M typ 262... weight... conspiracy theory needed?

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

BENCOYOTE "...............

Watches, cars, bicycles today: you pay extravagantly for the lighter object, and lightness has become a keyword of many luxury products today. .............................

 

 

And yet perversely, they are getting bigger.

 

For a while phone manufacturers competed fiercely to make the smallest product, and it was understood that the best and most expensive phones would be the smallest. Not any longer. That trend is in full reverse.

 

Cars are bigger now than ever and while lightness is perceived to be a virtue, people would still rather pay a premium for a big heavy MB SUV than for a light FIAT.

[jonoslack]

And yet perversely, they are getting bigger.

 

For a while phone manufacturers competed fiercely to make the smallest product, and it was understood that the best and most expensive phones would be the smallest. Not any longer. That trend is in full reverse.

 

 

 

.. I just bought an iPhone SE (back to smaller phones for me!). 

[bencoyote]

I think the disdain for lightness some of us here have mostly comes from those approaching Leica digital after having long experience with Leica film cameras. It is just hard not to feel something missing when you pick up a digital Leica after the heft of a MP or M4, even if the difference is not 'major'.

 

It is also hard (at least for me) to accept that my digital Leica will not be used more than a rather limited timeframe, and my MP at the same price will still be taking pictures in 2055, whether I am still around or not (as long as there is film at least).

 

Times change, and all we can do is get our heads around it, and most important of all: take pictures, which is what it is all about (really).

 

 

Leica, my pocket book, and some people here on the forum have taught me a kind of different way. Yes I doubt my M-P will be taking pictures in 2055 but it will still be taking good pictures in 2020 and likely 2025. Nothing will have fundamentally changed in the camera as that makes it less suitable for making good pictures. It is sufficient. its relationship to the current cutting edge doesn't affect my ability as an artist. As long as I find that the capabilities are not limiting my art, why do I need to upgrade?  That is probably why so many people are still using the M9. It is sufficient for their needs.

 

it is hard to add features to a minimalist design. Leica can update a 2012 camera to a 2016 camera or a 2017 camera or whatever. Very little that they could actually do really could improve my shooting experience much. It is sufficient. (1)

 

They continue to repair their Older Ms and the fact that they have recently released the 262 which is still basically the M240 also suggests that they have maintained supplier contracts with their vendors to continue to get new parts needed to repair the 240, 262, and 246 for some time. My guess is somewhere around 2022 or 2025 the M240 series of cameras will start to become difficult to repair with some original parts becoming difficult to source. So if you get sensor corrosion in 2027, you might need to upgrade.

 

So as long as you still are able to explore the range of your art form within the confines of the capabilities of what you have, whatever you have is sufficient. You don't need to upgrade to the latest and greatest when it is released. 

 

The essence of Leica photography is people in their cultural context. It is capturing representational snippets of that ever evolving human experience that keeps photography fresh not the technology in the gear. 

----

(1) I have a very short list of what could actually improve my M shooting experience. More dynamic range (less gamut compression needed on landscapes) , a longer bulb mode that carries through the ISO range (astrophotography), an option to get rid of dark frame subtraction (astrophotography), and a hotshoe which takes the Leica M EVF (easier macro). But these are minor limits on my ability as an artist.

[ramarren]

The M240 always felt heavy in hand. Maybe it was placebo knowing the weight increase after M9, I don't know.. but I do know I didn't like lugging it around.

 

Now the new M262 is a different story, it feels very natural in hand. Basically it just feels like a true successor to M9 in every way.

 

So to me, the weight difference is there and noticeable.

 

 

Perceptions in this thread are all over the map.

 

When I received my M-P typ 240, after three years of only being ambivalent about the M9, I was (and still am) absolutely delighted by it. It feels and sounds much more "Leica M" to me than the M9 did. I don't notice the difference in weight ... If I'm lugging one of them around, I'm lugging the other with just as much effort.

 

I still haven't seen an M typ 262, although if I didn't have the M-P and I were buying now I'd probably go for one of them because I have the SL now: I only rarely use the M-P with anything but a 35, 50, or 75mm lens anymore, and almost exclusively with the optical RF.

[bencoyote]

and a hotshoe which takes the Leica M EVF (easier macro). But these are minor limits on my ability as an artist.

 

I meant the Leica T EVF.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Something that some people are forgetting to take into consideration when comparing digital cameras with their mechanical film counterparts is:

When you buy a mechanical film camera you have to go & buy the film & the processing separately. As long as the mechanisms of the camera are operable/repairable & there are companies producing the appropriate film the camera is usable to produce transparencies/negatives.

 

When you but a digital camera you effectively also buy a big chunk of film & its processing. One of the limitations of this really nice system is that effectively the film & the processing have an "expiration date". That "expiration date" is the longevity/repairability of the electronic components in the camera.

 

Once the electronic components have become inoperable/unrepairable, then the the otherwise pretty much endless supply of film & processing have "expired".

 

By the way, the approximate date of Bencoyote's thought about when heavier to lighter meant a lessening of quality to save money in his Post #49 above is: Approximately 1967, more or less. Depending on where in the World we are talking about.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[sumolux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Elegantly phrased Michael; and I am in no way trying to place film vs. digital in the discussion as I have digital Leica's too.

And I see your point.

 

But when I take out my Leitz II from 1936 and shoot with it, there is an inherent timlessness about the 'mechanics' of using such film cameras anno 2016 with all their limitations, which digital will never be able to emulate.

 

The tradeoff on a shorter longevity is that there are so many more possibilities offered by modern lenses and digital workflow (and I daresy autofocus when needed) that this perhaps balances out the lack of a similar functional timeframe for digital cameras.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Sumolux,

 

I would agree with what you have said except that I don't see many "limitations" with mechanical cameras except for the delay inherent with film processing.

 

I find that composing, metering, focusing & the like proceed at a perfectly reasonable pace.

 

Don't forget that photography is basically the same that it was when Rembrandt was painting in Amsterdam.

 

Pretty much the only thing that has changed is the image capture surface.

 

Then it was canvas, wood or metal. Today it is film or the surface of a digital sensor.

 

The lighting, the perspective, the hues & tints of color in post processing are all the same.

 

The fact that he used pigments & brushes & we use film, filters & pixels does not change that what we all did or do is pretty much the same things.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael