Yes, but you did leave M2 and M4 off your list. Much more usable cameras than M3 for most people. I would never buy an MP or MA either as they are expensive and you can't adjust the vertical alignment on the rangefinder without removing the top plate because the M6 style adjustment tool will not fit through the screw hole (unless they have changed that). Sorry! very far off topic
retrofocus wrote:
The MP is a bit outside the standard series, so is the MA. Both are still in production film cameras. The standard film M camera series stopped with the M7. Prices for used M6/M7 cameras currently skyrocket so high that they are getting close to the MP in new camera pricing. I bought my used M6 in 2016 for $1100 and my M7 as second one a year later for $1500. At the time, I would have never considered the MP no matter with which kind of bells and whistles it comes.
What do you mean by standard? I went the a la carte route when I purchased an MP, but even then they're all mostly similar on the whole.
There really is no advantage to the rangefinder anymore. Any other modern camera is more capable at this point. There’s no argument there.
Let me beg to differ. I think there are at least three ways that rangefinders still have an advantage over either OVFs or EVFs. The first being the unique ability to see outside the frame - to see what could immediately enter the scene. The second, being a clear, natural view, not distorted by depth of focus limitations at wide apertures, and the third, perhaps least important given the speed of well implemented autofocus, being able to focus rapidly and accurately (albeit only in the central section) while maintaining a view of the entire screen (an advantage over other manual focus methods).
d.s. wrote:
What do you mean by standard? I went the a la carte route when I purchased an MP, but even then they're all mostly similar on the whole.
With standard in this context I mean a M camera which followed on another one until itself finds a cussessor again like in this order: M3 - M2 - M4 - M5 (ignoring some M4 models like M4-2 and M4-P which came after the M5 release) - M6 - M7 - M8 - M9 - M240 etc. The MP for example was released in 2003 as more modern but vintage trimmed film camera while the M7 was also in production. That's why I consider the MP and MA more on a parallel branch than in consecutive "standard" camera release order.
The film Leica CL is another example of a non-standard M camera and has its own branch in parallel to the M series as schematically listed above.
Rob L wrote:
Yes, but you did leave M2 and M4 off your list. Much more usable cameras than M3 for most people. I would never buy an MP or MA either as they are expensive and you can't adjust the vertical alignment on the rangefinder without removing the top plate because the M6 style adjustment tool will not fit through the screw hole (unless they have changed that). Sorry! very far off topic
I agree its sort of subjective, too. But I see M2 cameras sitting much longer online than M3s which seem to vaporize very quickly in the used camera market. This might be related to a hype but what I personally like about the M3 is its unique 0.91x rangefinder magnification extremely suitable for 50 mm FL and above. The M2 still has the same vintage flair but already comes with std 0.72x viewfinder to allow 35 mm lens frames which is not too different from successor M models. The M4 series certainly was a success, too - but the M6 even more so by including a light meter.
My predication - back to topic - is that after the M11 is available, the next one will be another new side branch with a new one being a hybrid of Leica Q and M10/M11. Meaning a Leica Q with modern EVF, but exchangeable M-mount. This would be a camera much of interest to me. At this point pure speculation, but Leica surely knows that many consider the SL too big and miss an EVF-based M-camera on the other hand.
By using the M-mount on such Q/M series hybrid, they would avoid in-house competition with the SL series which allows AF and video performance for those who like and need it. IMO a pragmatic and logical move forward for Leica.
One of the nice advantages to rangefinders has always been that you can see what is coming into and out of the frame. Can't do that with any other camera unless you have an old school "sports finder".
EDIT: Sorry, someone beat me to the punch.
Joel
AndrewNYC wrote:
There really is no advantage to the rangefinder anymore. Any other modern camera is more capable at this point. There’s no argument there. Maybe, one could try to argue on size. But it’s a conspicuous out jade based on feelings and nostalgia and that’s what Leica needs to survive. We pixel peep and then use soft terms like “rendering” and what it to justify it, but it wouldn’t hold up to a blind test in many cases
Now I’ll hang up and wait for those m10R prices to fall
AndrewNYC wrote:
There really is no advantage to the rangefinder anymore. Any other modern camera is more capable at this point. There’s no argument there.
This is funny because people already thought that in the 70s and Leica even stopped building M because SLRs were better, no argument there.
And yet, here we are, almost half a century later still using rangefinders. So my guess would be that nostalgia alone is not enough to explain it. After all, people stopped using many kind of cameras and viewfinders over the years, even very prestigious or popular ones.
I for one do not shoot the same pictures when I use one of my SLR or mirrorless camera. And this is one of the reasons why I accept to pay Leica's crazy prices and use a camera without IBIS, AF, matrix metering, all things I find very convenient.
AndrewNYC wrote:
There really is no advantage to the rangefinder anymore. Any other modern camera is more capable at this point. There’s no argument there. Maybe, one could try to argue on size. But it’s a conspicuous out jade based on feelings and nostalgia and that’s what Leica needs to survive. We pixel peep and then use soft terms like “rendering” and what it to justify it, but it wouldn’t hold up to a blind test in many cases
Now I’ll hang up and wait for those m10R prices to fall
An EVF is perfect. You get precise framing, exposure visualisation, live colour and white balance preview, focus confirmation, depth of field preview, you can see in the dark, you can see the sun you can do whatever you want. A tiny little screen of wonder that is literallly better than your eyes.
But sometimes, it is just nice to not have to look at life through a screen.
By the way, on the M3 and why they sell quicker, I guess it is the weird factor vs the others. I had a Bessa R3A in the past, the 1:1 finder was trully amazing. The best camera for 50mm shooters, better than the M3...if only the patch worked more than half the time. I guess people buy the M3 to try that out but judging by the constant churn of M3 bodies in the shops I'm guessing people buy it, try it, then realise that they do shoot wider than 50mm more often than not and pass it on. The M3 makes sense if you only ever shoot 50mm or longer OR you have it as a second camera.
I shoot with a rangefinder because I am not stuck concentrating looking through what the lens is seeing but watching the elements in the scene outside that field of view of EVF or SLR/DSLR. That way I can better see what is coming into or going out of the frame. Reacting to the moment.
Meyerwitz on the subject about 1:20 in. The enitre piece is good though.
People shoot M because it’s fun, challenging and tactile. All the stuff modern EVF cameras aren’t. That’s all it is. In an era where your Sony holds on to AF like a rabid dog and shoots 30 FPS of someone else’s grand kid with every frame perfectly focused and exposed, ready to expertly bore any audience into a near comatosed state. In this sea of sameness from camera companies as they race to the bottom of usability Leica still makes a camera that needs you to be able to work and gear that begs to be fondled. And let’s be honest. When you leave the Sony at home and pick up an M we feel a bit more like a *real* photographer…
It’s the same reason that self driving cars will never truely take over. Or why there’s still vinyl in an age of streaming. The M let’s you know that’s the AF wars currently raging really aren’t what photography is about. And while some will pull frames from 8K video and present that as photography, proudly claiming copyright over a pulled frame from a fully automated AI video session, M cameras need you to choose that decisive moment as you press the button for a single frame, silently hoping you got the settings right. M cameras are empowering because when you get a good one you know it was you and not the camera.
There’ll never be a court case arguing that the monkey owns a selfie copyright with an M camera.
Gordon
p.s. Sony has already released more Alpha EVF cameras than Leica did M’s. I’d argue they’re all significant. Not necessarily good or successful but important to Leica’s development.
I always have my exposure predetermined and set and if I am working in the moment I zone or hyper focus so focus is set. I just wait to see the moment and I am ready. Watch the elements come together and push the shutter when the moment is right. It (M) is a much better tool for fast paced street and candid work.
There is a reason so many of the great street photogrpahers used them and still use them for that type of work.
Back to the 11, it looks like some authorized dealers are dropping prices on used 10s. Even some downward movement on 10M and R. Not much movement, but that there is any downward movement at all at this point is interesting. I'm guessing there will be a 11P, M and R somewhere down the line...
mapgraphs wrote:
Back to the 11, it looks like some authorized dealers are dropping prices on used 10s. Even some downward movement on 10M and R. Not much movement, but that there is any downward movement at all at this point is interesting. I'm guessing there will be a 11P, M and R somewhere down the line...
I don't see any significant decrease for any M10 version yet on sites I screened. $4500 is the best I can find for a used standard M10 from authorized dealers - most are priced much higher as used copies. In the past I have seen them for $4100-4200 sometimes. Maybe too early to tell. If the M11 is such small upgrade from teh M10, prices might actually be where they are now.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I shoot with a rangefinder because I am not stuck concentrating looking through what the lens is seeing but watching the elements in the scene outside that field of view of EVF or SLR/DSLR. Thart way I can better see what is coming into or going out of the frame. Reacting to the moment.
Meyerwitz on the subject about 1:20 in. The enitre piece is good though.
Yeah, seeing this a couple of months ago convinced me that rangefinders are not as outdated as I had thought.
"The upcoming Leica M11 camera is rumored to include a 64GB internal memory that will simulate a second memory card slot. It will also be possible to operate the new M11 without an SD memory card."
"The upcoming Leica M11 camera is rumored to include a 64GB internal memory that will simulate a second memory card slot. It will also be possible to operate the new M11 without an SD memory card."
If that list of new features is reliable and definitive, it’ll be an M10-R for me. IBIS is the only feature that would have tipped the scales decisively in favour of the M11 (and that was never really on the cards).
genji wrote:
If that list of new features is reliable and definitive, it’ll be an M10-R for me. IBIS is the only feature that would have tipped the scales decisively in favour of the M11 (and that was never really on the cards).
It may be the last "classic" digital M with a high resolution sensor.
They have such high uptick of used camera prices that even $400 off brings it to market values still above general used camera prices.Of course you can argue they provide warranty, CLA cleaning etc etc. Each on their own if this is important or not with such increased price.
