What's Special About An M?

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Something about the specialness of the M which hasn't been mentioned yet is the peer group (yes, you, fellow Forum member). One quality you have in spades which I cherish but don't have is infinite nit picking.

I'm glad to know all y'all.

[lct]

Recurrent question since the seventies as far as i recall. What's special in a rangefinder camera is its rangefinder. There are smaller and faster cameras elsewhere and some of them can give superb results with M lenses already but none of them is a rangefinder. Replacing the M by the SL or any other TTL camera would ring the death knell of Leica as a camera maker.

[pgk]

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

Here in North Wales we have had a train line up our highest mountain for over a century. I prefer to walk. Walking is of course the older, more traditional method of getting up Snowdon so perhaps you are right .

[hepcat]

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

 

No one "yearns" for those days..  although you have to confess that writing code in dBase II was pretty simple.  I'll put words in pgk's mouth at my own peril;  he's not saying that those are necessarily better, just more simple and that they still work in our modern world.   You don't see many cp/m computers on modern networks as they're not competent.  You don't see folks driving '50 Ford coupes as daily drivers on the freeways 'cause they're not competent in today's world.  But writing utensils haven't changed significantly since the days of the quill.  My 1978 self-wind Seiko watch still keeps time, and auto-everything in a camera doesn't make for a more competent photographer.  I would go so far as to argue that IkarusJohn's earlier post about missing a shot while trying to operate the camera (while written tongue-in-cheek, has more than a kernal of truth) causes some photographers to be less competent.  Barnacks can still be considered competent photo equipment just like a fountain pen can still be considered a competent writing tool because the basic tenants of making images haven't changed either. 

 

So, no, I don't see a problem with a photographer sticking with equipment with which he knows he can be competent.    I shot stock car races commercially under the lights in the early '70s with a then-hopelessly-outdated 1955-ish Canon IIF and a couple of Serenars on High-Speed Ektachrome (ASA160)...  and sold a TON of Cibachrome prints to fans, drivers, and crews that summer.   I just didn't know that my equipment wasn't competent to do that then.  My clients didn't know the camera wasn't competent any more either.   I'm much wiser now of course, and I'd never attempt that with a Barnack clone.  I'd use my M9P now.  <wink>

 

So, unlike that 300 baud acoustic coupler of which you seem to be so enamored, camera technology has NOT changed so much as to make that 1981 camera incompetent at it's intended task which, like ALL cameras, is to make images.  BTW, i still have my Sinclair ZX-81 (and 16k module)  lying around somewhere in a box.  It's an interesting novelty now. 

[Jeff S]

 

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

I guess you know that the first FW upgrade allowed for simply shutting off the button.  I did so immediately and I don't even know it's there anymore.  The only reason to omit it is for cosmetic reasons, and as I sit here typing, I can't even tell you what the small button looks like. 

 

BTW, I also shut off the LV button.....but that can come in handy on occasion even if one never uses it for taking pics....works great for quick and easy focus calibration checks.

 

Jeff

[Paul J]

For me, it's mainly the lenses and resulting image quality and qualities. Next is simplicity and rangefinder focussing and composing. The crowning matter is size. It's goes with me everywhere and is completely inconspicuous. It's the cheesy cliche but true - it's an extension of me and when I look I can see the frame lines before it's up to my eye. I know where it's focussed with the focus tab. It introduced a style and method of shooting that has been great for my work. I find it a very quick camera to use.

 

But then there is simply the fact it's a nice camera to use. It does have a very interesting back story and it's a nice fusion of old school mechanics and modern digital and that is something I find charming. The lenses too share that balance between old and new, or you can use ultra modern, or really old. It's a camera with character that no other camera today has. The next best thing to that was the V Blads which I still own.

 

I want a couple more things in it but I'm happy to use other systems too. It is, to me, very close to the perfect camera and nothing else comes close.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The video button could be used to trigger focus magnification. Much less expensive cameras can do it already so why not Leica?

[Rick]

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?

 

Yes.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

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.

 

I'll add that I'm looking forward to the successor to the M240 but I'm no fanboy. if it doesn't deliver the specs I'm hoping for I won't buy and I wouldn't hesitate to switch to another manufacturer if necessary.

[hepcat]

I'll add that I'm looking forward to the successor to the M240 but I'm no fanboy. if it doesn't deliver the specs I'm hoping for I won't buy and I wouldn't hesitate to switch to another manufacturer if necessary.

 

I'll just say "good for you."   Honestly, the coincident rangefinder/viewfinder setup is the most important feature for me.  To be blunt, EVFs suck.  I have an X-T1 with an EVF, but it's not my cup of tea.  I keep the camera because it's a great backup for my M9P, and I can use the EVF, but in general, IMO EVFs are an inexpensive way of not having to engineer a bright light-path for a "proper" finder.   I'm pretty much stuck with whatever the rest of the camera is, 'cause I won't give up my RF/VF.  But if you're not a fan of that kind of  rangefinder-viewfinder, then there are probably other camera systems that are more heavily automated and equipped that will work just fine for you.

 

I suspect that there are more than a few hardcore Leica users who are like me and who are really not so much hardcore Leica fanboys per se... but hardcore coincident rangefinder-viewfinder users who find Leica to be the only game in town. 

[pgk]

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?

Ummmm. No. Distortion. Try a seascape with the horizon near the upper edge. Yes, I know correction software exists but it effectively reduces the focal length do is a compromise in itself.

[pgk]

To be blunt, EVFs suck.

From my viewpoint they create a 'virtual' view. The M rangefinder gives the ultimate 'live' view and you can see everything in glorious reality through the viewfinder. We live in sufficient virtual worlds already. 

[keithlaban.co.uk]

To be clear, I'm a fan of rangefinders and EVFs, I'm just not a fan of the current M240 EVF.

 

I've no interest in using R lenses and I've no interest in the current SL auto focus zooms  zoom. I'm also no fan of the SL lens roadmap.

 

Give me an M with a processor and accessory EVF that are worthy of the marque and I'll be happy.

[Peter Kilmister]

An EVF or LV is essential if using extension tubes for macro work. The disadvantages of LV for me is that I have to wear specs to see the image clearly enough, and in bright sunlight it is difficult to see any image.

The EVF, with its variable diopter, affords one a perfect image for focussing.

[IkarusJohn]

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.

 

I don't see sensor differentiation as critical. Leica may well seek to improve the sensor for the next M, but that will just be marketing hype. I like the existing sensor in the M60 - more likely we will see improved DR and high ISO performance.  The existing sensor performs well with M lenses. 

 

I wouldnt hold your breath that sensor improvements will differentiate the SL from the M. If Leica engages in leapfrogging, any sensor improvement in the next M will be passed on to the SL. You now seem to want the M to have a long term advantage over the SL in the use of M lenses - I don't see that in anything Leica has said to date. 

 

I agree with Ian:

 

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.

 

 

The defining difference is size, and the OVF. The rest will be so similar as not to really make a difference. 

[Peter H]

I don't see sensor differentiation as critical. Leica may well seek to improve the sensor for the next M, but that will just be marketing hype. I like the existing sensor in the M60 - more likely we will see improved DR and high ISO performance. The existing sensor performs well with M lenses.

 

I wouldnt hold your breath that sensor improvements will differentiate the SL from the M. If Leica engages in leapfrogging, any sensor improvement in the next M will be passed on to the SL. You now seem to want the M to have a long term advantage over the SL in the use of M lenses - I don't see that in anything Leica has said to date.

 

I agree with Ian:

 

 

The defining difference is size, and the OVF. The rest will be so similar as not to really make a difference.

We'll see.

 

You know that all along, while admiring the SL, I've had some concern that its existence may hamper the development of the M.

 

You've tried to reassure me that I'm worrying about nothing, and I hope you're right of course. I think there's a lot of potential for the M to be improved and I've feared all along that the SL,s strengths will make it tempting to think of the M as the low-tech alternative. Many users seem to hope that is exactly what will happen, but I feel it's a mistake to equate MF and OVF with low- tech, especially if that translates into complacency regarding sensor and processor development. These are areas where I'd like to see the M st the cutting edge of technology.

 

This is just me expressing my own concerns and preferences, not really making predictions.

[IkarusJohn]

I understand that. 

 

I suspect for Leica, the issue is more having a coherent product line that will take them to 1%. Everything they do must be aimed at the top of the market in order to justify their production costs and their pricing. They are famous for their lenses, and their lenses work best on their cameras.  Leica has zero interest in dumbing down the M. It will get what the SL gets and more. 

 

The SL and the M are in the same market sector - full frame digital. The SL, as you observed right at the start, is made without compromise to size. It's about quality with the best implementation of what technology has to offer - it's the lenses which are big, as they were with the R.

 

If you think back to the time of film, the M and the R co-existed happily. The digital R10 didn't happen because Leica couldn't make it cost effectively, compared to the competition. Had the R10 got to market at the same price as the M9, then the story might have been different.

 

You may be right that the M might lose some sales to the SL (but that has been happening already with the Sonys) - I read the suggestions that the SL will replace the M as half-witted trolling. There will be many times when, walking out the door, you want a classy small camera that takes marvellous pictures, and isn't intrusive - you'll pick up your M(240). Your SL (it's inevitable, you know) will be for all those things it does better. You'll never buy a clip on EVF again ...

[Rick]

Must resist.         
 

 

 

[Jeffry Abt]

There will be many times when, walking out the door, you want a classy small camera that takes marvellous pictures, and isn't intrusive - you'll pick up your M(240).

When I walk out the door I never pick up my Nikon D4 unless I'm going out to shoot sports with a long lens. 

The M(240) is my normal "go to" camera. That is not to say, I would not appreciate a M with higher ISO and an updated clip on EVF.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

I want a clip-on EVF.