tolerance in this forum to discuss improvements. You can argue that your requirements are different, but that doesn't help me or the pros that have abandoned Leica.

 

As I work with services development myself I know the absolute truth of listening to my product target users. Feedback is valuable. I know what responses I would listen to if I were Leica, and that don't include the answers in the category "if you are not satisfied go f**k yourself and buy another product" or "our product is perfect, so there must be something wrong with you since you bring up this picky fuss". Leica apparently tried that strategy towards their customer base as discussed in the article of Thorstein. For some odd reason that was not a great success.

 

I hope for a improved M. Based on the feedback from Q users (also in this thread) I'm optimistic.

 

So, did anyone actually read the article link in first post ?

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, and found it interesting, never having handled an R. I have no idea whether he is right or not about pros, speed and why/whether they have abandoned Leica. But a Leica forum is not the best place to find out why some people have abandoned the brand!

[Joshua Lowe]

I really don't understand why people buy into systems like the Leica M and then throw fits that it's not a Canon or Nikon DSLR.  Do you buy a hammer and then complain that it's not a screwdriver?

 

[Adam]

 

As I work with services development myself I know the absolute truth of listening to my product target users. Feedback is valuable. I know what responses I would listen to if I were Leica, and that don't include the answers in the category "if you are not satisfied go f**k yourself and buy another product" or "our product is perfect, so there must be something wrong with you since you bring up this picky fuss". Leica apparently tried that strategy towards their customer base as discussed in the article of Thorstein. For some odd reason that was not a great success.

 

 

If Leica followed up on  every complaint discussion in this forum, then the next M would be:

 

- $3000 but exclusive

- Slimmer and just as thick

- EVIL but not EVIL

- Have more programmable buttons and have less programmable buttons

- 50 Megapixels and 24 Megapixels

- Fast startup and the same startup

- Be like the Q and at the same time not be like the Q

- Be like the Sony but completely different from the Sony.

- Have autofocus and not have autofocus

- Less features is better and more features is better

 

Good luck with developing a camera based on forum discussions. The only consensus is: less expensive. I doubt if that was news for Leica  

 

Customer empowerment is a delusion that is fed to people when there is a PR disaster so that people maintain brand loyalty. Successful companies do not react to clients needs, they create those needs. A forum like this is useful to me because I can learn stuff from people who know more, it is a place where I can exchange ideas. But I am under no illusion that we are contributing to product development. 

[jdlaing]

I really don't understand why people buy into systems like the Leica M and then throw fits that it's not a Canon or Nikon DSLR.  Do you buy a hammer and then complain that it's not a screwdriver?

I can drive screws with a hammer.

[IkarusJohn]

I really don't understand why people buy into systems like the Leica M and then throw fits that it's not a Canon or Nikon DSLR.  Do you buy a hammer and then complain that it's not a screwdriver?

 

Of course not. But if you buy a new car, do you ignore defects?  No, you get them repaired, and maybe grumble a bit. If there are design faults, or performance issues or other "idiosyncrasies" you either learn to live with them, or you don't, and you trade in. 

 

But, if you generally love the brand, and like the product, you point out on, say a forum for that brand? that there are some problems that need to be fixed either with upgrades, or in the next model. The new Ducati Multistrada DVT has a flat spot in the torque curve between 3,000 and 5,000 rpm (right where you might hit the throttle at 35mph to get away in second - not at all good). You should hear the Ducatisti complain. Not much different to the Leica faithful here.

 

Perfect feedback for Ducati (if it didn't try to ignore the complaints), and for Leica (who does listen); and it's free. The only issue is weeding out the unhelpful or ill informed comments. 

 

The other alternative is that everything in the world of Leica is perfect - let me introduce Jaap  

[IkarusJohn]

If Leica followed up on  every complaint discussion in this forum, then the next M would be:

 

- $3000 but exclusive

- Slimmer and just as thick

- EVIL but not EVIL

- Have more programmable buttons and have less programmable buttons

- 50 Megapixels and 24 Megapixels

- Fast startup and the same startup

- Be like the Q and at the same time not be like the Q

- Be like the Sony but completely different from the Sony.

- Have autofocus and not have autofocus

- Less features is better and more features is better

 

Good luck with developing a camera based on forum discussions. The only consensus is: less expensive. I doubt if that was news for Leica

 

I do wonder if that is what happened with the M(240); that, and Leica departed from its core philosophy of providing what is "essential" and added what was possible. 

 

For or those who roll their eyes, compare what the last generation of film cameras offer and what the M7 offers. If you consider (dispassionately) what the M camera offers, the M(240) stands out as trying to be all things ... to its cost. Fabulous base camera, cluttered with half-baked additional functionality. 

 

Compare the relative simplicity of the S(007) ...

 

I do like it that Leica does listen here, but they do need to provide leadership. Committee design is a short step to what Adam describes.

Edited October 6, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[Bill Livingston]

"Successful companies do not react to clients needs, they create those needs. A forum like this is useful to me because I can learn stuff from people who know more, it is a place where I can exchange ideas. But I am under no illusion that we are contributing to product development".

 

Exactly. I worked for a similar company to Leica (but not in the camera industry) for over twenty years... We were world renowned and successful and had an amazingly loyal following who all had opinions on what we should do. We kept ahead of the market by leading our customers, not following them.

 

(and this is precisely the way we read forums... we would look in every now and again and be amused by the naivety of the discussions... but internally, conviction and passion amongst those of us tasked with takingthe company forward, ruled. What mattered was the company ethos. The products changed and you can't protect the past... you can, however, engender just as much passion in the future products and lead from the front if you do the right things and maintain your standards.

 

These forums are useful, as Adam says, to learn from each other and exchange ideas and viewpoints... but no serious company will be led by discussions like these.

 

If Leica are anything like we were, and they certainly appear to be from the people I knew within Leica, then they are their own strongest critics and internally the 'discussions' will be every bit as passionate as those on here... and cover much the same points anyway...

 

Leica will make their decisions.

 

It's all good... And it's how it should be.

[pico]

I look forward to the decisive moment pictures from persons here who have complained that the camera is too slow.

[Peter H]

If I could only have one camera that would be with me constantly, to record everything that was important to me, and help me to explore and express everything I want to, it would be a Leica M.

 

No DSLR would be up to the job. They are too slow (bearing in mind that speed is a function of all the various changing decisions and considerations that go into all your photos, not a test-bed measurement of start-up times and AF speeds) and they are too large, and in my experience they are far too often too inflexible.

 

That doesn't mean the M is perfect. No camera ever has been or ever will be, and I could create a long list of improvements I'd like to see.

 

The qualities I really value have, in many cameras and particularly DSLRs been buried beneath a fantasy of what photography might be, rather than the straightforward reality of taking pictures. So I hope that Leica don't try to win a technological race where the parameters are principally set by what technology is available at the moment they have to sign off on the new model. There are much more important things that need to go into a camera than that.

[flyalf]

I look forward to the decisive moment pictures from persons here who have complained that the camera is too slow.

I wish I could show you, but the M was to slow. Sorry, couldn't resist

 

May I ask for the decisive moments in street from those that find it fast enough, and haven't missed a shot

 

Edit: Its also possible to klick onto member and look up content. If photos are decisive is up to viewer. I have posted a few photoes now and then, how about members such as pico? Hmmm, not so much.

Edited October 6, 2015 by flyalf

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[algrove]

He does his best work in the Winter.