helimat wrote:
OK, I apologize for straying off topic, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around the differences. The M7 still indicates down to a half stop, no? The indicator is the same or similar to a M6 TTL is it not?
I remember seeing a few places that the M6 S# under 170xxxx was more accurate, (IE Leitz on red dot instead of Leica) which also corresponds to a slightly different function in extreme under exposure. (Older lightmeter does not illuminate, newer blinks which can drain the battery)
Yes, the M7 is down to half a stop with arrow and dot, but my M6 only shows the same difference with dimmer or brighter lit arrows (no dots). The M7 exposure adjustment is much easier to see in the viewfinder especially when going after this half stop difference. I did not see a difference in the metering value itself when using both cameras in parallel. And yes, my M6 meter blinks with extreme over/underexposure confirming what you stated.
Desmolicious wrote:
Get rid of the DX film coding (I wish my M7s didn't have that).
I mentioned the same earlier, too - agreed! With the M7, Leica was likely pushed to include this function because most other SLRs at the time offered the same. I have rarely use of it - most my films are self-rolled in black canisters anyway, so why bother. Every time the camera is turned on, the ISO readout display appears - bit annoying, too. So yes, here I much prefer the more simple M6!
Desmolicious wrote:
Get rid of the frame line selector. Simplify the frames available - 35, 50 and 90 only. Each showing only that one. Sell new, cheaper OVFs for the hot shoe for 135, 28 and 21mm. Get rid of the DX film coding (I wish my M7s didn't have that).
Build it in.....Canada.
And it will still cost $4500...
I would vote for cleaning up the framelines too. I wish I could turn them off independently on my M10-P, seems like something that could been accomplished in the year 2020.... Especially since the modern ones are LED. But I digress. Same for DX coding.... But can you not override it? The Xpan has an ISO wheel, set it to your desired ISO, or turn it to DX if you want the camera to decide.
retrofocus wrote:
Yes, the M7 is down to half a stop with arrow and dot, but my M6 only shows the same difference with dimmer or brighter lit arrows (no dots). The M7 exposure adjustment is much easier to see in the viewfinder especially when going after this half stop difference. I did not see a difference in the metering value itself when using both cameras in parallel. And yes, my M6 meter blinks with extreme over/underexposure confirming what you stated.
Ah, ok, thanks for confirming. Yes, in harsh light the 1/2 stop indication wouldn't be as easy to see for sure. Just trying to get all the differences right in my head, thanks for your help.
I would have preferred to get the M7 at the time, as I do like having the option of aperture priority, but when I bought my M6 they were going for quite a bit more. The gap has narrowed significantly!
panos.v wrote:
The MA and MP can still be had new. I don't know if the MP is discontinued but it is still on the site and it is still available at the same slow volumes in shops. Both go for the same price. Which means that adding/removing things has nothing to do with the price, which given the volumes sold makes sense. So I'm not sure what else you can remove from the MA to make the materials cheaper but I would say removing anything means you are making "special" versions of something, ie MORE expensive as you are selling even less for the extra effort.
The only thing that would make sense is a completely new camera, maybe a fixed lens camera like the Q. But that would move at such low volumes it could only survive as a special edition or something even more expensive.
At the end of the day the MA is as basic as it gets. The only thing that can be removed without rendering the camera inoperable is the frame preview lever, that would save them $10 per camera in materials and probably cost them $100 per camera for the new machining equipment and changes in build processing. So unless they make a plastic MA to sell for a relative bargain $2000 I just don't see it happening. It just does not make sense for them to sell anything cheaper, it will either be a failure and a waste of money or it will eat the MA/MP line and eat into their margins....Show more →
It doesn't have anything to do with cost or capabilities. It's necessary to differentiate the 'cheaper' product. Traditional Leica buyers want brass bodies, with a frameline lever that's made in Germany... and will pay for it. There is now a model for users that want metering and one fully manual nothing else is needed for this "traditional" market. The model I'm suggesting would appeal to a different user that wants the rangefinder experience with some modern conveniences and doesn't have the same traditional desires.
CVickery wrote:
It doesn't have anything to do with cost or capabilities. It's necessary to differentiate the 'cheaper' product. Traditional Leica buyers want brass bodies, with a frameline lever that's made in Germany... and will pay for it. There is now a model for users that want metering and one fully manual nothing else is needed for this "traditional" market. The model I'm suggesting would appeal to a different user that wants the rangefinder experience with some modern conveniences and doesn't have the same traditional desires.
I have the M-E 240 which has no traditional brass body - and I don't really care for it either. I am a technical person, and for me it is important that the camera still has the same M 240 viewfinder but double the buffer memory.
I can see that the cheaper Leica M(?) film camera body also has an anthracite metal cover but no brass. If this lowers the price with offering the same options as the M-A, I am sure it might be a great seller. I don't think that people going for a cheaper but new Leica M film body care too much about the outer body design. At least I woudn't (but maybe I am not the typical Leica guy - thankGod then!).
helimat wrote.. Same for DX coding.... But can you not override it? The Xpan has an ISO wheel, set it to your desired ISO, or turn it to DX if you want the camera to decide.
Yes you can override it, but then the camera has an annoying blinky light in the VF showing you have overridden it...
Desmolicious wrote:
When Nikon was selling the FM-10 for $600 before they finally pulled the plug (and it was a horrible plasticky Cosina thing), how cheap could a new film camera be?
The FM10 was way cheaper than $600. Under $300 is what I remember. Still overpriced as it was, as you noted, very cheaply built.
Desmolicious wrote:
The M that everyone is going crazy for right now is the M6. It is made of zinc.
Yep, I have one. It's popular because it's basically the MP Lite...that's the market Leica would want to address...won't/can't pay $5k for a film body, but a new M6/M7 equivalent for $3.5-4k...I think there's a market.
If the new camera is going to be an M-model, isn't the only thing that could bring production cost down significantly is the design/construction of the most expensive part, the VF/FR mechanism? And, if there is a good solution for that, why wouldn't it also be used on digital-M cameras — or, indeed, why wouldn't that be introduced first on the latter cameras. (In other words, I don't have a clue: only questions).
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
It is great to see renewed interest in manufacturing quality film cameras. Hopefully the new cameras are designed with the view to long term serviceability, with appropriate spare parts availability. This has been one of the great strengths of the M film cameras.
Hopefully some of the other manufacturers follow suit. Film shooters are currently strongly reliant on cameras 30-60 years old, and the technicians that service these cameras are close to retirement.
Danner wrote:
Also, the M6 Classic is the PERFECT film M, IMHO.
I have and use the M6 for 5 years now - it is not perfect either. Most annoying is the known rangefinder patch flare here. It is only not existent if somebody upgraded the M6 with the MP rangefinder. But this modification is normally always mentioned in a sale and ups further the price significantly.
SlowDriver wrote:
Perhaps they should simply relaunch the M6.
If people are willing to pay $3K for an M6 on eBay why would they not want to pay slightly more for a new one.
I doubt it will be a revived M6 for two reasons - too much interference with existing MP and MA models (in-house competition) and it must be a significant step down in price from $4K for a MP. $3K is still too expensive even some crazy ebay M6 prices currently ask for it. My guess is something around $1.5K - a competitive price with used Leica market camera prices.
My guess is it will be a M with cheaper (maybe magnesium alloy) outside body not manufactured in Germany with a limitation in viewfinder frames and fixed magnification (0.68x like in the M 240) compared to MP and MA models. This all for $1.5K, and it could be a winner without compromising MP and MA sales.
