Is the ME ugly?

ramosa · 10-09-2012

Let's get to the bottom of this once and for all ...

jsrockit · 10-09-2012

I actually think it looks nice and would love to own one.

pieter · 10-09-2012

I like the modern styling very much. It's a daring departure of the same old black or grey. Probably bevond the styling sensibilities of the typical Leica M buyer.

maggieo · 10-09-2012

The ME's styling is horrid and ugly. I know I'm not a typical M buyer, because I love the looks of the Pentax K-01, especially the yellow ones.

Godfrey · 10-09-2012

While I tend to prefer simple black, the M-E's blue-gray with silver accents seems subtle and classy.

I suspect it looks nicer in the flesh than I've seen in photos, much like my blue Panasonic G1 did.

jpfisher · 10-09-2012

If the "M" was available in that color scheme, I might go for it. Looks very nice, to me, up close. Then again, I have a blue M3, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

thegman · 10-09-2012

Not ugly, but far from Leica's best looking camera. I don't think Leica has ever done *ugly*. The ME, although it's a bit 'meh' by Leica standards, it's stunning compared to Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and just about everybody else barring Rollei, Hasselblad, Alpa, Zeiss and others.

gho · 10-09-2012

I voted "strongly disagree". To my eye, the M-E does not look ugly at all. That does not mean that I find it pretty, by the way.

Let's make this a bit more informative. What do I like? Clean, classical M design, the color scheme is to my taste.

What do I not like? If you are asking, the top plate is a bit too high, slimming it down would make more space for a larger display. It looks, as if the design of the proportions centered a bit too much around the display than the other way round. The body is a bit too thick also, the upfront Leica logo, the "eye lid" like silver stripes at the viewfinder window. Compared to the film Ms it is all looking a tad unbalanced, but still no way bad looking.

GWT · 10-09-2012

It looks the same as all the others.

jarski · 10-09-2012

looks like just another digital M. little chubby vs. film M's, but thats it.

Rangefinderfreak · 10-09-2012

If I would have a say on leica product range, I would offer the M-E also without any leather ! The customer would then choose a leather by his choice from several alternatives/colors. The local Leica repair shop would glue them on in a professional manner. I guess it would add to the price maybe a couple hundred Euros, but would offer a "customized" leica for considerably less than "ala carte" specials.

Roger Hicks · 10-09-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarski

looks like just another digital M. little chubby vs. film M's, but thats it.

Well, just like an M8-8.2-M9, anyway. Clearly I am not alone in being unable to understand the question.

Cheers,

R.

luuca · 10-09-2012

I must admit I thought the title of this thread was an ungrammatical way to ask "am I ugly?"

NeeZee · 10-09-2012

i bet it takes ugly photos...

k.a · 10-09-2012

it is beautiful!

Chuck Albertson · 10-09-2012

I saw a M-E in the display case at Glazer's the other day. Looks nice.

segedi · 10-09-2012

Based on the results so far, just like us Leica users to be all over the map!

jarski · 10-09-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by segedi

Based on the results so far, just like us Leica users to be all over the map!

yup. we are getting bottom of this once and for all

RichC · 10-09-2012

Who cares?

I'm a Leica owner, and I think talking about minor style differences from previous cameras, like chrome accents, a few mm extra thickness or a different shade of grey paint, is ANAL.

A camera is a tool. Do you choose a hammer or a screwdriver over another because of its looks? Of course not (unless you're an idiot) - you choose one that will do the job you require of it...! (OK, if its aesthetics were so bad as to be distracting (like lime green paint), then fair enough - but that doesn't apply to the ME.)

A camera is not a handbag...

MartinP · 10-09-2012

It is, of course, unusably awful.

But I can help out all you embarrassed ME owners - just send the cameras to me and you will not have to look at the monstrosity again. I will even pay half of the postage, can't say fairer than that now, can I?
.
.
.
.
EDIT:

Ron (Netherlands) · 10-09-2012

a bit 'cheap' but intended so I guess

CK Dexter Haven · 10-09-2012

It's ugly in the way that Leica wants to be sure you understand you're paying a penalty for not ponying up the dough for 'the big boy.'

Same thing afflicts the Canon 5D series. It's in use by a lot of pros, but it still has that Idiot Dial like the cheap bodies. You'd think paying $2500 for a camera would entitle you to better aesthetics and a bit of self-esteem. But, no.

hteasley · 10-09-2012

It looks essentially no different to me than any of the other random special editions, or bespoke options, of other M cameras. No biggie.

I think people are mostly offended that there's a particular look to a camera that Leica has declared to be "the budget real Leica", and that "the budget real Leica" is every bit an M9. Folks can't get a new M9 without looking like they went for the budget camera.

Whatevs.

bugmenot · 10-09-2012

It is not even remotely an improvement over the existing M9.

If you found the M9 ugly, you find this ugly. The colour scheme is the only distinguishing feature other than what has been stripped away from the M9.

Given M9 was already relatively old tech in 2009, speaking from the perspective of the sensor and other electronics, I would have expected Leica to at least try to cut down on the size, make it closer to a film Leica body size, but no. All they wanted to do was extend the life of their production lines for the Leica M9.

semilog · 10-09-2012

All of the digital M's are ugly. The M3 and its lineal descendants have perfect, "just right" proportions. The digital M's have proportions that are "just wrong." It's like cropping a Picasso on one edge -- a small dimensional change that makes a huge aesthetic difference.