My take on The One Thing Leica Users Get Wrong

[John Ricard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I think the “biggest mistake Leica owners make” is to futz about the clear plastic and sticker on the bottom. 

 

Is it still ok for us to discuss:

Black chrome vs silver chrome vs black paint cameras

Leather vs Vulcanite

Silver vs Black lenses

Leica script on top vs no Leica script on top

Red dot vs no red dot

and other similar topics?  Because I see these all the time on this forum.  Not sure why the plastic strip would be off limits.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

59 minutes ago, John Ricard said:

Is it still ok for us to discuss:

If you want to start relevant threads you will find out.

[ianman]

1 hour ago, John Ricard said:

Not sure why the plastic strip would be off limits.

I think you can discuss whatever you want within the rules of the forum. Some members will get a bee in their bonnet if you so much as mention another brand than Leica. I don't see a problem with that.

However I don't understand the point of the video. Is it serious?

[junix]

1 hour ago, ianman said:

I think you can discuss whatever you want within the rules of the forum. Some members will get a bee in their bonnet if you so much as mention another brand than Leica. I don't see a problem with that.

However I don't understand the point of the video. Is it serious?

The OP is talking almost 9 minutes about removing a sticker and you're asking if it is serious?

 

[ianman]

48 minutes ago, junix said:

The OP is talking almost 9 minutes about removing a sticker and you're asking if it is serious?

Apologies, I admit that I didn't watch the full 9 minutes... but tbh during the time I did watch it, I really couldn't make out if it was supposed to be a joke or not. I did not realize that the OP made the video and also the sentence " I think the point I'm making here is valid nevertheless." seems to make it to be taken seriously.

Oh well... never mind 

 

[Tailwagger]

I'm confused. Nothing new in that I suppose. An M10, M10-R and an M10-M, but a wish that he had sprung for a Z7 instead, bearing in mind that the  claim that the Z6 is a better camera than the M. Let's see, 26 grand in Ms, but regrets over not buying a Z7, let alone passing on a third M to pull the plastic from in favor of another Nikon instead?  Seems 😛.

As for the plastic, mine's still on the bottom plate, which in turn is in the box where AFAIC it belongs. Taken too many tumbles not to have an RRS grip in place to take the inevitable abuse. Nothing to do with cosmetics, everything to do with not having to repair or buy a replacement. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Tailwagger

[John Ricard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My video is intended to be taken seriously.  I did give it a click bait style title, but I've seen You Tubers that I respect (Casey Neistat, Tony Northrop, Peter McKinnon) do likewise, so I felt that was ok.  As I state in the video, I do think when Leica users leave the sticker on, they are really getting something "wrong".  Their purchase of a Leica suggests they care about how their camera looks and feels, and their refusal to remove the bottom sticker suggests they don't care what the camera looks or feels like.  I find that fascinating and that's why I made a video on it.  Surely my video was better than seeing yet another pretentious video with slow motion footage and classical music and some guy talking really slow about the Leica simplicity and magic.

[IkarusJohn]

Sorry, John.  I just couldn’t take it seriously.

I do care about how my cameras look, but I don’t care about the sticker.  Things have got pretty refined when a sticker is the biggest mistake a Leica owner makes.  Perhaps I should take the plastic off my sofa 😀

[John Ricard]

14 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

I'm confused. Nothing new in that I suppose. An M10, M10-R and an M10-M, but a wish that he had sprung for a Z7 instead, bearing in mind that the  claim that the Z6 is a better camera than the M. Let's see, 26 grand in Ms, but regrets over not buying a Z7, let alone passing on a third M to pull the plastic from in favor of another Nikon instead?  Seems 😛.

As for the plastic, mine's still on the bottom plate, which in turn is in the box where AFAIC it belongs. Taken too many tumbles not to have an RRS grip in place to take the inevitable abuse. Nothing to do with cosmetics, everything to do with not having to repair or buy a replacement. 

I own M9, M10 and M10-M.  And I do feel the Z6 is superior in any way that I can measure.  And there are plenty of gigs where it would be foolish of me to not use the Z6 given how good it is.  I use the Leica Ms a lot -mostly because I really enjoy using them  and not because they are "better" than my other cameras.  I'd be curious to know in what specific areas you feel the M10 is 'better" than the Z6 (or similar camera).  I can write my list, but I know it will be seen as trolling and such.  I assure you it's not, and I'll write it quickly off the top of my head right now.

Where my Z6 beats my M10

Faster shooting ability due to higher fps and larger buffer

Significantly faster to capture shots because the autofocus is so excellent

For headshot photography, I can keep eye contact with my subject during the entire shoot and just glance at the screen to compose the shot.  

For jiu jitsu photography, more angles are available to me if I use the flip out screen rather than having to compose with my eye to the camera.  (I hate the way it looks when a photographer shoots this way, and I swore I'd never do it, but it really does allow me to shoot jiu jitsu so much quicker and get so many more angles that I find myself doing it all the time when I use the Z6).

Ability to shoot quick movie clips with a simple flip of a switch

Shutter is more responsive. It has a better snap to it and it fires instantly.  The M10 shutter by comparison is mushy and it won't fire as quickly as you can push the shutter

Auto WB is very consistent on the Z6.  I shoot Auto in jpeg mode most of the time and I can do a blanket post process on hundreds of images in LR very quickly.  With my M10, the color often changes from shot to shot to shot for no discernible reason (M9 does the same thing) and matching the images to each other can be difficult or even impossible for me at times.  ( shoot raw + jpeg with the M10).  

That's a quick list right off the top of my head written as quickly as I could type it.   ( I can tell you where I prefer the M10 over the Z6 if anyone cares....)

Edited October 27, 2021 by John Ricard

[John Ricard]

2 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Sorry, John.  I just couldn’t take it seriously.

I do care about how my cameras look, but I don’t care about the sticker.  Things have got pretty refined when a sticker is the biggest mistake a Leica owner makes.  Perhaps I should take the plastic off my sofa 😀

If you read the comments on my video you'll see where someone wrote seriously that his mother talked about how she regretted having had plastic covers on her furniture instead of letting her kids play on the actual couch.  So that's a real thing.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, John Ricard said:

..... I use the Leica Ms a lot -mostly because I really enjoy using them  and not because they are "better" than my other cameras.

That is the bottom line. I have other cameras which have technical advantages but the Leica M series cameras are more pleasurable to use and as a consequece they produce 'better' photographs more often. I really don't care about cosmetics though. Stuff simply wears as it gets used.

FWIW, the stickers mostly wear off, but if you send the cameras to Leica for work on them, they arrive back with new stickers fitted!

Edited October 27, 2021 by pgk

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, John Ricard said:

I own M9, M10 and M10-M.  And I do feel the Z6 is superior in any way that I can measure.  And there are plenty of gigs where it would be foolish of me to not use the Z6 given how good it is.  I use the Leica Ms a lot -mostly because I really enjoy using them  and not because they are "better" than my other cameras.  I'd be curious to know in what specific areas you feel the M10 is 'better" than the Z6 (or similar camera).  I can write my list, but I know it will be seen as trolling and such.  I assure you it's not, and I'll write it quickly off the top of my head right now.

Where my Z6 beats my M10

Faster shooting ability due to higher fps and larger buffer

Significantly faster to capture shots because the autofocus is so excellent

For headshot photography, I can keep eye contact with my subject during the entire shoot and just glance at the screen to compose the shot.  

For jiu jitsu photography, more angles are available to me if I use the flip out screen rather than having to compose with my eye to the camera.  (I hate the way it looks when a photographer shoots this way, and I swore I'd never do it, but it really does allow me to shoot jiu jitsu so much quicker and get so many more angles that I find myself doing it all the time when I use the Z6).

Ability to shoot quick movie clips with a simple flip of a switch

Shutter is more responsive. It has a better snap to it and it fires instantly.  The M10 shutter by comparison is mushy and it won't fire as quickly as you can push the shutter

Auto WB is very consistent on the Z6.  I shoot Auto in jpeg mode most of the time and I can do a blanket post process on hundreds of images in LR very quickly.  With my M10, the color often changes from shot to shot to shot for no discernible reason (M9 does the same thing) and matching the images to each other can be difficult or even impossible for me at times.  ( shoot raw + jpeg with the M10).  

That's a quick list right off the top of my head written as quickly as I could type it.   ( I can tell you where I prefer the M10 over the Z6 if anyone cares....)

Those are mostly areas where I would expect the Nikon to be better, and if that's your top criteria for the quality of a camera ("superior in any way I can measure"), I couldn't argue with you (especially as I've never tried a Z6/7. I suspect the latter really is a 'better' camera using many of those criteria. Some of the others are a matter of opinion (start a thread on speed of AF vs rangefinder focus and you'll find out!). Others surprise me, but would be measurable (e.g. responsive shutter - use each camera to try to shoot a stopwatch display and, looking through the OVF and EVF, try to catch the display at a particular value).

But you don't include image quality and colour in your criteria?

[ianman]

2 hours ago, John Ricard said:

Surely my video was better than seeing yet another pretentious video with slow motion footage and classical music and some guy talking really slow about the Leica simplicity and magic.

Better? It just adds to the other videos such as you mention that turn Leica users into a laughing stock.

Edited October 27, 2021 by ianman

[Tailwagger]

4 minutes ago, John Ricard said:

 I'd be curious to know in what specific areas you feel the M10 is 'better" than the Z6 (or similar camera).

Off the top of my head, for me, not necessarily anyone else...

1. Optics. Bodies are useless without them. Glass of all shapes, sizes, vintages, prices, fast, slow, high contrast, low contrast, coated, uncoated, classic, modern etc. A thousand different paint brushes each with its own signature and style. Lenses controlled by aperture rings, not on body dials.  Smaller, lighter, easier to juggle in the field. And please, no talk of adapters. I care about pixels in the corners as much as those in the center.
2. The ability to shoot with a full compliment of primes while not being required to hire a sherpa, yet still finding myself able to stand up straight at the end of the day.
3. Composing, framing and focusing with an OVF,  EVF or both depending on what the situation dictates. No need for a flip up screen, something largely useless in my case as I can't view it without taking my glasses off.  The 020 can be used as an eye, angle or waist level finder, far better solution AFAIC.
4. Simpler interface, menu structure. No AF. No Video, no N levels of menus, modes of operation, etc. Purest possible digital shooting experience.
5. Build quality, feel in the hand, ruggedness... RF calibration excluded. 

If you had declared that the Nikon was a better camera than the A7, R3, XT-4, current SL, what have you, perhaps. One could argue that the brief for each of these systems is roughly the same. But comparing an M to any other mirrorless AF camera and citing AF speed to focus, flip up screens, etc is rather odd way to look at things AFAIC. By such measures an RX100 is a 'better' camera than any of them because it has all that, comes with a lens, can fit it in your pocket and costs next to nothing by comparison. As for the WB and shutter responsiveness, I'll take your word for it and simply point out that the M10 is now 4 years old; perhaps you'll find the M11 more up to snuff.  But no semi-conscious human has bought an M in the past 10 years on the basis of it being chocked full of state of the art tech let alone offering maximum versatility.  Auto aperture, sorry not present. Zooms? Well theres the WATE and MATE, but otherwise not so much.  IBIS haha... nope. Max FF DR? Uh not really. What about an e-shutter? It has an e-level, will that suffice? No, linking an M with any other conventional mirrorless camera is tantamount to doing a comparo of a F150 with a Miata and then complaining that the latter neither shifts for itself, goes off road nor pulls a boat, while ignoring that the former is a PITA to park in town, gets crappy mileage and cant autocross worth a damn. 

The better camera is the one that suits one's expected use cases, which between these two cameras, IMO, is many miles apart. If I had a pressing need to shoot 30fps, I'd wouldn't look at either of them. Yes, yes, people use Ms for sporting events while others likely use Zs for street photography. One can when necessary conjure techniques for crossing domains. But better results are usually far simpler to achieve when you wield the proper tool for the job. Presumably thats why you own both and perhaps others as well. It's certainly why I own an SL2 and X1Dii in addition to the 10-R.

 

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, John Ricard said:

My video is intended to be taken seriously.  I did give it a click bait style title, but I've seen You Tubers that I respect (Casey Neistat, Tony Northrop, Peter McKinnon) do likewise, so I felt that was ok.  As I state in the video, I do think when Leica users leave the sticker on, they are really getting something "wrong".  Their purchase of a Leica suggests they care about how their camera looks and feels, and their refusal to remove the bottom sticker suggests they don't care what the camera looks or feels like.  I find that fascinating and that's why I made a video on it.  Surely my video was better than seeing yet another pretentious video with slow motion footage and classical music and some guy talking really slow about the Leica simplicity and magic.

Since you do seem to be serious about this matter, and you seem an intelligent thoughtful guy, I'm sure you see the problem with this contradiction: it's the assumption that one of the criteria for buying a Leica is its looks.

It looks far more likely that most Leica users don't buy Leica for its looks because many/most of them don't remove the sticker; they buy them for some other reason - perhaps because they enjoy using it, it takes good pictures, or it works well for a particular type of use.

As a sample of one, I can say that I do not buy a Leica for its looks, but for what it does. I don't think a camera is a beautiful object - most are lumpy bits of metal, plastic and glass that don't fit in my pocket like a phone. They are well designed tools for their function though.

[John Ricard]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

 

It looks far more likely that most Leica users don't buy Leica for its looks because many/most of them don't remove the sticker; they buy them for some other reason - perhaps because they enjoy using it, it takes good pictures, or it works well for a particular type of use.

 

Why then, do you suppose so many Leica groups and Leica hashtags feature photos of the camera rather than by the camera.  It's not a situation you see with Nikon, Canon, etc.

[John Ricard]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Off the top of my head, for me, not necessarily anyone else...

1. Optics. Bodies are useless without them. Glass of all shapes, sizes, vintages, prices, fast, slow, high contrast, low contrast, coated, uncoated, classic, modern etc. A thousand different paint brushes each with its own signature and style. Lenses controlled by aperture rings, not on body dials.  Smaller, lighter, easier to juggle in the field. And please, no talk of adapters. I care about pixels in the corners as much as those in the center.
2. The ability to shoot with a full compliment of primes while not being required to hire a sherpa, yet still finding myself able to stand up straight at the end of the day.
3. Composing, framing and focusing with an OVF,  EVF or both depending on what the situation dictates. No need for a flip up screen, something largely useless in my case as I can't view it without taking my glasses off.  The 020 can be used as an eye, angle or waist level finder, far better solution AFAIC.
4. Simpler interface, menu structure. No AF. No Video, no N levels of menus, modes of operation, etc. Purest possible digital shooting experience.
5. Build quality, feel in the hand, ruggedness... RF calibration excluded. 

If you had declared that the Nikon was a better camera than the A7, R3, XT-4, current SL, what have you, perhaps. One could argue that the brief for each of these systems is roughly the same. But comparing an M to any other mirrorless AF camera and citing AF speed to focus, flip up screens, etc is rather odd way to look at things AFAIC. By such measures an RX100 is a 'better' camera than any of them because it has all that, comes with a lens, can fit it in your pocket and costs next to nothing by comparison. As for the WB and shutter responsiveness, I'll take your word for it and simply point out that the M10 is now 4 years old; perhaps you'll find the M11 more up to snuff.  But no semi-conscious human has bought an M in the past 10 years on the basis of it being chocked full of state of the art tech let alone offering maximum versatility.  Auto aperture, sorry not present. Zooms? Well theres the WATE and MATE, but otherwise not so much.  IBIS haha... nope. Max FF DR? Uh not really. What about an e-shutter? It has an e-level, will that suffice? No, linking an M with any other conventional mirrorless camera is tantamount to doing a comparo of a F150 with a Miata and then complaining that the latter neither shifts for itself, goes off road nor pulls a boat, while ignoring that the former is a PITA to park in town, gets crappy mileage and cant autocross worth a damn. 

The better camera is the one that suits one's expected use cases, which between these two cameras, IMO, is many miles apart. If I had a pressing need to shoot 30fps, I'd wouldn't look at either of them. Yes, yes, people use Ms for sporting events while others likely use Zs for street photography. One can when necessary conjure techniques for crossing domains. But better results are usually far simpler to achieve when you wield the proper tool for the job. Presumably thats why you own both and perhaps others as well. It's certainly why I own an SL2 and X1Dii in addition to the 10-R.

 

These are excellent points -most of which I agree with.  I think it would be fair to say I agree with all of them.    I would only take issue with the idea that Leica users can focus faster than a modern AF camera.  I've seen that claim made on this forums -often accompanied by a tack sharp shot or two, but I consider these posts to be anecdotal.  I'd love it for a NYC based Leica shooter to reach out so we can do some side by side testing on video.  Nothing intended to embarrass anyone.  I'd even do it without video if anyone were interested. But I'd be shocked beyond words if a Leica user could manually focus on different subjects faster than I could nail focus on a Z6.  Hell, I'll even use my 10+ year old Nikon D3s and I'm confident the camera autofocuses faster than anyone can manually focus a rangefinder or any other type of manual focus camera.  

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, John Ricard said:

Why then, do you suppose so many Leica groups and Leica hashtags feature photos of the camera rather than by the camera.  It's not a situation you see with Nikon, Canon, etc.

It's probably the same people that DO remove the sticker. But that's not the same as concluding that BECAUSE people buy Leicas, THEREFORE they buy them for their looks. Plenty of people do not post photos of their Leicas, do not remove the stickers, and just use them for photography. 

There are typecast Leica owners, just like there are typecast Canon/Nikon owners (logos everywhere on cameras, straps and bags; virile lenses....). It's good fun to make fun of them, as long as it's not taken too seriously. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

"Regrets iv'e had a few but then again too few to mention"

Though i did leave that hideous fu****g plastic sticker on for a bit!

[Tailwagger]

25 minutes ago, John Ricard said:

 I would only take issue with the idea that Leica users can focus faster than a modern AF camera.  I've seen that claim made on this forums -often accompanied by a tack sharp shot or two, but I consider these posts to be anecdotal.

A claim I certainly would never make about myself... excepting for those cases where AF is generically problematic, ie. intervening objects, like discerning a subject in woods or brush, though I suppose some of the latest AF animal/face detection algorithms might have overcome that as well. As an aside, one irritation with the SL is that Leica supplied glass, unlike the clutched optics from Lumix, requires a menu tap to engage MF.  Far faster to pull the clutch and not have to take one's eye from the camera and target.

I'm sure there are a few savants out there that can indeed focus quite rapidly and in low light perhaps best some AF systems, but I suspect that those folks have had both years of practice and, if of my generation, lasik. 😉

Edited October 27, 2021 by Tailwagger