Jump to content

new shape Leica


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think Leica should conduct a survey via either email or direct mail. That way, all demographics are covered.

 

Otherwise, this is just another one of those threads with a small demographic represented.

 

It is very tough for many people to picture how useful something may be until they have it and use it. Back in the 60s and 70s how many people thought they needed a computer? And what could you have pictured doing on a computer? Cell phones, MP3 players, microwave ovens, VCRs, etc...

 

I never thought to shoot video until I had it on a p&s. I never shot at high ISO until I had it. I never thought I could use 8 fps until I had it. I didn't think live view would be useful on a DSLR - I was wrong. I used to imagine how great it would be if there was a 20mm shift lens for a full frame - soon there will be a 17. Although now that many of these features are common, we can pick and choose from them what we'll use.

 

Nobody using a view camera back in the 60s could have pictured the revolutionary design that Sinar came up with for the Sinar P.

 

And AF technology did not suddenly appear as we now have it. Companies spent more than 2 decades developing and improving it. If Leica had spent the past 50 years thinking "how can we improve the rangefinder focusing system?" what do you think the result would be?

 

The problem is that innovative designs are unlikely to come out of the blue for Leica. They first have to emphasize the importance of innovative thinking. In some ways they do this and in other ways they don't. They surely are limited by their resources and may be afraid to make an expensive mistake. As advanced technology becomes more widespread, they may be able to incorporate more off-the-shelf technology making it easier to be creative within their means.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

With a little thought, the digital M could be developed into a modern tool with modern ergonomics, and still maintain a classic look.

 

As Alan and others have suggested, Live view would be a great tool for certain situations - I thought I would never make use of Live view, until I bought a camera that had it - then suddenly jobs that involved macro work, or architecture was made so much more easy with live view. I don't use it often, but when I do I love it. Live view in no way changes the look of a camera, so why not.

 

The other irritation with the current M is the necessity to use the monitor for certain exposure settings. I often wished (as Alan suggested again) that Leica had made use of the now defunct rewind knob as an ISO selector. It would be so easy to design so it could not accidently be knocked - lift and turn, or press and turn like on Ricoh's main dial.

 

OK, there may not be enough room to write the full ISO figure on such a small dial, but it could just as easily read say 1 - 6 so we can assign our preferred ISO speeds, including Auto ISO. Why it was never thought of is just stupid. It seems Leica is just plain obsessed with the past.

 

The rewind lever on the front of the old M's could have been used (with a slightly larger lever) for all sorts of things, including ex comp as suggested.

 

The shape and look of all rangefinders are in many ways preformatted because of the rangefinder system, so you would never really loose that classic form, in the same way an SLR has a distinct shape that hasn't really changed that much over the last 40 years.

 

Those who don't really want the digital M to develop into a truly modern classic can always shoot film with an MP (like I still do, and love it), but I always felt the M8 in it's current form just didn't work, and seems somehow to be a pretender, rather than the real deal.

 

Perhaps Leica should look to BMW for inspiration, they took the old Mini, which was a true classic in it's day, and turned it into a genuine modern classic without loosing any of the original Mini's appeal. Had they simply remade the original, it probably would have flopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All anyone has to do is send an email to Leica giving them your ideas on what you'd like to see in the way of design, features, technology, etc. They will read them and perhaps take them further.

 

The survey idea from Leica would be a great thing for them to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, great topic. Form vs factor is absolutely key, though it annoys the hell out of some people.

 

I want to establish that people who love the M for its form, MAY also resist technological advancement - which is what created the M in the first place!

 

I was going to speak about purple-pink leather on M's but I'll bite my tongue - and retain my Huguenot dignity, given my name ! Drie Groschen, Three pennies. Where does Bauhaus stand on gold anniversary Ms? Then again, who would Berthold Brecht have been without John Gay! Die Dreigroschenoper ? Wikipedia

 

The arguments used to shout you down, Mike, will include: Leica doesn't listen to consumers. Web-ideas don't design cameras. Well, there's evidence Leica has listened to consumers. Read my link Leica M9 later this year - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum

 

And there's evidence that customers have damaged the company by putting cosmetics ahead of function and features. As I said here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/47665-would-you-give-leica-free-hand.html there is one key instance in Leica's history where resistance to the 'LOOK' stood in opposition to Marx's historical dialectic - or at least the M5.

 

Seriously, the current state of technology gives no indication that Leica can move any closer to a full frame digital M right now, than it did when it issued the M8.

 

That's key. Within those bounds, there is no reason to depart from the classic M design right now - unless anyone can offer a single advantage that would clearly be obtained by moving to a glorious polycarbonate techno-M

 

But I am firmly in the camp that the function of the rangefinder M comes first I would buy a radically redesigned M if it fulfilled the functional and qualitative achievements of the current M and took them forward.

 

Regards,

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

"... Second, if you look at a M8 from above, you will see that the front right curve of the body is singularly unsuited for gripping. The only thing worse that I have encountered is a Kine Exakta ... This should be rectified."

 

I feel that what makes it worse than "classic" Ms is less the thickness and curve than the featureless plastic covering. On older Ms the fingers of one's right hand got some anchorage from the rewind lever/button and the self-timer lever or battery cover; on the M8 there's nothing. And at the back the control wheel and monitor prevent one getting a good grip with the ball of the thumb. I totally agree about the Exakta - amazing ergonomics all round:(

 

Further improvement would come from an optional finger grip, moulded to fit the body contour and held by one or two screws fitting into discreet black bushings. A number of my old OM cameras had that feature and it worked like a charm. And fundamentalists could simply ignore it."

 

This is just the form factor. There are other things that are even more urgent: Weather safety--larger battery capacity, possibly by an accessory battery pack--quick AE-lock for a sequence of exposures, by a lever under the shutter dial--external ISO dial--ability to use flash even with a finder in the accessory shoe--to name just a few. All this would make the M a more useable camera, without detracting from its good points.

 

The battery doesn't bother me and I very seldom use AE, but the rest would be nice. IMHO the absence of an external PC connection is the biggest indication that the M8 wasn't really conceived as a pro camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... IMHO the absence of an external PC connection is the biggest indication that the M8 wasn't really conceived as a pro camera.

 

I have owned cameras, designed two decades ago, that had a multi-pole screw-secured connector for 'system' flash. And this was no esoteric gear, just an ole OM-4 or two. Why Leica doesn't do anything like that is incomprehensible to me. They probably think that flash is immoral--or that customers would accuse them of heresy if they put in a sensible flash connection.

 

I use my SF24 D off camera with a Nikon connecting cable. The current SC-19 works fine and all functions are maintained. But the accessory shoe is thereby fully occupied. Now listen, Leica: Have Metz make a similar connecting cable BUT with a 'cold shoe' for a finder on top of the piece that goes into the accessory shoe. Not complicated. Not expensive. Except if you put a red dot on it ... and frankly, you would be welcome to do it.

 

And it wouldn't change the sacrosanct looks of the Leica M a whit ... and after all, we do use flash in the dark.

 

The old man from the Age of Flash Powder

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My own view is that the camera as a platform for good, even great lenses, is in need of a long overdue radical redesign; which many on this forum would campaign to prevent. They'd be wrong of course, but the chances are that Leica would listen to the same core Legacyistas who have held the company's progress back on other occasions.

 

Yes how sad for Leica that people who love the M-system - form and all - hold back the evolution of the camera by darn well persistently buying the existing one.

We're all wrong of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest John66
Yes how sad for Leica that people who love the M-system - form and all - hold back the evolution of the camera by darn well persistently buying the existing one.

We're all wrong of course.

 

So why did Leica get itself into such a financial mess if everybody was consistently buying their products?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest John66
As for grip, I think it makes sense if camera was big. But, it is a small camera. So, it does not need a grip and optional grip is better business for Leica anyway :) Built in grip would make body bigger.

 

Anybody who has seriously used the Dlux4 without a grip knows how unstable it is. Compare how more comfortable the Panasonic LX3 is in comparison, or the Dlux4 with the added grip (except paying nearly double for the Leica over the Panasonic, then having to pay extra for the grip would suggest Leica is ripping its customers off).

 

A camera is never too small to have a well thought out grip to aid secure handling - However, the current grip for the M8, which is not well thought out at all, is extremely ugly and uncomfortable.

Edited by John66
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who has seriously used the Dlux4 without a grip knows how unstable it is. Compare how more comfortable the Panasonic LX3 is in comparison, or the Dlux4 with the added grip (except paying nearly double for the Leica over the Panasonic, then having to pay extra for the grip would suggest Leica is ripping its customers off).

 

A camera is never too small to have a well thought out grip to aid secure handling - However, the current grip for the M8, which is not well thought out at all, is extremely ugly and uncomfortable.

 

This talk about a grip comes around, as someone else said, on a monthly basis. Together with many others, I find a grip on a camera bulky, unwieldy, and ugly. The key to the current design, is that those who want a grip can add one. Maybe you can explain to me how an integral grip can be removed for the many (overwhelming majority?) of M-users who don't want it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very tough for many people to picture how useful something may be until they have it and use it. Back in the 60s and 70s how many people thought they needed a computer? And what could you have pictured doing on a computer? Cell phones, MP3 players, microwave ovens, VCRs, etc...

 

I never thought to shoot video until I had it on a p&s. I never shot at high ISO until I had it. I never thought I could use 8 fps until I had it. I didn't think live view would be useful on a DSLR - I was wrong. I used to imagine how great it would be if there was a 20mm shift lens for a full frame - soon there will be a 17. Although now that many of these features are common, we can pick and choose from them what we'll use.

 

The mistake that's repeated over-and-over-and-over ad nauseam is that people choose the M-system for some nostalgic, old-fashioned reason. If only we knew how useful it would be to have live-view and video! It would convert us all!

 

And a radically inaccurate stereotype of the affluent oldie with a digital-film camera that's simple enough for his doddering pre-senile brain to use.

 

The problem is that many of us do use cameras with video and live-view - there are now plenty of them around, and they're really great cameras. I often use the D90, and the video (which is shot using LiveView) is exceptionally good.

 

When I don't want all those features, I choose the M8.

 

Why you can't grasp the fact that different tools are honed for different uses totally escapes me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see anything wrong with the shape of the M body. It rests very comfortably in your hands and every control is in the right place. You could argue for the addtion of a AE lock button and maybe a EV comp rocker switch, but other than that it's pretty much all there. In 1954 Leica couldn't have predicted the possible need for these two functions and regardless, their addition would not change the shape of the body.

 

In industrial design circles the shape of the M body is considered among the few designs that are close to perfect.

 

Personally I don't understand how people have problems holding the M body. If someone really insists on additional support I suggest one of the many grips on the market. There is no reason to saddle the majority of users, who do not desire a grip with this feature.

 

I would really hate to see an M body with a built in molded grip and 'ergonomic' curves. Not every product has to look like it was designed for GM or Fisherprice at ArtCenter.

Edited by thrid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest John66
This talk about a grip comes around, as someone else said, on a monthly basis. Together with many others, I find a grip on a camera bulky, unwieldy, and ugly. The key to the current design, is that those who want a grip can add one. Maybe you can explain to me how an integral grip can be removed for the many (overwhelming majority?) of M-users who don't want it?

 

The fact that it comes around so often must say something. No problem with the Leica not having a grip, but at least supply one that works properly.

 

The M design is indeed a classic design, and has rightfully been claimed as being a masterpiece for it's time. But there have been many such design icons over the years, whether it be cars, cameras, clothes etc. But time moves on.

 

If you walked down the street, gathered 100 random people, handed them the M8, then told them it was considered to be the best shaped camera for a natural hold, they'd probably think you were a little strange.

 

Whenever I proudly hand my camera to a journalist I'm travelling with, they always comment on how unnatural it feels compared to modern cameras, and how they're worried they might drop it (and try and hand it back quickly).

 

Then I go through the whole thing about how you have to cradle it like some lover to get best feel from it, and that's when they start to glaze over....

Edited by John66
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have my M8,s so they can now change what they like. It won't affect mine! Just as for most of my other cameras, I have made tailor designed appendages specifically to work for my style of handling and could not be happier. Nothing is perfect, we just need to adapt to what is available and get on with the main objective of photography. Current M8's facilitate this pretty well, if it is the right camera for your particular shooting in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But time moves on.

 

No, what moves on is generally the need for manufacturers to shift more 'product' by convincing consumers that what they need is the latest new-fangled design - be it new curves, new 'features' or new colors.

 

Unfortunately there are many people who crave something new for it's own sake: sucked into the carousel of needing to consume in order to give their empty lives meaning - forever thinking that what will finally fill the void is a camera with LiveView that also sports a Red Dot.

 

Time does not actually 'move on' for a near-perfect design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Time does not actually 'move on' for a near-perfect design.

 

But consumers will and have. In case you haven't noticed, the rangefinder design has lost popularity over time. How do you conclude it is a near-perfect design?

 

So do you feel they should stick with this design for how many more years?

 

In my opinion, the Nikon F was much closer to a perfect design as it made the 35mm SLR system concept into the one that still dominates the industry. So what did Nikon do on the F2? Got rid of the removable back and did various other things to improve the camera based on user feedback. And they kept up that philosophy through a long series of cameras that many many more photographers also thought were "near-perfect." Gee, sales of Nikon really declined as a result of this steady improvement didn't they?

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

But consumers will and have. In case you haven't noticed, the rangefinder design has lost popularity over time. How do you conclude it is a near-perfect design?

So do you feel they should stick with this design for how many more years

 

I'm fascinated by someone who is so insistent and (frankly) tiresomely persistent in wanting to modify one of the few rangefinders left on the market, who is so transparently against the entire system in itself. What on earth is the point?

It's like buying a HarleyDavidson and then spending all your time moaning that it doesn't have four-wheel drive.

 

Exasperating imho to have all of these SLR people wanting yet another SLR but one with a red dot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fascinated by someone who is so insistent and (frankly) tiresomely persistent in wanting to modify one of the few rangefinders left on the market, who is so transparently against the entire system in itself. What on earth is the point?

It's like buying a HarleyDavidson and then spending all your time moaning that it doesn't have four-wheel drive.

 

Exasperating imho to have all of these SLR people wanting yet another SLR but one with a red dot.

 

I'm glad you are so fascinated. If so perhaps you could dedicate more effort to consider what I actually wrote. And perhaps also make an effort to respond to my single question.

 

I think it should be a rangefinder camera. I think that if Leica had put out the effort they could have improved the rangefinder mechanism over 50 years time. I think now that it is a digital camera, it can be made smaller and lighter. I think its controls and handling should be more ergonomic. I think it should have more features, and could benefit from all of the advances in electronic technology such as IS, live view, and the ability to use a clip on EVF. Leica has already stepped into the ocean by making a digital M. Why don't they start swimming?

 

Since Leica may see its existing customer base as resistant to change, I think Leica should come out with the camera I suggest and also make the traditional digital M model and see how it goes.

 

You and several others want Leica to keep the design the same and also prefer that Leica not add many features. Since you feel this will be a good strategy for Leica, again I ask, how many more years should Leica do this? Please give me a number.

 

By the way, if I'm so tiresome to you, why read and respond to my posts? Are my suggestions dangerous?

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...