Does the introduction of the new M Leica change your thoughts about shooting?

[lencap]

Although the new camera is unavailable, as a new M9 owner I've wondered if having an EVF and the ability to use longer focal length lenses is something that I'll miss with the M9. I've had DSLR cameras for a long time and did use longer focal length for my shooting. On the other hand the added weight and "flimsy" feel of those cameras left me wanting more.

I've waited a long time to get the M9, and now that it's discontinued it would be natural to have "buyer's remorse", but somehow that isn't bothering me very much. I used EVFs in other cameras and while they definitely have potential for fine focus they also remove the ability to frame my shot.

In terms of the video capability of the new camera I shoot video extensively and frankly none of the full frame cameras are ideal for video. Sound is critical and without XLR mic capability any video, at least in my experience, lacks the potential to be high quality. Video also requires lots of controls at your fingertips, and none of the current photography based cameras seem to do video well enough to make it a viable system. Yes, you can dress up the camera, but it is still not the best tool for the job. It is particularly challenging to keep focus with a fully manual system, especially if you've been shooting with lenses designed to provide a narrow depth of field. Moving images require quite a bit of skill to keep in focus, again in my mind the right tool for video is not a photography based system.

So, does the new M's longer focal length potential and added flexibility to use an EVF if/when you want to have the potential to change your shooting style?

[Roger Hicks]

No. I'm not even sure I'll get one. After all, how much does a Nikon D800 cost?A lot will depend on whether I can get on with trying to use the slightly different control layouts of the M9 and M side by side.

Cheers,

R.

[Richard G]

No. You've asked the key question. Is the opportunity cost of this increased capability worth it? For me the answer is no. From the M2 through several Ms to the M9 over 36 years my general approach has changed little. With the M9 I won't need to change for some time yet. I saw an identical new chrome M9-P last week in the place where I bought mine. It'll probably still be there tomorrow. Getting a second M9 is a consideration, but I couldn't justify it. I can get a second one second hand some time later.

[Jeff S]

The Maestro processor and weather sealing are among the most important distinctions for me compared to the M9.

And 2m frame lines and a quieter shutter re-cock sound are added bonuses.

Of course testing awaits (including IQ).

Jeff

[EdwardKaraa]

I personally don't care for lenses longer than 85. However, I wouldn't mind the focusing on the LCD in order to utilize the 50 cm MFD of my ZM 18 and 25. Perhaps a future macro lens would be nice too.

[Kent]

No, because I won't buy one.

[DwF]

Definitely not for me. I have also shot Leica M cameras (M2 though M9) fo almost 40 years. If anything, and in part since shooting with the Konica Hexar AF, I am more reluctant these days to change lenses when out shooting, let alone look for focal lengths beyond my 90. If I were to need something longer, I would find a DSLR more useful than a rangefinder.

A very attractive design element in Leica M cameras is it's simplicity and that design facilitates getting in close to the subject. Even when out using the 90, I often feel removed from my subject and (this is just me) a bit like I am appropriating something I am not part of to make a picture by using the longer length. I do however find the 90 useful for landscapes, and portraits, although I almost prefer the 50 as a portrait lens.

David

[furcafe]

I'm on the waiting list for the new M & have already sold my M9, but I don't expect the new camera to change any of my thoughts about shooting. As you note, all I see in the new features are added flexibility, not gamechangers. And I'm not entirely basing this on conjecture; most of these features are already available on my X-Pro1 & they haven't changed my shooting style at all.

In descending order of importance, the attractions of the new M for me are: (1) the (promised) improvement in the sensor's high ISO performance; (2) faster processor; (3) live view & focus peaking for occasionally shooting old film-era lenses that are too out of spec to accurately focus using the RF; & (4) weather-sealing. To be honest, I would have bought the new M based on the 1st 2 criteria alone, the others are bonuses. Video is of no importance to me (& I hope Leica is correct that the new video record button isn't easy to hit by accident), but who knows, I might mess around w/it from time to time.

While the new M's live view opens up some new possibilities & I'm sure Leica will introduce a $10K macro version of the 50 'cron or similar, it will be much more straightforward & economical to put a $300 macro lens on a dSLR (same goes for most telephotos).

Also, the M9 hasn't been discontinued. Yet.

Originally Posted by lencap

Although the new camera is unavailable, as a new M9 owner I've wondered if having an EVF and the ability to use longer focal length lenses is something that I'll miss with the M9. I've had DSLR cameras for a long time and did use longer focal length for my shooting. On the other hand the added weight and "flimsy" feel of those cameras left me wanting more.

I've waited a long time to get the M9, and now that it's discontinued it would be natural to have "buyer's remorse", but somehow that isn't bothering me very much. I used EVFs in other cameras and while they definitely have potential for fine focus they also remove the ability to frame my shot.

In terms of the video capability of the new camera I shoot video extensively and frankly none of the full frame cameras are ideal for video. Sound is critical and without XLR mic capability any video, at least in my experience, lacks the potential to be high quality. Video also requires lots of controls at your fingertips, and none of the current photography based cameras seem to do video well enough to make it a viable system. Yes, you can dress up the camera, but it is still not the best tool for the job. It is particularly challenging to keep focus with a fully manual system, especially if you've been shooting with lenses designed to provide a narrow depth of field. Moving images require quite a bit of skill to keep in focus, again in my mind the right tool for video is not a photography based system.

So, does the new M's longer focal length potential and added flexibility to use an EVF if/when you want to have the potential to change your shooting style?

[flyalf]

No, IMO the EVFs are not good enough for MF yet. If I purchase the M I will probably use the Liveview for tripod / wides work. Im not 100% happy with the Frankenfinder for 16mm and the composure accuracy.

[sepiareverb]

No fan of tunnel vision here. I can't see using the EVF, nor the live view. I only have my screen on when changing ISO or formatting a card unless someone (like my kid) wants to see the pic I just took of them. For what I do lenses longer than 50 or 75 are rarely useful. I'm satisfied with the regular old M viewfinder. I still wish the digital bodies had an option for a 0.58 equivalent instead.

[Ronald_H]

Yes, because I believe that it is the first Leica that actually comes close to the kind of camera I am looking for. Not only that, it is the first camera that comes close to the kind of camera I am looking for.

It's small, professional, full frame and mirrorless, and not hamstrung by the photographic fundamentalist attitude that burdens the average Leica shooter. I have handled it on the Photokina, with and without the EVF and an R-lens on it and think it is GREAT. However, although I can afford it, I still think it is far too expensive for a camera. So I bought a Nikon D600 instead. Given the choice at identical prices, or even let's say at +1000 euros for the Leica, I would have bought the Leica instead.

The D600 is bigger, heavier, more complex (too complex) and cannot mount M lenses. On the plus side, it has auto focus. Which I almost never need.

So yes, it has changed my thoughts about shooting, but probably not in a way you would expect. I am not a Leica fanboy and frankly, after using an M2 for several years, still cannot understand what makes it so special that people wouldn't even consider using an OM-1 or FM2 instead. There, I said it

[CaptZoom]

When I bought my M9, I thought I wouldn't be upgrading unless by some miracle Leica releases a camera sans the Bayer array, and if they included weather sealing, fix the frame lines to be at least 2m, relocate the ISO button closer to the shutter release. Three years later, they've done everything except relocate the ISO button to a more flexible position. I don't have any remorse, and will continue to use the M9 until my last condition is met: put the fraking ISO button where I can access is without using both hands.

[Ronald M]

Interesting yes, but not must have. I got the M9 P with $1000 off so it is brand new.

I seldon go wider than 28, but have 21 pre asph, 12 & 15 CV. They work well enough.
I also have a viso with all the best viso lenses ever made from 65 to 560 and all the adapter rings, extension tubes, and short focus mounts,and bellows. Not much I can`t do.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ronald_H

Yes, because I believe that it is the first Leica that actually comes close to the kind of camera I am looking for. Not only that, it is the first camera that comes close to the kind of camera I am looking for.

It's small, professional, full frame and mirrorless, and not hamstrung by the photographic fundamentalist attitude that burdens the average Leica shooter. I have handled it on the Photokina, with and without the EVF and an R-lens on it and think it is GREAT. However, although I can afford it, I still think it is far too expensive for a camera. So I bought a Nikon D600 instead. Given the choice at identical prices, or even let's say at +1000 euros for the Leica, I would have bought the Leica instead.

The D600 is bigger, heavier, more complex (too complex) and cannot mount M lenses. On the plus side, it has auto focus. Which I almost never need.

So yes, it has changed my thoughts about shooting, but probably not in a way you would expect. I am not a Leica fanboy and frankly, after using an M2 for several years, still cannot understand what makes it so special that people wouldn't even consider using an OM-1 or FM2 instead. There, I said it

Wouldn't consider? Or, more realistically, just prefer the M2?

I mean, I wouldn't really consider using a Canon -- because I've got Nikons. And I wouldn't consider using an OM1 or FM2 because I've got Fs and Nikkormats. What on earth does 'wouldn't consider' actually mean?

Cheers,

R.

[bwcolor]

The only thing that would have me thinking about using the EVF/LCD and live view is the price. I will need to sell all of my primary digital cameras and some lenses to fund the purchase. So, I will have some need of longer lenses, but will lack a digital camera. The use of Maestro is what has me interested. I spent my M-9 money and then some on film equipment. I didn't buy the M-9 due to the responsiveness of the camera. I know, it isn't usually a problem, but it was hard to put out that kind of money without a bit more of what I wanted and I'm a bit film centric. The 'M' takes care of that. So, will wait for local stock, some review and keep an ear out for what is brewing at Fujifilm and Ricoh. I wonder if hands on at a local shop trumps thirty day money back at Amazon? I would not do a test drive at a local shop and buy elsewhere. I have paid local California taxes when purchasing at Amazon for years... so no price advantage.

[Camera Graffiti]

I've just ordered one of the new M cameras.

I'm buying one mainly because it is the first Leica digital camera that meets the needs of photographers who photograph a good deal in low light.

Beyond that, I think that the new M offers many features that consolidate its position as the pre-eminent digital rangefinder, and meet, if not exceed, features offered by the best digital single lens reflex cameras.

In particular, the M can be used with long lenses and has sophisticated video capability.

I think that the original poster's apparent belief that only dedicated video cameras can deliver quality video is demonstrably wrong. Also, I think that his/her statements denigrating in-camera sound recording mostly serve to demonstrate a failure to understand that anyone who wants to use these cameras in a serious way to make videos will in fact record sound separately.

[icebear]

No.

[flyalf]

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

No fan of tunnel vision here. I can't see using the EVF, nor the live view. I only have my screen on when changing ISO or formatting a card unless someone (like my kid) wants to see the pic I just took of them. For what I do lenses longer than 50 or 75 are rarely useful. I'm satisfied with the regular old M viewfinder. I still wish the digital bodies had an option for a 0.58 equivalent instead.

Just curious; why the 0.58? Honestly I find the RD-1 viewfinder much better with its 1.0 view.

[CrisR]

No, unless the images prove to be a quantum leap over the older Ms, i'd rather have an M9P or MM. Til then, M8 gets all my manly lovin

[Lss]

Originally Posted by lencap

So, does the new M's longer focal length potential and added flexibility to use an EVF if/when you want to have the potential to change your shooting style?

No, I don't think so. Purchasing the M would however free me from using other systems as much as I currently use.

[Archiver]

It would only change the way I shoot a Leica, not my shooting style in general. I already use manual focus and focus peaking with the Ricoh GXR-M and the LCD, and I find this just as fast as rangefinder focus, often faster, with the added benefit of not needing to raise the camera to my eye. With the new M I could use LCD focusing in exactly the same way while enjoying full frame use of the lenses.

As for video, I have a few cameras that take care of that, from the 5D Mark II that I use for work, to the Oly OM-D I bought a few months ago. The Oly has become my general purpose camera for when I don't want to take the M9, and the use of the Panasonic 12-35mm zoom makes it very versatile. I often shoot as much video as I do stills when I use the OM-D. On the weekend I shot a musical event on video using the 5D Mark II and OM-D, and I used two digital recorders to ensure I got the most usable sound files.

When I carry the M9 I have to swap cameras to shoot video, which either hampers my photography or lessens my video work. While I took endless photos in Japan a couple of years ago, I sometimes regret not having a good chunk of video as well. The new M would allow me to shoot stills and video with Leica lenses and ergonomics without having to swap cameras.

If I was more serious about the sound I'd use the mic attachment and a very low profile single point stereo mic from Sound Professionals, or a separate digital recorder and mics. I could even run mics from the camera to eyeglass croakies if need be, which might be a very interesting combination. Now that's a thought!

[Lss]

I often shoot as much video as I do stills when I use the OM-D.

The video quality can get very bad on the OM-D. I have way too much totally unusable material from it, where the only problem is that the encoding has killed the quality. Or has the new firmware improved things?

[Archiver]

Originally Posted by Lss

The video quality can get very bad on the OM-D. I have way too much totally unusable material from it, where the only problem is that the encoding has killed the quality. Or has the new firmware improved things?

I shoot the OM-D as a b-camera alongside the 5D Mark II. It's certainly not an a-camera, but does a decent job for secondary footage that doesn't involve things like foliage or fast movement. In low light it's a mixed bag; it's better at high ISO video shooting but includes nasty artifacting. But for general purpose (unpaid) shooting, it's good enough for me. And the IBIS is almost like using a steadicam.

I would love it if Oly upgraded the video to a much higher bitrate and revised the compression for video. Or if Panasonic made a GH with that level of in-body stabilization.

[V-12]

The good thing about the M9 not having an EVF is that it means you can go out and buy a camera that does have one. Then you cover both bases. I use an E-M5 that serves all my digital needs, and Olympus and Panasonic seem to share Leica's obsession with making terrific lenses, so the culture isn't so far removed.

As for the M9 itself, well its not really out of date, the M-E is the same camera minus some parts, and I'm sure there will always be a demand for a simple camera from Leica, one that doesn't have endless menu's and electronic gizmo's that give too much choice to cloud the act of picture making. If I am happy with my M9 photographs now, then there is no reason to think it will be different when the M is on the streets. I actually feel like I am going to be more happy with it, because it is still (just about) an 'old time' Leica in comparison to the M, and that is fine by me.

[thegman]

No, not for me. The Leica M appears to be a great camera, but there is nothing in there that I can see which could change how I feel about digital M cameras. Some types of camera can change how I think about shooting, going from 35mm to medium format did. And musing on 4x5 does too. The new Leica M is still the same size sensor etc, more megapixels, yes, but was anyone really lacking for resolution in the M9?

Then of course you have the cost, if I was made to spend that amount of money on camera gear, then Leica would actually be way down my list, compared to Rolleiflex, Alpa, Walker, even Sigma gear. The MM would be much higher up, in fact.