uhoh7 wrote:
CF is the achilles heel of M glass, at least on my M9. The 75 Lux will get pretty close in effect, though, and I wish my other lenses could follow suit.....but not that often. If I really need it, I grab the A7.mod, which has turned into a very useful and often used second body for me.
Mmmmm.... 75 Lux... that would be nice.
I think your points about RX1 horrible MF and AF speak a bit to Dale's wonderment as to what makes the machine attractive to many. I'm also astonished at the jubilant reception, after basically ever modern Leica has been widely trashed at introduction, with the exception of the M240, which simply was unavailable for a very long time.
The M240 was the first Leica camera that I was really moved by. After I bought it, I found it to be most of what I had hoped for, but it always surprised me how backwards the electronics was. +2s to start-up? Frequent crashes? Slow writing to the card? These were not issues I expected in a late 2013 camera that I need to get on a waitlist to acquire. Fortunately, the Q seems to exhibit none of those bad behaviors. If the next M had some of the Q's refinement in the electronics (and even some of its features like WiFi sharing or a WiFi remote... Gasp!!!) I would consider upgrading that camera too. I understand that such inclusions might cause a few shudders among the M purists out there, but I really think that the WiFi functionality of the Q really adds to the camera while taking nothing away from its photographic and imaging qualities. The same could be done on the M.
As you know the M8 and M9 generated plenty of hate early on.
The things I read about the M8 quite frankly scared me. Plus, I wasn't going to spend that kind of money on a crop camera. The M9 seemed to be loved by most, save for the high ISO noise and the clunky shutter. However, when I used the two for a week before deciding what to buy, I couldn't help but be taken by how modern the M felt compared to the M9. Comparing the Q to my Sony RX-1, I get the same feeling all over again... the Q feels like what the RX-1 should be.
Interesting and I suspect a common take on the 240. I guess the M9 starts up much faster, but I've never handled the 240 so I can't speak to that.
No doubt the electronics might be called "primitive", which puts the M9 back in the dark ages......of near film When I first used the M9 I was totally shocked, and wondered if I could adapt. What kept me at it with a vengeance were the results. But gradually the "basic" nature of the M9 really grew on me. At first framing in the RF seemed impossible with the many lenses I have. The LCD seemed good just to change settings.
But now I am used to framing and focusing to the point where keeper rate is higher for me than with A7, even with the fastest glass. I LOVE the brightness and clarity of the finder, which makes the Sony EVF seem so "primitive". All those Sony "features" just seem like dead weight in the horrible menu mess.
This makes sense if you are a simple down and dirty shooter like me. I don't even like ND . Years of making wedding movies as cured me of any desire to shoot video. The M9's simplicity is more endearing all the time...although the strange shutter is sometimes distracting.
Even the LCD I now prefer to the Sony. It is fine for checking the framing, and with mag you can check the focus very well, once you are used to it. It's small and embedded, which makes it tough. None of my Nex cameras lasted 1 year without a trip to laredo, and the A7 I know would have broken in some way as my main backcountry camera. M9 is tough tough tough, and more so in a half case.
But it's too big I want the "Barnack" version. Some people laugh at my dragging the M9 in the wilderness, but they should read the old Leica magazines:
This is the only Q feature which really attracts me: form. But the trade-offs; single lens and EVF, etc. still leave the M9 way ahead in my little world. There are quite few who actually defend the size of the M240, which gets even more ridiculous if you put that vulnerable little EVF wart on top
Leica, what is your real "cult" camera? M6 M6 M6. It's the most valuable film camera of all the classics. Really good in the hand. So I wish they would use the "tech" to cram the M9 into a M6 replica, maybe with a built in EVF alongside the RF.
What's a huge relief is Leica's continued support of the M9. So if nothing more to my liking comes along, I can happily shoot M9s till I die Nevertheless I understand we each have our own taste in these things. The M9 has me trained nearly as well as my cat!
uhoh7 - Not that your comment was directed towards me personally.. But I'd like to say I'm not defending the size of the M240. But it does feel a lot better in my hand then the M6 (though I wish it were lighter). But one has to be realistic about things. It'll take you three batteries with your M9 to equal what I can get out of the M240. So ponder the added weight of two to three extra batteries and the extra size it would make the M9. Chances are the two cameras are pretty similar now right? Maybe the M240 has an advantage now.
Same can be said for the M6 and the loads of film you'd have to schlep with you on a day trip.
I'm not saying that I wouldn't use/want a lighter camera. Lighter would be great. What I'm saying is, there are reasons the M240 had to be bigger. We all forget, people complained very loud about battery life, and Leica fixed it. So the trade off just in the battery alone vs size of camera... Probably worth it if you did the math.
Could they trim the camera down? Maybe. Would I buy a trimmed down version of the M240 (if it were the same camera but smaller).. Nope as I already have to many M240 cameras. Would I buy it if it was a new and compellingly better camera.. Of course
Ok who am I kidding, I'd probably buy a trimmed down version of the M240.. But still, I think you get the point I'm making here. It's not a priority for me, but it would be welcome if there were no tradeoffs.
I thought the current classical Leica film camera is the MP? And the M6 is considered more pedestrian/commonplace?
The M240 is something like 1mm bigger than the M9 (ignoring the thumb rest/dial). But yes, it's heavier. Like Adam, the bigger battery is something I will gladly take. I ended up juggling 5 M9 batteries at weddings and was certainly charging them by the start of the reception, hoping I could make it through to the end during heavy coverage weddings. I now burn through 3 in the M240, but only because I leave the sleep function disabled to avoid the dreaded start up delay. Otherwise I'd probably go through 1.5.
Lower weight would be nice. They could do a carbon fibre option.
Anyway, reading a Q review today, the photographer stated so far he's gotten about 300-350 images per charge, which is roughly when I'd pull the M9 battery (somewhere between 25-50% before the camera would go flaky due to low power). I'm curious Adam, how has battery life been for you now that you've used it a wedding too?
uhoh7 wrote:
As you know the M8 and M9 generated plenty of hate early on.
Arka wrote:
The things I read about the M8 quite frankly scared me. Plus, I wasn't going to spend that kind of money on a crop camera. The M9 seemed to be loved by most, save for the high ISO noise and the clunky shutter. However, when I used the two for a week before deciding what to buy, I couldn't help but be taken by how modern the M felt compared to the M9. Comparing the Q to my Sony RX-1, I get the same feeling all over again... the Q feels like what the RX-1 should be.
I remember reading the M8 accounts by Michael Reichmann at LL and wondering why anyone would bother. Poor image quality above a relatively low ISO, the IR problem, lockups and lost images, etc., etc. And yeah, a cropped sensor (though at the time I was also shooting APS-H Canons). The M9 did get my attention, maybe because it was FF and the IR problem seemed sorted out, but I never considered it seriously. In the summer of 2010 during a wedding the groom's mother was asking me what new camera she should buy and mentioned her last was a Leica R. I thought, why would anyone bother with a Leica, especially a casual photographer? She probably had it because the family has money and someone said Leica was the best to buy because it was expensive. It just seemed so foreign to me. Impractical. It was the same feeling I had serving the very rare customers at the camera store where I worked in the 90s who wandered in with a Leica. It just didn't make sense on paper.
But by 2010 I was getting frustrated with my Canon wide angle lenses and flaky AF and pondering options. It was probably the Leica M image thread here on FM that was the trigger, but when Lensrentals put an M9 up for sale in late 2010, in a moment of late night impulse shopping, I bought it, less than 6 months after that wedding where I couldn't fathom why anyone would bother with Leica. Meanwhile, my bank account has suffered ever since.
adamdewilde wrote:
uhoh7 - Not that your comment was directed towards me personally.. But I'd like to say I'm not defending the size of the M240. But it does feel a lot better in my hand then the M6 (though I wish it were lighter). But one has to be realistic about things. It'll take you three batteries with your M9 to equal what I can get out of the M240. So ponder the added weight of two to three extra batteries and the extra size it would make the M9. Chances are the two cameras are pretty similar now right? Maybe the M240 has an advantage now.
Same can be said for the M6 and the loads of film you'd have to schlep with you on a day trip.
I'm not saying that I wouldn't use/want a lighter camera. Lighter would be great. What I'm saying is, there are reasons the M240 had to be bigger. We all forget, people complained very loud about battery life, and Leica fixed it. So the trade off just in the battery alone vs size of camera... Probably worth it if you did the math.
Could they trim the camera down? Maybe. Would I buy a trimmed down version of the M240 (if it were the same camera but smaller).. Nope as I already have to many M240 cameras. Would I buy it if it was a new and compellingly better camera.. Of course
Ok who am I kidding, I'd probably buy a trimmed down version of the M240.. But still, I think you get the point I'm making here. It's not a priority for me, but it would be welcome if there were no tradeoffs.
...Show more →
haha Adam, I was not thinking about you, but I appreciate the take and also love to hear some history new to me from you and Ron
The M9 battery is so far ahead of the A7 battery, I never considered it an issue. I have never gone through a full battery in a day, and you know I've been shooting the thing every day since I got it jan 14. It's true you need a good battery though
I'm incredulous they will sell the A7r2 with the original Nex battery, and this points to the Leica v Sony fundamental difference. The high end Leicas, and I include the Q, are "whole" cameras, and real shooters seem to have had an input. The Sonys are like a potluck of the latest tech......with multiple design committees.
At Sony today, the 4k committee has the big budget, and since nobody else understands the tech, they would be held in awe, the recipients of some very low bows from everybody else. The menu committee must be very very traditional, because the silliness is unchanged. Simple issues like being able to switch from EVF to LCD via button? Impossible. The Raw committee and the battery committee I think must be on permanent unpaid leave.
If I were Leica, I'd keep making the M240 and bring out a new one, M6 style, tough and light. The RX1 shows the body could be far more compact than the M6, but it's ok to use that space to make it really tough and give it a decent battery.
Then those who love the 240 can have it, and the rest of us can stroll forth into the new century with a camera in the original Leica tradition of Barnack. Not just a street shooter or event machine. A true blue, back in the outback, take it to the alps, or cover the war, Leica camera.
We will argue the merits of each model and enjoy each other's shots
So far, what I have seen of the Leica Q really impresses me.
I am so glad that Leica have embarked on a parallel course to the RF mechanism as it is now becoming very costly to produce and a problem to outsource the repairs and more so maintenance/calibration.
If this means Leica can produce a M240 EVF version without the rangefinder with updated electronics and latest sensor specs at half the price, I am sure they will draw many back to the M system. The M lenses always have amazed me, for the size, weight and rendering qualities. It is just the bodies have not evolved quick enough.
I am sure the M series will continue, and will always have a following as the cameras are truly a photographers tool.
charles.K wrote:
So far, what I have seen of the Leica Q really impresses me.
I am so glad that Leica have embarked on a parallel course to the RF mechanism as it is now becoming very costly to produce and a problem to outsource the repairs and more so maintenance/calibration.
If this means Leica can produce a M240 EVF version without the rangefinder with updated electronics and latest sensor specs at half the price, I am sure they will draw many back to the M system. The M lenses always have amazed me, for the size, weight and rendering qualities. It is just the bodies have not evolved quick enough.
I am sure the M series will continue, and will always have a following as the cameras are truly a photographers tool.
I see no reason why rangefinders are costly at all to build. My Fuji rangefinder cost well under $2000. Leica's cost a lot of money because they are Leica's, not because of their component costs.
Why would Leica want to give up so much margin by producing a camera at half the cost of an M? Does Ferrari make half cost cars? Rolex half cost watches?
Leica has achieved something that Sony & Fuji and other others can only dream of, making high margin products that sell.
Volume is the death spell of many companies. Margin is where the profits are.
rattymouse wrote:
I see no reason why rangefinders are costly at all to build. My Fuji rangefinder cost well under $2000. Leica's cost a lot of money because they are Leica's, not because of their component costs.
Why would Leica want to give up so much margin by producing a camera at half the cost of an M? Does Ferrari make half cost cars? Rolex half cost watches?
Leica has achieved something that Sony & Fuji and other others can only dream of, making high margin products that sell.
Volume is the death spell of many companies. Margin is where the profits are.
I am sure Leica will always maintain its premium margin, but you do need a minimum sales volume to be able to grow and continue to evolve.
The M240 RF is a lot more sophisticated than the M9/M8, and it more accurate and stable. With the increasing MP's and resolution of the later M lenses it is important that the RF work well. Any misgivings in RF focusing demeans IQ quickly and I have been frustrated many times when I sit down to PP images.
charles.K wrote:
I am sure Leica will always maintain its premium margin, but you do need a minimum sales volume to be able to grow and continue to evolve.
This is incorrect. Ferrari makes less than 10,000 cars/year and is one of the biggest brands on the planet. Volume never, ever means success (especially with high end products). Just ask Michael Dell about that.
charles.K wrote:
The M240 RF is a lot more sophisticated than the M9/M8, and it more accurate and stable. With the increasing MP's and resolution of the later M lenses it is important that the RF work well. Any misgivings in RF focusing demeans IQ quickly and I have been frustrated many times when I sit down to PP images.
rattymouse wrote:
Why would Leica want to give up so much margin by producing a camera at half the cost of an M? Does Ferrari make half cost cars? Rolex half cost watches?
Both do in a sense. Fiat owns Ferrari and Maserati, the latter of which is widely considered to be something of a bargain Ferrari. As for Rolex... they make Tudors, which are basically Rolex shells with ETA movements.
charles.K wrote:
I am sure Leica will always maintain its premium margin, but you do need a minimum sales volume to be able to grow and continue to evolve.
The M240 RF is a lot more sophisticated than the M9/M8, and it more accurate and stable. With the increasing MP's and resolution of the later M lenses it is important that the RF work well. Any misgivings in RF focusing demeans IQ quickly and I have been frustrated many times when I sit down to PP images.
I like RF as much as anyone, but it is a high-maintenance mechanism. The M240's is really good, but I've had to ask a technician to adjust mine once already in less than 2 years of ownership, something that my Nikon SLRs have never required. Recently, after sending the camera in for warranty service on a separate issue, Leica NJ adjusted it again. Didn't have to pay for that one, but let me tell you, those adjustments aren't cheap.
If Leica made a hybrid viewfinder with an EVF as good as the one in the Q, it would make the M a better camera. (I can hear the gasps of the Leica purists now!) Now, I normally despise EVF, but the one on the Q is just so good that I could live with it in a pinch on my M, as long as I could still RF when I needed to via some hybrid functionality.
Arka wrote:
I like RF as much as anyone, but it is a high-maintenance mechanism. The M240's is really good, but I've had to ask a technician to adjust mine once already in less than 2 years of ownership, something that my Nikon SLRs have never required. Recently, after sending the camera in for warranty service on a separate issue, Leica NJ adjusted it again. Didn't have to pay for that one, but let me tell you, those adjustments aren't cheap.
If Leica made a hybrid viewfinder with an EVF as good as the one in the Q, it would make the M a better camera. (I can hear the gasps of the Leica purists now!) Now, I normally despise EVF, but the one on the Q is just so good that I could live with it in a pinch on my M, as long as I could still RF when I needed to via some hybrid functionality. ...Show more →
My rangefinders are still going strong, 2 years into my ownership of them. No adjustments needed. All kinds of people are shooting Leica's from M2's up to the current digital M's. If a rangefinder needs calibration, that's part of owning a rangefinder. People know that going into the game.
A Leica with an EVF is called a Sony A7, i.e., just another camera destined for quick depreciation along with all the other electronic cameras.
Leica made SLR's and they were an abject failure. Pretty much every time Leica has strayed away from the M they have failed to achieve big success.
rattymouse wrote:
My rangefinders are still going strong, 2 years into my ownership of them. No adjustments needed. All kinds of people are shooting Leica's from M2's up to the current digital M's. If a rangefinder needs calibration, that's part of owning a rangefinder. People know that going into the game.
A Leica with an EVF is called a Sony A7, i.e., just another camera destined for quick depreciation along with all the other electronic cameras.
Leica made SLR's and they were an abject failure. Pretty much every time Leica has strayed away from the M they have failed to achieve big success.
Leica's SLR's were an outstanding success for them and kept the company alive for 25+ years. Leica was an SLR company with a sideline in rangefinders from the early 70's through the late 90's.
mawz wrote:
Leica's SLR's were an outstanding success for them and kept the company alive for 25+ years. Leica was an SLR company with a sideline in rangefinders from the early 70's through the late 90's.
Yep, as successful as Contax SLR's were. There's a thread over at APUG recently detailing how bad Leica failed at SLR's. Sales were awful, and the entire system ended up abandoned and a dead end.
uhoh7 wrote:
haha Adam, I was not thinking about you, but I appreciate the take and also love to hear some history new to me from you and Ron
The M9 battery is so far ahead of the A7 battery, I never considered it an issue. I have never gone through a full battery in a day, and you know I've been shooting the thing every day since I got it jan 14. It's true you need a good battery though
I'm incredulous they will sell the A7r2 with the original Nex battery, and this points to the Leica v Sony fundamental difference. The high end Leicas, and I include the Q, are "whole" cameras, and real shooters seem to have had an input. The Sonys are like a potluck of the latest tech......with multiple design committees.
At Sony today, the 4k committee has the big budget, and since nobody else understands the tech, they would be held in awe, the recipients of some very low bows from everybody else. The menu committee must be very very traditional, because the silliness is unchanged. Simple issues like being able to switch from EVF to LCD via button? Impossible. The Raw committee and the battery committee I think must be on permanent unpaid leave.
If I were Leica, I'd keep making the M240 and bring out a new one, M6 style, tough and light. The RX1 shows the body could be far more compact than the M6, but it's ok to use that space to make it really tough and give it a decent battery.
Then those who love the 240 can have it, and the rest of us can stroll forth into the new century with a camera in the original Leica tradition of Barnack. Not just a street shooter or event machine. A true blue, back in the outback, take it to the alps, or cover the war, Leica camera.
We will argue the merits of each model and enjoy each other's shots
Ron - Almost 600 shots before I changed the battery (I switched memory cards twice as I'm paranoid of loosing shots). And on the third memory card switch, I switched out the battery (it wasn't even dead). That's how I know. Also just to note, I turn off the LCD and don't chimp. And since it's quick to start up. I flick the camera off when I drop it to use my M. And I flick the camera on the second I grab it. I've tested the camera enough to trust that I don't need to chimp. And I have strobes setup and I'm using a profoto air remote. So I kinda have an idea of what's going to happen.
When there's a dull moment I check files here and there. But really quickly, just more for light consistency then checking sharpness, since I trust the AF is better then the DSLRs I deal with.
Also used the SF-24D, SF-26, i40... All flashes were a bit of a compromise, but there were some moments where I needed to turn off the strobes.
rattymouse wrote:
Yep, as successful as Contax SLR's were. There's a thread over at APUG recently detailing how bad Leica failed at SLR's. Sales were awful, and the entire system ended up abandoned and a dead end.
Funny, but both systems (Contax and Leica R) were distinct successes right up until the transition to digital, both Leica and Contax had sales success with their manual focus uber bodies (the RTSIII and the R8/R9). Leica failed so badly at SLR's that it saved the company. Kinda like how the M Type 240 has failed. Now the Contax N line was a failure, as were the AX and AX2, but that's a seperate story. Leica only dropped the R line a few years ago, to transition to the S2, mostly in recognition that they couldn't build a competitive FF DSLR at the time. Even the DMR sold decently considering the constraints. The Contax line died in the aftermath of the failure of the Contax N Digital.
That thread is kinda funny, a bunch of folks going on about two systems that most know nothing about (not knowing about the RTS bodies, or the fact that while the Leicaflex's were not sales successes, all the R's sold pretty well by Leica standards). Sure the R3 through R5 were basically Minoltas, and had some reliability issues, but they sold. In the late 70's and early 80's they were the only thing Leica had that sold, and even the M6 didn't sell nearly as well.
rattymouse wrote:
Yep, as successful as Contax SLR's were. There's a thread over at APUG recently detailing how bad Leica failed at SLR's. Sales were awful, and the entire system ended up abandoned and a dead end.
first you tell us volume doesn't matter, then you measure Leica failure in SLR by volume.
One thing I do know, the Leica SLRs, in hand, are unbelievable, compared to the Japanese counterparts. They are gorgeous things, and they are worth more than just about any SLR body today.
When I first used the M9 I was totally shocked, and wondered if I could adapt. 
What kept me at it with a vengeance were the results. But gradually the "basic" nature of the M9 really grew on me. At first framing in the RF seemed impossible with the many lenses I have. The LCD seemed good just to change settings.
I want the "Barnack" version. Some people laugh at my dragging the M9 in the wilderness, but they should read the old Leica magazines:
