Is the ME ugly?

[DNG]

I think a Steal Gray may look better... BUT, the Bluish Color does say what model it is... no need for front plate monograms IMO. Top Plate Monograms are OK.

I [Somewhat] Disagree... could be better, but a [that] ugly.

[Teuthida]

Should have styled it just like the M5. That would have got people's attention.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

How is slate grey more vulgar than black paint or chrome? I REALLY don't understand this. And, unlike many, I have seen the camera. Looks fine to me.

What next: is an olive drab M1 ugly? Or a Three Crowns IIIg? Grey USAF M2? MP Anthracite? De gustibus non disputandum.

...

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Well, I don't really take this seriously. But yes, I find the blue-slate grey with the chrome accents and the red dot kind of ugly and crass. A color scheme that tries too hard. Just an opinion, laced with humor since it does not really matter what color they paint a camera.. why is that hard to understand?

[Roger Hicks]

Well, the red dot IS ugly and vulgar! Sure, that's opinion too, but I think that most users would agree with me.

Cheers,

R.

[D.J.]

I took the above posted image of the ME into PS and desaturated the blue and cyan turning the top-plate neutral gray. It looked much better. Alternatively I desaturated and darkened the red which also made an improvement.

It's the bad combination of red and blue which renders the camera ugly, vile and cheap.

[AndySig]

To answer the question in the thread title: having seen an ME in a shop yesterday for the first time, it didn't look too bad to me. As for the red dot, well I think that aesthetically it would look better without it but that is a matter of very subjective taste.

[jtm6]

Originally Posted by D.J.

It's the bad combination of red and blue which renders the camera ugly, vile and cheap.

I agree that the cool grey in the product shots doesn't look very flattering. Have you seen one in person? I'm curious what others think. To me, it looked blue-grey in the photos but neutral grey in person (possibly due to warm artificial light). Speaking in terms of just the colors and not logos, the red accent looked good against the dark grey and black.

[flip]

Did people ask this for the M2 / M3 or is this a symptom of Leica's maturity in the digicam age?

[seakayaker1]

It is the M9 minus a couple of features. No Black Paint or Chrome unless you anti up another $1000.00 or so.

Took a few photographs with the ME on Display at Glazers. A good alternative instead of investing in a new M9.

It is quite nice looking camera, not ugly at all. Perhaps someone ego would be bruised if spotted on the street with a anthracite grey paint Leica-M.

More interested in a Monochrome as a possible (way in the) future purchase vs the ME or M (10) but would not mind owning one.

[Erik van Straten]

I strongly dislike all Leica M's that are not designed by Herbert Janke, the great designer of the M3, M2, M4 and M5 Leicas.

Erik.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten

I strongly dislike all Leica M's that are not designed by Herbert Janke, the great designer of the M3, M2, M4 and M5 Leicas.

Erik.

seriously?



.

[f6andBthere]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Well, the red dot IS ugly and vulgar! Sure, that's opinion too, but I think that most users would agree with me.

Cheers,

R.

Ugly and vulgar?

I'm not a Leica fan myself but I don't find the red dot to be that way. It's Leica's symbol and I don't think it looks any more out of place than the symbolised spinning propellor of BMW or the prancing horse of Ferrari.

I gather you, like many others, don't like it personally though and I'm curious as to exactly why ... do you feel it it detracts from the generally understated look of a Leica or is there some other reason?

[CrisR]

I can't deal with the mis-matching chrome dials on top! If they'd matched the anthracite, or we're at least black...

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by f6andBthere

Ugly and vulgar?

I'm not a Leica fan myself but I don't find the red dot to be that way. It's Leica's symbol and I don't think it looks any more out of place than the symbolised spinning propellor of BMW or the prancing horse of Ferrari.

I gather you, like many others, don't like it personally though and I'm curious as to exactly why ... do you feel it it detracts from the generally understated look of a Leica or is there some other reason?

That's pretty much it. After all, it's a fairly recent innovation, and it serves absolutely no purpose other than to scream THIS IS A LEICA AND NOT A CHEAP IMITATION. It doesn't get a lot more vulgar than that.

The red stripe on Nikons is equally pointless and vulgar. Both smack of the evil hand of the Stylist (with a capital letter) who isn't a stylist at all but slaps something ugly and pointless onto a perfectly serviceable product in an attempt to justify his unjustifiable existence.

Cheers,

R.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

.... the red dot IS ugly and vulgar!.....

Yep! - As is the ghastly paint filled indents of the M8/M9. At least, in that respect, we don't have to scratch out 'ME' paint on the front of the camera to improve it's looks. I think all Leicas look better without displaying the corporate graffiti they come with.

............... Chris

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Yep! - As is the ghastly paint filled indents of the M8/M9. At least, in that respect, we don't have to scratch out 'ME' paint on the front of the camera to improve it's looks. I think all Leicas look better without displaying the corporate graffiti they come with.

............... Chris

Dear Chris,

You feel more strongly about this than I, but I'd certainly agree that an unadorned front-plate looks better.

Cheers,

R.

[umcelinho]

the actual camera does not have a blue tint, from what i've seen from photos apart from the official ones. being dark gray, I quite like it, just stick a black square of tape on the red dot (no pseudo-stealthiness here, it's just that i feel the red dot brings attention to itself) and it's good to go.

i prefer the black M9 or the chrome M9P.

[jtm6]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

That's pretty much it. After all, it's a fairly recent innovation, and it serves absolutely no purpose other than to scream THIS IS A LEICA AND NOT A CHEAP IMITATION. It doesn't get a lot more vulgar than that.

The red stripe on Nikons is equally pointless and vulgar. Both smack of the evil hand of the Stylist (with a capital letter) who isn't a stylist at all but slaps something ugly and pointless onto a perfectly serviceable product in an attempt to justify his unjustifiable existence.

Usually the designer/artist/stylist is required to do that by marketing, often times against their advice because it can be vulgar like you said. You nailed the purpose and point of it all: brand recognition. This is not a recent innovation. People have been doing this for millennia. It works (although that can often be unfortunate for the consumer, if they even notice).

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by jtm6

Usually the designer/artist/stylist is required to do that by marketing, often times against their advice. You nailed the purpose and point of it all: brand recognition. This is not a recent innovation. People have been doing this for millennia. It works.

(1) Sorry, I meant that the red dot was a recent innovation.

(2) Brands? For millennia? I must be misunderstanding, as my understanding is that while brands (in the modern sense) may have made tentative appearances in the 18th century, it was not until the 19th that they became commonplace. Likewise stylists.

(3) A designer/artist/stylist who bows too much to marketing is arguably not doing his/her job.

Cheers,

R.

[jtm6]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

(1) Sorry, I meant that the red dot was a recent innovation.

(2) Brands? For millennia? I must be misunderstanding, as my understanding is that while brands (in the modern sense) may have made tentative appearances in the 18th century, it was not until the 19th that they became commonplace. Likewise stylists.

(3) A designer/artist/stylist who bows too much to marketing is arguably not doing his/her job.

Cheers,

R.

(2) I misunderstood the context of the Leica red dot being a recent innovation (1) and was speaking generally about identity/identification, not the modern sense. Otherwise I would have restricted it to decades, not opened it up to millennia.

(3) I agree to an extent. With many companies/clients there is a point where the person has to deliver what the people that write his/her paycheck want or else he/her won't be the one to do the job. Often times the requests are much more absurd than what we're talking about in this thread. That's a huge topic though and getting OT.

I completely agree with preferring a plain front, but I'm not sure what being a perfectly serviceable product has to do with a red accent treatment.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by jtm6

(2) I misunderstood the context of the Leica red dot being a recent innovation (1) and was speaking generally about identity/identification, not the modern sense. Otherwise I would have restricted it to decades, not opened it up to millennia.

(3) I agree to an extent. With many companies/clients there is a point where the person has to deliver what the people that write his/her paycheck want or else he/her won't be the one to do the job. Often times the requests are much more absurd than what we're talking about in this thread. That's a huge topic though and getting OT.

I completely agree with preferring a plain front, but I'm not sure what being a perfectly serviceable product has to do with a red accent treatment.

All fair points. What I meant with the highlighted bit was that Leicas were perfectly serviceable before the red dot was added, and that said dot adds nothing. Indeed, by making the camera (slightly) more noticeable, it makes it (slightly) less serviceable. At least for taking pictures, though not as a status symbol...

Cheers,

R.

[hteasley]

I handled an M-E today, at Newtonville Camera, and it's not ugly. Doesn't look cheap. The grey is understated, the reverse-Panda scheme with the silver knobs looks just fine. Looks loads better than the hammertone Leicas, to my eyes.

I like the lack of frameline preview lever on the front, although having just picked up a 40mm Summicron, I might actually deliberately use my preview lever for once.

[aizan]

i don't think it looks ugly. it just looks less attractive than it could be, and leica knows it. in digital, they always bring out a cleaner, better looking version 1.5 years later. just be patient.

[noimmunity]

I have one of the limited special edition "anti-panda" M8s, which I think is quite pleasing. Here it is with the Rollei Sonnar mounted, a dynamite combo...


Anti-Panda M8 by areality4all, on Flickr

I do not like the M-E styling. Too many colors (black, chrome, red, grey) give it a disconcerted, inchoate feeling.

The black dot and black chrome of the anti-panda M8 lend it depth that holds together well against the chrome accents and chrome lens. I also took out the white lettering, and love the aura that the brassing lends to it.

I am also not amused by the thinly-veiled "me-generation" reference in the name. Man, CKDexterHaven's comments in post #22 really sum it up!

But everybody loves M&Ms. Now THAT is one really good looking camera, probably the best-looking digital M so far along with the M9-P (and my anti-panda M8 ).

[pieter]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

I have one of the limited special edition "anti-panda" M8s, which I think is quite pleasing. Here it is with the Rollei Sonnar mounted, a dynamite combo...

To be honest, I think this anti-panda M8, which you seem to find good-looking, illustrates clearly that different people have different tastes.