Leica M is a film camera system

[mountainpix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let me preface this by saying that I think the M10 is by far the best digital M yet, the M262 that I used to own was a great camera, and I've seen great images made with all the digital M cameras. I have come to the conclusion, however, that for me, Leica M will always be a film camera system. Let me explain why.

 

I bought my first Leica – an M4-2 – during my university studies in fine art photography back in the early 1990s. I've had that camera and a few M lenses ever since. My professional work back in the pre-digital days involved film formats from 4x5 to 35mm, and I was late adopter of digital cameras. Once I bought my first DSLR – a Nikon D700 in 2010 – I essentially stopped shooting film, except for a few rolls here or there for the sake of fun and nostalgia. These days, I've been gradually shifting more and more from Nikon to Fujifilm X and GF series cameras.

 

Meanwhile, I've been watching what Leica has been up to along the way. Compared to film Ms, The M8 and M9 were clunky, and the M240 seemed like a bit of a beast, though Leica was making progress. In late 2015, I tried out an M262, and decided to go for it. I liked that camera a lot, and made quite a few pictures that I really like with it. When the Fuji X-Pro2 came out, however, I felt that the M240 generation had been outclassed. The Fuji's image quality was as good, the high ISO performance was better, it was more versatile and more productive in fast-changing dynamic situations, the user experience was pleasantly Leica-like (in terms of compactness, weight, and handling), and I could justify buying two bodies simultaneously while planning to upgrade to their eventual replacement without losing several thousand dollars in the process. Given that a Leica M was never going to cover the majority of my particular needs, it was silly to consider buying two M10s – no matter how excellent – and then eventually follow up with two new M11s after the M10s had lost 50% of their value. Given the excellent Fuji option, Leica was off the table as a long-term solution for digital work.

 

The simple fact, however, is that the strength of Leica M has always been as a film camera. Though one can make great pictures with a digital Leica, those cameras won't be timeless classics like the film Ms. I would be pleased as punch to photograph with a 1954 Leica M3 today, though I can't say the same about many other 1950s-era cameras, with the possible exception of a Rolleiflex TLR or a few large format cameras. So, as my digital evolution continues with Nikon and Fuji digital systems for the bulk of my professional work, I recently decided to pick up an M6 to use along with my M4-2 as my "amateur" cameras – for the influence that Leica Ms have on the way I photograph (because rangefinder cameras do influence a photographer's work in a particular way) and for the pure joy they bring.

 

The fact is that every new MP or M-A that Leica makes potentially has a future of several decades ahead of it, but that isn't the case with an M10. Many M cameras that are in good working order today may actually remain serviceable beyond the M system's 100th anniversary in 2054, by which time the M10 will have long become a fully depreciated, unsupported, irreparable, obsolete paperweight.

 

Once again, there's nothing wrong with using a digital M, but to me there is something wonderful about exiting the endless digital upgrade cycle (with at least one of my systems), with the knowledge that my 1996 vintage M6 and my 1970s Summicrons and Elmarits will be making great images for the rest of my life.

Edited December 14, 2017 by mountainpix

[Mark T]

I completely agree. The endless digital upgrade cycle you describe is all the more troublesome when applied to expensive digital Leicas too. I also believe that Leica's are particularly well suited to black and white photography. When you think about it, they are contemporanous technolgies so I guess it makes sense. If you put a colour filter on any camera with TTL viewing, then you are look at everything in yellow/green/red etc. However, this is not an issue with a Leica. The last point I will add, is with reference to digital cameras. If I am going to use one, then I would like all the automation that goes along with it, including auto-focus, auto-exposure, auto-iso etc. Shooting film is a deliberate act. So if I'm making the choice to use film, then I want to make ALL the corresponding choices in making a picture. Digital is, for me, about convenience. Digital M is neither here nor there from my perspective.

[Ko.Fe.]

M4-2 was my first M. 2016-17, It took several months to fix it by last Leica trained technician in Canada. The rest and few now in USA. Most of them are old and here is no young ones.

Most of the time I'm the only one with film camera anywhere I go with it.

And today I have seen at last dedicated to film and darkroom shop how quantity of abandoned and sold for nothing enlargers doubled within one year.

Just reality check, sorry....

[wattsy]

The fact is that every new MP or M-A that Leica makes potentially has a future of several decades ahead of it, but that isn't the case with an M10. Many M cameras that are in good working order today may actually remain serviceable beyond the M system's 100th anniversary in 2054, by which time the M10 will have long become a fully depreciated, unsupported, irreparable, obsolete paperweight.

 

Once again, there's nothing wrong with using a digital M, but to me there is something wonderful about exiting the endless digital upgrade cycle (with at least one of my systems)

 

 

I agree with much of the sentiment of your post. I am back where I started with the M system and have a relatively small (4 lenses) film-only M kit and it is nice to be away from the sequence of problems that I put up with during ownership of the digital M bodies (IR filters, cracked sensor, corroded sensor, back focus adjustments, etc.) but IMO it isn't as black and white a picture as you paint. For one thing, three of the last four M film bodies I have bought (brand new) have had to go back to Germany for repair. For another, I think the digital upgrade cycle is also partly a mindset thing: there is no obligation to keep buying the next best thing, especially nowadays when much of the M digital development cycle (crop-frame to full-frame, enhanced RF, thinner body, etc.) has been completed. Provided Leica can support the current crop of cameras (which isn't a 100% given IMO), there is no reason why an M10 bought today cannot provide a service life (and remain photographically relevant and capable) for more than 10 years. That, for me, would be a reasonable expectation from a digital camera.

[a.noctilux]

For me not really agree with "Leica is a film camera system".

 

As photographic company, "digital M" is just a way (only way for me) to survive in photo competitive market.

If Leica Camera didn't created the M8 (launching 2006 with some years of R&D), may I think that as such the Leica Company disapeared or sold.

 

With only support of selling to less and less buyers of M7/MP of same period, I think that it would not be enough to save the Company.

 

Leica even took the opportunity to create M-A (2014, that was couragous in my view), so I supported the idea buying two M-A to replace my older Ms.

I know that was only tiny drop of water to the pond, but I needed to do that to support the new analogue M idea.

 

I'm happy that Leica remain in the photo market (as digital or analogue I don't care) to support our M and superb lenses for future years or decades to come.

 

...

I was very "light supporter" of Leica Company, I only bought my M and lenses in second hand market before those M-A .

After that thinking, I bought new Leica items when I can/need.

Edited December 14, 2017 by a.noctilux

[lpeeples]

I disagree but its really about what you want to get out of a Leica camera.  For me, it's 2 things. One, its the lenses.  The body is a vehicle (a great vehicle), to enjoy the sharpness and/or the unique look that old and new lenses give.  The cool thing about Leica, is that I can enjoy a M6, a mono, an M10 with the lenses. Part 2 is the process of taking a photo manually, using the rangefinder etc. I don't care which M it is, film or digital, its that experience that keeps me using Leica now and long into the future.

Edited December 14, 2017 by lpeeples

[SilentShutter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I remember the time the first digital cameras came out most professional photographers smiled and just shaked their heads about the bad image quality

Most of them thought they never would replaxe film and here we go - today it´s the opposite way around people smile at me when I show up with my old gear

and have to stop to reload some new film after 36 exposures.

What is a "real" camera ? Why does it matter as long something helps me catch the picture I see right before my eyes ?

Even the brand dosn´t matter because the most important part of the process is 15cm behind the viewfinder !

Edited December 14, 2017 by SilentShutter

[TomB_tx]

I enjoy the process of photography, even though I seldom get any show-worthy results. Having used manual film cameras for 60 years or so, the process includes finding the subject, determining the view, evaluating the light and exposure and appropriate camera settings, framing and focusing, deciding the instant to capture, and actually taking the shot. The M9 was the first capable digital camera I found that let me operate it just like a film camera, with all my comfortable habits.

I had no reason to upgrade to the newer models until I realized my eyesight is aging, and I can focus my M4 & M6 easier than the M9. (Just the ability to see the RF image, not the accuracy.) So my M10 is ordered and on the way.

I do enjoy the high ISO possibilities with digital, as I have always used available light, so that is also a plus for the M10, as I'm not as steady as I used to be, and don't care for super fast lenses.

[pgk]

Your reasoning is flawed. Its not about film nor digital, and most certainly not about timeless classics . Whist you could make the same case for classic Pentax, Nikon, Canon, etc. cameras, the nature of the beast changed with digital. All digital bodies depreciate heavily and become obsolete. And unlike many other systems the Leica M does at least support its legacy lenses. The M system is an 'enthusiast's one (film or digital, amateur or pro) and will survive because some of us like using it, whether film or digital and regardless of the life expectancy of its bodies which simply reflect the way technology has 'progressed'. IMO the Leica M is a rangefinder camera and long may it survive.

[Martin B]

I have three Leica M's now - all film-based (M3, M6, and M7). For 35 mm film format, Leica M is the best tool I can imagine. I agree with the OP that the M10 seems to be a very fine digital M, too. Nevertheless - and this includes all camera brands - digital cameras are electronics which will be outdated after several years. Digital Leica M's still keep their value quite high compared to other brands but they also lose value - especially when bought new for > $5K. Depreciation of value is one of the reasons why I don't vest into an expensive digital Leica M camera. I am not brand-addicted either, so I always compare one brand to another if it comes to digital technology....and even I love to shoot with a Leica M rangefinder, I find myself pulled back from buying a camera like the M10 when comparing its sensor with others on the market. There are situations like street photography where 22 MP FF sensor is fully sufficient in resolution, but there are many more situations IMO where it isn't anymore (my Canon 5D MkII from 2009 already had 22 MP with an admittedly much worse DR but still...). And I don't see the Leica SL a good fit for me either since I don't like to have a more bulky camera. And other FF mirrorless cameras cost about half of the price of a new M10 with > 42 MP sensor...and I can use my M lenses on them, too......I simply can't justify the M10 for me as investment. So Leica will remain film-based for me for pragmatic reasons. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Martin B

[bocaburger]

The digital upgrade cycle is only that expensive if you fall prey to the marketing.  I like new toys, but I'm not going to burn all my prints and delete all my files I made with that digital Leica which has just become "obsolete" by a new one.  So I have no problem waiting for used example to show up, costing thousands less.   And I'm quite content to stay a generation or two behind when, such as in the case of the M10, the advances aren't compelling for my photographic uses (such as 1 or 2 stops in high ISO, as I rarely ever shoot above the native one).  I still have my original pair of M4's, which served me well, but using them means going through the expense and time of using film...and then ultimately scanning them into digital files!  If my hobby included making analog wet-prints, or there were even a decent wet-printmaking lab nearby, I would shoot film.  For me the M is a photographic system, not film or digital.  Digital capture is just more convenient for me. 

[Narsuitus]

I have come to the conclusion, however, that for me, Leica M will always be a film camera system.

 

Until I purchased the M10, I, too, had come to that conclusion.

[Mark II]

I think you need to be clear that film and digital are different media that need a completely different approach to shooting.

 

I have an M7 and an M 262. The M7 has the better shooting experience, while the M 262 has the convenience of a digital camera. Shooting with an M7, then (self) developing and scanning the films to get a desired result is a lot of work and requires significantly more skill, time and preparation than using a digital camera.

 

Perhaps because of this, for serious photography I normally reach for the M7 - while the M 262 mostly gets used for more trivial friends and family snapshots.

 

In a world awash with digital imagery, film offers the possibility of crafting images that are qualitively different.

[Martin B]

I think you need to be clear that film and digital are different media that need a completely different approach to shooting.

 

I have an M7 and an M 262. The M7 has the better shooting experience, while the M 262 has the convenience of a digital camera. Shooting with an M7, then (self) developing and scanning the films to get a desired result is a lot of work and requires significantly more skill, time and preparation than using a digital camera.

 

Perhaps because of this, for serious photography I normally reach for the M7 - while the M 262 mostly gets used for more trivial friends and family snapshots.

 

In a world awash with digital imagery, film offers the possibility of crafting images that are qualitively different.

 

+1, yes, something like this which I took yesterday with my M3 and expired Kodak TMax 3200 film (which I really like due to its high sensitivity and low grain formation for this high ISO). The highlights would never turn out like this in digital. 

 

[Eoin]

 

 

The fact is that every new MP or M-A that Leica makes potentially has a future of several decades ahead of it, but that isn't the case with an M10. Many M cameras that are in good working order today may actually remain serviceable beyond the M system's 100th anniversary in 2054, by which time the M10 will have long become a fully depreciated, unsupported, irreparable, obsolete paperweight.

 

 

I think by 2054 all 35 mm film cameras will essentially be desk paperweights due to the lack of film or the lack of places to get film processed.

I think a seismic shift is currently underway and our generation and perhaps the one behind us will essentially be the last to use film and any mechanical camera.

[Martin B]

I think by 2054 all 35 mm film cameras will essentially be desk paperweights due to the lack of film or the lack of places to get film processed.

I think a seismic shift is currently underway and our generation and perhaps the one behind us will essentially be the last to use film and any mechanical camera.

 

This touches a different topic than originally raised here, but I am not so sure if this is true. I see just in recent years a trend especially by younger folks to go back to film. Film groups in social networks (fb, G+) are highly in demand and gain a lot of new members. Film will never become as big as it was before digital and will surely remain a niche, but it is again a growing niche. Especially younger photography folks are getting bored by the indistinguishable digital form of photography and want to try something different. Also, Polaroid is back which was even a surprise to me - I last seen Polaroids in the early 80s when I started with photography, and now remake cameras are back and obviously in demand. Not to mention all the small companies which start making 35 mm film again like Ferrania etc. Just looking at prices for analog gear, you will see price increases for good film cameras in recent years due to higher demand. 

[logan2z]

I see just in recent years a trend especially by younger folks to go back to film.

 

I see this as well.  I belong to a community darkroom and am always surprised at the number of teens and people in their early twenties who are there developing/scanning film and making prints.  Other than making me feel old, it's good to see

 

The film vs. digital photography situation closely parallels that of the LP vs. digital music.  The CD was supposed to be the death knell of the vinyl LP and, when it was first introduced in the '80s, it quickly signaled the death of it's analog predecessor.  Analog pressing plants all but disappeared, vinyl sales feel through the floor, etc.  But, just like film, vinyl had a significant resurgence.  There are many more LPs being produced today than there were even 10 years ago and it has become quite a successful niche - and much of it driven by young music lovers.   

 

As others have said, I don't foresee film ever being the dominant format again, but I do see it's use on the upswing and think it will be enough of a niche to remain viable for a long time to come.

[Guest Nowhereman]

+1, yes, something like this which I took yesterday with my M3 and expired Kodak TMax 3200 film (which I really like due to its high sensitivity and low grain formation for this high ISO). The highlights would never turn out like this in digital. 

 

 

 

As they say, "never say never". 

 

Seriously, these discussions of what one can do with film versus what one can do with digital are fraught with difficulty, one these being what particular image one has recently shot that one likes. Also, highlights depend a lot on the processing, as well as on the nature of the highlights and the contrast of the scene itself. Below are three M10 images that don't make me think I could have achieved better highlight rendering with Tri-X, followed by three Tri-X images that me think I probably could not have done as well with the M10 — particularly whether I could have "roughed up" the last image as well with digital.

 

First the M10 images:

Bangkok by Nowhere..man, on Flickr

 

 

Bangkok by Nowhere..man, on Flickr

 

 

Chiang Mai by Nowhere..man, on Flickr

 

 

 

...and hare are the Tri-X images:

Chiang Mai by Nowhere..man, on Flickr

 

Bangkok by Nowhere..man, on Flickr

 

Wiang Pa Pao by Nowhere..man, on Flickr

 

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Instagram: @mitchalland

[Stealth3kpl]

. Just looking at prices for analog gear, you will see price increases for good film cameras in recent years due to higher demand. 

A friend just sold his Mamiya 7ii and 3 lenses for more than he paid for them 15 years ago.

Also, as I have a couple of Polaroid SX70s, I've been monitoring their increasing value, especially since the latest formulation of Polaroid Originals' film. Two recently sold for £205. I bought mine 3 years ago for less than half that.

Pete

Edited December 24, 2017 by Stealth3kpl

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Herr Barnack]

The digital upgrade cycle is only that expensive if you fall prey to the marketing.  I like new toys, but I'm not going to burn all my prints and delete all my files I made with that digital Leica which has just become "obsolete" by a new one.  So I have no problem waiting for used example to show up, costing thousands less.   And I'm quite content to stay a generation or two behind when, such as in the case of the M10, the advances aren't compelling for my photographic uses (such as 1 or 2 stops in high ISO, as I rarely ever shoot above the native one).  I still have my original pair of M4's, which served me well, but using them means going through the expense and time of using film...and then ultimately scanning them into digital files!  If my hobby included making analog wet-prints, or there were even a decent wet-printmaking lab nearby, I would shoot film.  For me the M is a photographic system, not film or digital.  Digital capture is just more convenient for me. 

 

What bocaburger said.

 

The M10 is a very nice camera but I cannot afford one right now; what to do??  Keep shooting with my Safari M-P and enjoying using it, that's what. 

 

There is no sense in a person making themselves unhappy because they do not have deep enough pockets to go out and buy an M10, particularly since the image quality improvements have been described by reviewers as incremental. 

 

My M-P can still make beautiful prints at 16x24 inches, even if it is not the newest digital M; given that, it's hard to find fault with the camera.

When I want something a little different, I shoot a few rolls of Tri-X through my M4-P and develop them in my kitchen sink.  That's still enjoyable too.

 

Enjoying the process of photography rather than the process of upgrading brings me more satisfaction than chasing the digital pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  YMMV.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Herr Barnack