The Leica M-D thread - merged.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Beside the no chimping part, the MD is appealing from the practical point of view. No buttons or controls on the back, just the ISO wheel and the thumb wheel. The simplicity of operation is quite attractive. As I mentioned, I'm not interested in this camera but I can't understand why is it causing such a hostile reaction from a few here.

Not hostile. I'm happy for people to be able to enjoy whatever it is they enjoy.

 

I think the M-D reinforces some of the unfortunate misconceptions about M cameras that I usually find myself arguing against.

 

Its a bit like talking about sport. There's no need for it but many of us like to exchange different opinions.

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ricoh]

 

 

Live and let live: if you like the M-D and/or M60, great, if you don't, that's great too.

 

Anyway, I have work to do, I'm trying to get the first screen-less iPad to the market before Apple do it themselves.

[ECohen]

Beside the no chimping part, the MD is appealing from the practical point of view. No buttons or controls on the back, just the ISO wheel and the thumb wheel. The simplicity of operation is quite attractive. As I mentioned, I'm not interested in this camera but I can't understand why is it causing such a hostile reaction from a few here.

 

 

I guess it depends on if this is your only camera? 

What you choose to photograph ?

How important getting the photos are to you?....Why increase the option for error?

 

As pointed out there are 3 other models  of the M ....so to each this own

If tweaking in the field is not important to you.... then this cameras for you.

 

As you can tell from my posts ...I don't get it.

I would rather have 3 more lenses for my 240 to expand my options/vision

 

The only advantage I can see is that it appears cool to not care

and act/think, like your having a Zen moment .....till you get home and check your hit rate.

Unless you are one of the very few who truly are at one with the universe,

a quick peak or a second shot is more likely to take you to higher heights'

and send you closer to the photographic perfection you desire.

 

Film is gone (not really) and it was replaced with some very useful technology

This is a great example of only choosing the technology you want to take advantage of.

 

Nothing wrong with that ........I rarely use my cell phone for anything.

 

I dont mean to come off  hostile I'm just voicing my opinion    

This way of working is not for me....I guess if I had 4 other M body's to choose from the MD 

could be fun for a lark? When I'm feeling Zen

Edited May 3, 2016 by ECohen

[ramarren]

I guess it depends on if this is your only camera? 

...

This way of working is not for me....I guess if I had 4 other M body's to choose from the MD 

could be fun for a lark? When I'm feeling Zen

 

 

Well, reading this thread (and many others on this site), it seems quite rare that someone here has JUST one camera and one lens. 

 

The way of using the M-D is exactly the way I use a rangefinder camera most of the time, whether it is my M4-2, CL, or M-P. For any more 'technical' photographic endeavors that require making constant adjustments, multiple shots to get the best pick, etc, I tend to use other cameras (like the SL for instance). Even if I don't look at or use them, the LCD and buttons on the back of the M-P get in the way of my fingers frequently and make it less delightful to use than the M4-2 or CL. I don't need more lenses—the M-P nearly always has a 'Lux 35 or 'Tar 75 on it, the M4-2 a Color Skopar 50, the CL an M-Rokkor 40 or 90. I have a WATE and a Hektor 135 too. There really is precious little more I need for rangefinder photography; I have too much as it is.

 

So for me, the M-D is probably the perfect digital rangefinder. My only problem in buying one is that I already have the M-P, and I'm not so wealthy that I can just go out and drop another $6500 on a camera body casually. I like the M-P too much as it is to be willing to take a huge loss on it just to get the M-D, it doesn't make sense financially. That leaves me waiting for a windfall ... but I suspect it will eventually happen.   

[jmr]

I don't know about "feeling Zen" but it's been a pleasure over the past year or so.

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/leica-md-m60edition-reviews-tests-impressions

 

It's been my only camera in that time, apart from a few nighttime shots with the D-lux.

 

I'm happy, is there something wrong with me?

[Morry]

As a trade off for an increased risk arising from inability to preview, we can naturally be focused more shot by shot...

 

I mean, I don't believe my photographs will then become better straight away, but this relates to overall workflow and more importantly the feeling we get as we go through the process.

 

Zen ? May be, but not sure.

 

By the way, turning screen off means we can turn it back on any time, and an ordinary lazy person like myself won't be able to overcome the temptation. That, I am quite sure

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Morry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those making fun of the decisive moment, you can name it something else, like peak moment, special moment, critical moment, whatever you like. Seems all of you guys prefer to shoot dull moments, boring moments, nothing happening moments. You don't even need an LCD to do that either

Agree.

 

I don't believe every shot even by HCB was outstanding as we see in museums, magazines or wherever.

 

May be for him one out of 10 (I don't know) and for me one out of 10,000 (possibly) but anyway I do what I can do.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Morry

[ECohen]

I don't know about "feeling Zen" but it's been a pleasure over the past year or so.

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/leica-md-m60edition-reviews-tests-impressions

 

It's been my only camera in that time, apart from a few nighttime shots with the D-lux.

 

I'm happy, is there something wrong with me?

 

 

really your only camera...nope nothing wrong with that  at all......cool very cool

Happy is the entire point!! enough said!!

except "nice photos"

Edited May 3, 2016 by ECohen

[jmr]

really your only camera...

 

 

Yes, and I only have the matching 35 Lux, I don't cope well with choices 

[Morry]

I don't know about "feeling Zen" but it's been a pleasure over the past year or so.

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/leica-md-m60edition-reviews-tests-impressions

 

It's been my only camera in that time, apart from a few nighttime shots with the D-lux.

 

I'm happy, is there something wrong with me?

Very nice article and photographs.

 

Lucky the M60 is beloved and used in such manner. I am impressed.

 

My gut feeling is that I will love M-D.

It may fill the gap between M7 and M246, the gap I have been wondering about for a while...

Edited May 3, 2016 by Morry

[colonel]

Agree.

 

I don't believe every shot even by HCB was outstanding as we see in museums, magazines or wherever.

 

May be for him one out of 10 (I don't know) and for me one out of 10,000 (possibly) but anyway I do what I can do.

 

Indeed (not you sorry - HCB)

 

Just saw an exhibition with his photos in the Barbican in London. His photos are great and he gets close but I would say there are some really competent people out there today doing street photography

 

The other thing to mention is that HCB was a bit wedded to B&W but many photographers of previous periods would jump on the latest technology. Capa and Adams to name a few ...

[jaapv]

Indeed (not you sorry - HCB)

 

Just saw an exhibition with his photos in the Barbican in London. His photos are great and he gets close but I would say there are some really competent people out there today doing street photography

 

The other thing to mention is that HCB was a bit wedded to B&W but many photographers of previous periods would jump on the latest technology. Capa and Adams to name a few ...

Welll, not just B&W. For instance: http://time.com/3872061/cartier-bresson-red-china-in-color-1958/

 

 

However: 

 

Q.

How do you feel about color photography?

A.

It’s disgusting. I hate it! I’ve done it only when I’ve been to countries where it was difficult to go and they said, “If you don’t do color, we can’t use your things.” So it was a compromise, but I did it badly because I don’t believe in it.

NYT,June 2013

 

[ECohen]

Yes, and I only have the matching 35 Lux, I don't cope well with choices 

 

 

Hi John ,

I've just spent, half hour looking at your flicker page....I still feel an LCD is necessary.

However you have inspired me to turn off my screen and carry only one lens.

And to resist the urge  the adjust and rethink. Your work is wonderful, from your photos I can almost put myself in you place.

Really nice job...Perhaps there is something to having less choices.

Trusting the Zen we all have in our hearts.

Sincerely 

EC

[edwardkaraa]

I don't know about "feeling Zen" but it's been a pleasure over the past year or so.

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/leica-md-m60edition-reviews-tests-impressions

 

It's been my only camera in that time, apart from a few nighttime shots with the D-lux.

 

I'm happy, is there something wrong with me?

Of course there is something wrong with you. You must be a lunatic! If you want to know why just read the previous pages

[Peter H]

........Perhaps there is something to having less choices.

........

 

 

I sincerely believe that having fewer choices (not necessarily a matter of equipment though) is a very good thing for anyone trying to cultivate their creativity, in most fields of activity and not just photography.

 

I don't necessarily agree that removing a screen from a camera achieves the same purpose, but if for whatever reason it enables you to enjoy your photography more, then it's a good thing.

 

I suppose much of the discussion in this thread turns on the question of the psychological effect that having no screen will have on how you personally will approach your photography and of course there can be no universal answer to that.  

 

I'm not arguing against people who want a camera with no screen, I'm arguing against the idea that removing it represents a simpler form of photography. It doesn't, it is just different, another choice, and is a matter of personal taste just like film or digital, colour or B&W etc. etc.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Peter H

[MT0227]

LCD or to not LCD.....seems like there's way too much debate over this issue in my view.  Some even hint at being better photographers because they don't "need"  them, in spite, so they can be called a "purest".   Well....there was also a time when I used a bound encyclopedia (not wiki) to do research; fortunately times have changed.

 

If you're confident with your metering technique, I suppose "needing" an LCD to "check" is not all that useful.  However, if you want the added insurance or just the immediate return of your photo, I could easily see the want/need.  

 

Personally, when I use my M240P, I like having the LCD mainly for two purposes: (1) If I want to shoot wide (< = 21mm) I can use LV for critical composition; (2) immediate satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) of seeing the shot.  Call the latter chimping if you wish, but don't confuse this with a "check" after each shot as opposed to viewing photos while on vacation.  Chimping is a byproduct of the digital age, and as long you don't let it interfere with your production, who the 'F' cares.  I see plenty of Sports "pros" constantly chimping when there's breaks in the action.  

 

If you don't need (or want) all the added buttons,"features" and technology the digital age brings to the table and want to keep it simple.... shoot a film M, find a good lab and scan your own negatives.

 

Other than the size in hand, I don't see much difference between shooting my M6 or M240P.  I use the same 3 levers to control the photo on both; everything else on my digital M is preset and held constant (not like there's a ton of things to change anyway). The only added feature that's a waste for me is Video.

[IkarusJohn]

I'm not arguing against people who want a camera with no screen, I'm arguing against the idea that removing it represents a simpler form of photography. It doesn't, it is just different, another choice, and is a matter of personal taste just like film or digital, colour or B&W etc. etc.

 

Okay, it's not simpler. 

 

It's digital photography with the 4 adjustments necessary to capture a DNG image, no Jpeg, no white balance, no bracketing, no profiles, no video, no EVF, no live view, no review etc etc

 

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck ...

 

Whether having a simpler camera also makes your photography simpler is a difficult argument to sustain, really. I'm not sure how photography (in the sense this camera is designed for) can be viewed as complex - how is that possible?  It is the essence of simplicity. It might not suit other forms of photography, but that is a different point. 

 

Granted, photography has the capacity to be just as simple with the M(240); like using only one lens when you have a drawer full of Leica's best. There are benefits for some in removing options that are nice to have (or not) to what you absolutely need. That is why the camera is brilliant, even if few buy it. The fact that Leica offers such a camera is enough. 

 

If I can turn an argument around, every criticism of the M-D applies to every Leica film camera; yet they remain popular. 

[Peter H]

.............

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck ...

 

..............

 

If I can turn an argument around, every criticism of the M-D applies to every Leica film camera; yet they remain popular. 

 

 

It looks like a duck to you because that's what you've decided it looks like.

 

I think it looks like a camera without a screen, which can either be simpler or more difficult to use than one with a screen, depending on how you use it. 

 

 

 

And that's not a criticism of the camera. Of course it resembles a film camera a little more than an M240 does, but I've never considered film photography to be inherently simpler than digital. They are just different. I think it's the idea of simplicity with its echoes of purity that I take issue with rather than the camera itself.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Peter H

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

Well, reading this thread (and many others on this site), it seems quite rare that someone here has JUST one camera and one lens. 

 

How true.  That doesn't stop us from seeking the one that can do it all, though. Fool's errand really, but somewhat like the M-D we are, after all, built to dream.

[ECohen]

Okay, it's not simpler. 

 

It's digital photography with the 4 adjustments necessary to capture a DNG image, no Jpeg, no white balance, no bracketing, no profiles, no video, no EVF, no live view, no review etc etc

 

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck ...

 

Whether having a simpler camera also makes your photography simpler is a difficult argument to sustain, really. I'm not sure how photography (in the sense this camera is designed for) can be viewed as complex - how is that possible?  It is the essence of simplicity. It might not suit other forms of photography, but that is a different point. 

 

Granted, photography has the capacity to be just as simple with the M(240); like using only one lens when you have a drawer full of Leica's best. There are benefits for some in removing options that are nice to have (or not) to what you absolutely need. That is why the camera is brilliant, even if few buy it. The fact that Leica offers such a camera is enough. 

 

If I can turn an argument around, every criticism of the M-D applies to every Leica film camera; yet they remain popular. 

 

 

 

Nope....but thats why there is Chocolate and Vanilla... if it works for you....great

 

"If I can turn an argument around, every criticism of the M-D applies to every Leica film camera; yet they remain popular. "

 

They dont remain popular. Because of the digital age except for a few, who love the process, film and film camera are almost extinct

​and the companies that made film are are dropping like flyes. You really cant compare digital and film cameras in that way

 

"There are benefits for some in removing options that are nice to have (or not) to what you absolutely need"

 

If you dont want the LCD fine..... but in the digital age the LCD it's not  in any way a useless, unnecessary option....a distraction...as you call it

 

Having a camera that only does 4 things is cool but very very limiting.....if you don't mind the limitations and your photography doesn't suffer than the the M60 is for you.....and there are a few of you out there.

How many M60s were made (and really  being used)? What percent  of Leica /Camera buying public do you think will buy an LCD less camera? I'll bet its even less than still buy new Leica film cameras.

 

In a weird way you are in a very unique club of custom made cameras....and thats very appealing 

 

Don't get me wrong I can now understand the attraction....But I use my camera for so many different kinds of photography.

Sometimes no screen is great but when I need it, I cant imagine the frustration of not being able to "check" in this digital age

 

And a special thanks to MT227 for the word "check"...... because the word "chimp" implies you dont know what your doing.

 

I like this thread, my screen is off and I'm using only one lens ....for now

Please know that I have the utmost respect for those of you who only  choose to have 4 adjustments...really!

Edited May 3, 2016 by ECohen