M11 without baseplate: Do You really know, what this means?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, mujk said:

But if the risk of losing the removable baseplate was the reason to omit it I think Leica should have come up with a more sophisticated solution...... This feature could in fact be extended to finding also other parts falling off, including lens front elements, hoods, accessory shoe covers, eyepiece rings etc.

I recommend fluorescent orange paint. Cheap and effective but doesn't seem to have caught on for some reason. You can get aftermarket lens caps to paint😉.

[250swb]

4 hours ago, mujk said:

 

But if the risk of losing the removable baseplate was the reason to omit it I think Leica should have come up with a more sophisticated solution.

Owning a Leica is all about needing a CLA every three months and worrying about everything possible that can go wrong. If Leica take that away why would anybody buy a Leica, the ritual is everything?

[Advertisement]

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

[ianman]

11 minutes ago, 250swb said:

If Leica take that away why would anybody buy a Leica, the ritual is everything?

Buy? Buy?? Dear lord, people do not “buy” a Leica, they purchase a Leica!

[jdlaing]

Purchase smurchase. 6 out of 10 here rent them for a brief period of time.

[setuporg]

4 hours ago, ianman said:

Buy? Buy?? Dear lord, people do not “buy” a Leica, they purchase a Leica!

You never actually own a Leica.
You merely take care of it for the next owner.

[rtai]

15 minutes ago, setuporg said:

You never actually own a Leica.
You merely take care of it for the next owner.

Sounds like an audemars piguet advertisement! 

[rtai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I prefer the no bottom plate designs of the Q2 and SL. In fact I wish Leica would move away from the classic M shape. 

[setuporg]

3 minutes ago, rtai said:

Sounds like an audemars piguet advertisement! 

Patek Philippe, except the new owner is your age:)

[rtai]

5 minutes ago, setuporg said:

Patek Philippe, except the new owner is your age:)

Right you are! Getting these things mixed up. But it is so true. My father gave me his vintage Rolex Oyster off his wrist when I graduated and I gave my son the IWC when he got his masters. 

[setuporg]

1 minute ago, rtai said:

Right you are! Getting these things mixed up. But it is so true. My father gave me his vintage Rolex Oyster off his wrist when I graduated and I gave my son the IWC when he got his masters. 

I much prefer the IWC to Rolex.  Amazing history too.  A blue Portugueser is without rivals...

[SrMi]

34 minutes ago, setuporg said:

I much prefer the IWC to Rolex.  Amazing history too.  A blue Portugueser is without rivals...

Patek for me.

BTW, It was Patek Philippe that started the campaign: "You never actually own a Patek Philippe ... you merely look after it for the next generation".

[pgk]

10 hours ago, 250swb said:

Owning a Leica is all about needing a CLA every three months and worrying about everything possible that can go wrong. If Leica take that away why would anybody buy a Leica, the ritual is everything?

I must have faulty ones.

[250swb]

10 hours ago, ianman said:

Buy? Buy?? Dear lord, people do not “buy” a Leica, they purchase a Leica!

True, very true. I hadn't planned for an M11 but if I do I'll make sure I neither buy or purchase but instead I'll do the fully relaxed approach and 'pick one up'. This could be on the way to an airport, probably going to my holiday home in Phuket or a glamourous party in Monaco. I would be more specific on my destination but if I search Google for 'worldwide map of Leica Dealers' it comes up with a world map of drug dealers (true).   

[evikne]

6 hours ago, setuporg said:

You never actually own a Leica.
You merely take care of it for the next owner.

Yes. The reason why many of us don't remove the baseplate protection, use protecting filters on the lenses and worry about small scratches here and there, is mostly because we have a next owner in mind.

[pgk]

8 minutes ago, evikne said:

Yes. The reason why many of us don't remove the baseplate protection, use protecting filters on the lenses and worry about small scratches here and there, is mostly because we have a next owner in mind.

I pity the next owner of one of my Leica digital cameras. No baseplate protection, missing black paint, baseplate 'adjusted' with pliers after dropping, body well worn and dented. Whether this digital camera will survive to find another owner is a rather rhetorical question. I rather doubt it. BUT I'm still enjoying using it as I probably shall until it stops working. Isn't this actually the point of owning a camera?😊

[evikne]

15 minutes ago, pgk said:

Isn't this actually the point of owning a camera?😊

It should have been. A film camera can be owned for life. But a digital camera is mostly use and sell, unfortunately.

[pgk]

50 minutes ago, evikne said:

It should have been. A film camera can be owned for life. But a digital camera is mostly use and sell, unfortunately.

Its an interesting point. I have been involved in selling underwater camera systems which consist of high end housings for digital cameras. They can cost much more than the camera. I have always told buyers that they need to view them as an investment over their anticipated viable working lifetime and that this needs to be determined from a basis of how long they may be suitable for their application. In all honesty most use them at low ISOs and here there has been sufficient 'quality' available for most usages for at least a decade. So the lifespan can quite happily be considered to be 10 years. So the annual cost is easily figured out.

My battered camera is an M9 which, at 12 years old but with new sensor, owes me nothing. I use it at low ISO and its MPixel is sufficient for most uses. Perhaps I simply have a different view to most users. I enjoy using Leica rangefinders but I don't see that they need to be all singing, all dancing cameras needing to compete with the alternative, generic dSLR/evf offerings.

Edited December 14, 2021 by pgk
typos

[Ouroboros]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

...... if I search Google for 'worldwide map of Leica Dealers' it comes up with a world map of drug dealers (true).   

That must be why real Leica men go on a trip and never seem to go on holiday like ordinary camera owners do.

[jaapv]

40 minutes ago, pgk said:

Its an interesting point. I have been involved in selling underwater camera systemswhich consist of high end housings for digital cameras. They can cost much more than the camera. I have always told buyers that they need to view them as an investment over their anticipated viable working lifetime and that this needs to be determined from a basis of how long they may be suitable for their application. In all honesty most use them at low ISOs and here there has been sufficient 'quality' available for most usages for at least a decade. So the lifespan can quite happily be considered to be 10 years. So the annual cost is easily figured out.

My battered camera is an M9 which, at 12 years old but with new sensor, owes me nothing. I use it at low ISO and its MPixel is sufficient for most uses. Perhaps I simply have a different view to most users. I enjoy suing Leica rangefinders but I don't see that they need to be all singing, all dancing cameras needing to compete with the alternative, generic dSLR/evf offerings.

Well, the M has never been a suitable candidate for underwater use. But just imagine blending tradition with up-to-date functionality. Traditional shape and handling, RF, but with a large internal memory or dual SD slot, USB and micro HDMI, electronic focus confirmation, (Olympus pioneered this with the OM40 decades ago) decent 6K functionality enabling high speed bursts and professional Video use, a really good auxiliary EVF to mimic the wideangle viewfinders, a multifunction wheel in place of the ISO-only knob (ISO, Burst,Video, Custom, M6 -control by thumb wheel ), etc. There must be enough miniaturization and efficiency in electronic components by now to make it possible. 
It would sell like hot cakes, even to open-minded traditionalists and secure the M system into the future. There could be a stripped-down version for the minimalists. Whether it has a removable bottom plate is neither here nor there; it does not impact the functionality of the camera. Heck, even I might start saving up for such a camera. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

But just imagine blending tradition with up-to-date functionality.

Indeed but the problem that is being referred to by the 'bottomplate' discussion is traditional ethos versus current capabilities. At the moment we, the buyers, have to react to Leica's, 'the makers'' requirements - so their business model requires ever changing specifications in order for them to survive. Which is the standard operating proceedure currently (although often disguised as the makers producing stuff because that it what the market wants/needs). However the original idea of the Leica camera was for something that lasted - a very different ethos. So Leica actually have a divided customer base - those who want the M to morph into a competitive EVF (which IMO it cannot do for innumerable technical reasons), and those who want a camera that lasts, can be serviced/repaired and carries on a more traditional approach to photography. Its an interesting conundrum, because to some extent the two approaches are incompatible.