ECohen Posted January 31, 2016 Share #1 Posted January 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wish the X was a small M like the original rumors suggested . I go out for a casual shoot and make the decision M or X? I always want to choose the X2 because of it's weight and size Nine times out of 10 .......I pick the M and deal with the weight/size. I prefer the rangefinder to the limitations of a poor auto focus system in the X...as do we all It would have been so nice to have a very small hiking camera with the IQ and the lenses of the M. With all of the talk about the 262 being lighter and simpler this old lament came to mind again. I don't understand why weight and size isn't more of and issue in the design of a tool we carry all day all the time......I guess the markets too small. As always thanks for letting me vent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 Hi ECohen, Take a look here I wish....... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted January 31, 2016 Share #2 Posted January 31, 2016 I think you make a very good point. But as long as enough customers are prepared to go along with the idea that bloat is inevitable if you wish to keep up with technology, we will wait in vain. At least until some genuine innovator comes along. Or perhaps until we fully accept that "full frame" is not the be-all and end-all of high quality photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 31, 2016 Share #3 Posted January 31, 2016 I think you make a very good point. But as long as enough customers are prepared to go along with the idea that bloat is inevitable if you wish to keep up with technology, we will wait in vain. At least until some genuine innovator comes along. Or perhaps until we fully accept that "full frame" is not the be-all and end-all of high quality photography. That was the very idea which moved one Barnack about a century ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted January 31, 2016 Share #4 Posted January 31, 2016 I have a love/hate relationship with my X1 which is my only digital camera and I use also as complement to my M7. Love because some of my best pictures are made with the (now almost 5 years old) X1. Why? not IQ, lens performance or similar but because of size and weight I had with me in that moment. Hate because I miss many shots due to slowness, which I knew it was part of the game when I bought it but believed with more than 40 years experience i could go around it...not so... I had hope in the T system (no need for FF from my side) but it seems the new lenses will be larger than what I would like ... robert PS: it seems me the 262 is the digital camera most similar to the M7... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 31, 2016 Share #5 Posted January 31, 2016 That was the very idea which moved one Barnack about a century ago. I thought it was asthma. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted January 31, 2016 Share #6 Posted January 31, 2016 I thought it was asthma. Rick And lugging around a view camera in the forest and mountains. As someone who started photo school with a 50lb Speed Graphic, film holders and accoutrements in a huge fiberboard box with a huge wooden tripod, and only graduating to a KS-15 kit near the end of school (a million years ago)... how difficult is it really to "lug" an M body around? C'mon guys... geez... I laugh at those who think a Noctilux or Nokton f/1.1 is too big and heavy. Let's keep some perspective here, shall we? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share #7 Posted January 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) And lugging around a view camera in the forest and mountains. As someone who started photo school with a 50lb Speed Graphic, film holders and accoutrements in a huge fiberboard box with a huge wooden tripod, and only graduating to a KS-15 kit near the end of school (a million years ago)... how difficult is it really to "lug" an M body around? C'mon guys... geez... I laugh at those who think a Noctilux or Nokton f/1.1 is too big and heavy. Let's keep some perspective here, shall we? We're not comparing it to an old Speed Graphic. We're comparing it to a new X2. The technology is there why shouldn't we desire lighter cameras? Why would you carry more weight that you have to? Why did you stop caring that Graphic its a perfectly fine camera? And yes the Noctilux on and M is a lot to lug around on a hike for 8 or 10 hours, no matter who you are.....so why exactly is that funny? I knew a guy that bragged about caring an RB67 through Europe as a travel camera.......Why would anyone think that's fun....or necessary to make great photos ? Hep.......I think you've missed the point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 31, 2016 Share #8 Posted January 31, 2016 And lugging around a view camera in the forest and mountains. As someone who started photo school with a 50lb Speed Graphic, film holders and accoutrements in a huge fiberboard box with a huge wooden tripod, and only graduating to a KS-15 kit near the end of school (a million years ago)... how difficult is it really to "lug" an M body around? C'mon guys... geez... I laugh at those who think a Noctilux or Nokton f/1.1 is too big and heavy. Let's keep some perspective here, shall we? Perspective? Some here laugh at them for thinking the Noctilux is too expensive. You just laugh at their infirmity. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted January 31, 2016 Share #9 Posted January 31, 2016 Nothing to laugh at...just different needs...not so difficult to understand...what I'm looking for is a small light digital camera to have in the bag beside a film camera...M7 or nikon or Rolleiflex... robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted January 31, 2016 Share #10 Posted January 31, 2016 We're not comparing it to an old Speed Graphic. We're comparing it to a new X2. The technology is there why shouldn't we desire lighter cameras? Why would you carry more weight that you have to? Why did you stop caring that Graphic its a perfectly fine camera? And yes the Noctilux on and M is a lot to lug around on a hike for 8 or 10 hours, no matter who you are.....so why exactly is that funny? I knew a guy that bragged about caring an RB67 through Europe as a travel camera.......Why would anyone think that's fun....or necessary to make great photos ? Hep.......I think you've missed the point. We lugged those old Speeds everywhere we went for the first three weeks of photo school. They taught you several lessons.... first was how to make every image count, since you only had five film holders. Second, you leaned to do everything that beast could do... swings, macro, and fill flash... again with just ten frames, so you were deliberate. Last, I think they made us lug them around so we'd not complain when, for the next three weeks, everything we shot was with a Mamiya C33 TLR kit. And I stopped carrying the Speed when I finished the training segment I needed it for, and "graduated" to the C33 outfit. And no, an M with a large aperture lens is NOT heavy for eight or ten hours. Try shooting a wedding all day with TWO EOS1s, L-large aperture zooms, a BP-E2 motor, and a flash and belt battery pack. THAT gets heavy after eight or ten hours. I wouldn't haul an RB67 anywhere out of the studio... but I have hauled a Hassy 500cm/501cm many, many places including the mountains of northern California... and it's necessary if you want medium-format quality negatives over 35mm. Remember that 35mm, since its inception, has been known as a "miniature format." I chuckle about folks who bandy about "full-frame" in terms of sensors when I think about that. It's all relative, and you guys are complaining about the difference in carrying less than the weight of some folks' wallets. I'm a bicycle rider too, and I see the same thing with bikes... folks are willing to spend thousands of dollars to save a pound of weight on a bike... nope, sorry... I don't think I've missed the point at all. Perspective? Some here laugh at them for thinking the Noctilux is too expensive. You just laugh at their infirmity. Rick Laughing at infirmity? I think not, Rick... it's just that the relative weight difference between an M and an X is so small relative to the difference between an M and any other camera of its competence, I'm having a hard time taking the thought seriously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 31, 2016 Share #11 Posted January 31, 2016 I thought we were now talking about Barnack's inability to carry a larger camera because of his asthma? Asthma was the reason we even have small cameras. The original Barnack was much smaller than any M, introduced in the '50s. Barack designed a small camera with only a decent lens, just good enough to be enlarged to sizes like, for example, what 8x10 view cameras were creating with contact sheets. Original Leica cameras were meant to be small with a decent lens. Everything, especially from the first M on, is chasing more features and endlessly spiraling upward lens designs. The M has changed. But, there must be a market for a downsized M. For various reasons, including infirmity, most all users seem to express that they would enjoy a smaller lighter M. I believe Leica understands this and maybe now Leica has the ability to produce such an M... maybe the next will be smaller. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share #12 Posted January 31, 2016 Hep....seriously lets try to be nice... it not about money, its about weight And honestly if you can't see that....... thats ok...... but please don't that this threat someplace it doesn't need to go. Simple said: It would have ben nice if the X were really the Mini M that the rumors had suggested Who wouldn't want to carry a camera that is less than 1/2 the weight of an M? 314G vs. 683G plus a lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share #13 Posted January 31, 2016 I thought we were now talking about Barnack's inability to carry a larger camera because of his asthma? Asthma was the reason we even have small cameras. The original Barnack was much smaller than any M, introduced in the '50s. Barack designed a small camera with only a decent lens, just good enough to be enlarged to sizes like, for example, what 8x10 view cameras were creating with contact sheets. Original Leica cameras were meant to be small with a decent lens. Everything, especially from the first M on, is chasing more features and endlessly spiraling upward lens designs. The M has changed. But, there must be a market for a downsized M. For various reasons, including infirmity, most all users seem to express that they would enjoy a smaller lighter M. I believe Leica understands this and maybe now Leica has the ability to produce such an M... maybe the next will be smaller. Rick Agreed!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted January 31, 2016 Share #14 Posted January 31, 2016 I'd take an M8 over the X or X2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted January 31, 2016 Share #15 Posted January 31, 2016 Nothing to laugh at...just different needs...not so difficult to understand...what I'm looking for is a small light digital camera to have in the bag beside a film camera...M7 or nikon or Rolleiflex... robert Then given your film camera is an M, with lenses, then the T is the one I'd suggest. Yes, the A/F lenses are bigger than what I had hoped, but used as a simple digital back for the M lenses, it is excellent. Gary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share #16 Posted February 1, 2016 What is it with weight ? Everywhere all I read about is how heavy the M is and I wish I had a light weight M, there is even a guy out there wishing for a carbon fibre M . Are you guys lost all your marbles ? We are talking about a 600 gram camera . That is just a pound and half. Here is a idea lose 2 pounds and you have just even things out. Carry less change in your pocket . Christ I carried 70 pounds of gear all over half the world in my youth I don't think 300 grams is going to break anyone's shoulder. I'm 5'2" and trim... but I'm getting older. In my 20's and 30's I never gave a thought to the weight of my kit. In my old age I'm wiser about what I choose to carry on an outing. Given the choice I'd rather schlep a pound for the day than two and a half. With today's technology why cant I expect a great light weight camera with the M's IQ.....Is the IQ or the processor and simple menu design directly related to weight? I seem to recall someone asking Ansel Adams in his later years, what camera he used?..his answer was "the heaviest one I can carry" Am I alone in my complaint ? Am I asking for Leica to change to laws of Physics? ........I don't think so. I do expect this esteemed group will set me straight and please know that I do sincerely respect your opinions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted February 1, 2016 Share #17 Posted February 1, 2016 I'm 5'2" and trim... but I'm getting older. In my 20's and 30's I never gave a thought to the weight of my kit. In my old age I'm wiser about what I choose to carry on an outing. Given the choice I'd rather schlep a pound for the day than two and a half. With today's technology why cant I expect a great light weight camera with the M's IQ.....Is the IQ or the processor and simple menu design directly related to weight? I seem to recall someone asking Ansel Adams in his later years, what camera he used?..his answer was "the heaviest one I can carry" Am I alone in my complaint ? Am I asking for Leica to change to laws of Physics? ........I don't think so. I do expect this esteemed group will set me straight and please know that I do sincerely respect your opinions The M262 shed a hundred grams... that's pretty significant from the 680 gram body of the M240. But... that's like three and a half ounces. The weight of your socks... or your keys. I'm not trying to be unpleasant or unkind, but you're talking about weights that just don't seem (at least to me) to be significant in the real world. I'm closer to 61 than 60 and I schlep around a shoulder bag with my M9P, a Nokton 50 f/1.1, a Nokton 35 f/1.2, and a '70s vintage Summicron 90... and I marvel at how little the kit really weighs compared to what I've had to carry in the past with Canon. However, IIRC physics do play a part in the depth of the M9/M240 body because of the receptors on the sensor and the flange-to sensor depth. I suppose, however, that they could make a polycarbonate body and chassis, do away with the mechanical shutter altogether and just have an electronic one. That would allow them to reduce the weight of the battery by half since it wouldn't have to have the oomph to cock a shutter. Maybe making the rangefinder parts out of some kind of space age plastic might save a gram or two? But would you still have an M? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share #18 Posted February 1, 2016 I'm not trying to be unpleasant or unkind, but you're talking about weights that just don't seem (at least to me) to be significant in the real world. I'm closer to 61 than 60 and I schlep around a shoulder bag with my M9P, a Nokton 50 f/1.1, a Nokton 35 f/1.2, and a '70s vintage Summicron 90... and I marvel at how little the kit really weighs compared to what I've had to carry in the past with Canon. I should have said that I do this for pleasure. You cant possibly tell me that shlepping all that stuff, all day, is fun for you? To me all that weight sounds too much like work.....especially in the summer Look at todays technology, cameras should be lighter.....don't you think? A well designed camera and a lens with great IQ 16oz .......... is that too much to ask? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share #19 Posted February 1, 2016 Funny you say that because I am as well 52 and well I can handle my MP 240 with 4 lenses including a 75 summilux in the mix . In a ONA Berlin bag hiking all day just slung across my shoulder. And if the day comes that I need to shed weight I can always loose a few pounds just going to a billingham bag. I kind of like a camera with some substance. But hey if Leica puts one out in carbon fibre sub 200 grams well then..... After all variety is the spice of life. Having said that I would love to see a digital M in a CL package that would be Kool. But then again I am a bit off the wall still my favourite rangefinder ever made was the largest Leica ever made. I LOVE THE M 5. I spent 18 years with mine until i dropped it repelling off rattlesnake point. God what I would give for a digital version of an M5 five foot two inches not 52years;-) ....I'm 62years and trust me that 10 years is a lot. Again lugging your bag sounds like work too....more work than Hep's....... but I guess its is me. A photographer should be bigger and beefier....now you tell me..... after 40 years, and a bad back from lugging all that crap. I hoped to enjoy my craft in my retirement years with a lighter weight high IQ camera....this being the 21st century ....again to much to ask Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 1, 2016 Share #20 Posted February 1, 2016 Is weight significant? No but... when i have the choice between a lighter body and a heavier one i tend to take the lighter body more and more and fact is the later is less and less a Leica M... So yes indeed i still want a digital CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.