Reinventing an Icon: Leica M vs Porsche 911

[TheProf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Every new M sparks a debate among Leica purists: Has Leica sullied the essence of the M shooting experience in the pursuit of "progress?" The introduction of the M11 has lit the fuse once again. Those who value "heritage" above all else bemoan the shift to sensor metering, the loss of the baseplate and the use of aluminum in the black version, while progressive fans celebrate the move to a bigger sensor and wonder when the M will finally get a built-in EVF.  Balancing the tension between tradition and progress is one of the most difficult challenges for any long-established brand.  As a Leica shooter, and a serial owner of Porsche 911s, I've been thinking about the way these two German brands have tried to walk this tightrope.

In 1998 Porsche angered a large swathe of its most loyal customers whe, it abandoned air-cooled engines for water-cooled powerplants. For purists,, the air-cooled engine was the defining feature of the 911, much like the rangefinder is for many users of the M. The 2009 introduction of a "PDK" dual-clutch automatic transmission was another bold step forward. The PDK delivered faster 0-60 times than a manual gearbox, and today 85% of all 911s are sold with an automatic transmission. Yet another heretical change came in 2016 when Porsche made turbocharging standard for base model 911s. No longer would customers have the option of buying an entry-level 911 with a high-revving, naturally aspirated engine. In recent years,. the company has also loaded up the 911 with advanced traction control technologies which make the car easier to control in challenging conditions. Today's buyer can also choose from a long list of performance-focused options like rear-wheel steering, electronic active damping, and ceramic brakes The latest 911s also offers surround view cameras, lane keep assist, and night vision assist. In every respect today's 911 is one of the most technologically sophisticated cars on the market.  Over the past quarter century, the only things that haven't changed are the 911s iconic profile and the fact that its engine still sits behind the rear wheels (an undeniably sub-optimal design).

The 911 currently in  my garage is significantly bigger and heavier, than the air-cooled, 911 I bought back in 1996. Thanks to all the electronics, it's also significantly less challenging to drive, and also less involving. (Just as an autofocusing, image-stablized camera is less challenging to use than a Leica M).

From a revenue standpoint, the 911 is now a footnote for Porsche, which makes most of its money selling SUVs. Yet the 911 is still the soul of Porsche--just as the M is the soul of Leica.  Yet despite the weight of all that heritage, Porsche has taken significant and repeated risks with the 911--and in doing so has often angered its most ardent customers. This takes courage, but Porsche knows that the biggest risk of all is letting an aging, and shrinking, base of "loyalists" dictate the evolution of an iconic product. That way lies irrelevance.

Given all this, I think it's interesting to ask whether Leica has done as good a job as Porsche in balancing heritage and progress. To make that assessment you must answer a subsidiary question: Wha is the essence of an M camera, and what is peripheral? The essence of a 911 is that it's a rear-engined sports car--everything else is secondary. What's the equivalent for an M?

For me, the essence of a Leica M is its compact form factor and ability to mount the best lenses in the world. (Note: I didn't say "the ability to mount legacy M glass." While I hope Leica will always make an M that is compatible with existing lenses, I could also imagine a future it which it develops a higher-tech M body and, along with it, a new line of super-premium, super-compact lenses. In my view, Leica's "core competence" isn't its ability to build mechanically complex rangefinders, but its ability to produce the world's most optically-perfect lenses.)

But that's just my view. What's yours?

[SrMi]

The essence of M cameras is the rangefinder. Leica's primary goal is to build the best rangefinder experience. Any additional functionality is icing on the cake.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

35 minutes ago, TheProf said:

What is the essence of an M camera, and what is peripheral?

Its very simple. The M is a rangefinder camera. The rangefinder is at the core of how it operates. In its latest reiteration, the M11, the camera is now an EVF camera with a rangefinder fitted. To me this is a fundamental shift in its basic design philosophy because as a rabgefinder it offers a very different way of doing things. But as an EVF with a rangefinder fitted it offers a compromised EVF system which cannot compete with other, cheaper EVF cameras but masquerades as a rangefinder camera. This is far from being the same as 'modernising' a Porsche which uses technology to improve options and enables the car to retain better competitive performance. The EVF functionality on an RF camera enables it to work in a different way than intended by its orignial design, and which does not compete at any level with current EVF cameras because it remains manual focus. Imagine a Porsche with modern electronics and a 'crash' gearbox and you will get the idea.

[jdlaing]

The rangefinder on a Leica camera is for focusing coupled lenses as it always has. It has never changed. The adoption of a different method of metering does not in any way make a Leica M body mirrorless.

[ELAN]

Twenty four years ago I bought my last Porsche 911, a new 1998 993 C4S.  Still have it today in mint condition and I love it to bits.  Will never sell it.  None of the 911s that came after interested me, they were no longer the classic 911. Porsche lost me as a customer.

For me the Leica M body is about size, feel, quality and of course the rangefinder.  Compromise any of these and I will no longer buy the new model. The M11 tinkered a little with feel - the shutter experience isn’t the same, the baseplate (RIP) is missed, and brass-less?  After 3 days with the M11 I might accept these regressions, but Leica, don’t push it. I can live happily with my beloved M10-P for a long time…

[pgk]

29 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

The rangefinder on a Leica camera is for focusing coupled lenses as it always has. It has never changed. The adoption of a different method of metering does not in any way make a Leica M body mirrorless.

Look at how the technology works (metrering icluded) and you will see that the M11 body has a great deal more in common with other EVF bodies (including live view and an add-on EVF) than with most of its RF predecessors. History suggests that such fundamental changes do not always play well with M users but only time will tell.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting that you should post on this subject with the Porsche 911 as a comparison. I was thinking along the same lines today, but my comparison was the BMW Mini compared to the original Mini. Obviously the BMW Mini is bigger, but glossing over that left me thinking about how icons of design from another era are evolved for today and the future. I think your Porsche 911 analysis is better.

Everyone else who has responded has cited the rangefinder as the essence of the M. It begs the question of how far could the M be developed while keeping a rangefinder? How technologically clever can it get while still being an M? How many more menu options will be offered (crop, resolution, liveview options) before we rue the simplicity of ISO, T, S & f? 

Edited January 25, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

2 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

How many more menu options will be offered (crop, resolution, liveview options) before we rue the simplicity of ISO, T, S & f? 

Personally I think that simplicity is the key to the M and it is only by offering a thoroughly different user experience that the M will survive. I've argued this all along but others have insisted on it becomming a hamstrung EVF camera and in the M11 that is exactly where it is headed. But then again, if its no longer seen as a photographic tool but more as a techie, fashionable toy for those who can afford such things, then I suppose that it doesn't matter that much.

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, pgk said:

Personally I think that simplicity is the key to the M and it is only by offering a thoroughly different user experience that the M will survive. I've argued this all along but others have insisted on it becomming a hamstrung EVF camera and in the M11 that is exactly where it is headed. But then again, if its no longer seen as a photographic tool but more as a techie, fashionable toy for those who can afford such things, then I suppose that it doesn't matter that much.

I agree. I hope that there is a separation of the M line into a simple version and an e-version (e- for electronic, enhanced or whatever - not just EVF).

[TheProf]

5 hours ago, pgk said:

Look at how the technology works (metrering icluded) and you will see that the M11 body has a great deal more in common with other EVF bodies (including live view and an add-on EVF) than with most of its RF predecessors. History suggests that such fundamental changes do not always play well with M users but only time will tell.

Interestingly, it seems that for most long-term Leica enthusiasts, it's the rangefinder that distinguishes the M--along with the overall simplicity of the camera. Thus far no one has mentioned the ability to attach Leica glass to a small, compact body as the M's raison d'etre--maybe that's simply assumed. . In my view an integrated EVF is not incompatible with the ethos of the M--an even better option would be to offer an improved take on the hybrid viewfinder found in the Fujifilm X-Pro3.

So back to my original comparison-is the M's rangefinder the equivalent of the 911's rear engine--something that seems truly sacred; or is it the equivalent of an air-cooled engine or a manual gearbox--technical anachronisms which have been (mostly) supplanted? The assumption among long-time Leica users (and I'm one), seems to be that Leica is incapable of making a (1) premium, (2) simple, (3) compact, and (4) uniquely satisfying camera with interchangeable lenses that doesn't contain a rangefinder. From the comments above, and many others on the Forum, it seems that for most current owners, the rangefinder is the primary rationale for buying an M. Apart from potential technical limitations, this is probably why Leica has stuck with the OVF/ rangefinder in the M11, even as it embraces Live View. It's good that Leica listens so carefully to its core customers, but I wonder what the company would learn if it talked to the many non-customers who've considered buying an M have take a pass because of the rangefinder. 

[Jeff S]

Another similarity with the 911 is the significantly increased price point, well beyond inflation (certainly since the M9 and M240). Rear engine cars, and RF cameras, lack competition, so prices aren't as constrained as with other product lines.  

My concern is less about pricing, however, and more about complexity that is being introduced into the M system through new features and options, however useful they might be.  These additions can also be used by the company to justify the high price point.  This complexity applies not just to the M11 (introducing resolution options, LV and metering options, charging options, storage options, etc), but also in M lens design.  The shorter MFD in the 35 APO M Summicron (with more lenses to come according to Leica) may be useful for many, but it can't even be accessed by the traditional and core RF.  The original design spec of that lens didn't include the shortened MFD; that was added later when the tech side of the house showed the marketing side what was feasible (discussed briefly in a recent video interview with Leica execs).  Again, more complexity and higher price justification.

For me, the M has been an example of the 'less is more' philosophy. (My use dates back to the 80's.)  Elegant design, simple operation, small but superb manual focusing optics, and a restricted but satisfying RF. The body design remains, but the innards and associated operations are becoming increasingly complex.  My hope, if the trend continues, especially if we see an EVF version (perhaps called something else), is that Leica offers a simplified, more traditional RF option. 

Leica already differs from the 911 comparison in that the 911 became bigger and heavier to this day, while the digital M reverted back to its former size by popular demand. (Porsche addressed this by adding the smaller Cayman/Boxter models.) And the traditional film M is still being produced.  There is still hope.

Jeff

Edited January 26, 2022 by Jeff S

[pgk]

10 hours ago, TheProf said:

Interestingly, it seems that for most long-term Leica enthusiasts, it's the rangefinder that distinguishes the M--along with the overall simplicity of the camera.

The assumption among long-time Leica users (and I'm one), seems to be that Leica is incapable of making a (1) premium, (2) simple, (3) compact, and (4) uniquely satisfying camera with interchangeable lenses that doesn't contain a rangefinder.

I think that photographers who desire 1, 2, 3 and the latter part of 4 are very well catered for by other makers. It is the uniquely satisfying bit that is very difficult to create and very easy to lose by changing things. The hype over the M11 was no longer about a camera being uniquely satisfying but was about desire and specification, neither of which actually helps a camera to be unique and which is, to most, irrelevant because few truly need high spec cameras.

8 hours ago, Jeff S said:

My concern is less about pricing, however, and more about complexity that is being introduced into the M system through new features and options, however useful they might be.

 Elegant design, simple operation, small but superb manual focusing optics, and a restricted but satisfying RF. The body design remains, but the innards and associated operations are becoming increasingly complex.

I am of the opinion that simplicity is the key to uniqueness in these days of ever increasing complexity. Whilst body form may remain the same and the M11 still has its rangefinder, the options are changing it from being a very straightforward camera into a hybridised computer much in the same way as other cameras are. I have Sony A7 series cameras if I want complexity. To be uniquely different the M camera has to be unique and it now has significant drift. The problem for us as photographer, is whether Leica sees photographers as part of its M customer base, or only those who are prepared to pay high sums for a techie toy.

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

I am of the opinion that simplicity is the key to uniqueness in these days of ever increasing complexity.

+1

While I remain happy with the functionality of the SL2-S and CL for their specific uses, simplicity is also a relief and a pleasure. We would be worse off without it.

[raizans]

For me, the last, nearly unique selling point of Leica M cameras is that the M-mount is a "universal" mount.

Lenses from many manufacturers going back to the 1920s can be used with an M-mount camera, and also many non-rangefinder lenses with adapters, giving you access to probably the widest variety of optical signatures.

Everything else that makes Leica M's nice, such as the reverse-Galilean viewfinder, the illuminated framelines, the compact lenses with focusing tabs, and so on can be found in other rangefinder mounts. Yet the variety of lens options remains unmatched in 135 rangefinders.

Edited January 26, 2022 by raizans

[pgk]

43 minutes ago, raizans said:

For me, the last, nearly unique selling point of Leica M cameras is that the M-mount is a "universal" mount.

If you put an M adapter on a Sony A7 series camera you can fit all lenses which will fit on an M plus more. The mount to sensor distance is all that matters and the Sony is shorter therefore more options. The Leica SL is also shorter.

[SrMi]

22 minutes ago, pgk said:

If you put an M adapter on a Sony A7 series camera you can fit all lenses which will fit on an M plus more. The mount to sensor distance is all that matters and the Sony is shorter therefore more options. The Leica SL is also shorter.

The thick glass on Sony camera sensors causes problems with some M lenses. Nikon Z cameras are a better choice.

[pgk]

25 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The thick glass on Sony camera sensors causes problems with some M lenses. Nikon Z cameras are a better choice.

Older wides are the problem and any built for a short register like the M. That said generally the results are not that bad even so.

[AlanJW]

Seemingly lost in the discussion since the first post is that Porsche also makes SUVs (and I would add the Panamera) to cater to different market segments.  The auto industry has obviously shifted (no pun intended) and so too did Porsche, as a matter of survival, as selling only 911s would not work very well economically for very long.  So too has Leica reacted to the changes in the camera business, and so too it was a matter of survival.   Leica can keep the RF purists happy by continuing to update the M cameras but like Porsche it needs to appeal to others too.  In addition to the SL and maybe the S line, there are some things Leica can do to keep everybody happy and maintain the M concept.  One approach (if feasible) would be to maintain the optical viewfinder but provide electronic focus confirmation.  The OVF strength is allowing one to see beyond the frame lines.  The split image rangefinder is an expensive and space-consuming way to focus.  Is focusing that way the essence of the M or is it the viewfinder with no blackout, etc?  Electronic focus aids would help lots of us whose eyes are aging and could be faster than finding the image coincidence needed to focus.  Second approach (and likely more feasible) is to build a camera with an M mount in M-camera size, but with an EVF in place of the rangefinder. If a camera without a rangefinder can't be called an "M", then they should simply call it something else.  The difficulty here is perhaps the concern that EVF M mount cameras would cannibalize M rangefinders to the point where they are no longer economically viable.   But Steve Jobs was once asked about Apple products cannibalizing each other and his response was "If you don't cannibalize yourself, somebody else will."  The M11 will not be the last iteration of the M camera.

 

[Olaf_ZG]

On 1/25/2022 at 5:48 PM, TheProf said:

But that's just my view. What's yours?

Hope I don’t offend you:

My perception of porsche and older guy is midlife crisis. Buy a porsche to get a new partner.

Buying a Leica also might be related to midlife crisis, afterall, I bought one. For sure it will not bring me a new partner.

to me, perception value is totally different. That’s me though. Driving a company car.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[TheProf]

1 hour ago, AlanJW said:

Seemingly lost in the discussion since the first post is that Porsche also makes SUVs (and I would add the Panamera) to cater to different market segments.  The auto industry has obviously shifted (no pun intended) and so too did Porsche, as a matter of survival, as selling only 911s would not work very well economically for very long.  So too has Leica reacted to the changes in the camera business, and so too it was a matter of survival.   Leica can keep the RF purists happy by continuing to update the M cameras but like Porsche it needs to appeal to others too.  In addition to the SL and maybe the S line, there are some things Leica can do to keep everybody happy and maintain the M concept.  One approach (if feasible) would be to maintain the optical viewfinder but provide electronic focus confirmation.  The OVF strength is allowing one to see beyond the frame lines.  The split image rangefinder is an expensive and space-consuming way to focus.  Is focusing that way the essence of the M or is it the viewfinder with no blackout, etc?  Electronic focus aids would help lots of us whose eyes are aging and could be faster than finding the image coincidence needed to focus.  Second approach (and likely more feasible) is to build a camera with an M mount in M-camera size, but with an EVF in place of the rangefinder. If a camera without a rangefinder can't be called an "M", then they should simply call it something else.  The difficulty here is perhaps the concern that EVF M mount cameras would cannibalize M rangefinders to the point where they are no longer economically viable.   But Steve Jobs was once asked about Apple products cannibalizing each other and his response was "If you don't cannibalize yourself, somebody else will."  The M11 will not be the last iteration of the M camera.

 

I fully agree, AlanJW. Heritage is no insurance against irrelevance. I think you're also pointing the discussion in an interesting direction. As you suggest, any debate about the future of the M wil ultimately hinge on the rangefinder. M fans typically point to four virtues of the RF: (1) It provides a "real life" (non-digital) view of the subject; (2) it provides a view of the subject that extends beyond the boundaries of whatever lens is mounted on the camera; (3) it provides a continuous view of the subject that is not "blacked out" during shutter operation, and (4) it allows/compels users to manually focus the lens.  In my view, when M users extol the benefits of the rangefinder, they are not praising the rangefinder per se (nor the accuracy of coincidence focusing). Rather, they are praising the functional advantages enumerated above. Admittedly, there may be a small minority of fans who care little for these advantages, and who love the rangefinder for the same reason watch collectors love a Patek Philippe watch--for its mechanical complexity/artistry. I suspect such fans are a minority among M shooters, but I may be wrong. It would be interesting to know what percentage of M shooters also own an expensive mechanical watch, or two or three. 

Nevertheless, innovation is often about delivering familiar functions in a radically new form--that's why it's critical to distinguish the two, and not assume that a particular form (the rangefinder) is the only way to deliver a particular set of functions. For example, most of us read the news every day, but it's delivered via an app rather than through a physical paper that's tossed on your doorstep. If--and it's a very big if--Leica was able to deliver all or most of the benefits of rangefinder through a more accurate, cheaper or more reliable technology, then I would see no reason even the most ardent Leica fans wouldn't celebrate.

A final analogy. I loved shifting the gears in my 1996 911; and I've learned that no automatic, even a super-smart one, will always make the same gear choices I would make when, for example, I'm charging up a canyon. But the automatic transmission in my current 911 comes with paddle shifters that allow me to change gears much faster and more accurately than I could ever have done with a gear lever. That to me is a win/win-and it's what I hope we get with the next M.