Peter H Posted December 16, 2015 Share #1 Posted December 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've posted this in the SL forum, but it's probably at least as much a question for M users like me. For years I've eschewed big DSLRs as have many M users, so I'm a little surprised to see some long-term M aficionados arguing that size is not an issue, AF zooms are a wonderful thing, and so on. Hence this post. I wonder whether, for some photographers, the M was probably the wrong camera all along. If "hit rates" have significantly improved as a result of good AF, exposure readings and a zoom lens, and size is not a factor, why was anyone struggling with an M in the first place?It must have been rewarding in other ways, presumably. What has happened to those virtues which are now so much less attractive? To attempt to answer my own question, I suppose it must have been image quality. But for a dedicated M user, it may well also be size, and the whole viewfinder experience, among other things. Some of the photos in the SL Photos thread certainly are beautiful and impressive and probably do prove that M-quality photography is finally available in a DSL format. So were all the other things that distinguish an M camera from everything else really rather insubstantial when it comes down to it? Or are they of a different nature, that can't be measured in the same way that you'd, say, compare an SL with a top of the range DSLR? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 Hi Peter H, Take a look here What's Special About An M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted December 16, 2015 Share #2 Posted December 16, 2015 Three letters: g a s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 16, 2015 Share #3 Posted December 16, 2015 Attractions of the M format, both film and digital: - Size of body and lenses in FF. - OVF- clear, immediate, uninterrupted. - manual focusing (RF mechanism is OK, but I was also happy with SLR split image focusing). - large s/h market of a massive range of lenses and accessories, all of which can be fitted to the M. Attractions of Leica not specific to the M: - IQ/lens quality, prime lenses. - simple interface: the camera gets out of your way. What the M doesn't have that I want for some work: - ability to focus longer lenses. - silent operation (fully electronic shutter, still not available on the SL). - WYSIWYG viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 16, 2015 Share #4 Posted December 16, 2015 I've posted this in the SL forum, but it's probably at least as much a question for M users like me. For years I've eschewed big DSLRs as have many M users, so I'm a little surprised to see some long-term M aficionados arguing that size is not an issue, AF zooms are a wonderful thing, and so on. Hence this post. I wonder whether, for some photographers, the M was probably the wrong camera all along. If "hit rates" have significantly improved as a result of good AF, exposure readings and a zoom lens, and size is not a factor, why was anyone struggling with an M in the first place? It must have been rewarding in other ways, presumably. What has happened to those virtues which are now so much less attractive? To attempt to answer my own question, I suppose it must have been image quality. But for a dedicated M user, it may well also be size, and the whole viewfinder experience, among other things. Some of the photos in the SL Photos thread certainly are beautiful and impressive and probably do prove that M-quality photography is finally available in a DSL format. So were all the other things that distinguish an M camera from everything else really rather insubstantial when it comes down to it? Or are they of a different nature, that can't be measured in the same way that you'd, say, compare an SL with a top of the range DSLR? Quite simple - a different method of taking photographs. I like the M method, so I see no reason to get an SL. Other than as a supplementary camera to replace the 240 EVF. A bit expensive for just an EVF though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 16, 2015 Share #5 Posted December 16, 2015 The key event that has caused this discussion is the introduction on the SL of an EVF that, for the first time, challenges the OVF of the M. The EVF has always had advantages over the OVF, and vice versa, but for many of us the EVF viewing experience just wasn't up to it, and its disbenefits outweighed its advantages. I know not everyone sees the quality of the SL's EVF as a game changer, but I do. There will be no single date when we can say that the EVF overtook the OVF - it will be a rolling changeover as EVF quality continues to improve, and more and more people are willing to live with its remaining disadvantages for the sake of its benefits. The inherent advantage of the OVF is simply the view of the scene independent of what the lens sees. Everything else can, more or less, be replicated in an EVF. (Though I bet there will be an M-equivalent in 20 years time that still uses an OVF, precisely because it has unique advantages). Sure, the OVF/RF experience has not suddenly got worse after the introduction of the SL. But something has turned up which, in ways that did not exist before, is better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted December 16, 2015 Share #6 Posted December 16, 2015 I wonder whether, for some photographers, the M was probably the wrong camera all along. If "hit rates" have significantly improved as a result of good AF, exposure readings and a zoom lens, and size is not a factor, why was anyone struggling with an M in the first place? It must have been rewarding in other ways, presumably. What has happened to those virtues which are now so much less attractive? There are basically three kinds of folks who buy Leicas... the first, and seemingly smallest group, are those who understand and appreciate a manual, coincident-rangefinder/viewfinder camera for its intrinsic simple and fast operation; and who actually use them to make images. The second group are those who are buying "the Leica Mystique" to illustrate their wealth or "hipness" and for whom the camera is a deep disappointment because it doesn't act anything like the DSLR they're expecting it to be (I spent ALL that money and it doesn't even have autofocus!) and the third are collectors who are deeply disappointed that the digital M cameras are digital and turn out to be depreciable assets rather than investments. So, for the first group who actually buy a Leica to use as a manual rangefinder body, the M series is exactly what they want; they know how to use it; and they recognize that the impediments others find so frustrating about the camera are merely what the camera is and how it operates. They make the camera work for them. Comparing the M to any DSLR experience is an exercise in futility and frustration. They're simply different, and require different processes for shooting. The other two groups are the folks who probably shouldn't have bought an M to begin with... but were driven to do it because of advertising, the "mystique" discussed in places like this, or being in the mistaken belief that their M8 will appreciate in value the longer they own it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 16, 2015 Share #7 Posted December 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The SL isn't going to replace the M for any M users, apart from those M users who have bought the SL and now think it's better than the M because they find it easier to focus with an EVF and they like the option of using AF SL and TL lenses, but say they prefer manual focus of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted December 16, 2015 Share #8 Posted December 16, 2015 I switched from medium format digital to the M system to maintain excellent image quality, to have at my disposal a comprehensive range of top quality lenses and to have all this in a comparatively lightweight and compact package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted December 16, 2015 Share #9 Posted December 16, 2015 Copy of my reply in SL forum... Not wrong camera, digital M camera was for some time best chance to use M and later R lenses on digital camera. SL is probably nearest thing to viable digital R solution and it works admirably with M lenses. R range is much wider than M range in terms of FL and capabilities, there must be hundreds of thousands of lenses manufactured from mid 1960s till - I have nine from 19 to 280mm. I managed to try SL with latest firmware 1.2 and focusing is just fantastic, will do full test drive in couple days time to test some of the trickier lenses, like Summilux 75. I am converted M user however my introduction to Leica was R lens Leitaxed to work on Nikon F camera, once you discover the quality of optics you want more. I could see SL in my bag one day, not question of IF but WHEN (£££), also next M would be difficult to resist if it retains M core features and have most of the SL EVF capabilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 16, 2015 Share #10 Posted December 16, 2015 I agree the SL isn't going to replace the M - apart from anything else it's too heavy for the same types of use. The real test of what is valued in the M will be if Leica introduce an M-size body with an EVF instead of a OVF/RF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 16, 2015 Share #11 Posted December 16, 2015 Or - which I would prefer- one with a high-quality stick-on EVF. Having it beside an OVF would be too much of feature bloat for my taste. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbf Posted December 16, 2015 Share #12 Posted December 16, 2015 I think the fact that a DSLR (or whatever) with a zoom lens is too convenient. The M with a fixed focal length really makes you need to work to get the shot. Now I find this incredibly rewarding because when I'm out shooting it forces me to focus and figure it out. I enjoy it. That being said, I have a DSLR and zoom lens and I love it, and sometimes i prefer to shoot with it over the M. I'd also like to mention that I'm one of the lucky ones who doesn't shoot professionally so I have the freedom to take my time and do whatever I want. If I have a bad hit rate then its my own problem and something that I need figure out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 16, 2015 Share #13 Posted December 16, 2015 Or are they of a different nature, that can't be measured in the same way that you'd, say, compare an SL with a top of the range DSLR? One word - simplicity! No other camera comes close. 3 controls - aperture, shutter speed and focus (I set ISO to base and adjust gain in software, and I only shoot RAW so menus are as minimal as they can be)). A continuous view viewfinder, ergonomics, size, weight, RF focus are important but secondary, the M RF camera's prime attribute is simplicity. What other camera works in precisely the same way as its ancestor the M3 from the 1950s? The experience of using one is to me second nature - image quality is more than adequate for most of my requirements so is no longer the issue that it once was. An M is a practical photographer's tool not a technologically complex imaging computer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted December 16, 2015 Share #14 Posted December 16, 2015 One word - simplicity! Spot on! If I need to RTFM it's not for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted December 16, 2015 Share #15 Posted December 16, 2015 Spot on! If I need to RTFM it's not for me. Exactly! With most DSLRs now, it's more like MTFM: memorize the f******g manual. And then memorize the commands and dials... and then memorize your custom settings. I did that. With several models of Olympus... the E10/E20, E1, E3 and E5. I don't want to do that any more. I bought a Fuji X-T1 last year as a backup to the M9P because of its conventional "manual" control dials that control the major functions. It's not a Leica, but the controls are similar enough to the "old days" that it's perfect for me. And I didn't have to memorize the manual to use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 16, 2015 Share #16 Posted December 16, 2015 An alternative, Peter, is that for image quality (it is image quality that's important, right?) the SL shows that many of the virtues many here saw as being the essence of the M were an illusion, if image quality is the issue.There are great benefits in each camera; nothing will make the SL with zoom as compact as the M with a 50 Summilux, nor will the SL ever be as simple to use as the M-A or M60.But to suggest there's a virtue in torturing what is an elegant camera (the M with optical rangefinder) when the SL does it so much better strikes me as perhaps forgetting the strengths of every M from the M3 up to the M9-P. The M(240) extended the M, but not as well as the SL has done so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted December 16, 2015 Share #17 Posted December 16, 2015 I've posted this in the SL forum, but it's probably at least as much a question for M users like me. For years I've eschewed big DSLRs as have many M users, so I'm a little surprised to see some long-term M aficionados arguing that size is not an issue, AF zooms are a wonderful thing, and so on. Hence this post. I wonder whether, for some photographers, the M was probably the wrong camera all along. If "hit rates" have significantly improved as a result of good AF, exposure readings and a zoom lens, and size is not a factor, why was anyone struggling with an M in the first place? It must have been rewarding in other ways, presumably. What has happened to those virtues which are now so much less attractive? To attempt to answer my own question, I suppose it must have been image quality. But for a dedicated M user, it may well also be size, and the whole viewfinder experience, among other things. Some of the photos in the SL Photos thread certainly are beautiful and impressive and probably do prove that M-quality photography is finally available in a DSL format. So were all the other things that distinguish an M camera from everything else really rather insubstantial when it comes down to it? Or are they of a different nature, that can't be measured in the same way that you'd, say, compare an SL with a top of the range DSLR? It did not feel like struggeling when I got my Leica. It felt just great!! So maybe " love " ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted December 16, 2015 Share #18 Posted December 16, 2015 I love my M-P 240. Small, light, quiet, unobtrusive, weather proof, and produces amazing images. The SL has a red dot and LEICA etched in white on a black paint background. The marketing specialists appear to have followed the lead from every other camera maker. My M-P 240 in silver has no frontal markings. It is anonymous. I like anonymity. I preferred the pre-release SL version that I saw with Johnno. It had masking tape over those identifiers. The SL is huge, especially with an SL zoom lens. I have to ask a delicate question as to whether this a marketing ploy to cover penis envy? "My lens is bigger than yours." My M with a 35mm Cron has no need to be ashamed. Don't get me wrong. I am sure the SL is a beautiful camera. I am sure it takes great images. The M has limitations. However, a racehorse with breeding will always be more in demand than a huge cart horse with a good viewfinder. Each to their own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 16, 2015 Share #19 Posted December 16, 2015 Has anyone looked through the a la carte configurator recently? It's pretty comprehensive in both film and digital options. I wonder if this is the long term future for the M system? I appreciate it's a luxury, but isn't the M camera a luxury anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted December 16, 2015 Share #20 Posted December 16, 2015 What's Special? -- my aunts eyes when I showed her my new Safari Set & then told her the pric ... "M's" are just special -- period.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.