The M-D would be an absolute triumph if it didn't cost so much...

[tthorne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why should anyone resist the impulse to look at their photos if they feel it?

 

What a weird bunch photographers can be.

 

 

It really just depends on the photographer. I grew up playing ice hockey and when handling the puck, beginners always look down out of necessity in order to make sure they keep it on their stick. This works, but sometimes players keep up that impulse even after they are able to handle the puck without looking down at it. At higher levels, that impulse gets you knocked flat on the ice. Rule #1: Keep your head up!

 

I liken this to how I feel about the impulse to look at a screen. Sure, there is no danger in it physically, however, once rid of this impulse, you are able to keep your head in the game for followup shots and so on as the scene develops. One of the things that I love about the M is that we have no blackout in the viewfinder. So following a scene or subject becomes so organic. If we chimp, then we eliminate that particular advantage. Now, that is perfectly okay, as your gear is yours to use as you like, however, you can see that there are real reasons out there to answer your question. 

[Nick Bedford]

Actually I just want to be a hipster 

[erl]

That old chestnut arises, again. "Choose the right tools for the job in hand".

If you really don't want an LCD screen, either buy a camera without one, or turn it off!

Last week I was clandestinely shooting the ballet (Swan Lake) from the audience. A new experience for me, I used to shoot theatre for a living).

Anyway, so as not to disturb anyone, I turned the shutter sound off, turned the LCD off, and shot "by the seat of my pants'', as the saying goes.

Camera; Sony A7S; lens Summicron 75/2.

Now I am the first to take advantage of an LCD when available, but I can totally exist without it, but why would I? Well I have just given one reason. Can't think of a significant other. It is a tool, to be used when appropriate and ignored when appropriate. It is such a significant advance in photography, for most genres, that it can't be ignored.

Here is a sample of the 100+ pics I made.

Corps de Ballet and Signets

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ECohen]

That old chestnut arises, again. "Choose the right tools for the job in hand".

If you really don't want an LCD screen, either buy a camera without one, or turn it off!

Last week I was clandestinely shooting the ballet (Swan Lake) from the audience. A new experience for me, I used to shoot theatre for a living.

Anyway, so as not to disturb anyone, I turned the shutter sound off, turned the LCD off, and shot by the seat of my pants'', as the saying goes.

Camera; Sony A7S; lens Summicron 75/2.

Now I am the first to take advantage of an LCD when available, but I can totally exist without it, but why would I? Well I have just given one reason. Can't think of a significant other. It is a tool, to be used when appropriate and ignored when appropriate. It is such a significant advance in photography, for most genres, that it can't be ignored.

Here is a sample of the 100+ pics I made.

Corps de Ballet and Signets

 

 

You had great seats ....beautiful simply beautiful!!

Nothing like experience to help you shoot "by the seat of your pants"

 

So shooting from the audience.... did it make you crazy to not be able to move around?

Will you upload some of the rest of your shoot someplace? ...If yes please post a link.

I suspect your timing like the dancers is quite special.

[IkarusJohn]

When the M Edition 60 was released, I was very taken with the finish - a CNC milled stainless steel body with matched 35 Summilux FLE was very appealing, but it was more than that which attracted me.

 

When digital was very young, I bought an Olympus Camedia (I think it was called that) - I struggled with it, and sold it.  Then, later, I bought a Canon G10, and to be honest I still struggled with it.  Too many options and not enough direct control.  I used it a bit, failing miserably to get the images I wanted because I never got my head around the user interface.  I never worked out how to control the aperture - I'm not even sure it was possible ...

 

I loved the M9 - everything manual, aperture priority as an option and the menu settings stripped right back to what was needed to take a picture.  Initially, I felt that setting white balance was a drag, and I tried setting it 5500K for all shots, but I ultimately went back to AWB - it was okay, and I could adjust it in post.

 

The M(240) was heading back in the wrong direction for me.  If I wanted those options, there were better cameras with AF etc, and somehow adding all that stuff just spoiled the simplicity of the M9.  It's not a case of ignoring it if you don't like it, for me; the increased functionality wasn't a positive thing for me with a stills camera.  Besides, I was very happy with my M9P.

 

But when the M Edition 60 came out, I thought through the consequences of losing the LCD, and the camera struck a chord.  No Jpegs, so no white balance; no live view; no review; no EVF; no video; only raw, so actually nothing to set using the LCD.  A perfect camera for me - everything you actually need to capture a still digital image is there, in direct control - ISO, aperture, shutter and focus (though, sadly no option of cable release or timer).  Perfect.

 

So, rather than starting with an M(240)/(262) and asking why cripple yourself, or ignore the stuff you don't use, or more sarcastically duct-tape your LCD etc, for many the M-D and M60 are a perfect starting point and want nothing more.  That's certainly the way I feel - M60 for walk about colour photography in the 28-90 range, Monochrom for B&W (and film M cameras), and if I want the extras, the SL does them so much better than the M(240) - proper video, AF, zoom lenses all in a better package with a better user interface.

 

For many, they want one camera for their M lenses and legacy R lenses, super wides and occasional video.  I'm not critical of that, but I would suggest to M(240) owners there is a different way of looking at the photographic world without disparaging the different perspectives of others.  I do actually think the SL is a better all round solution, and the M's advantage is the optical viewfinder, but that is a different topic.

 

The price will be cost of production, R&D, margin etc spread over the likely production run, then reviewed against what Leica owners will pay.  Niche products in small runs will always cost more on a unit price than larger production runs - and this camera was always going to be niche (as evidenced by the criticism of it here, if nothing else).  The great thing about the internet and modern world is that niche products like this can get to market.

 

Cheers

John

[erl]

You had great seats ....beautiful simply beautiful!!

Nothing like experience to help you shoot "by the seat of your pants"

 

So shooting from the audience.... did it make you crazy to not be able to move around?

Will you upload some of the rest of your shoot someplace? ...If yes please post a link.

I suspect your timing like the dancers is quite special.

Seats were half way back (Row H49-50) and on the side, but OK. Shooting from the audience 'kills' me. I know what I can do with a carte blanche  freedom. What really annoyed me was the Pro who shot a Canon on a tripod (his choice) and machine gunned through the entire performance (a dress rehearsal). He had no sense of timing apparently. I simply listen to the music, same as the dancers, that tells me when to shoot, just as it tells the dancers when and how to move. Not rocket science.

 

I will consider posting a small series, probably on my (old) website. I will post a link if I do.

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The idea would be to shoot on film with a Nikon F5 camera without any changes to the camera body.

For one of this film bodies with interchangeable viewfinders Nikon or a third party manufacturer choses to BRING OUT A NEW VIEWFINDER (depending what model is stll available in the largest numbers, probably the F5).

 

This new viewfinder would have a built-in modern smallest video camera (and also a digital, maybe even OLED view-finder, instead of the pentaprism the Photomics used to have). The built-in camera could (via HDMI or a WIFI connection) transmit the image to a screen for instant control, the capture medium bein film in a unmodified Nikon body.

 

The production of a digital camera without a screen (the M-D) hence digital image capture without the control of digital photography, brought up the concept how to have film photography in the 21st century with instant image control, without new film-camera bodies, just by replaceing the interchangeable viewfinder with a moden one.

 

It would be a niche filled by a low priced new viewfinder, expanding the possibilities of the classic film

versus

a new 6k Euro/$/UKP camera body, which limits the possibilities of digital photography,

for the sake of not using the PLAY button.

In that case maybe get / keep on using any a digital M (or in fact any digital camera - including the MM), have the PLAY button blocked - for a month, see how you like it, and eventually keep it blocked for good, retaining all other setting possibilities of your existing camera.

[Guest]

The ground for the Monochrome was prepared over years, by offering the software choice to record DNG und jpeg, with the jpegs in B&W. Many people only saw bw on their LCD and expressed their wish for a camera with this classical feature as MY dreamcamera. When the dream was made true they got it, knowing and looking forward with pleasure what to expect.

 

So likewise implementing in the next software update (also for the M9 ?) the possibility to disable the PLAY button, as just another option - additionally to switching OFF the review? Everybody could experiment with this new freedom and the permanent adopters of this feature would buy their next M in this pure form, just as the Monochrome happy users say: "Yes, this is what I want!" (Versus: M-D buyers' remorse after finding out in practice, that they'd prefer to peek occasionally, only it's too late now...)

[Peter H]

It really just depends on the photographer. I grew up playing ice hockey and when handling the puck, beginners always look down out of necessity in order to make sure they keep it on their stick. This works, but sometimes players keep up that impulse even after they are able to handle the puck without looking down at it. At higher levels, that impulse gets you knocked flat on the ice. Rule #1: Keep your head up!

 

I liken this to how I feel about the impulse to look at a screen. Sure, there is no danger in it physically, however, once rid of this impulse, you are able to keep your head in the game for followup shots and so on as the scene develops. One of the things that I love about the M is that we have no blackout in the viewfinder. So following a scene or subject becomes so organic. If we chimp, then we eliminate that particular advantage. Now, that is perfectly okay, as your gear is yours to use as you like, however, you can see that there are real reasons out there to answer your question.

In fact, I think this reinforces my point.

 

When you play hockey, experience teaches you to keep your head up. You don't play with blinkers on, you rely on your innate ability to learn what is most effective, even if initially there's a strong temptation to do otherwise and look at the puck the whole time. Experience enables you to do without external props.

 

I have nothing against the M-D, nor against anyone enjoying it. I'm all in favour of people enjoying their photography, and having different cameras available for all tastes.

 

But I object to the fairly widespread and sometimes quite disparaging comments about "chimping".

 

Firstly, that is not the only use for a screen. It can transform a camera from being a pleasant companion to a seriously capable tool for a vast range of applications.

 

Also, "chimping", for those who do it, is fine. There's nothing wrong with it. But I still find it hard to believe that when you're seriously in the zone, working your ideas and connecting with your subject through that wonderful, irreplaceable viewfinder, snapping away to your heart's and mind's content, that the temptation to interrupt the whole imaginative and creative process is too great to resist. But even if it is, so what? Perhaps it's part of that creative process. in fact, for many photographers, it almost certainly is, so why discourage it?

 

Another reason I bang on about it: Both the M-D and the Monochroms can have a tendency to reinforce the conservative side of photography. This doesn't apply to all users by any means. Perhaps it's just a tiny minority but I'm always uncomfortable when I hear people talking about traditional virtues, skill and so on, ( this is where the analogy with sport really breaks down: photography is not a sport and should never be regarded as one, and skill is just a small element of it) and how these cameras make you concentrate on the essentials.

 

That's the side of photography that I'm a little allergic to, hence my breaking out like I do when I come across it!

[AndrewDD]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I wouldn't pay £10 for a M-D. To me it would be completely useless as a photographic tool. Nothing I've seen in the threads about it address the simple truth - if, in any particular situation, you don't want the screen switched on, then switch it off.

 

I'm not a pro photographer, but I do make money from photography. If I'm in a studio or on a location, I need to check on the lighting by taking trial shots. Sure, I might get it right without testing, but why would I pay for a shoot and take the risk of losing that money & what I would make from the shoot by using a camera without a screen? All this sneering about chimping is ridiculous, it is just using the tools available to get the shots right.

 

Of course, I have no issue with Leica knocking out a few short run specials for collectors, prior to releasing a new M. As a direction for development for the company, however, it would be a disaster.

[pippy]

I'd love an M-D for the reasons mentioned by many. As someone who grew up with an M2 and Nikon F / F2 cameras not to be able to 'chimp' isn't really an issue when out and about.

 

On the other hand;

 

...I object to the fairly widespread and sometimes quite disparaging comments about "chimping"...
 

 

Being able to 'chimp' is much the same as being able to shoot a Polaroid (or two) before sending the film off to the lab and I, for one, couldn't have gone without Polaroid back in my 5x4 film days. It would have been unthinkable.

 

Pip.

[Peter H]

I'd love an M-D for the reasons mentioned by many. As someone who grew up with an M2 and Nikon F / F2 cameras not to be able to 'chimp' isn't really an issue when out and about.

 

On the other hand;

 

 

Being able to 'chimp' is much the same as being able to shoot a Polaroid (or two) before sending the film off to the lab and I, for one, couldn't have gone without Polaroid back in my 5x4 film days. It would have been unthinkable.

 

Pip.

 

 

 

I was about 9 or 10 when I got my first proper camera, a film camera of course, and for the next 40-odd years I used film. There was no alternative. I had my own darkrooms, which to be honest I never did enjoy as much as I felt I ought to because it was too great an interference between the moment I'd caught in the camera, and the photograph itself which was the object of the whole exercise. Whether I'd have been able to express it in those terms before digital gave us a solution to the then unavoidable problem, I'm not sure. It probably felt more like guilt than reason anyway!

 

Anyway, like you, I often used a polaroid back. It was invaluable in many difficult situations. 

 

Sometimes, not always but sometimes, seeing your photos during the process of taking them is a very valuable creative weapon.

[ECohen]

The idea would be to shoot on film with a Nikon F5 camera without any changes to the camera body.

For one of this film bodies with interchangeable viewfinders Nikon or a third party manufacturer choses to BRING OUT A NEW VIEWFINDER (depending what model is stll available in the largest numbers, probably the F5).

 

This new viewfinder would have a built-in modern smallest video camera (and also a digital, maybe even OLED view-finder, instead of the pentaprism the Photomics used to have). The built-in camera could (via HDMI or a WIFI connection) transmit the image to a screen for instant control, the capture medium bein film in a unmodified Nikon body.

 

The production of a digital camera without a screen (the M-D) hence digital image capture without the control of digital photography, brought up the concept how to have film photography in the 21st century with instant image control, without new film-camera bodies, just by replaceing the interchangeable viewfinder with a moden one.

 

It would be a niche filled by a low priced new viewfinder, expanding the possibilities of the classic film

versus

a new 6k Euro/$/UKP camera body, which limits the possibilities of digital photography,

for the sake of not using the PLAY button.

In that case maybe get / keep on using any a digital M (or in fact any digital camera - including the MM), have the PLAY button blocked - for a month, see how you like it, and eventually keep it blocked for good, retaining all other setting possibilities of your existing camera.

 

 

I had to read your post a couple times to get where you are headed.......I don't know .....but I would have enjoyed splitting the bottle of wine with you  as you developed this new invention.....

 

For those who love the M-D.....enjoy...I even get ......(it took me a while)....For me, you've got me to look a lot less.........but I like choice........I also appreciate film ......but dont miss shooting it

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but all you M-D/M60 shooters are not doing it because of the "film  or nostalgia". It's the joy of simplicity. Which is funny because thats why I shoot and M240 as well, simplicity ....with a few features I deem useful.

 

As an aside I too had a  CanonG10 ......Oh My God! .......no doubt the worst camera I have ever tried to shoot with....it did every and nothing.......you knew the camera was capable but how do I get there? 

.......its only attribute was that it  made me comfortable with the price for Leica's charges for simplicity........I've always wondered why Sony doest put out a niche modle just for me/us?....there tech it there just remove the clutter 

[Guest]

I had to read your post a couple times to get where you are headed.......I don't know .....but I would have enjoyed splitting the bottle of wine with you  as you developed this new invention.....

 

For those who love the M-D.....enjoy...I even get ......(it took me a while)....For me, you've got me to look a lot less.........but I like choice........I also appreciate film ......but dont miss shooting it

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but all you M-D/M60 shooters are not doing it because of the "film  or nostalgia". It's the joy of simplicity. Which is funny because thats why I shoot and M240 as well, simplicity ....with a few features I deem useful.

 

As an aside I too had a  CanonG10 ......Oh My God! .......no doubt the worst camera I have ever tried to shoot with....it did every and nothing.......you knew the camera was capable but how do I get there? 

.......its only attribute was that it  made me comfortable with the price for Leica's charges for simplicity........I've always wondered why Sony doest put out a niche modle just for me/us?....there tech it there just remove the clutter

You write you don't miss shooting film, Evan. You are a retired pro, while I'm an amateur. And I enjoy shooting film. So when in doubt, your vast experience, many of us could learn from, matters much more than my "inventions". My post was for people, who would miss shooting film.

 

Pleasure to share a bottle of wine occasionally, I'll only have a sip, though. I rarely have a second beer during an evening and please notice two facts: I wrote the quoted post at seven in the morning (and had a busy day on my job up to now) and I am not a native English speaker.

 

Talking about not understanding: can't follow how a Canon G and Sony photo gear, which are mass-market products, relate to the topic. If I got it right, you prefer your Leica because it gets it done without half-baked clutter und delivers top quality.

 

You enjoy your 240 and the same here with my M6 TTL 0.85 and we keep an eye on photo developments, mainly from Leica, that is what I understood from you.

 

Best,

Simon

[ECohen]

You write you don't miss shooting film, Evan. You are a retired pro, while I'm an amateur. And I enjoy shooting film. So when in doubt, your vast experience, many of us could learn from, matters much more than my "inventions". My post was for people, who would miss shooting film.

 

Pleasure to share a bottle of wine occasionally, I'll only have a sip, though. I rarely have a second beer during an evening and please notice two facts: I wrote the quoted post at seven in the morning (and had a busy day on my job up to now) and I am not a native English speaker.

 

Talking about not understanding: can't follow how a Canon G and Sony photo gear, which are mass-market products, relate to the topic. If I got it right, you prefer your Leica because it gets it done without half-baked clutter und delivers top quality.

 

You enjoy your 240 and the same here with my M6 TTL 0.85 and we keep an eye on photo developments, mainly from Leica, that is what I understood from you.

 

Best,

Simon

 

 

40 years a pro.... film since 1968  ....digital since around 1992.....I still do love film  and everything about the medium.

Maybe we misunderstood each other....I  liked your post very much and the way you said it....I only meant ...I'll bet your fun to talk with in person.

When I said I didn't understand your post right away ...it was me way grasping your idea, not how you said it.

Please know that I sincerely  did not want to offend you in any .....oh my gosh...I loved your invention and your inventiveness...thats why I thought you would be fun to talk with.

 

The Canon G and Sony comment was to Ikarus-John who mentioned  his Canon  experience and with cameras that had too many features

 

I'm new to blogging and  I'm not very good at it....for lots of reasons....I do truly hope you understand.

[Tailwagger]

It really just depends on the photographer. I grew up playing ice hockey and when handling the puck, beginners always look down out of necessity in order to make sure they keep it on their stick. This works, but sometimes players keep up that impulse even after they are able to handle the puck without looking down at it. At higher levels, that impulse gets you knocked flat on the ice.

 

I grew up playing a Strat. I'd never walk into a concert hall to perform without doing a thorough sound check first. After each song, I'd make sure the instrument was in tune. And in any particularly difficult passage, my eyes wandered to the spot where the hand next had to be.  Theres a huge difference between staring at something to the exclusion of all else and using every thing you have at your disposal to produce the best work you can.  I've got no problem with folks who's personal style favors not having a screen. But, not saying this is where you're coming from, I take exception with any notion that incorporating an LCD as a part of ones routine is somehow a sign of weakness or amateurism whereas eschewing it elevates one to a higher plane of existence.  

 

There are many scenes where one must find a reasonable compromise in exposure to make things optimal, even doable, in post. There are no level indicators in an M viewfinder.  Often composition dictates that camera is held perfectly level or vertical. There are other more subtle situations where parallax seriously screws with composition.  If I want something dead center of the frame or some perfectly symmetrical objects framing the subject or perhaps I desire two wires cross at just the right angle, where an SLR makes such a concern moot, an RF does not.  In any of those situations, anything that can be done to eliminate guessing about whether or not what I visualized was achieved, is done. Sometimes that means bracketing exposure, at others aperture, still others reviewing for the effect of those changes or any of the other issues I've cited.  Call it lack of skill if you care to, but I see it as taking the extra measure of care and concern to ensure the end result. Its looking at a scene, contemplating and visualizing how to handle it, then testing or reviewing when necessary to ensure whats in the mind's eye has been achieved.  

 

We all can acknowledge that for some physically eliminating the distractions can act as a forcing function for improving one's ability to pre-visualize. But there other equally valid paths.  I learned far more from a few years with an EVF equipped camera, as I instantly received feedback on every parameter I adjusted. Regardless, I'd far rather come away with a single truly great shot and completely miss a hundred and forty-three others then settle for a gross of merely good ones. Having the ability to review in the field plays a significant role in upping my success rate.  

[kenf]

Years ago it was a matter of personal pride to be able to do 90% of my job with an unmetered M4-P or F2 and not have to whip out the Luna-Pro.  My skills aren't that fine tuned any more since I shoot about as much in a year as I used to do each week, but I can see the appeal of the M-D - it appeals to that same side of me.  I personally like being able to check tricky light on my M-P, but I could see having an M-D as a second body... donations accepted.  LOL

[ECohen]

+1

[Guest]

Evancohen.net - absolutely impressive site imo, facts speak for themselves

 

As an amateur with too little time to go shooting regularly I have to live with it, that successful pros play the instruments, well.. like in a concert hall.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tthorne]

In fact, I think this reinforces my point.

 

When you play hockey, experience teaches you to keep your head up. You don't play with blinkers on, you rely on your innate ability to learn what is most effective, even if initially there's a strong temptation to do otherwise and look at the puck the whole time. Experience enables you to do without external props.

 

I have nothing against the M-D, nor against anyone enjoying it. I'm all in favour of people enjoying their photography, and having different cameras available for all tastes.

 

But I object to the fairly widespread and sometimes quite disparaging comments about "chimping".

 

Firstly, that is not the only use for a screen. It can transform a camera from being a pleasant companion to a seriously capable tool for a vast range of applications.

 

Also, "chimping", for those who do it, is fine. There's nothing wrong with it. But I still find it hard to believe that when you're seriously in the zone, working your ideas and connecting with your subject through that wonderful, irreplaceable viewfinder, snapping away to your heart's and mind's content, that the temptation to interrupt the whole imaginative and creative process is too great to resist. But even if it is, so what? Perhaps it's part of that creative process. in fact, for many photographers, it almost certainly is, so why discourage it?

 

Another reason I bang on about it: Both the M-D and the Monochroms can have a tendency to reinforce the conservative side of photography. This doesn't apply to all users by any means. Perhaps it's just a tiny minority but I'm always uncomfortable when I hear people talking about traditional virtues, skill and so on, ( this is where the analogy with sport really breaks down: photography is not a sport and should never be regarded as one, and skill is just a small element of it) and how these cameras make you concentrate on the essentials.

 

That's the side of photography that I'm a little allergic to, hence my breaking out like I do when I come across it!

 

 

I would say to this that you should not let other people's opinions bother you so much. It seems to me that there are a lot of people who would rather have the LCD, and they have that option. In fact, they have that option in abundance. With just Leica alone you have the M240, M-P240, M246, and M262 from the current M lineup. So I do not see any reason or accountably in all the negative regarding the M-D. Perhaps people just want to be heard, even on the subject of a camera that they will not likely ever purchase or use. Thats totally okay I guess, but still seems nonsensical to me. 

 

I am a pro photographer, and for most of my work I shoot on the S 007 and the SL. I love those cameras. Modern features on them really help my workflow. In fact, the S 007 was a great improvement over S 006 for me due to the addition of live view. So I get the use of modern functions, chimping, and all the usefulness of a good LCD. 

 

When I shoot my M's, however, I am shooting a lot of street photography and documentary style work. For me, there is a time and place for everything, and this is the time and place where there is simply too much going on and I want my camera to go back to the basics. This is one of the reasons I still shoot my MP film cameras a majority of the time in this situation. 

 

In any event I do not find the presence of an LCD objectionable, and obviously I find the option of a digital M without an LCD a great idea. Neither one offends me. Users of either one do not offend me. Opinions about the subjects of chimping and modern features do not offend me. If you like to do it, then do it. There are more options out there for you then there are for someone like me. So I don't really see what any of the fuss is about. 

 

Again, in this day and age, it was obvious that M-D users would be a minority, but that they would really connect with the camera. It is not something for everyone, but you have to appreciate that it may be everything for someone. This is why I thank and applaud Leica for making such a camera when nobody else would.