What's Special About An M?

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Yes, distortion is probably the biggest weakness of the quality zooms but, in this small format '35mm' world, many of the primes are not that great in this respect either. For example, my £3,500 35 Summilux isn't a lens I'd use to shoot something architectural without expecting to apply lens corrections (which takes about 5 seconds if I'm working digitally). I know you like to be pedantic but I stand by my general point that the image quality of the latest zooms (including the new SL 24-90) vis-à-vis prime lenses is not going to be a limiting factor for most users.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

 I know you like to be pedantic .....

Because for the most part we are discussing nuances. That said, a seascape with any amount of curvature horizon is especially easy to find irritating. I'm also pedantic on this because its a real frustration in underwater photography when close focus distortions are problematic for a whole host of varying reasons. Wide-angle zooms in particular show substantial distortions which as I said actually effectively increases their minimum focal length - so this is generally not effectively as wide as their manufacturers would have us think (though technically they may be 'correct'.

[Mornnb]

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. 

 

 

 

I would not be so sure about that. Canon has shown with the 70-200mm II 2.8 and the 24-70mm Mark II, that a masterfully designed zoom can out perform a companies own prime offerings. In the 21st century the technology exists for exceptional best of class optical performance from zooms.

[Mornnb]

I'm young, of the millennial generation. I grew up with computers and Canon digital cameras like the 5D. I am comfortable with technologically complicated devices. They are second nature to me and much of my generation. I do not find the complexity of the 5D confronting or difficult, indeed I find learning to master the cameras complexity a fun aspect of using it.

 

There are many reason the M is special. There is no other platform that offers such high quality optics in such compact packages. 

Or the best build quality (you can go the Sony route but if you're used to the build quality of a Canon camera it is quite a downgrade). The sensor of the M240 is also fantastic, high contrast and great colour rendering even at high ISO, it blows away the Canon in dynamic range and offers better tonality and colour than Sony sensors.

However, what really makes the M special is the shooting style. The Rangefinder encourages a connection with the subject, it is a very outwards looking way to shoot that encourages one to be 'away' from the camera and 'with' the subject. I have found it to improve my photography, and I never would have thought before that any gear can do that.

[Jeff S]

 

 

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. 

 

 

That's not what Puts has concluded on reviews of some Leica zooms.  For instance, on the Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90 1:2.8-4.5 ASPH FLE, he says that "generally we may note that the performance over the whole image area is very high, where the fixed focal lengths often have a very high quality in the centre portion, and a gradual dropping towards the corners."  

 

As I recall, he also concluded that the MATE (which he considers a zoom optically) met or exceeded performance in various respects compared to fixed focal lengths that were available at the time, much to the dismay of prime owners.

 

Jeff

[Herr Barnack]

 

What's Special About An M?

In a word, everything.

[brill64]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder whether, for some photographers, the M was probably the wrong camera all along. why was anyone struggling with an M in the first place?

yes. judging by many of the more negative M-240 posts in this forum, it is but that was always going to be inevitable. why? no idea.

[Belle123]

 

yes. judging by many of the more negative M-240 posts in this forum, it is but that was always going to be inevitable. why? no idea.

 

This is so true.  There is room for improvement on the M, but not for changing it to what it is NOT just to please those that are unhappy and unsuccessful with using it.  And, I think Leica recognizes that and will stay true to it remaining a true rangefinder and compact manual camera.  Your not going to see extreme innovation here.  So, why they argue about it? I have no idea.  Is somewhat entertaining.  There is the T and the SL for testing the waters in innovation.  I will be curious to see where those go in future versions more than what will happen to the M.  The M is quite stable and secure and always been so.  Biggest change ever of course was making it digital, which was necessary.  Thank You Leica for keeping it an M in the transition.

[Paulus]

This is so true.  There is room for improvement on the M, but not for changing it to what it is NOT just to please those that are unhappy and unsuccessful with using it.  And, I think Leica recognizes that and will stay true to it remaining a true rangefinder and compact manual camera.  Your not going to see extreme innovation here.  So, why they argue about it? I have no idea.  Is somewhat entertaining.  There is the T and the SL for testing the waters in innovation.  I will be curious to see where those go in future versions more than what will happen to the M.  The M is quite stable and secure and always been so.  Biggest change ever of course was making it digital, which was necessary.  Thank You Leica for keeping it an M in the transition.

I do not want to be harsh, but this talking about the M above makes me want to say:

 

Hey!! It's a tool, it's an instrument!!

 

You know, who's complaining about a stradivarius?

 

"Maybe we have to adjust it and put other strings on it, maybe electronically change the sound, because most of the violonist in the world are not capable of playing " Is there maybe a way of getting a kind of "guitar Hero" chip in it, so that everyone can play it without practising for decades.

 

Why does everything get " de- crafted " by the big public. So if one is not capable of using this tool. Don't blame the tool! Why do people do not take the time to learn their instruments anymore???

 

 

Reminds me of a hornplayer who always looked blamingly at his horn when his sound was bad.

[ramarren]

Returning to the original question, I've been using Leica M cameras for many years. Why does there have to be anything special about them other than that they make excellent photographs and you like shooting with one? 

 

Those are the reasons I use the M. It's never been a problem to have one alongside my SLR or medium format camera for when I find it preferable over the others. And likewise, it's never been a problem to pick up one of the other cameras when they were more suitable to make the photographs I wanted to make. 

 

I don't see what all the hoo-hah is about. I love using my M4-2, M-P, R8, SL, and Hasselblad SWC alike. They all give me great pleasure to use and produce outstanding photographs if I use them properly. 

[Jeff S]

 

I don't see what all the hoo-hah is about. I love using my M4-2, M-P, R8, SL, and Hasselblad SWC alike. They all give me great pleasure to use and produce outstanding photographs if I use them properly. 

And to think there's an entire forum devoted to discussions about all that stuff.  

 

Jeff

[Belle123]

I do not want to be harsh, but this talking about the M above makes me want to say:

 

Hey!! It's a tool, it's an instrument!!

 

You know, who's complaining about a stradivarius?

 

"Maybe we have to adjust it and put other strings on it, maybe electronically change the sound, because most of the violonist in the world are not capable of playing " Is there maybe a way of getting a kind of "guitar Hero" chip in it, so that everyone can play it without practising for decades.

 

Why does everything get " de- crafted " by the big public. So if one is not capable of using this tool. Don't blame the tool! Why do people do not take the time to learn their instruments anymore???

 

 

Reminds me of a hornplayer who always looked blamingly at his horn when his sound was bad.

And.....just what did I write you disagree with?  Sorry, you seem to not make sense here in your response, as a negative to mine. I think we are saying the same thing, eh?

[Rick]

Returning to the original question, I've been using Leica M cameras for many years. Why does there have to be anything special about them other than that they make excellent photographs and you like shooting with one? 

 

 

Distillation of what is special about the M according to ramarren:  Excellent photographs and he likes shooting with one.

 

Could it get any simpler than this that?

 

Until the Internet review sites (go read the sick DPReview comments on the SL) came around, I blissfully shot with a camera I liked (N90s) and never thought (much) about any of this crap like DR and the resolution of the film I was shooting.  I just liked my camera, the lenses were good, and the film produced a look I liked.  

 

Now, inter-Dweebs (think DPReview) seem to critique every single choice of everyone else and worse, judge the the person and the motive of their choice.  For example; rich SOB that has more money than brains and just wants to be a poser.  When in reality, the poor SOB simply likes the images his camera is able to produce, and likes shooting with his camera.  

 

Really, it is the poor Inter-Dweeb that has a serious pathological problem.

 

I'm finding all of this harder and harder to understand.  

 

Bottom line, I like the images and like shooting the (fill in the blank) camera.    

 

Rick

[pop]

You know, who's complaining about a stradivarius?

 

"Maybe we have to adjust it and put other strings on it,

That has been done. Some people have moved the bridge and have put more modern strings on it in order to make it sound louder. I don't think that's done any more, though. Would be a pity, but there you are.

[Paulus]

That has been done. Some people have moved the bridge and have put more modern strings on it in order to make it sound louder. I don't think that's done any more, though. Would be a pity, but there you are.

I know it has been done. In the Classical and Romantic era, the violin ( and also some original Stradivarius instruments ) also was changed because they wanted it to get louder.

 

In our time we have world renown orchestras who play on the original instruments again. Frans Bruggen Gustav Leonard, Barthold Kuyken, Ton Koopman, to name a few Dutchman who started this movement in the Netherlands together with some great German musicians like Nicolas Harnoncourt and not forget John Elliot Gardener in England. 

 

They all came to the same conclusion. You can change the instrument into making it fit to use it for other purposes, but it will not do good to the original instrument, nor to the way of playing.

 

Ergo, in music it is now accepted, that we use the era-specific instrument, for the era-specific music.

 

Some said, that it is more easier for instance to play Barock on a modern instrument, because the old instruments were so difficult to play.

 

But now that we have real specialists in this original instruments, we learn, that the music is played better on the original instrument.

 

We have made the M digital, o.k. but this is only IMHO a replacement of the film by a sensor.

[IkarusJohn]

That's true, Paulus; but are we really playing an old score?

 

People like us raised on film will always prefer the old style form factor, without any real detriment. But, as I recall, Stradivarius instruments, and other instruments of that era, are still used for modern music. Similarly, like the M camera, modern instruments are still made to the traditional formula - fine wooden body made to the same dimensions and played on strings withou frets using a horsehair bow.

 

Isn't this analogy stretching things a little too far into romanticism?

[Tailwagger]

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.

 

New to the party, my M arrives in a few hours. Thought I'd chime in that I don't seem to fall into any of those groups.  For many years, I've greatly admired the images I've seen come from M cameras when in capable hands, but up to this point I've resisted largely due to the hefty entry fee, the percieved or otherwise difficulties of precise framing and manual focusing with an aging pair of eyes and, to a lesser degree, a desire to keep my distance from the kind of folks that comprise the second group mentioned above. What's changed? Nothing really, accept for an unexpected windfall coniciding with a renewed level of curiousity. 

 

Perhaps, I'll matriculate to group one eventually, time will tell.  But in all honesty I'm no purist, I just want to make the best photographs I'm capable of producing. If the M works in that regard its a win, if not I'll move on, but not without continuing to admire the work of others for whom it does.  I highly value simplicity, but in the end its all about the image. My return to a true rangefinder after many, many years is really an educational experiment.  We'll see how it works out and whether or not I too find the M to be special. Regardless, I look forward to finally joining the Leica fraternity after all these years.

[Paulus]

That's true, Paulus; but are we really playing an old score?

 

People like us raised on film will always prefer the old style form factor, without any real detriment. But, as I recall, Stradivarius instruments, and other instruments of that era, are still used for modern music. Similarly, like the M camera, modern instruments are still made to the traditional formula - fine wooden body made to the same dimensions and played on strings withou frets using a horsehair bow.

 

Isn't this analogy stretching things a little too far into romanticism?

Maybe, maybe not, in my opinion we are still making pictures in the same way we did 400 years ago.

 

We see something that gives us an impression and we try to capture this moment with our painting and later with our camera.

 

The analogy is, that it might be important to know what you are doing, so that you can influence your way of capturing the impression.

 

I think " the Camera and The Negative and The Print written by Ansel Adams are still worth while.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

I agree that much of Ansel Adams' books remain relevant - I still read mine, but I do skip large parts as they really no longer apply to what I do - aperture, ISO and shutter remain the same, and the zone system useful.

 

My biggest struggle with the first digital camera I had (Canon G10) was that I couldn't find a way to control the aperture; it was useless.  However, if we want to get all romantic, the coupled rangefinder is cheating it's it?  You should be using a field camera with fixed aperture, estimated shutter times and plate glass negatives, or daguerrotypes.  135mm roll film developed by Barnack is a bit ... modern, don't you think?

 

I'm not being flippant, but I don't really buy the idea that modern cameras cannot take good pictures in the traditional sense (by that I mean, mid 20th century photography), or that an old fashioned camera is essential for good photography.  It just happens that I use those old-fashioned tools, but that is a case of familiarity.  At this stage in sensor development, we still capture images using the traditional controls of ISO, aperture and shutter - for that, the M format is perfect, and the SL a useful extension of what technology has to offer.

 

In the future we may well be looking at very high resolution sensors providing images which we can adjust for focus, depth of field and exposure in processing - if the image is captured as a burst video, we might even be able to adjust virtue shutter speed of the final image.  At that time, there will almost certainly still be people shooting with film and the M will still be alive ...

[lct]

Modern cameras allow things that most of us were dreaming about in our youth: silent shutter, zero vibration, clean pics at 6400 asa etc. When current Ms allow the same they will remain M cameras provided they keep a rangefinder and loose some weight and gain some speed hopefully.