philipj wrote:
Why did Leica walk back the auto and electronic features for subsequent offerings?
After the M6 TTL run ended and the decision to introduce the MP, Leica wanted to return to its more original layout with the smaller shutter speed dial and the lower top plate. This was welcomed by the traditionalist but both the M6 TTL and the M7 are better designs for using the camera at eye level. Like the M5, the shutter speed dial can be turned without having to take the camera away from your eye. The dial also turns in the same direction as the exposure arrows. Both cameras are capable of TTL flash which was never really pursued until the digital bodies. The MP became a good seller, the M7 not so much. Any development of an electronic shutter film camera pretty much ended with the M7.
I've always had a soft spot for the M5's shutter speed dial, that seems like a big advantage over the M2-M4 and MP dial. Before deciding to go for an M-A body, the M5 was quite appealing entirely because of that. With a camera lacking a light meter, however, I don't find it as big a loss having the smaller shutter speed dial, because I'm (almost) never adjusting the shutter speed live like that.
Still, I'm surprised there wasn't a bifurcation in having the all mechanical MP (and then M-A) line and a more "advanced" electronic line simultaneously. I guess Leica is a pretty small company, and maybe didn't have the bandwidth while also transitioning into digital L, M, and S mounts, and the Q line.
philipj wrote:
Why did Leica walk back the auto and electronic features for subsequent offerings?
I guess people like the lottery of is it 1/500...is it 1/300...oh it is 1/200 because they can get that repaired "forever" (ie they now have to wait forever to service an M) and also because HCB and history and all that.
panos.v wrote:
I guess people like the lottery of is it 1/500...is it 1/300...oh it is 1/200 because they can get that repaired "forever" (ie they now have to wait forever to service an M) and also because HCB and history and all that.
Yeah that pretty much was it. “Tradition”. And yet if that was the case the M-A should have been the gangbusters seller as that is the closest to the original ideal.
But all those who besmirched the electronics in the M7, just could not do without a built in led lightmeter in the MP and 6.
The 7 does give you two mechanical speeds if the batteries go out - 125 and 60 - and along with the ability to still be able to turn the aperture ring one pretty much can continue shooting until evening falls. Thing is we never worry about film - and carry extra rolls. But for some reason it seems impossible to carry two extra tiny batteries as back up…
There is a reason all those disposable and reloadable plastic cr@p cameras have exposures set to f11, 1/100. With iso 400 film’s dynamic exposure flexibility it is able to handle most shots.
The shutter on the 7 is also quieter if that matters (they all are quiet), is more accurate and provides TTL flash. The exposure lock on half press is of course great - the camera is so much quicker to use. It just gets out of your way.
In a way I think Leica as well as the fake traditionalists are to blame. To the uninitiated the 7 is just an MP with AE. Because the shutter speed range in manual mode is the same. With the 7 Leica should have made a much bigger step and basically introduced a shutter such as was used in the Konica RF, or even their own R8/9.
Top shutter speed of 1/4000 or 1/8000 and then leant into how now you can shoot your glorious Leica lenses wide open anytime without having to use ND filters.
The 7 as is, is the best M film shooter. But Leica could have used the opportunity to really move it forward.
madNbad wrote:
After the M6 TTL run ended and the decision to introduce the MP, Leica wanted to return to its more original layout with the smaller shutter speed dial and the lower top plate. This was welcomed by the traditionalist but both the M6 TTL and the M7 are better designs for using the camera at eye level. Like the M5, the shutter speed dial can be turned without having to take the camera away from your eye. The dial also turns in the same direction as the exposure arrows. Both cameras are capable of TTL flash which was never really pursued until the digital bodies. The MP became a good seller, the M7 not so much. Any development of an electronic shutter film camera pretty much ended with the M7....Show more →
True, but one main reason for the MP to become the better seller was that the rangefinder patch flare was finally removed in the MP series. Only the last batches of produced M7 cameras also have the newer MP rangefinder avoiding the flare which plagues the M6, some M4, and most M7 models.
Also the new revamped M6 used the MP rangefinder patch without flare issue. Main debit IMO for having an older unmodified M6 camera (which I own) other than older electronics, too.
I said it before - Leica should have made a recall due to this patch flare similar to the M9 sensor corrosion issue.
retrofocus wrote:
True, but one main reason for the MP to become the better seller was that the rangefinder patch flare was finally removed in the MP series. Only the last batches of produced M7 cameras also have the newer MP rangefinder avoiding the flare which plagues the M6, some M4, and most M7 models.
Also the new revamped M6 used the MP rangefinder patch without flare issue. Main debit IMO for having an older unmodified M6 camera (which I own) other than older electronics, too.
I said it before - Leica should have made a recall due to this patch flare similar to the M9 sensor corrosion issue. ...Show more →
I had a M6 TTL Millennium that had the worst rangefinder flare of any of the M cameras that I had owned. It went to the factory for the MP finder upgrade. It was the multicoated windows that made the biggest difference. The condenser helped in off set lighting situations but the new rangefinder windows reduced glare and made viewing much easier.
I do wish that Leica had continued development of the M7. It was their most advanced film camera and really offers a lot more than the MP. Like the M5, it was a step away from tradition and for Leica, tradition means sales.
retrofocus wrote:
True, but one main reason for the MP to become the better seller was that the rangefinder patch flare was finally removed in the MP series. Only the last batches of produced M7 cameras also have the newer MP rangefinder avoiding the flare which plagues the M6, some M4, and most M7 models.
Also the new revamped M6 used the MP rangefinder patch without flare issue. Main debit IMO for having an older unmodified M6 camera (which I own) other than older electronics, too.
I said it before - Leica should have made a recall due to this patch flare similar to the M9 sensor corrosion issue. ...Show more →
For a while Leica did provide a complimentary upgrade to the MP rf optics for M7 cameras that had the flarey patch.
Which is nice, but not a recall. You had to ask them - and know that it was offered!
I made sure to buy 7s in the 3xxx and higher serial # range as those has the latest everything.
Thank you for posting the video. It reminded me why I still have great memories of shooting with Nikon FE and FM3a. I do sometimes wish my MP had aperture priority.
I seem to recall that a few years back there was a lot of hand-wringing over the longevity of the electronics in the M7. Were these concerns overblown?
I made the mistake of selling M3, I was the second owner.
I own an M7 with the viewfinder and DX upgrade and I won't make the same mistake twice!
Honestly, I think you'll see a version of the M7 again in the future, when Leics gets around to spelunking that particular phase in their history, er.... heritage.
juanj wrote:
Thank you for posting the video. It reminded me why I still have great memories of shooting with Nikon FE and FM3a. I do sometimes wish my MP had aperture priority.
I seem to recall that a few years back there was a lot of hand-wringing over the longevity of the electronics in the M7. Were these concerns overblown?
Electronic cameras all can fail. My M7s are fine. My FE2 failed electronically. My ancient XK is fine. The DP1 and DP 12 finders in my F2s failed. The DP12 however was repaired by Sover Wong. My Pentax LX failed. My F3P is fine. Both my Minolta CLEs failed. Pentax K2 was fine etc.
So I do think the concerns are overblown with the M7. But would not be w cameras like the CLE, LX and even FE2 as I have seen lots of those DOA but not so w the M7.
At this point in time if you are concerned about repairability, the only thing to do would be to buy a current production camera - whatever that is film or digital.
sirimiri wrote:
I made the mistake of selling M3, I was the second owner.
I own an M7 with the viewfinder and DX upgrade and I won't make the same mistake twice!
Honestly, I think you'll see a version of the M7 again in the future, when Leics gets around to spelunking that particular phase in their history, er.... heritage.
Re-introducing the M6 and pretending it was different from the MP was such a cheap, pandering move. And only because they saw that used M6s were in the $3500 range. It was so lazy of Leica.
What would have been cool would have been an improved M7 or even a new CM/Minilux.
You know, I dabbled with Leica M in the film days. I think I had the M6 and the M7 at some point. And you know the most memorable thing about of of them? The nice smell of the Luigi leather case that came with the camera. I still remember that smell…
At the time, I preferred Contax G. Actually, except for the pretty horrible viewfinder, I think I would still prefer something like the Contax G2. Small, beautiful, AF and excellent rendition. What the Q series could be with (smaller) interchangeable lenses.
The Contax G2 and Konica RF were cameras that I'd love to try - especially the Konica because that has specs that basically the M7 should have had - but I never got a hands on with them.
Desmolicious, Good to know your M7 has been solid. Regarding electronic failure, I can see why people would be concerned, even as sudden electronic failure is unlikely. It's a huge loss for some people if their M7 becomes unfixable. Just depends on the risk you are willing to take. The photographer in the video reminds us that choosing a camera is actually the least risky decision a photographer might make.
Desmolicious wrote:
The Contax G2 and Konica RF were cameras that I'd love to try - especially the Konica because that has specs that basically the M7 should have had - but I never got a hands on with them.
There are plenty of one-off repair people still working on Contax cameras. I'm not sure about the Konica though. Not having an AF lens helps simplify things to XPAN levels I guess.
Desmolicious wrote:
For a while Leica did provide a complimentary upgrade to the MP rf optics for M7 cameras that had the flarey patch.
Which is nice, but not a recall. You had to ask them - and know that it was offered!
I made sure to buy 7s in the 3xxx and higher serial # range as those has the latest everything.
When I bough my M7, I was not even aware of the whole patch flare thingy. Learned many years later that later serial M7 numbers are the much better ones in this regard. For whatever reason my M7 flares much less than my M6 non-TTL. But my M7 does not have the new MP rangefinder for sure.
philipj wrote:
Why did Leica walk back the auto and electronic features for subsequent offerings?
My has more direct experience with this but according to him the M7 is wildly unreliable. They brick regularly. He recommended that I never, ever buy one. It's possible Leica can fix them but frankly their absurd repair costs and times make me want to avoid that. M4-P is the way to be.
speedgraphic wrote:
My has more direct experience with this but according to him the M7 is wildly unreliable. They brick regularly. He recommended that I never, ever buy one. It's possible Leica can fix them but frankly their absurd repair costs and times make me want to avoid that. M4-P is the way to be.
i have two of them - one is about 15 years old, the other is the last production run from 2018.
Zero issues.
