Reinventing an Icon: Leica M vs Porsche 911

[raizans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, TheProf said:

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.

(5) The reverse-Galilean viewfinder provides a view of the scene that's independent of the lens, always showing a clear image with nothing out of focus.

EVFs can't and/or probably won't replicate that feature, even if they can sort of do #2 and sometimes do #3.

[Michael Geschlecht]

6 hours ago, TheProf said:

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.

 

Hello TheProf,

Welcome to the Forum.

The range/viewfinder of the Leica "M" has been the "Achillies Heel" of the camera from the beginning. The big, clear, usable & reasonably rugged mechanism coupled with the improved Leica body with lever film advance, self resetting frame counter, better flash sync connectors (Which were, unfortunately, never adopted as a standard by other camera makers.), & more improvements, in an intuitive, convenient to use package, put the camera at the head of "the pack" when it was introduced.

1 problem, though, was the cost & the technological sophistication of that wonderful range/viewfinder. The range/viewfinder mechanism of the M3 (Which had at least 3 major iterations.) was a major part of the entire cost of the M3.

This was partially dealt with by the development of the M2. Where the major cost differential between the 2 cameras was because of the reduced cost of the M2 range/viewfinder. Which also works very well. And has been the foundation of the succeeding range/viewfinders right up to & including today.

So, here is the problem: The cost of the current range/viewfinder is a big portion of the cost of today's "M" cameras. 1 of the reasons that it has not been replaced is that: Starting with the M3 & up to today: These range/viewfinders work very well & the alternatives available have not been able to put into a small, rugged, dependable package what the first M3, or the succeeding M2 & its derivatives do very well: Provide a big, clear, usable & reasonably rugged mechanism that works very well. And, it operates pretty much intuitively.

That is the "Achillies Heel": It is very good at what it does & there is nothing much out there to equal it.

And it is an expensive to build old technology from a different time, that requires skilled people with the appropriate mind set to build them & to maintain them.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited January 27, 2022 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

10 hours ago, TheProf said:

..... 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.

What is so difficult to understand that some of us use the rangefinder not because of its technical advantages (there are few) but because we enjoy using it because it offers a completely different way of taking photographs? Which is why no amount of electronic gizmos are of any relevance. Change it and you just end up with yet another messy hybrid of which there are already plenty. The thing is that the M rangefinder works very well as a mid-20 MPixel camera. As a film camera it has operated in much the same way from the M3 until today without lots of electronics and gizmos added. There is no debate about the rangefinder but there is one about people's expectations of a system that was never designed to have to operate at levels of resolution required by a 60MPixel camera. The problem is hype and the unrealistic expectations of those who like to have technically advanced cameras whether relevant or not.

[SrMi]

5 hours ago, pgk said:

What is so difficult to understand that some of us use the rangefinder not because of its technical advantages (there are few) but because we enjoy using it because it offers a completely different way of taking photographs? Which is why no amount of electronic gizmos are of any relevance. Change it and you just end up with yet another messy hybrid of which there are already plenty. The thing is that the M rangefinder works very well as a mid-20 MPixel camera. As a film camera it has operated in much the same way from the M3 until today without lots of electronics and gizmos added. There is no debate about the rangefinder but there is one about people's expectations of a system that was never designed to have to operate at levels of resolution required by a 60MPixel camera. The problem is hype and the unrealistic expectations of those who like to have technically advanced cameras whether relevant or not.

I guess Leica lost you when they added TTL:).

From my experience digital M works very well a +20MP and as a 60MP camera. Adding higher resolution does not detract from the rangefinder experience but can improve the final image quality.

[trickness]

And yet, when Porsche puts out a limited edition version of the 911 with a manual gearbox and a bunch of the tech deleted, they charge way more money for it, these editions sell out immediately and the resale value is many times the original selling price, and all the car magazines say it is the best driving 911 in years.

There are still many customers for whom less is truly more.

[douglas ball]

It is a little strange but all this chatter about the M11 took me way back in time. As a young boy I learned about Leica from Life Magazines. Later on in college I learned about the Porsche 356 vehicle. For the bulk of my life I have had two loves, aside from my wife naturally. These were Leica, mainly rangefinders, and Porsche. mainly the 356 but then the 911. I saw how, as a company, Porsche felt the need to continually improve the car. To expand the appeal to the customer base by making it faster, more powerful, and to keep up with the competition. Along the way they sort of forgot what made the original so appealing. They could not leave well enough alone. A company must grow. It must sell more product to survive they felt. The Mini is another example of a brilliant idea that could not be left as it was. I now drive a modern Mini Cooper, and like it a lot, compared to everything else out there. It is a better car in every way. A little larger, with four wheel drive, starts well in freezing temperatures and does what it should do, and is still fun to drive. 

Two years ago I was heading down to the Atlantic coast in my 1991 Westfalia, when I saw something very unusual in my rear view mirror. There was a pair of 356 coupes coming up fast. I sped up as they whizzed by. OMG! They looked perfect, but not in a restored way. They looked like they were drivers. I hung in for many miles, hoping they would turn off and stop so that I could talk to them, but they never did. 

There are very few truly unique designs in the world. Maintaining that uniqueness in todays market place is very difficult, if not impossible. On the whole, the M11, is still hanging in there  and I appreciate that. Would I but one. Probably not. IMO Leica should continue to produce a rangefinder M, but also add a completely new model with more modern technology that maintains the feeling of the M, such as they have done with the Q.  I would buy that camera. 

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

For me, the essence of a Leica M is its compact form factor and ability to mount the best lenses in the world

Plus: simplicity! Focus, time and depth of field, no further ado. Somewhere in the line the word menu has appeared in the M, pooohhh 😊

[tom0511]

Am 25.1.2022 um 17:48 schrieb TheProf:

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?

My view is that the most important things of the M are small size with high IQ, and the optical rangefinder without any distracting symbols, numbers, functions.

I dont have a Porsche, just a VW-"Bus" (as we call it in Germany) - and VW also managed to make it a more modern car but overall keep the soul.

 

 

[Gobert]

VW sold the soul of the VW bus  a long time ago to the devil when the engine moved from the back to the front.

[tom0511]

vor 24 Minuten schrieb Gobert:

VW sold the soul of the VW bus  a long time ago to the devil when the engine moved from the back to the front.

In one way yes, it still has the "Bus-feeling" IMO. T3 was cooler than T6, as a fully used car for day to day I still wouldnt like to change back to T3. For vacation maybe yes. But thats personal feeling and pretty much what the OP asked. Some would say the M lost its soul when they put a digital sensor in it, other would say when they put live view in it, others when they got rid of the bottom plate. For  me the M11 still has its soul, and its kind of cool to finally have a better exp metering. 

 

[Tailwagger]

On 1/25/2022 at 11:48 AM, TheProf said:

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

Sorry, but only the first half is true.  Porsche has recently built mid engined 911s and done so because the car could no longer compete as rear-engined, just as they moved to water cooling because they had reached the limit of power output when air cooled.  You might have mentioned the flat 6, given the 912 designation implies it was a crucial characteristic, but it's likely soon electrification will remove that from the what makes a 911 list. 

The simple fact of the matter is that in a competitive environment, what once might have been considered core properties of a given design get tossed in the name of survival. What makes a 911? Porsche's 911 factory. 

 

 

 

 

 

[ianforber]

On 1/26/2022 at 9:09 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

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.

Quite agree. Fortunately, my wife’s just bought herself a Porsche so I think that means I’m allowed to buy myself a M11…

[harmen]

16 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Some would say the M lost its soul when they put a digital sensor in it, other would say when they put live view in it, others when they got rid of the bottom plate.

 

For sure it would be when the M lost its naturally aspirated frameline illumination window…

[StephenH]

They lost me when they went digital with the M8.  Very good comments regarding the 911, though.  As a Honda Civic owner, I really can't relate.  The parallels between the Porsche and Leica legacy products are intriguing, but I would argue that all the embellishments in the car's design have not yet risen to the extreme of the camera's shift to digital.  Perhaps if and when the electric 911 debuts, the analogy would be more accurate.  

[crony]

Hi, I am not sure, whether the Porsche 911 should be used for this comparison.

Mercedes G-class, MORGAN +x, JEEP Wrangler come closer, I think ... ---

The 911 changed far too much over the years. But I must ask my sister. She drives a 911. I only drive Mercedes.

[Herr Barnack]

M3, MP, M2, M4, M5, M4-2, M4-P, M6, M7, M8, M9, M240, M10, M11:  The "M" is for Meßsucher or rangefinder.  The rangefinder focusing mechanism is the essence of the Leica M family of cameras.

If the Meßsucher mechanism is replaced by an internal EVF, the M camera ceases to be an M camera.  It then becomes a bastardized Q camera with interchangeable lens capability.

Such a change would be tantamount to throwing 68 years of rangefinder heritage/technology/perfection under the bus - in favor of what??  More electronics in a market that is awash in electronic cameras?

The monumental misjudgement of such a move cannot possibly be overstated. 

YMMV.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[didier]

4 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

The "M" is for Meßsucher or rangefinder.  The rangefinder focusing mechanism is the essence of the Leica M family of cameras.

If the Meßsucher mechanism is replaced by an internal EVF, the M camera ceases to be an M camera

+1

OVF with its rangefinder are the essence of the M system

[SrMi]

What about Leica MDa?

[IkarusJohn]

On 1/26/2022 at 5:48 AM, TheProf said:

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

Life time photographer, Leica user since the M9.  The essence, for me is:

• direct control of the 4 critical elements of photgraphy - focus, shutter, aperture, ISO
• compact
• great lenses, going back to 1954 (and beyond)

It’s charm is that is has the digital tech, but hides it in traditional photographic controls.  Baseplate?  Frameline windows?  OVF/EVF?  Resolution?  Battery life? I don’t really care about any of these, provided they enhance and don’t spoil the above - I like the way that Leica is not “bleeing edge” but makes the most fo existing tech.  That’s what concerns me about the M11 - I’m not sure that its headline developments have anything to do with the the simple action of direct control providing the best DNGs I can make.

Just a point - Porsche still makes the normally aspirated GT3 for the purist.  I looked at ordering a Singer Vehicle Design 964 based Porsche, but at USD 400,000 starting price, and buying a donor car and shipping it too and from California (plus insurance and GST), it was out of my acceptable price range.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Tailwagger]

15 minutes ago, SrMi said:

What about Leica MDa?

As with the reality of a mid-engined 911, apparently its the exception that proves the rule for some. 😃