What's Special About An M?

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, just this Rick.

 

All I'm really trying to do, as ever in the parts of the forum to do with photography,  is cut through all the crap and get to the bottom of what people are truly trying to do in terms of photography,  and how they want and expect their cameras to help them.

 

I know that sounds pompous and self regarding, but there are worse things than that to worry about.

 

...Oh.    

[Rick]

I really don't mind the SL unapologetically doing all the electronic things it does so well - it's good at it, and I can use the things which make Leicas great - the lenses.  More so than the M, but then that camera is smaller, lighter, brings with it a discipline the SL lacks, and it's cooler.

 

Yep.  That pretty much sums it up on both sides... especially the part about being cooler, I just didn't want to point out the obvious.    

[Flu]

The satisfying sound of "Ker-Chunk" reverberating moments after you release the shutter on any M. Even the current M still feels like it is from a time before all the digital stuff and the cheapening of manufacturing processes. Through time, it has kept most if not all it's "old world" virtues and that is why it is special to me. It's the underdog in terms of tech in some cases as well which makes to root for the M!

[Oronare]

I think the appeal is the feel of the camera in the hand, it's design as well as the rangefinder viewfinder. Anyone who says things like "simplicity...just three controls!" is either being wilfully ignorant or hasn't used any other camera ever because guess what, I can also 'simply' change my shutter/ISO/aperture by using small dials right by my thumb/forefinger. 

 

The 'memorise the manual' thing is also rubbish, what exactly is more simple, or more complicated here? You set the metering mode, which you can do in any camera and leave it just like you do in the leica menu, set AWB or a custom button to quickly manually change WB and then you're done JUST like you do on your leica...you never have to go into the menu again, so you've gone into the menu just as much as you will on your digital M and you use the same exact thumb/finger to adjust dials for shutter/aperture and ISO.... 

 

The special part of an M is the design, that soap bar shape and the weight of it in the hand and of course the lenses. It's about how it feels to shoot with it and the rangefinder, nothing more.

[jmahto]

I don't understand how everyone is saying M's virtue is simplicity... Before pressing the shutter I do the following:

 

- Decide on which lens to choose. This step takes the maximum time. Sometimes I have multiple lenses of same focal length and I have to decide based on character.

- Press info button to make sure my lens is recognized correctly. If not, I manually select the appropriate lens.

- Press ISO to check what ISO value is set. If not appropriate then I change it.

- Look at the scene and decide which metering mode to use. For uniform light I select classical but if the subject is complex (ex: beautiful girl with big bright earrings that can throw classical metering off) I don't want to take any chance and switch to matrix.

- Take out my WB card and do manual WB. I like my jpegs to look good too and not rely on only DNG processing (which is not simple). I bought M for simplicity after all.

- Decide on whether to do exposure bracketing and bracketing stops.

- Only then I look into the viewfinder and watch the entire scenery, not just inside the frame lines. This is to make sure my composition will be perfect. Here RF VF really shines.

- Set the aperture.

- Set the shutter speed.

 

- After the time spent above, if the subject is still the same as I visioned in step 1 then I go to next step. Else I go back to step 1 and start looking for the subject to photograph.

 

- Focus by turning the focus ring.

- Press shutter.

- View the picture on LCD and zoom in to make sure my focus was indeed correct. Just to make sure my RF didn't go out of alignment since last shot.

- Decide to delete the picture or keep the picture.

 

You can see that M is not about simplicity at all (iPhone is)... Instead it makes me look like someone who knows a thing or two about photography. That's what is special about M.

[IkarusJohn]

That all depends on which M camera you're using.

 

With both the M-A and the M60, I will have only one lens with me (the one I mounted onto the camera before I left the house).  If I have a second, it will be one which I have considered as being likely to be useful for that outing, so it will be mounted before I'm really considering the image.

 

ISO on both cameras is set manually, and will be set for the day (and for the M-A, for the entire roll).

 

It's then a case of setting the aperture based on the depth of field I want (sunny 16 with the M-A), raising the camera, considering the reading I'm getting on the M60 and whether or not exposure compensation is required (blind faith with the M-A), composing and focussing, checking the shutter speed on the M60 and firing the shutter.  Then removing the lens cap ... and taking the shot again.

 

With the SL, I start by looking balefully at the camera and trying to remember which settings I want.  It will probably have the zoom on it and I will stick with that.  I turn the camera on, take off the lens cap frame the shot, select the zoom level I want, locate the focussing point where I want it, think about which focussing mode I want and try to remember what they all mean, think about whether or not I want a single shot, or continuous with dynamic focussing, work out if I'm in P-A-T or M mode and try to decide which is best, select A and set the aperture, check the shutter speed, look to see what metering mode I'm in and consider whether or not I need Exposure Compensation, half press the shutter release to get a reading and focus and then think about the shot.

 

Next, I will compulsively check all the little icons around the screen to try to remember what they mean and what I might have missed, and I will be ready to take the shot; the subject, however, will have left the frame in the time it has taken me to understand what I'm doing.  I will then turn off the camera, put the lens cap back on, put the camera away and rue the loss of the ISO dial on the back of the camera, the aperture setting on the lens and the shutter setting on the camera.

 

I jest, but you get the point ...

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good enough is a phrase I would apply equally to the RF or the EVF.  Having tried the SL I actually found it easier for most situations.  If, anything I was being charitable to the RF as being good enough.  

 

As for the experience, I guess, for me, I didn't come from the RF era nor did I particularly warm to the RF experience when I discovered Leica in 2008 and bought the Leica M8.  It was much like the split prism or micro prism experience.  Just another way to manually focus.  

 

Conversely, the EVF on the SL is an experience I enjoyed. What's not to like about a bright, sharp view.  Snappy to focus, even under poor light or when there isn't something particularly easy to focus on in the RF patch... in the RF patch, I said.  

 

By the way, the mystique and mojo crap is just that.  I just write about that because, it is fun to poke at.  I think that some believe there is something special about the RF experience.  I get that, but I don't see it any different than talking about the EVF experience.  Like you say, different strokes...

 

 

My history is different, having used an M for 4 decades.  The M/RF experience goes well beyond the focusing; it's about seeing the subject, and that includes being able to see beyond the frame lines, or in the digital realm, seeing more than the sensor sees.  No small thing for me.

 

As for focusing, I've never had a problem with any M....second nature, and the print tells me if my efforts were satisfactory.

 

Regarding low light, an M and 400 ASA film served well for a long time, and that was when PP offered a fraction of what can now be accomplished digitally.

 

I haven't tried an SL, but will be interested to experience the EVF.  Many here are impressed; others still not....I'll await judgment, mostly for curiosity.  I'm more curious about the next M, even though I don't need more than the M240.

 

Jeff

[jmahto]

That all depends on which M camera you're using.

 

With both the M-A and the M60, .....

 

.....

 

I jest, but you get the point ...

It seems like I am not good at writing satire without smileys.

 

Btw, I agree with all you said, including jest part.

[Jeff S]

 

Were it me, I'd offer the EVF for the M as an accessory, I'd leave the video as a simple implementation (as they both are), and I'd stop suggesting that the camera is the R solution and "jack of all trades"; I'd sell it primarily as a compact OVF camera for fabulous lenses between 28 and 90 (with the ability to go to 16mm and 135mm).

 

 

Thanks, you've perfectly described my (and many others') M240 use.....an RF camera (using 28-90), with added capability if wanted, and no intrusion if not.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks, you've perfectly described my (and many others') M240 use.....an RF camera (using 28-90), with added capability if wanted, and no intrusion if not.

 

Jeff

 

That is the way I use my M cameras. While I am trying to come to grips with the SL, I'm not using my M cameras as much, but I will go back to them. Love the M, and it works well for the majority of my photography between 28 & 90. No EVF needed, no video and no chimping ...

 

I'm interested that the digital a la carte program provides for omitting the video button. 

[Rick]

Here is the deal for me about the SL:  

 

It has one Zoom lens.  And, with all due respects to the known Leica pundits (I'm not talking about our normal members here) who are smitten with the SL f2.8-f4.0 zoom and who have pledged their allegiance to Leica many times... a zoom, even a Leica zoom, can not come close to the image quality of the Leica primes.  Period. 

 

So, here we are.  If, you like to shoot a zoom... get the SL and you have a cracker zoom on basically the same M240 sensor.  Of course, it is a f2.8 to f4.0... Blah!  Not for me.

 

If, you want the quality of the Leica primes on basically the same M240 sensor... get the M240.  You get f1.4 goodness and better on a sensor built for M lenses.  Better image quality.

 

And, with the M240 you get a better sensor for the M primes and the simple manual, fast shooting ethos.  If, you like a more complex camera that can shoot a compromised image quality zoom... pick the SL.  And, wait for the huge AF SL primes Leica will offer in the future for the SL, that I'm sure will equal or best the M lenses.

 

For me, I'll pick the small M and the unequaled Leica primes.  I could care less about huge zoom lenses that are heavy and and at a minimum can't get below f2.8 and are image compromised.  These compromised zoom lenses even on the excellent SL are of no interest to me.  Just me, of course.

 

Until, the SL can compete with the small compact M and its prime lens system... I'm just not interested.

 

It is fun to talk about all of this and I really like the SL and its EVF and its ability to shoot M lenses... but can we return to some perspective about the M system and its ability to be the best body to shoot the best optics (M lenses) ever made for a FF 35mm camera?

 

And, before you SL guys flame me - this is the M sub forum. 

 

Rick

 

 

[Exodies]

Perhaps not, but despite everyone's best attempts to obfuscate what's really important, if you're making a photograph, it all still boils down to composition, focus, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.   And all of the 'stuff' from the "old days" is still salient.

It also boils down to scene (or subject, if you are one of those kind of photographers).

[pgk]

Perhaps not, but despite everyone's best attempts to obfuscate what's really important, if you're making a photograph, it all still boils down to composition, focus, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.   And all of the 'stuff' from the "old days" is still salient.

You are talking about the endpoint again, not the journey. We all too easily forget.....

 

 see the mystique  is alive and kicking just like statistics a fine line between truth and fiction

Speak for yourself imants

 

It used to be that we used paper diaries. 

 

You see for me you've nailed it. I still use a paper diary (and notebook) and I still write with a fountain pen (a Parker 51 given to me by a local antique shop when I gave them some things to sell for free) and of course I still use Leica rangefinders. Old fashioned - perhaps - but the real reason is that I actually enjoy using all three and they all work for me and the common denominator is that they are simple, tried and tested systems. They work. (And don't get me started on electronic diaries which are great if you have everything coalesced on one system which I can't, and if everything is booted up at the same time, internet connection is available and the pone is actually doing what it should, etc., etc.. From what I've said you can conjecture that in actuality the gremlins work to oppose such situations).

[pop]

I used to breed gremlins ; with pedigrees.

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, | still yearn for the old days of acoustic couplers before the internet, when you sometimes had to whistle down the phone line to disconnect the data link to the IBM360! Sounds like that's what you're still using pgk

[Peter H]

..........……

 

Here's some more "crap" for you to cut through - your concern that the M will play second fiddle to the SL from here in, and not get the same quality of upgrades and functionality, is unwarranted. The M will still be the flagship.

 

Were it me, I'd offer the EVF for the M as an accessory, I'd leave the video as a simple implementation (as they both are), and I'd stop suggesting that the camera is the R solution and "jack of all trades"; I'd sell it primarily as a compact OVF camera for fabulous lenses between 28 and 90 (with the ability to go to 16mm and 135mm).

 

A la carte is where it's at!

We'll find out whether you're correct when the new M is announced, but it won't be the EVF implementation that proves the point. It will be the sensor.

 

Assuming they have the ability, will Leica have the courage or determination to give the M a sensor that clearly separates it in performance terms from the SL? A sensor so perfectly optimised for M lenses that the benefits of MF become clear again to those who may have moved on?

 

Otherwise, If the sensors are the same, it will remain basically a matter of a MF camera and an AF version with a few consequential differences, as at present.

[wattsy]

Otherwise, If the sensors are the same, it will remain basically a matter of a MF camera and an AF version with a few consequential differences, as at present.

 

Only if you think the optical rangefinder viewfinder is unimportant. Clearly, it is of little consequence for some (a few have consistently complained about it for years) but for many it is the defining characteristic of the whole system. It doesn't matter to me how good the EVF is on the SL, it is still a TTL reflex type view and, to that extent, will always be less preferable to the plain window type view of the Leica RF.

[BBHewee]

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.

 

If I'm honest, and there is no reason for me not to be, I would actually find myself between the first two groups.

I appreciate a M for its simplicity, the quality of the output, the creative process, the excitement of seeing those pictures blown up, etc. But I would be lying if you told me that a Bessa did the exact same thing for less money (and I mean, EXACT), I would go for that. There is pride to me in owning what I perceive as the best things that I can afford, and whether that is perceived as showing off is quite frankly of no relevance to me. You don't have to believe me, but I do that for me. And I enjoy talking about them when people notice of course, but I would also be fine with people not noticing.

I might be kidding myself with the last statement by the way, and will admit to that, but my logic remains that if I can afford it, and if I want it, I'll get it.

[wattsy]

a zoom, even a Leica zoom, can not come close to the image quality of the Leica primes.  Period. 

 

I'm surprised you think that. There are many reasons why I wouldn't want to use a big standard zoom lens for any photography I do for pleasure, but I can't imagine image quality would be one of them. Haven't we long reached the point where all the quality zoom lenses from all the main manufacturers (e.g. Canon L zooms, Nikon AFS-G lenses, etc.) are no longer the limiting factor in photography?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

Only if you think the optical rangefinder viewfinder is unimportant. Clearly, it is of little consequence for some (a few have consistently complained about it for years) but for many it is the defining characteristic of the whole system. It doesn't matter to me how good the EVF is on the SL, it is still a TTL reflex type view and, to that extent, will always be less preferable to the plain window type view of the Leica RF.

I personally agree that, or most of it (there are times when an EVF is preferable) but many don't, as we've always known.

 

in responding to IkarusJohn's point about the M being the jewel in the crown, though, I do think the thing that would prove him right would be if Leica were prepared to put a better sensor in the M than in the SL.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that the other differences are insignificant, but they are basically a matter of personal preference.