Have we reached a turning point?

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I quite liked the concept of the M-D and was initially pleased to read that this had been carried over to the M10. Enjoyed (as ever) reading Jono's report. However (you just knew there was a 'however' coming...) I find myself in the group querying the 'thumb-rest' lever. As an M7 and MP owner (and previously M2 and M4), I have never used the wind-on lever as a thumb-rest. If the lever on this new M10-D sits at the same angle as that on my MP ALC (old style lever), I would find it uncomfortable so would never use it. Which in a way helps the decision-making process should I decide to upgrade from M240 to the M10 family...

[PeterGA]

25 years ago shooting 35mm film a Leica M was all the camera I needed or wanted it was to me the best camera/lens combination money could buy. Today Leica could produce a better than M camera in a similarly small form factor and with the advantages of EVF and autofocus lenses - but won't.

Instead we have the CL in apc and with an EVF with half the quality of the EVF in an SL or an SL with half the chip resolution of an S .....

Will be interesting to see when Leica decides to treat its customers who don't or no longer want an M rangefinder camera with some primary rather than passing concern...

The rangefinder might be a totem possessing great power to the rangefinder tribe - but what a shame that other worthy products are hamstrung by Leica's own parsimonious use of existing best of breed technology across its own product range.

Perhaps Leica might learn from some German auto manufacturers who offer the AMG or RS or M lines across their product lines - so that a person could order a CL as described above - just as easily as buying an M10 sans a rear LCD.

 

 

[adan]

Hmmm - Mercedes-Benz, 143000 employees, 2.73 million "bodies" a year. BMW, 130000 employees, 2.5 million units. Audi 91000 employees, 1.88 million units.

Leica, 1600 employees. ~0.1 million cameras a year (which may include PanaLeicas)

See a difference?

[PeterGA]

hmmm - Have a look through the SL viewfinder and then have a look through a CL viewfinder- see a difference?

[ramarren]

1 hour ago, PeterGA said:

hmmm - Have a look through the SL viewfinder and then have a look through a CL viewfinder- see a difference?

I have ... Had the SL for three years. The difference is virtually indistinguishable to my eyes, the CL viewfinder is excellent.

[PeterGA]

2 hours ago, ramarren said:

I have ... Had the SL for three years. The difference is virtually indistinguishable to my eyes, the CL viewfinder is excellent.

I've got strange eyes - they can actually see a difference between 2.3M pixel viewfinders and a 4.3M pixel viewfinder,   and the difference isn't 'virtually 'indistinguishable - it is for me very distinguishable and if the CL viewfinder is 'excellent' what does that make the SL viewfinder 2X excellent, uber excellent, super dooper excellent what exactly ?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, jonoslack said:

But I just don't believe they are relying on style over substance; this camera perhaps, but I simply don't consider this camera as any kind of watershed (and I don't believe Leica do either) It's a sidetrack, an excursion into the possible (and possibly a little tongue in cheek).

Well, I really hope that you are right. But it would be really nice if Leica could actually, instead of wasted diversions, amusing or otherwise, genuinely get back to the essence of the M, with an absolutely no frills camera. In essence, a 1950s/60s camera specification with a digital sensor. The digital revolution has promised a lot but fais to deliver simplicity which has been the key to a great camera for a long time.

As for the profession, well having been a photographer for nearly 40 years I do know the odd person in the profession and I've yet to meet anyone who feels that professional photography is moving forward effectively. I'm not going to try to explain the complexities of this in a forum post so its a take it or leave it statement.

[pedaes]

36 minutes ago, pgk said:

Well, I really hope that you are right. But it would be really nice if Leica could actually, instead of wasted diversions, amusing or otherwise, genuinely get back to the essence of the M, with an absolutely no frills camera. In essence, a 1950s/60s camera specification with a digital sensor. The digital revolution has promised a lot but fais to deliver simplicity which has been the key to a great camera for a long time.

As for the profession, well having been a photographer for nearly 40 years I do know the odd person in the profession and I've yet to meet anyone who feels that professional photography is moving forward effectively. I'm not going to try to explain the complexities of this in a forum post so its a take it or leave it statement.

Putting the M10 literally alongside my M2 they look pretty similar, both have the essentials only clearly visible. What are the frills you see that could not be completely ignored? 

[lct]

45 minutes ago, pgk said:

[...] But it would be really nice if Leica could actually, instead of wasted diversions, amusing or otherwise, genuinely get back to the essence of the M, with an absolutely no frills camera. In essence, a 1950s/60s camera specification with a digital sensor. The digital revolution has promised a lot but fais to deliver simplicity which has been the key to a great camera for a long time. [...]

In the 50s/60s we could put a roll of Tri-X in our M2 or 3 and shoot most of our pics at f/5.6 & 1/125s a-la HCB but this kind of simplicity did not work for color and does not work in digital either, a least for me. Would be fun to put my Leicameter on a digital M though and i would dream of a digital pinhole as well. Just kidding. I've got enough of retro cameras personally but YMMV.

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, pedaes said:

What are the frills you see that could not be completely ignored? 

Well, the word essence was used.

Manual only, RAW only, single shot only,  mechanically driven shutter, etc. Pared down to the minimum but with a very few digital improvement such as a rear display with RAW histogram. We've been here before but there is too much needless complication on all digital cameras, most of which is designed for convenience rather than relevance. It amazes me that people took stunning images in the past although their equipment was so unbelievably basic that they had to make every decision in the image creating process themselves and had to handle some extremely unergonomic heavy beasts too.

[pedaes]

34 minutes ago, pgk said:

Well, the word essence was used.

Manual only, RAW only, single shot only,  mechanically driven shutter, etc. Pared down to the minimum but with a very few digital improvement such as a rear display with RAW histogram. We've been here before but there is too much needless complication on all digital cameras, most of which is designed for convenience rather than relevance. It amazes me that people took stunning images in the past although their equipment was so unbelievably basic that they had to make every decision in the image creating process themselves and had to handle some extremely unergonomic heavy beasts too.

OK - the first three are easily set and left that way. I don't see what difference the drive mechanism for the shutter makes, and how many would want to go back to a mechanical shutter that lost accuracy over time and limited to 1/1000 (which was never very accurate anyway).

[bocaburger]

20 hours ago, NigelG said:

Hi JonoWithout the temptation to view the captured image immediately after exposure or share it with the person or subjects featured in the picture. The Leica M-D directs attention entirely on the composition. It consistently shifts the focus to the creative aspects of each subject – less technology for more creativity

See that’s exactly what I do not get.  Is the screen to that many people like a bottle of scotch to a recovering alcoholic or a pack of cigs to a former smoker?  That just having it there is such an addictive temptation it drives the person to anxious distraction?  

[WvE]

On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:56 PM, Agent M10 said:

The thumb rest is brilliant. Digital cameras are way heavier than their film counterparts. The challenge for Leica has been to keep the same form factor while having to stuff in the innards with digital machinery. The added weight changed the M's haptics. I have a Leica thumb rest on my M10. The thumb rest sticks out and makes it difficult to pack the M in anything. I'd much rather have "that silly thumb rest," even it makes others puke.

Fully agree, it's perhaps not a s silly as it looks.

[ramarren]

3 hours ago, PeterGA said:

I've got strange eyes - they can actually see a difference between 2.3M pixel viewfinders and a 4.3M pixel viewfinder,   and the difference isn't 'virtually 'indistinguishable - it is for me very distinguishable and if the CL viewfinder is 'excellent' what does that make the SL viewfinder 2X excellent, uber excellent, super dooper excellent what exactly ?

Whatever you want to call it, that's up to you. I don't propose any metric.

The SL viewfinder is a bit larger, but not a lot different in clarity and tonal rendering. It does adapt a little better in bright sunlight, but neither CL nor SL viewfinders adapt to bright sunlight as well as an Olympue E-M1 viewfinder (have that one, too). 

[ramarren]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

Well, I really hope that you are right. But it would be really nice if Leica could actually, instead of wasted diversions, amusing or otherwise, genuinely get back to the essence of the M, with an absolutely no frills camera. In essence, a 1950s/60s camera specification with a digital sensor. The digital revolution has promised a lot but fais to deliver simplicity which has been the key to a great camera for a long time.

As for the profession, well having been a photographer for nearly 40 years I do know the odd person in the profession and I've yet to meet anyone who feels that professional photography is moving forward effectively. I'm not going to try to explain the complexities of this in a forum post so its a take it or leave it statement.

That, specifically, is the Leica M-D typ 262. It's why I bought one.  Anyone who wanted that should have purchased one while Leica was making them. 

I'm not sure what it means for "professional photography to be moving forward effectively". Having made my living for various parts of my working lifetime doing photography for pay, over a span of fifty years, I'm not sure whether I can class being a professional photographer as having a profession. To me, it's much more a trade, a craft, and a business. Being a "professional photographer" is quite different from being a doctor, a nurse, or a teacher. A professional photographer is simply someone for whom the majority of whose income is derived from making photographs; there are no formal qualifications required, no code of etiquette assumed, no societal component of the business to service. A professional photographer has the technical and aesthetic skills of any good photographer, ideally, and successfully runs a business that makes and sells photographs in one capacity or another. 

People make money from producing photographs in all kinds of ways that can be considered professional photography. We use the term "professional" in this instance differently from the intent and meaning of the word "profession".

[pgk]

I must admit to having always been somewhat baffled by the word 'professional' being applied to photographers but it has been and I suspect originally this was to differentiate someone who makes money from photography, from someone who does it for the love of it or because records are required of their interest. That said, I and most full-time professional photographers tend to use it to refer to those who try to make their living from photography. To me a professional photographer is someone whose business is about photography and its associated requirements and it specifically refers to a person whose business involves this full-time. Part-time photography has always been there and those who practice this may be good but are not In my view professional photographers simply because they do not have to make their entire living from photography.

The majority of the people I know who are by this definition, professional photographers, are finding the profession quite difficult for a whole host of reasons one of which is falling quality standards in the required imagery. I personally find that I am asked to do the 'difficult' jobs which should tell us something. Difficult jobs are typically those where automated systems don't work. I could go on but my own experience in talking to many photographers, full and part time, and amateurs, is that there is a good grasp of the technology but less of the traditional skills such as lighting and the evolution of why we do what we do - understanding your subject is a very useful part of how you operate IMO.

Sadly I also know younger, qualified (degree and higher degree level) who are not practising photography as a profession because it will not yield the needed income levels. I can only speak from my own personal experience on this, but this is certainly my experience. Lastly, I see many photographers start up and give up after a few years. This suggests to me that things are not as (I anyway, consider that) they should be.

[adan]

10 hours ago, PeterGA said:

hmmm - Have a look through the SL viewfinder and then have a look through a CL viewfinder- see a difference?

My point, Peter, is that as a microscopic company compared to the auto makers, Leica can't offer as many "bespoke" electronic or other options per camera type or across the individual camera lines. Just not economically viable.

Even the relatively simple "A la Carte" options have been reduced to pretty much the cosmetics - leather and the paint and the strap and engraving - no rangefinder options any more (.68/.72/.85 - at least according to the website)

You want a camera with 4.3-million dots - you get a bigger camera with a hump on top (the SL) - and pay for it. You want an ultra-compact camera at a lower price - you get a physically smaller finder chip with 2.3-million dots (the CL).

And - BTW - when someone is a forum newbie with 38 posts, they are by definition not the smartest kid in the room. You are not God's Gift newly arisen to lead the poor L-Camera Forum out of the darkness - until you have a track record here proving (not just claiming) superior insight and knowledge (as opposed to opinion and ego). So knock off the lectures and sarcasm.

[jdlaing]

Only one difficulty with that statement is Leica Camera and Leica Microscope company are two different things. One has no effect on the other.

[jonoslack]

7 hours ago, pgk said:

Well, I really hope that you are right. But it would be really nice if Leica could actually, instead of wasted diversions, amusing or otherwise, genuinely get back to the essence of the M, with an absolutely no frills camera. In essence, a 1950s/60s camera specification with a digital sensor. The digital revolution has promised a lot but fais to deliver simplicity which has been the key to a great camera for a long time.

One person's essential is another person's irritation. Honestly - I feel that the M10 really is the essence of the M camera -  the menus are very simple and easy to manage - sure, you have Aperture priority, but it's pretty easy not to use it (likewise Auto ISO). Remember that they do actually need to make a profit, and they really have stuck to the spirit of the M - improving the rangefinder / stability / weather sealing without changing it's basic values - indeed they reduced the menu options in the M10 whilst still allowing enough for the serious photographer to use it for a range of different situations. 

You (and I) aren't obliged to buy an M10-P or an M10-D, and as long as Leica make a profit from them they don't represent wasted diversions, it provides more funds to develop the M11 into the camera it should be. 

And whatever the dire situation of professional photography I'm quite certain that there are more professionals using M cameras than there were 10 years ago. What's more satisfying is that the quantity and price of secondhand digital M bodies means that they are affordable to a much bigger range of users, including those with less money.. 

So - back to your original premise - No I absolutely do NOT think we have reached a turning point - the M system is alive and well (better indeed than it's been for decades) and will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

All the best

Jono

Edited October 29, 2018 by jonoslack
typo correction (again!)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

I must admit to having always been somewhat baffled by the word 'professional' being applied to photographers

Even more bizarre when it's applied to cameras! (or toothpaste come to that  )