Peter H Posted December 7, 2016 Share #81 Posted December 7, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Peter, it appears, that you and I have exactly the same feeling toward the M. I too am torn between the utility of the XPro2 and the build quality of the M. Although the M is far more enjoyable the Fuji gets the shot. And the SL also gets the shot at the cost of some weight and size. The M remains, however, the most enjoyable camera to use, by far. I will always have affection for the M but with the SL and Xpro2 in the cupboard it's hard to see where on a practical level the M fits in. Gordon Yes, it does appear so. The XP2 is so astonishingly capable and easy to use that it has made me think seriously about what else I need. I thought about the SL and still do, but the penalties in terms of weight and size are proving insurmountable for me in terms of the benefit they offer. This is particularly so since I used the Hasselblad X1D, which was much nicer (for me) to use and gave visibly better photos. The only drawbacks are the lack of image stabilisation and the lack of fast lenses, but then as a complement to the XP2, the X1D really fills all the gaps (including a leaf shutter) so that between them they could represent a fantastically able and comprehensive package that would make a full-frame sensor altogether redundant for my purposes. So what then for the M? I'm still thinking about all this as I happily take photos everyday, increasingly with the Fuji, sometimes with M or R lenses and often with Fuji lenses, all with great results. And sometimes with my M, because I can. I admit it's a nice problem to have, but I shall resolve it one way or another fairly soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Hi Peter H, Take a look here Whenever the new M arrives, who's going to buy one?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
johnwolf Posted December 7, 2016 Share #82 Posted December 7, 2016 .... The XP2 is so astonishingly capable and easy to use that it has made me think seriously about what else I need.... Oh dear, I don't need to hear this. I've got an X-Pro1 along with my MM, and occasionally consider an X-Pro2 to replace both. The MM is such a pleasure to hold and use, and the files are amazing. But I'm confident I could do everything I want photographically with an X-Pro2. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted December 7, 2016 Share #83 Posted December 7, 2016 I suspect IBIS would result in a thicker body. An internal EVF of a quality to rival the SL would probably need more space than the M offers. A hybrid VF, even if possible with a RF, would be a visual distraction for many people. And my reference to novel focusing was about the much touted digital rangefinder, which would be tricky to integrate with legacy M mounts. Suggestions that "one can just turn it off" are rational and sensible, but utterly unacceptable to many M owners . The A7R had no IBIS, the A7R II does - the body size only increased minimally (if we ignore the bit bigger grip size for ergonomic reasons). The A7R II is not larger than the M7. Okay, I agree that by counting in perceptions some might be disturbed by hybrid VF or additional electronic functions. Maybe Leica needs to come up with two digital M systems in parallel...one a bit dated backwards but more simplistic, and another one more competitive with newer sensor and digital technology? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted December 7, 2016 Share #84 Posted December 7, 2016 The answer to your question is that they like the M simplicity as it is in the digital age. Why is navel fluff always blue, even if your shirts aren't? (Another great unanswerable question). I thought we already have the M-D to satisfy this need? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 7, 2016 Share #85 Posted December 7, 2016 Understood, but if someone really likes M simplicity, why not shooting with a film-based M instead? Why would you pay >$4-5K for a digital M which can be seen as sort of crippled compared to other brands offering more mirrorless technology for less? Yes, you could argue that it is the M "feeling" which makes the difference here, but then you would also need to admit that this camera is not state of the art and that you paid an excessive price for this technology. Believe me, I can preserve the value of simplicity similar to my Leica M cameras also within my digital mirrorless camera by using M mode and disabling the majority of electronic options. But I can make use of options if I need them. Where do I start? No I won't bother, but if you think photography is all about using a 'state-of-the-art' camera which is 'better value' and requires umpteen features to be disabled then there really is nothing that I can say. And as for shooting film instead, well the M9 surpasses the abilities of film in so many ways - its a different medium, even when its neither cheap nor 'state-of-the-art'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted December 7, 2016 Share #86 Posted December 7, 2016 Where do I start? No I won't bother, but if you think photography is all about using a 'state-of-the-art' camera which is 'better value' and requires umpteen features to be disabled then there really is nothing that I can say. And as for shooting film instead, well the M9 surpasses the abilities of film in so many ways - its a different medium, even when its neither cheap nor 'state-of-the-art'. I shoot both digital and film (yes, and I still have a well equipped darkroom and make silver gelatin prints both in B&W and in color). So no, photography is not all about the "best" technically possible, but I stated earlier that I know well what other brands are doing and releasing, also I am aware of the average value/price tag of those cameras and what they can deliver. No digital camera "surpasses" film - digital and film are just different. They both have their place. It is personal perception what someone might prefer. There is no right or wrong. The M9 is a very feasible camera, I personally like that it has a CCD and not a CMOS sensor for example. But would I pay still $2600-2700 for a well maintained used M9 when I can get an A7R II for it? This is now my personal perception, but I prefer to make use of the most progressed sensor technology for example when I decide to go for a new digital camera (no matter which brand). I agree that for somebody else this might be secondary in the decision flow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 7, 2016 Share #87 Posted December 7, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The XP2 is so astonishingly capable and easy to use that it has made me think seriously about what else I need. Interesting. I thought XP2 was a type of film but I've looked up the X-Pro 2 (which I hadn't heard of prior to this thread) and it does sound like it offers incredible value for money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 7, 2016 Share #88 Posted December 7, 2016 No digital camera "surpasses" film - digital and film are just different. The funny thing is that whilst you (quite reasonably) say this, apparently the latest sensors do surpass previous ones . But digital does surpass film, certainly in terms of viable resolution (comparing 35mm film and full frame sensors - I've checked this in real world scientific photography and there is no question about it). But yes film and digital are different (I use both myself). At the risk of constantly repeating myself, Leicas are probably amongst the cheapest of the more expensive digital cameras to own - not in terms of initial cost, but certainly in terms of their low depreciation (if that is, you keep them for a few years as I do). And they are as good as they were when bought, so if their image quality was acceptable when new, it is just as acceptable throughout their life, unless of course your requirements have changed. Which is why I like M9s - they do what I want, I'm used to them and I like shooting rangefinders - the A72 appeals and I may get one - but it won't be used in the same way as my Leicas because it will have a highly specialised role. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted December 7, 2016 Share #89 Posted December 7, 2016 Whenever the new M arrives, who's going to buy one? I doubt that I will buy one; my gear goal for 2017 is to acquire a Monochrom typ 246 to keep my M-P 240 company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoothlander Posted December 7, 2016 Share #90 Posted December 7, 2016 I will be sticking with my M240. For higher ISO needs, I use my Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 8, 2016 Share #91 Posted December 8, 2016 I thought we already have the M-D to satisfy this need? Clearly not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted December 8, 2016 Share #92 Posted December 8, 2016 About the hybrid finder,is it not a patent by Fuji,so no other companies can reproduce? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 8, 2016 Share #93 Posted December 8, 2016 Probably so but there is no rangefinder in Fuji digital cameras and the next M will have one hopefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted December 8, 2016 Share #94 Posted December 8, 2016 Probably so but there is no rangefinder in Fuji digital cameras and the next M will have one hopefully. Split image focusing in Xpro2 and I think XE2S not same as rangefinder focusing? I dont know because I dont have either of those cameras but I looks like working on same principle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 8, 2016 Share #95 Posted December 8, 2016 I'm perfectly satisfied with the M-D typ 262. I don't want or need more features (that's what I have the SL for), more sensitivity (always nice but there's always a cost), or more pixels (at the point of having 24 Mpixel, more is just not all that important to me*). What I love about the M-D is its simplicity. I use it with only a couple of lenses (35, 50, 75) the vast majority of the time. It gives me the shooting experience of my M4-2 as closely as any digital camera ever could, and that's exactly what I was after. * Frankly, on the pixel resolution question, if I want more pixels I'll buy the Hasselblad CFV-50c for my Hasselblad V system. I already have everything else I need for that in lenses, viewfinders, bodies, etc. A digital back will put all of that lovely equipment back into more frequent use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted December 8, 2016 Share #96 Posted December 8, 2016 I suspect that the new M will not be a game changer (whatever that could entail). I suspect that no digital camera available within the next 10 years will be a game changer. The last game changer was digital, before that was autofocus, before that, autoexposure. Every camera (for stills) delivered in the next 10 years will be a minute derivative of the previous model. More megapixels, more dynamic range, higher ISO, more stabilisation options, more software tricks. Meh. I think Leica should work on the software. The current body is too thin for IBIS, and the lenses can't accept it. But, for example to make a 1/15th of a second exposure (where camera shake would make it iffy), 100 1/1500th of a second frames can be taken (with an electronic shutter) and then stacked and aligned. You now have a full 1/15th of a second of light without camera shake. All the individual parts are there, they just need to be assembled. But with any software, Leica need to make it work. Every time. Without hanging. Anyway, that's just my 2c. I will not buy the new M, I just bought an M(4-2), so I'm set for the foreseeable future or until I can afford an M-A... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 8, 2016 Share #97 Posted December 8, 2016 This thread is proof of life that the new M is going to be something we are all going to want. It seems that so many folks don't need this camera. But, I'm sure Leica is going to make a camera that so many of us are just going to try and hate. It never changes, does it? Just don't go into your dealer and handle one. Neil, are you listening? Personally, I can hardly wait! I have a couple dozen Leica lenses (old and new) that I can't wait to introduce to this new M. RickLeica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted December 8, 2016 Author Share #98 Posted December 8, 2016 Rick, yet again we seem to be in agreement. I took out an M6 last night that I've held on to for sentimental reasons. The black chrome is slightly polished, but still immaculate, and the heft of the thing is lovely. If the M10 moves us closer to that experience it will be justified. I've really really liked working with the M-240, but I don't think it's the definitive Leica M digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 8, 2016 Share #99 Posted December 8, 2016 Split image focusing in Xpro2 and I think XE2S not same as rangefinder focusing? I dont know because I dont have either of those cameras but I looks like working on same principle. A rangefinder "sees" outside the lens. Its accuracy doesn't depend on aperture and DoF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted December 8, 2016 Share #100 Posted December 8, 2016 A rangefinder "sees" outside the lens. Its accuracy doesn't depend on aperture and DoF Or focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.