PDA

View Full Version : Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?


Pages : [1] 2

raid
12-19-2014, 14:42
Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?


I am curious to see why so many RFF members did not buy a digital Leica M (M8, M9, M240, ...). The obvious reason we can just state and that is the cost.
If you bought a digital M, then the poll will not show this option.

tomtofa
12-19-2014, 14:52
Combination of reasons. Cost, yes - especially the cost of chasing lenses.
Also too limited a platform, compared to other options. I shoot landscapes, grandkids, various odd projects, low light, travel. Other than travel, the M platform would get in my way more than help.

Had an M8 a few years ago; that was my experience. Now that some used Ms are more affordable, I'd still not go back. Unless I won the lottery and could build a wide-ranging kit - an M might fit in there . . .

VTHokiEE
12-19-2014, 14:55
Cost is the only one... But I don't have a full frame DSLR at the moment for the same reason...

danielsterno
12-19-2014, 15:14
$ + Other digital options (that give more for the money, IMO)….

pete hogan
12-19-2014, 15:16
My photography interests are film and Barnacks and similar 1-level FSU. Also don't require CFO approval.

SolaresLarrave
12-19-2014, 15:16
For digital shots, my Nikon D700 does all I want or need. I like shooting film with my Leicas.

ornate_wrasse
12-19-2014, 15:22
I actually DID buy an M9. However, I would definitely NOT have purchased it were it not for a great opportunity. An M9 was in the classifieds here on RFF and it was right here in Portland. The price was great so I went for it.

Contributing factors were:

1. I already have a good complement of Leica lenses, so no need to buy any glass.

2. I was planning on selling my RD-1 (which I will put up in the classifieds very soon) that the M9 would replace. That way, the net hit to my pocketbook would be less.

3. I already own the D700, which is great for my needs, but I wanted something smaller and lighter to carry around.

So, in the end, I decided to buy it. But if I hadn't come across a good price here locally, I wouldn't have done it.

Ellen

raid
12-19-2014, 15:22
How can I correct the typos in the poll title?

Livesteamer
12-19-2014, 15:26
Long term viability. I'm not a pro, rangefinders work for me. Over the years I have accumulated a nice bunch of Leica bodies and lenses on the understanding that I can use them and get most of my money back out of them someday. That assumption does not seem to work with digital Leica. I'm not wealthy but not weeping so I want to be sensible where the money goes. 2015 will be 25 years with Leica for me. Joe

Steve Bellayr
12-19-2014, 15:33
I can not justify 7k+ + special computer equipment, storage, & programs for the number of photos that I take. Barely, get to use the film cameras that I own.

splitimageview
12-19-2014, 15:39
What Livesteamer said.

Gear turnover is a given for me, so depreciation is a big factor.

I did own an M8 and was lucky to get it sold before they took a big hit.

Other factors against, even if gear turnover was minimal...spotty reliability record, significant repair turn-around time.

daveleo
12-19-2014, 15:41
I didn't cast a vote, the choices were ambiguous to me, so, let me explain. I gave up Leica digital cameras based on my Digilux2 experience.

* I LOVE the D2 for what it is.* Let's leave it at that - I have no functional or quality or asthetic (sp?) complaints about the D2. It resides, under a new skin of Red Leather in my glass cabinet and shall stay there until my wife sells it away after I am gone.

Chapter 2: Never buy a toy that you cannot afford to throw away. I can't afford to throw away a $$$$ Leica digital setup. I can take a $1000 hit for dropping / destroying / loosing a Fuji/Nikon/whatever .... but a $7000-$10,000 hit is not my game.

Chapter 3: As I have said often on this forum ..... the output from modern digital equipment is not my problem. A $10,000 Leica setup is not going to make my final prints one molecule better than my Fujis make them. And ... hoping not to throw gasoline on the topic .... from what I have seen around the internet, that's pretty much true for most other people.

nlubis
12-19-2014, 15:50
Had an M8. Sold it about a year ago.
Could not justify any of the other digital Ms. And I'd love to get the MM.

raid
12-19-2014, 15:57
I first got the M8, followed with a partial trade/cash for the M9. I bought both cameras used, and the total cash amount for both cameras was less than $5000. I tried to plan ahead for depreciation.

rbelyell
12-19-2014, 15:59
my rd1 has a 1:1 viewfinder that tremendously enhances my user experience. it produces beautiful images up to iso1600, which btw, seems to equal iso3200 + in aperture/ss on many other digicams i use ( wonder why...). it has been around since before the m8, needs no uv filters, doesnt have focus issues, doesnt have color cast issues, the sensor doesnt degrade over time because of an engineering flaw, it is still serviced by epson although they didnt make any more advanced cameras, it costs a fraction of a digital m, it IS a digital rf, actually the first digital rf! oh yeah, and epson never kept defects from me nor lied about them to me. i do not think i will gain anything from an m but heartache and money outflow on the onehand and i lose all of the above on the other. hmmm....tough choice. what isnt a tough choice is buying beautiful and superbly made and excellent-reputation-deserving leica m39 and m mount lenses to use with my rd1

burancap
12-19-2014, 16:15
Had them, have been considering another for about the last month. In fact, I came this >< close to buying one yesterday. But, something is holding me back -and, no, it has not really been the rocky history. While I find film M's immensely engaging, I find the digitals, well, a bit boring I guess. In other words, I am not running to buy one.

helenhill
12-19-2014, 16:18
reading your post hit me like lightening.... this sentence says it all for me



While I find film M's immensely engaging, I find the digitals, well, a bit boring I guess.

Godfrey
12-19-2014, 16:33
... While I find film M's immensely engaging, I find the digitals, well, a bit boring I guess. ...

reading your post hit me like lightening.... this sentence says it all for me

This thread has been fascinating reading. I haven't participated in the poll because I did buy a digital M, like it, still have it, and shoot with it regularly. But these last two comments have been the most interesting. I had to think about them for a bit.

I find all cameras immensely interesting, but only a few engaging after the first blush of learning them. In fact, once I know how a camera works and whether I like it or not, I don't really find the cameras engaging at all: I just use them. It's the photography I find engaging. The camera becomes my vehicle to do the photography, and the more it gets out of my way and lets me concentrate on the photography, the less I think about it and the more I like it at the same time. So perhaps the word "engaging" isn't the right word for what I feel about a camera that I want to use.

I like my film and digital Ms for the same reasons: They're easy to learn, they "just work," and they get out of my way almost immediately. The same is true of a few other cameras I've owned, notably the new Leica X I bought recently, the Nikon F that I had 45 years ago, and a dribble of others through the years in between.

I don't really know what's more engaging about a film M vs a digital M. With the same lenses on either, the difference in images is down to how a film records the image differently from a digital sensor, but how does that make the camera more or less engaging? The digital models are a bit bulkier and a bit heavier than the film models, true, but is it bulk and weight that is affecting your sense of engaging? or what?

It would be great if either of you could expand on these notions a bit more.

G

stnolan
12-19-2014, 16:44
Had an M8 but couldn't deal with the necessary filters, crop factor , terrible high ISO performance and obnoxiously loud shutter and cocking mechanism. Nowadays with the M9 et al I just don't get the feeling they are durable or reliable relative to the price. I like my film rangefinder, M6, and my x100T. That being said if M digital bodies were in the $3k range I would probably bite.

burancap
12-19-2014, 16:53
It would be great if either of you could expand on these notions a bit more.

I will add more later, but real quick: A film M is almost gun-like if you will. Loading an IXMOO is like pressing your own rounds. The loading ritual, the advancing -sometimes with a trigger. The meterless exposure thoughts. Protecting the shutter from the sun, rolls in your pocket. Mixing the chems, hanging to dry, scanning -the whole thing! It is so intimate. You, the camera, the process. It is engaging. Enthralling. Intoxicating. At least more so to me than charging batteries and formatting cards.

But now, to not digress into another film vs. digital debate, I was talking about digital M's. I do find many other digital cameras to be a great deal more engaging and fun, but still nothing like a film M.

paulfish4570
12-19-2014, 16:53
can't buy a camera that costs more than both of my cars and my two scooters combined. and that's body only ...

f16sunshine
12-19-2014, 16:55
I loved the M8. Used a pair for 4 years. It was a great "compact" compliment to my DSLR.
When it came out I tried and then took a pass on the M9. It was not enough of an upgrade and I had a 5Dii when denser files were desired.
Then the Fuji line with it's similar form factor, great light capturing ability, and 50mm Summilux asph like lens rendering (XF35mm) came along and displaced the M8 from my workflow. I mostly use digital for work projects and color.

The Digital M's are great tools and fun to use but if final output and performance in use is the goal there are better options (much).
I'm still very, very intriqued with the MM and may one day jump in.
I enjoy B+W film workflow for now and get my RF kicks there :D

helenhill
12-19-2014, 17:02
before the stone throwing and nailing me to the cross
I have had numerous digitals for brief stints... RD1, Ricoh grd I,II,III, Olympus E1, DP1M,DP2M
IN Leica digital: DLux 3, Digilux 2, X1, X2, M8, M-E
they ALL preformed with ease, Beautiful in fact, but my heart was not in it

I'm not knocking DIGITAL, just for me I get bored
with film there is always a level of anticipation and suspense while developing

Quite simply I'm envious of you ALL who succeed with creating a beautiful digital file
me, I'm never happy with what I produce
so I go back to what I know and love...Film
;)

kxl
12-19-2014, 17:17
I voted "it is too expensive" but I have to qualify that. The cost of the gear I currently own easily exceeds the cost of an M, but while I have no qualms about buying gear over time, I find it difficult to shell out $5K+ on any one piece of gear. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but that is what is holding me back from buying an M240.

jaapv
12-19-2014, 17:44
Weird question to me - I bought two M8, an M9, M240 and a Monochrom over the years.

To me the only valid answers are

1. can't/won't afford it, although, with the present M8 prices even that response has limited validity.:rolleyes:

2. Prefer something else.

Keith
12-19-2014, 17:48
I initially thought this was rather a strange poll ... but it's actually quite interesting to hear people's various reasons for not getting the digital M.

I have no reason because I actually bought an M240 but it took me the best part of a year to convince myself to do so. I really wanted what the 240 can do ... but the price! That was some hurdle! A friend picked up my 240 last night ... well I handed it to him actually and when I told him what it had cost me he put it down again quite quickly with a rather shocked look on his face!

KM-25
12-19-2014, 17:58
Too thick, too buggy, uber slow turn around on maintenance, battery dependent, no .85 option and I can't load Tmax 400 into it...:-)

peterm1
12-19-2014, 18:01
I can see you are still grappling with your digital Leica M demons Raid. :)

Well I have been down this path too. As you know from my earlier post on one of your threads I did buy one - an M8 but have to admit to being somewhat disappointed with it principally due to its technical limitations. So for me the question is, would I buy one again? To which I think the answer is almost certainly, "no". I say this very, very reluctantly as I dearly want to say yes.

I never the less have to fess up that I love handling my digital M. It feels so good in the hand. It looks so good. I frequently get comments from young women (go figure) admiring my camera - always young women (go figure-again).

But I simply do not get the joy from it I had hoped for and that I previously had gotten from film Ms. Somehow the film Ms had a sophistication that made them a pleasure not just to handle but to use. This had to do with things like the soft, smooth shutter button, the smooth quiet film wind on / shutter recocking, the large bright viewfinder and the quiet shutter sound when fired. My M8 lacks all of these things. It kind of feels a little - well, clunky by comparison.

I look at it this way. If you are going to buy an expensive European car you want it to behave like one. After all it gets you from point A to point B just like a Nissan, say. The extra cost is about the enjoyment you get from it (and maybe a little status appeal). A sophisticated interior, car doors that close with an almost silent click, not a clunk and clatter, a quiet interior when on the road etc are all part and parcel. And of course it needs to perform well enough at least to do the job.

Same with what at the end of the day is a very, very expensive European camera like a Leica M. It has to feel good to use. And my M8 is lacking something in this department. It is not horrible. It just lacks those seductive things that used to make me feel good about parting with so much money. This is expecially so knowing that digital cameras have a limited life. I cannot imagine my M8 being in working order in 40 years time as is so often the case with mechanical Ms. So unless you are paying a lot to get a lot of enjoyment, why bother. Cheers and good luck with your thought processes.

rscheffler
12-19-2014, 18:19
Chapter 3: As I have said often on this forum ..... the output from modern digital equipment is not my problem. A $10,000 Leica setup is not going to make my final prints one molecule better than my Fujis make them. And ... hoping not to throw gasoline on the topic .... from what I have seen around the internet, that's pretty much true for most other people.

Sometimes the journey is more enjoyable (or important) than the destination.

helenhill
12-19-2014, 18:23
'Daveleo', Did I hear 'FIRE'.... :angel:

Colin Corneau
12-19-2014, 18:25
They are great cameras, but frankly Fuji and to an increasing extent Sony are kicking the crap out of them on the digital rangefinder market. Why pay a premium for a camera that is equalled or often bested by cheaper options?

The problem with digital cameras is that you have to look at them like computers now, as much as cameras -- obsolete in a matter of a few years. To pay such a premium for a camera that is outperformed in a matter of months, sometimes, is just looney.

helenhill
12-19-2014, 18:28
I think its all about
What You can Afford
What 'feels' Good in the Hand /does the job
and what brings a Smile to your Eye

Godfrey
12-19-2014, 18:37
Interesting responses, burancap and helen.

It's easier for me to say why i DID buy a digital M...

In 2002, I sold my Ms (two bodies, five lenses) to buy a Hassy 903SWC. Partly because at that time it was unclear that making a digital M body was even possible, and partly because at that time I'd wanted to work with a Hassy SWC for 35 years and what I had in Leica gear was about the right value to turn over for the SWC. I did it.

Come 2011, much water under the bridge. I'd closed the photo business at the end of 2010 as being insufficiently profitable, took a three-month writing contract, and made twice as much money in the first three months of the year as I had in the previous three years. In late August, I was offered a full-time position on the staff and took it.

Meanwhile, in the course of that year, I'd acquired an M4-2 again, after 7 years of shooting exclusively with digital. I enjoyed using an M again that as the year went on I said to myself, "hmm, I'd like this same camera with a digital sensor." So when the 2011 tax return was filed and I realized I had over $10K coming back because of an accounting error that took out taxes for double what I was actually being paid, I realized I could do whatever I wanted and bought the M9.

I've had no regrets at all from buying it. It's been a completely reliable, excellent M that does exactly what I expected: it works very much the same as my M4-2, modulo the built-in meter and AutoISO, produces beautiful results with the same lenses, and makes the images I want without the additional work of having to process and scan film. It's a little heavier and thicker, otherwise, to me, it's the same "get out of my way and let me see" experience. Better in one respect: I don't have to manage loading/unloading film, or wind the lever between exposures.

I'll eventually update to the M-P or its successor; the typ 240 series model is even more responsive and addresses a couple of quirks of the M9. But I'm in no rush.

I like using the M9 in the same way and for the same reasons that I like using the M4-2.

G

B-9
12-19-2014, 19:16
I opted for an Epson RD-1s at half the price of a used M8.

Ive owned Fuji Xpro, Nikon D700, Canon 1Ds MKII (1Dmkii), and my favorite Fuji X100.

I must be ignorant, but I like the Epson best, mostly for it's handling.

I shoot film, less and less.

But I still DO shoot film.



I've also never had the appropriate funds to buy a Leica digital M.
Considering my house only cost me a small amount more than a used M9, I doubt I will ever own one.

Tmax is still cheaper to buy, and develope at home with minimal immidiate investment.
I can do 20-100$ a month for chemistry, I couldn't imagine 5k$ in one instant.

But that's the beauty of Rangefinders, you can spend as much or as little as youde like. Especially if you have a bit of mechanical savvy.

splitimageview
12-19-2014, 19:22
I'm in the same boat as Helen and burancap, it seems.

Digital Ms just don't feel like Ms. And when I say 'Ms' I mean film Ms.

They are bigger/fatter/heavier/clunkier/louder. Everything that defined what a film M wasn't.

And frankly, there are a lot of *really great* digital offerings on the market that are a lot smaller/thinner/lighter/refined/quieter...that have equivalent or better IQ, that cost less (with glass) than the depreciation alone of a digital M240 body-only.

Oh, and AF.

And I like to shoot film.

:)

Range-rover
12-19-2014, 19:25
To my mind too expensive, plus it's just another digital camera now to put great
lenses on. I think their film cameras will alway's be tops. If you have a bunch of
lenses then it makes sense (Maybe) otherwise there other digital bodies that
are good if not better.

Range

raid
12-19-2014, 19:25
I am accepting digital photography for what it is. I do not mentally compare it with film photography. These two types are like apples and oranges. Both are fruits, and similar, but they have different appeals. I can make Apfelpfannekuchen from apples, but I would not make Apfelsinepfannekuchen from oranges. Apple juice and orange juice have their places. In the end, both film photography and digital photography can be enjoyed if you just look at each the right way.
Confusing? Amusing?

remphoto
12-19-2014, 19:26
Some years ago, I bought a M8 demo body from an authorized dealer a few weeks before leaving on a major vacation. It arrived DOA and my only option was to return it to Leica for repair, which would have taken 4-6 weeks. Leica was totally unwilling to expedite the repair and so I returned it and got my money back. This lack of customer care soured me on owning their digital line and so stuck with Canon DSLR gear for digtal. A Fuji X100 now feels the void.

DwF
12-19-2014, 20:05
I shot M cameras for 20 plus years when the M6 TTL hit the market. How upsetting it was to have a slightly larger M body on the TTL and even more outrageous was the shutter dial moving in the opposite direction as all other Leica Ms.

When the M8 came out, it took some time for me to adjust but when I found a demo and bought it, I came to love the camera. Same with M9 but it won't happen with the 240 for me.

I have been considering another M9. I just want to hear from Leica that they will actually maintain an inventory of sensors that will not delaminate. Even off warranty, if they were to offer a trade up for a 240 (not that they would) it would not interest me.

I miss my M9! Wonderful camera, but a bit of an Alpha Romeo.

Ko.Fe.
12-19-2014, 20:20
I'm enjoying film era MF RF glass on my M4-2 and FED-2 and modern high end AF glass on Canon DSLRs.

Any digital RF Leica is very nice camera, but unpractical for me.

Can't afford any new digital Leica RF to use it only for my own pleasure (street) and MF old style capabilities for family photography.

If I sell one of my DSLR lens I could buy M8 right away. But it is unsupported archaic cropper.
If I sell three of my DSLR lens, I could by M9. Which is nothing better in terms of IQ comparing to my FF DSLR.

Personally, for digital images I need convenience of DSLR's zero lag and ultra-fast AF.
Buying slightly used FF DSLR these days is on pair with service charges to keep used Leica alive, it seems.

Also any digital B/W (any Leica included) isn't on pair with film B/W for my personal taste.

willie_901
12-19-2014, 20:22
I had to check 'OTHER'.

When the M8 first came out I sent a letter to Leica expressing my interest, requesting a brochure, and some questions regarding how to obtain a place in the delivery queue.

Weeks later I received a succinct reply.

"After reading your letter of October 17, 2006 and examining your work from the links provided therein, Leica Camera AG prefers you refrain from ordering the M8.

We realize our decision will initially be a source of disappointment. Please understand Leica Camera AG firmly believes we are saving you from needlessly wasting financial resources on the pedestrian, derivative work your limited creative talents are doomed to produce until you die. We are confident that eventually your disappointment will turn into gratitude.

We have forwarded copies of your letter to Nikon Americas | USA and Canon USA Inc. Both companies offer photographic equipment that are commensurate with your you potential."


:angel::):angel::)

DNG
12-19-2014, 20:29
Too expensive...for a person living at 10% above the national poverty level.
My only time to get any photo gear or replace a computer is after I receive my tax return.
And even then I would have to limit my expense to no more than 25% of that.

If, I had the resources.... I'd get the M240 most likely.

Darshan
12-19-2014, 21:09
For me, it comes down to - Is it worth the expense? for me?
The answer is no.
I can afford all digital M's but can't justify spending thousands on gear, since I only shoot for pleasure.
My digital appetite is easily satisfied by my GF1.
I like shooting and developing film, that's what I have been hoarding.
I have >100 film in my freezer which I intend to use over the next couple of years, I think I am set.

E__WOK
12-19-2014, 21:23
That being said if M digital bodies were in the $3k range I would probably bite.

M9s can be had on the bay for under 3K.

Lss
12-19-2014, 21:25
I have the Leica M8, bought it after using the Epson R-D1 for about a year. The Epson was my first rangefinder camera.

I quite happily put my M8 files against my Sony RX1R files. This Sony betters any compact camera out there in image quality, but the Leica files are close in practical use. I have had no reliability problems, I don't find the filters an issue, and I use the camera also in low light at high ISO. It's a great camera as far as feel and usability go, and it's still also a competent digital image maker.

Having said that, I would like to get the improvements and fullframe offered by the new Leica M. The only reason not to buy it is the price. I think this is the major reason anyone who likes this type of the camera is not buying. Of course, many people find another type of camera more suitable and are therefore not interested. Other people do not know they would like such a camera. I was in that camp myself before getting the Epson a few years back.

Joosep
12-19-2014, 21:36
I have not bought a digital M because film is still available. Easy.

fireblade
12-19-2014, 22:09
I had to check 'OTHER'.

When the M8 first came out I sent a letter to Leica expressing my interest, requesting a brochure, and some questions regarding how to obtain a place in the delivery queue.

Weeks later I received a succinct reply.

"After reading your letter of October 17, 2006 and examining your work from the links provided therein, Leica Camera AG prefers you refrain from ordering the M8.

We realize our decision will initially be a source of disappointment. Please understand Leica Camera AG firmly believes we are saving you from needlessly wasting financial resources on the pedestrian, derivative work your limited creative talents are doomed to produce until you die. We are confident that eventually your disappointment will turn into gratitude.

We have forwarded copies of your letter to Nikon Americas | USA and Canon USA Inc. Both companies offer photographic equipment that are commensurate with your you potential."


:angel::):angel::)



...............lol.

f16sunshine
12-19-2014, 22:32
I had to check 'OTHER'.

When the M8 first came out I sent a letter to Leica expressing my interest, requesting a brochure, and some questions regarding how to obtain a place in the delivery queue.

Weeks later I received a succinct reply.

"After reading your letter of October 17, 2006 and examining your work from the links provided therein, Leica Camera AG prefers you refrain from ordering the M8.

We realize our decision will initially be a source of disappointment. Please understand Leica Camera AG firmly believes we are saving you from needlessly wasting financial resources on the pedestrian, derivative work your limited creative talents are doomed to produce until you die. We are confident that eventually your disappointment will turn into gratitude.

We have forwarded copies of your letter to Nikon Americas | USA and Canon USA Inc. Both companies offer photographic equipment that are commensurate with your you potential."


:angel::):angel::)

In other words.... they are pretty sure you're not cut out to be a dentist :p

peterm1
12-19-2014, 23:30
"
When the M8 first came out I sent a letter to Leica expressing my interest, requesting a brochure, and some questions regarding how to obtain a place in the delivery queue.

Weeks later I received a succinct reply.

"After reading your letter of October 17, 2006 and examining your work from the links provided therein, Leica Camera AG prefers you refrain from ordering the M8.

We realize our decision will initially be a source of disappointment. Please understand Leica Camera AG firmly believes we are saving you from needlessly wasting financial resources on the pedestrian, derivative work your limited creative talents are doomed to produce until you die. We are confident that eventually your disappointment will turn into gratitude.

We have forwarded copies of your letter to Nikon Americas | USA and Canon USA Inc. Both companies offer photographic equipment that are commensurate with your you potential."

Reminds me somewhat of the old story about a Rolls Royce salesman when asked by a prospective customer about the price of a new Rolls "motor".

He replied "If Sir must ask how much it costs, then be assured that Sir cannot afford it"

Chris101
12-19-2014, 23:52
Yeah, I don't have that kind of money.

GaryLH
12-20-2014, 00:13
For a lot of people it is all about the rf experience.. Outside of the Epson rd1, only Leica currently has a drf.

For me it was about a light compact camera system that I could use when I really did not want to lug around my slr.

So for me, other digital solutions work for me.. And these days there are lots of light compact digital cameras that fit my needs.

Gary

jaapv
12-20-2014, 01:32
They are great cameras, but frankly Fuji and to an increasing extent Sony are kicking the crap out of them on the digital rangefinder market. Why pay a premium for a camera that is equalled or often bested by cheaper options?

The problem with digital cameras is that you have to look at them like computers now, as much as cameras -- obsolete in a matter of a few years. To pay such a premium for a camera that is outperformed in a matter of months, sometimes, is just looney.Sorry, but what digital rangefinders are Sony and Fuji offering?:confused:

mretina
12-20-2014, 02:08
A combination:
1. price and depreciation risk
2. not 100% convinced about the product, except monochrom
3. recent disappointment on sensor issue
4. sheer snobism with respect to leica recent marketing and their target customers (no offense intended to a few purits in RFF), for the same reason I do not drive an Audi
5. I shoot a lot of film
6. already own a full frame digital SLR and an X100

So... for this Christmas I have bought an XE-1 for the cost of a Leica ready-case with the purpose of shooting legacy lenses digitally (a gap I felt I had) and have freed up about 6000 euros to increase my stockpile of old equipment and I am very happy about this.

(Hope the XE-1 satisfies me as it is still in its box..)

Dralowid
12-20-2014, 03:21
I admit to wanting one before the M8 arrived but paying that much was a turn off. After sticking with film for a while I bought a Nex 6 which I am very happy with and being so much cheaper it really wasn't so much of a decision. It has changed the way I take pictures.

jschrader
12-20-2014, 03:35
Digital Leicas are too expensive for my limited use; if I calculate how much shots I produce that are worth printing the price ofthe camera per print would be rediculous.

The costs of film will never exceed the value erosion of a digital camera, that is good enough (in my opinion).

"I am only using film cameras" is true also but it is not the reason for not having bought a digital M, but a consequence.

Gareth Rees
12-20-2014, 03:54
Quote by Helenhill_HH

I'm not knocking DIGITAL, just for me I get bored
with film there is always a level of anticipation and suspense while developing

Quite simply I'm envious of you ALL who succeed with creating a beautiful digital file
me, I'm never happy with what I produce
so I go back to what I know and love...Film
;)
__________________
Well said; my feelings perfectly.

agfa100
12-20-2014, 04:14
Having used Leica film cameras since 1971 it was a hard choice not too. I kept using my film cameras up until 2004 before I got a digital camera to play with. I kept using both film and digital, but digital was no wear as good as film in the beginning, but scanning my neg's was a pain so what was I too do.
I was never happy with the lack of sharpness with the digital vs film, but I saw that digital was the wave of the future, and every time you turned around the cameras were getting better. I almost got a M-8 but it was the price and it really was not a finished product. And the big thing was it was not like buying a film camera, that I could use it for 20 years. The life span of a early digital camera was, what 2 years before they came out with something that was far better.
My first digital camera I was happy with was the Ricoh GXR w/M module that I could finally use my M lenses on, I still really like that camera. Now I have added a Sony RX-1 (used) and that is the first digital camera I am not waiting for the new improved model to come out. I can see myself using this camera for years and be happy with no matter what new and improved camera's come out.
wbill

HHPhoto
12-20-2014, 04:24
The main reason is:
The price performance ratio / real value of the digital M is much worse compared to the film M cameras.

If you buy a film M new for about 4,000 bucks, you get a camera you can use for 50, 60, 70 or even more years.
You can use it for the rest of your life. And when you pass away, even your children can continue to use it.
Considering its life span, a new film M is indeed one of the cheapest cameras, and one with the best price - long-run performance ratios you can get.

But will you use a digital M for such a lifespan? No, not at all.
Digital cameras are not designed for such long life spans.
In some years, you will not have electronic spare parts if a repair is needed.
And furthermore digital sensors suffer from ageing effects over the years. Their performance decrease with the time:

http://www.harvestimaging.com/pubdocs/090_2005_dec_IEDM_terrestrial_cosmic_rays.pdf

Cheers, Jan

Philip Whiteman
12-20-2014, 04:31
Having used Leica rangefinder cameras for forty years, I took half a step towards a digital M with an Epson R-D1 and might have bought a now affordable M8 if Fuji hadn't come up with the brilliant X-Pro1. I still love and use film Leicas - I've even had my old IIIC refurbished - but have come to think that the X-Pro is the digital 'rangefinder' camera Leica should have made.

MikeL
12-20-2014, 04:32
For some reason, the longer I wait, the better (in general) and cheaper (relative to Leica) the alternatives get.

I'll keep waiting with my still functioning M6. :)

leicapixie
12-20-2014, 04:50
The M8 debacle placed me out of the "Circle of Trust".
One so called reviewer whose site I no longer even visit,
saw the magenta problem, remained silent!
Strangely Kodachrome gave me similar headaches in Studio..
I had to use Ektachrome to solve one Brown not green coat.
Firing Mr Lee was compounded by ending the M8.
There is nothing wrong with ASP C format.
Digital keeps evolving, the cameras, the PC's, updating all the time!
I needed Digital for pro. work back in 2005.
That's a long time in Digital..
I bought a Pentax Optio (fit in an Altoids box).
A Point and shoot that successfully made my transition.
Sort of!
Never saw reason for a Monster DSLR.
I have Film cameras, M's, Nikon Awesome Rig, Canon Rig, Pentax lots rig, seeing no point in selling at these prices!
Many were gifts, others bought for less than a cup of coffee..
I Love Film.
I do my own B/W film, thinking of re-starting my wet dark place.
I prefer the "look" of older lenses.

robbeiflex
12-20-2014, 05:13
Remonds me of the joke about the gear head who goes into a Rolls Royce dealership and asks: "how much horsepower does she have?" The Salesman calmly responds: "Sir, power is sufficient."


"
When the M8 first came out I sent a letter to Leica expressing my interest, requesting a brochure, and some questions regarding how to obtain a place in the delivery queue.

Weeks later I received a succinct reply.

"After reading your letter of October 17, 2006 and examining your work from the links provided therein, Leica Camera AG prefers you refrain from ordering the M8.

We realize our decision will initially be a source of disappointment. Please understand Leica Camera AG firmly believes we are saving you from needlessly wasting financial resources on the pedestrian, derivative work your limited creative talents are doomed to produce until you die. We are confident that eventually your disappointment will turn into gratitude.

We have forwarded copies of your letter to Nikon Americas | USA and Canon USA Inc. Both companies offer photographic equipment that are commensurate with your you potential."

Reminds me somewhat of the old story about a Rolls Royce salesman when asked by a prospective customer about the price of a new Rolls "motor".

He replied "If Sir must ask how much it costs, then be assured that Sir cannot afford it"

robert blu
12-20-2014, 05:14
Interesting question, interesting answers for someone like me on the fence to buy one.
I voted "other" and i would like to specify.
Price is important, I can afford it (Due to age and family reasons I'm selling my sales boat and part of this could finance a digital M). Having an M7 I already have the lenses I need. Ok, they should be coded and eventually calibrated but this is not the main problem.
The main problem is the low level of customer care: I can stand to have the camera serviced let's say once a year but if this takes more than 2 or 3 weeks is too much for me.
My M7 rangefinder needs calibration at least once a year but this can be done locally in a couple of weeks. If service from Solms requires more time I could accept this only if I could have the option to have a substituted body for that time, even paying a (reasonable) price for this.
Size and weight compared to a M film body are also a negative point, but I guess this could be overcome.
There is another minor problem: my wife and me oft travel and sleep in small hotels, B&B or other places where there is no safe and sometimes we would like to go out without a camera with us, just to enjoy a meal or a theater and leaving a 6.000 Eur camera in a room is not so nice...
Sorry for the long post, now if I'll buy one or not is not yet decided...
robert

daveleo
12-20-2014, 05:53
'Daveleo', Did I hear 'FIRE'.... :angel:


No No ! .... I meant that as a generic comment on what I see on the internet - people shooting (IMO) mediocre images with very expensive equipment.
Definitely not meant as a "cheap shot" at Leica.
I am sincere - the technical output of even average digital cameras far exceeds the talent level of the average picture maker, IMO. (I include myself in that lot :) ). I simply came to that realization - most pictures made aren't worth $10,000 worth of gear.

Okay .... I am gone for a week, so count me out of any further brawls on this :D

zuiko85
12-20-2014, 05:56
It has never entered my mind to spend that much on any single photographic instrument. The most I have ever spent on a single camera was indeed a Leica, an M4-2 body for about $900 (in current dollars). That was a 'hold your breath moment' for me, I questioned my own sanity for spending that much.

So, I guess I could have checked the "It is too expensive" box, but really, such expenditures are not considered and then rejected, they are never considered at all.

KM-25
12-20-2014, 08:47
In the end, both film photography and digital photography can be enjoyed if you just look at each the right way.

Given the personal and pretty straightforward answers you have recieved, I'm not sure of the value of this statement. As a pro who has used digital for over 20 years, seen the problems it has caused in photography in general, the right way for me to look at it is to avoid it at all costs.

The right way to look at it will vary from individual to individual....

raid
12-20-2014, 08:54
Yes, it varies from person to person how digital photography is viewed.
I am not trying to downplay such personal views.

OurManInTangier
12-20-2014, 09:23
No No ! .... I meant that as a generic comment on what I see on the internet - people shooting (IMO) mediocre images with very expensive equipment.
Definitely not meant as a "cheap shot" at Leica.
I am sincere - the technical output of even average digital cameras far exceeds the talent level of the average picture maker, IMO. (I include myself in that lot :) ). I simply came to that realization - most pictures made aren't worth $10,000 worth of gear.

Okay .... I am gone for a week, so count me out of any further brawls on this :D

This probably sums up my reason for selling my digital M bodies. I use digital for work so the high expense of top end CaNikon gear pays for itself easily over the course of their lifespans. Unfortunately I couldn't say the same for my M8 and M9 as these were used 99% of the time for personal/hobby pursuits and so it was a simple decision based upon my financial situation and alternative options. I can now use two XPro bodies and a clutch of lenses for some of my work (reportage style weddings) and hobby pursuits for the price of one new digital M. Plus I have enough spare cash to indulge my enjoyment of film with an old M6 and Hexar AF.

I did love my M9, no issues with it whatsoever thankfully, but for the use it was getting I felt I had more money tied up in it than I could reasonably justify. I'm glad I had the opportunity to own one for a while though.

Shac
12-20-2014, 09:29
Besides price I was discouraged by the problems that were reported with most models. For M's I stuck with film and for digital I went elsewhere

Pete B
12-20-2014, 09:38
Bought an M8 actually and after two months traded it towards an M6 0.85 non-TTL and cash. I hated that M8.

Not buying M9, Monochrom, M240 because of:
Price
Ruggedness (lacking)
Price
Price

My D700 almost suffices, a Fuji X-T1 would be a nice addition, but: price...

Pretty much the same experience for me. I actually bought 2 M9Ps but, well, they just weren't film Ms. I traded them in and got my perfect a la carte Film MPs on which to use my many M lenses. I guess I'm just not interested in digital photography, and certainly not at that price. If I want to use digital for some reason, I have some Ricoh GXR units that are more than adequate for the rare times I feel the need.
That said, if I had to give up film, the Leica M240 is the only digital camera I would consider to use on a daily basis.
Pete

Colin Corneau
12-20-2014, 10:15
Sorry, but what digital rangefinders are Sony and Fuji offering?:confused:

Pedantry...I forgot about the pedantry that surrounds so much of the Leica experience.

For the nitpickers in the audience: Fuji and Sony offer cameras that are small, quiet and are *comparable* to an actual rangefinder...the fact that Fuji's X series is growing leaps and bounds attests to its appeal.
I forgot to add the growing array of mirrorless options, too. Prestige is Leica's marketing tack, and it's been smartly and adeptly gained -- however, there's a gap between what you pay for and what you actually get, IMHO...having sensors that fall apart underlines that pretty starkly, I'd say.

Gabriel M.A.
12-20-2014, 10:46
Wait a minute: I decided not to buy a digital Leica M? I'm going to have to get back to you on that, don't know what this M8 is doing here ;)

Michael Markey
12-20-2014, 10:46
Pedantry...I forgot about the pedantry that surrounds so much of the Leica experience.

For the nitpickers in the audience: Fuji and Sony offer cameras that are small, quiet and are *comparable* to an actual rangefinder...

Not really pedantry is it ...most shoot rangefinders because they have a rangefinder .
They also happen to be on the small side (although that comparison isn`t what is was) and are quite (but so are other cameras I agree).

Non of the others have a rangefinder though.

As for me ...I`ve been on the fence for a while about a digital Leica but they aren`t cost effective from perspective .

I prefer the output from my Merrills anyway even though they are a dog of a camera in many respects.

The latest sensor debacle has put paid to any lingering thoughts which I may have been lurking at the back of my mind.

Just don`t make any sense for me so I`m sticking with my film M bodies.

nobbylon
12-20-2014, 12:27
Reliability and price.
Sadly I dont think the digi M's will ever be reliable or be backed up by the Leica manufacturer sufficiently for me to throw away money on them. I'd rather buy Nikon.
Film M's on the other hand will always be one of my choices.

Shac
12-20-2014, 12:33
That's great and I'm pleased for you. I just can't afford them or the associated risk

I have has absolutely no problems with my MM (knock on wood) 30K + and 2 years. I already had problems with all 4 of my Canon digital bodies by now.

burancap
12-20-2014, 12:42
Sadly I dont think the digi M's will ever be reliable or be backed up by the Leica manufacturer sufficiently for me to throw away money on them.

But, but, but! Leica will stand behind digital M's INDEFINITELY ... by some accounts!

nobbylon
12-20-2014, 12:47
But, but, but! Leica will stand behind digital M's INDEFINITELY ... by some accounts!

I know Jeff, amazing. With their current track record for camera support, DMR, M8, how many rationally thinking people believe that [email protected]@@@cks? It would seem more than I thought but I'm actually relieved that there are plenty of others who are sceptical ;)

Michael Markey
12-20-2014, 12:47
That's great and I'm pleased for you. I just can't afford them or the associated risk


Yep ... bring the price down or reduce the risk ...either will do.

gilgsn
12-20-2014, 13:18
Like most people, price, and digital rot, which Leicas are not exempt from. I do love Leicas and the film bodies have a well deserved reputation. The digital ones however are a different beast. There are simply too many other cameras just as good for a fraction of the price. I bought a Fuji X100S instead. My favorite is still my M2, with the X100S a close second. I would not spend $7K on any digital camera when not making a living with it, and even then... Leicas are a bit of a cult, nothing wrong with that, but I try to cling to some remnant of objectivity when spending that much money...

Gil.

raid
12-20-2014, 14:55
I corrected them, in future just PM a mod.

Good advice. Thanks!

splitimageview
12-20-2014, 14:57
But, but, but! Leica will stand behind digital M's INDEFINITELY ... by some accounts!


How soon we forget....


"Dear LEICA M8 customers,

The desire to own a digital camera manufactured by Leica,
possessing the identical lifelong value retention associated with
every Leica product, was brought to us by many of our customers.
Leica Camera AG has now configured the LEICA M8 to meet this
demand. With today's newsletter, we would like to inform you
exclusively and in advance of an outstanding innovation regarding
your cherished LEICA M8.
With the introduction of a perpetual upgrade program, every LEICA
M8 will forever be a state-of-the-art digital camera. Today's and
tomorrow's users will always be able to incorporate the latest
refinements and developments in handling ease and technology. It is
our aim to secure your investment in the LEICA M8 for the future.
While other digital cameras quickly become outdated and are
replaced by newer models, our new concept extends the value
retention and resistance to obsolescence embodied in the Leica
ethos. Over time, we will gradually offer new product features and
developments as upgrade options. Our customers can therefore
still invest in the photographic tools they need without worrying
that they will miss out on improvements and technological developments
along the way."

raid
12-20-2014, 15:02
I am pleased that this thread includes many useful comments and opinions on why or why not some people decided not to get a digital Leica M.

airfrogusmc
12-20-2014, 15:17
Like most people, price, and digital rot, which Leicas are not exempt from. I do love Leicas and the film bodies have a well deserved reputation. The digital ones however are a different beast. There are simply too many other cameras just as good for a fraction of the price. I bought a Fuji X100S instead. My favorite is still my M2, with the X100S a close second. I would not spend $7K on any digital camera when not making a living with it, and even then... Leicas are a bit of a cult, nothing wrong with that, but I try to cling to some remnant of objectivity when spending that much money...

Gil.

I tried Fuji and didn't care for it at all. And I think of all the photos I have taken in the past two years so in just that regard it was worth it to me. My commercial work does pay for it all but either way it was worth it for me.

John Bragg
12-20-2014, 15:28
I didn't make a concious decision NOT to buy a digital M body, since I have no interest in such a camera. It was more of a "non decision", since I am more than happy with my M6 and film capture in general.

zuiko85
12-20-2014, 15:50
Concerning Fuji and Sony being 'rangefinder like' in size or handling, well I don't know, perhaps......but; My 1965 Olympus Pen F, with no mirror box or prism hump has more the profile of a contemporaneous RF camera but of course is a reflex and behaves as one with TTL viewing. The lenses are small like then current RF lenses lending to the impression.

The only digital camera I know of with optical-mechanical focusing, viewing and composition with interchangeable lenses is Leica. All the rest are live view and AF, quite different.

Now let it be noted however, that with the optional electronic VF the M240 can be configured for viewing more like the Fuji or Sony mirrorless cameras. So, I guess there are some crossover features.

CK Dexter Haven
12-20-2014, 17:04
• I used to be very much interested in Leica products. When they shot film. I've had M7s, an R8, R7, CM.... And, a lot of Leica glass, from the vintage through the ASPHs. But, i bought them all because of how the glass worked with film. The "leica glow" was never defined satisfactorily for me, but i do acknowledge that i fell for the vintage tonality, bokeh, and sharpness that Leica lenses bring to the equation. But, with digital, all of that is gone. There just isn't anything in digital imagery that separates Leica files from others, and other cameras make the process of photography significantly more efficient.

• Price. Yeah. Leica prices are stupid. There was a time when i was just buying Leica stuff without even thinking about it. Those days are in the past. But, having gone through all that, i've learned it was all a bit of folly, and even if the current prices didn't seem so ridiculous to me, i wouldn't invest in the leica product line.

• Support. They sorta promised R support. Didn't materialize. They stopped repairing the CM only a few years after i bought it new. When i had to have my M7s fixed, for silly issues, it took forever. When i bought a NEW 50/1.4 ASPH Summilux, out of the box it was a lemon. A dud. It took two trips to Leica repairs for them to acknowledge the problem and do something about it. And, that still took 6 or 7 months. A new lens!

• Image. Leica used to be the company that was the foundation for some of the greatest photographers of the previous century. Now, it's the company that seems to pride itself on serving sheiks. I don't, at all, begrudge luxury companies. I covet Ferraris and Aston Martins, and own Mercedes and Panerai. But, the prospect of buying a Leica these days, with their promotional images featuring white gloves, sorta feels icky. I just don't want to be a part of that club.

• Tech. Leica always seems two steps behind in sensor development and whatever it is that makes a digital camera do what it does. Paying far beyond 'top dollar' for old tech feels stupid. Then, there's the matter of their 'upgrades' model. They'll put an old, obsolete LCD screen on a new camera, just so that they can create an 'updated' model a few months later. Why do you guys accept that?

• The whole reason, for me, to use a Leica/rangefinder was the lenses. But, the images i love most from Leicas are those made by pre-ASPH glass. Improved lenses just haven't resulted in better photography. They certainly will test better, but that's not what photography is. If i look at my huge collection of photography books, not one of the images was shot with an ASPH lens, and certainly none of them were shot with a digital M. A secondary reason for using rangefinders was the matter of mirror impact, and being able to shoot in lower light. Well, now, with digital, clean high ISO imaging is just a given, so the mirrorless factor is negated.

KM-25
12-20-2014, 17:58
I am pleased that this thread includes many useful comments and opinions on why or why not some people decided not to get a digital Leica M.

I just had to go back and read what your original post, the poll options and the headline was...

Both the poll and the question was why did those who decided not to buy one choose not to, not why they did, right?

People who did buy one could have just passed on the thread then, right?....but they simply can not resist, so we get to hear about how "Once I was lost....but then I saw the light and praise...I was found!"

Shocker, lol!

lukitas
12-20-2014, 18:13
But, I didn't decide not to buy one. I just can't. Not that I don't want to.

So I didn't vote. I might yet decide to sell a kidney, or rob a bank.

cheers

raid
12-20-2014, 19:15
I typed the word "not" in capital.
Still, there is no censoring, so anyone can chime in.


Raid

I just had to go back and read what your original post, the poll options and the headline was...

Both the poll and the question was why did those who decided not to buy one choose not to, not why they did, right?

People who did buy one could have just passed on the thread then, right?....but they simply can not resist, so we get to hear about how "Once I was lost....but then I saw the light and praise...I was found!"

Shocker, lol!

raid
12-20-2014, 19:17
But, I didn't decide not to buy one. I just can't. Not that I don't want to.

So I didn't vote. I might yet decide to sell a kidney, or rob a bank.

cheers

The meaning is understood; cannot afford to buy .... decide not to buy

Peter Klein
12-20-2014, 19:29
This is a *very* interesting thread. In my case, I did buy a digital M, the M8, about 7 months after the release, after the "gotchas" were known. I bought it because I'd been shooting Leica since about 1970. I had the essential lenses and wanted to shoot them digitally. At that time, Leica said that a full-frame digital M was impossible. Silly me, I believed them. I have not upgraded since, because the M9 didn't seem enough of an upgrade to warrant the loss of selling the M8 and buying again. So I'm still using it.

I don't regret my decision to buy an M8. With hindsight, I might have been better off waiting for the M9, where I could use my 50mm lenses as "fifties." Or at least I thought so until the M9 family's sensor delamination issue came to the forefront recently. Now my M8 is looking pretty good. I've gotten many great pictures with it, and I know it well enough to work around its shortcomings most of the time.

One aspect of Leica has not changed since the M3: A Leica M-anything focused by a well-practiced human is probably the best camera to capture fleeting human expressions in ordinary room light or dimmer conditions. There is no EVF lag, no autofocus delay, no evaluative exposure delay, and no mirror blackout. You look directly at what you're photographing, and you see the shot as you take it. Leica lenses render beautifully--both the classic lenses and the modern ASPHs, each in their own way.

The problem with buying a digital Leica is that what we *think* we're getting is not necessarily what we're actually getting. Digital has fundamentally changed some things. What we thought was true isn't necessarily so any longer.

The legacy of film Leicas and their role in the golden age of photojournalism can cloud our judgement. The film M was the ultimate available light camera. The M8 and M9 are not. They are still (technically) better than film, but a noisy shutter and noisy sensor mean that other digital cameras play better in that arena. Which is frustrating, because the other cameras are still less good at capturing "decisive moments."

The M8 and M9 produce stunningly good photos in good light. But we now had to deal with focus shift, which nobody but Noctilux owners had ever had to think about before. The mechanical Ms just worked and worked, could be easily fixed and adjusted by repair people who truly knew what they were doing, and would last a lifetime. The digital Ms, not so much. Considering how much they cost, that "not so much" is a deal-breaker for many. If I didn't have a lifetime of Leica shooting and a bunch of lenses, I wouldn't dream of getting into the system today.

The M240 has finally solved the noisy shutter issue, and both it and the MM have solved the high-ISO issue for most reasonable people. Those cameras interest me, but new prices are stupid-crazy. I had to really stretch to reconcile spending $5,000 on an M8. Today, with "digital rot," it's worth less than half that, and they come out with $7,000 and $8,000 models. My head says, "No [adjective] way." My heart says, "Well, maybe, if prices go down, maybe if I can find a decent deal..." And then the delamination issue surfaces. And I'm reminded that every digital M has had some major issues for which there's little excuse at the price point. I've been lucky so far. If you're one of the unlucky ones, Leica has smaller resources than Japan, Inc. That often means long repair periods when you're without your camera.

The Fuji cameras are not rangefinders. They are modern, "fly-by-computer" autofocus mirrorless digital cameras with some aspects of the RF form factor. They are wonderful general-purpose cameras, their high ISO capabilities leave the M8 and M9 in the dust. But most RF shooters I know who've tried them are not satisfied if they need to shoot the fast and fleeting. Too slow to focus. My "other" camera is on Olympus E-M5. I love it. It's versatile, small and light, great prime lenses, does decent high ISO (way better than the M8, quite usable up to 3200). But I have lost more shots of fleeting expressions than I care to remember, because of EVF lag, shutter lag, or autofocus confusion. Yes, I could pick up one of the Canikons, but I don't like big DSLRs, and "mirror blink" and slap add issues of their own.

Re. B&W film, I feel like it's the Garden of Eden. Nothing else looks like it. It has a beauty all its own. I still shoot my M6 some of the time. But digital was like eating the apple. I can visit, but I can't go back completely.

--Peter

Pioneer
12-20-2014, 20:01
I just had to go back and read what your original post, the poll options and the headline was...

Both the poll and the question was why did those who decided not to buy one choose not to, not why they did, right?

People who did buy one could have just passed on the thread then, right?....but they simply can not resist, so we get to hear about how "Once I was lost....but then I saw the light and praise...I was found!"

Shocker, lol!

Well spoken. Since I do own them I have deleted my post.

raid
12-20-2014, 20:05
There is no need to delete any posts.

Red Robin
12-20-2014, 20:11
I have enough cameras to last longer than myself. Most are older than or as old as myself. Most are in better shape than I. Why add another piece of hardware that lacks the ruggedness of even my average consumer grade body? I have made a resent purchase , a Minolta 303-b, it makes pictures as good as I need. No buyers regret at less than fifty bucks USD, I ask myself will spending thousands on a bit of plastic and wire improve my photographic experience? I think not, for others maybe. Some Pro's may need a specialize tool. Good for you but if only purched as an ego-stroker, good for you if that's what does it for you. Enjoy, it's just not for me.

geetist
12-20-2014, 20:12
Because its digital and doesnt hold its value... simple

Pablito
12-20-2014, 20:35
Too expensive and unreliable, and I have lenses form my film days that I could use, so all I would need would be a body or two.

Everyone I know that has one has had trouble with it.

Some of the staffers at the NYT have them, but then they can just turn it in if it breaks.

Lss
12-20-2014, 22:30
There just isn't anything in digital imagery that separates Leica files from others, and other cameras make the process of photography significantly more efficient.
I guess this is where personal experience, preference, and style of photography are so important. I have not found a camera that is as efficient for me as my M8. I will gladly buy one that is both cheaper and more efficient. Chances are it would be a Sony, as they seem to come out with a new model every fortnight.

Then, there's the matter of their 'upgrades' model. They'll put an old, obsolete LCD screen on a new camera, just so that they can create an 'updated' model a few months later. Why do you guys accept that?
Leica behaves pretty nicely here, I think. What is the Leica example you are thinking of? X1 and X2? (No idea what their screen specs are.)

I do use one brand that is rather notorious in this game, Sony. It is easy to make fun of them, but as a camera owner I really don't have a problem with them churning out a model after a model with generally fairly small improvements (and sometimes some cost-cutting steps back, too), as I buy what seems most suitable at the time of buying. If it works, it works, and continues to work after the next release. And the next. Worried about resale value? Buy the older model instead.

Keith
12-20-2014, 22:36
Because its digital and doesnt hold its value... simple


I don't think I've ever bought a camera or anything else for that matter based on that train of thought.

I have a vehicle downstairs that cost me 30k about eight years ago ... currently worth around 5 or 6k with one hundred thousand on the clock. It even got peppered in a hailstorm a week or so ago and now looks more like a golf ball! :D

benji77
12-20-2014, 22:42
Personally for me, it is because if the lack of dependability of the digital M's.
For example, short battery life, *corrosion** of the sensor??, does not work well with some lenses, lack of good flash systems.

A Nikon D3 is much more versatile and dependable, the only draw back being its size & weight.

jaapv
12-21-2014, 01:26
I have yet to read a complaint about battery life on the M240, nor corrosion.

Mcary
12-21-2014, 02:02
When first read the pull I thought it was specific to the M (240) so I was going to give my reason, which I guess is what I'm doing now. I just don't think I'd get my money's worth out of an M (240) based on the limited amount of frames I shoot each month, especially considering I'm try to find opportunities to use both my M8 and shoot 4x5 film so about 1/2 the time the M8 gets left at home. With a M (240) I just think I'd feel pressured to use it all the time, given the cost and all. Yes realize that statement is completely illogical, but can't help thinking/feeling that at this time getting a M (240) would meaning having to give up shooting 4x5 film, yes complete illogical. I've spent more then a few minutes thinking about what I'll do if my M8 stops working before prices for a used M (240) have reached a level I'm comfortable with, buy a film M and scanner, not really looking forward to scanning and removing dust from 35mm film, buy a Sony A7 prices sure are great but to me its like the broccoli of cameras, yes I know its a great camera but just have no desire to own/use one.

rbelyell
12-21-2014, 05:15
while the m9 and above certainly out-IQ the rd1, i think the m8 output is not so clearly and discernibly better. put side by side RAW photos and i pretty much dont think 90% of us could tell the difference--except at 1600 where the rd1 produces a darn good image. add in the 1:1 vf, no focus shift, no color cast, no lens issues, no filter requirements, that its still serviced, and the ledger looks somewhat unbalanced, nes`pas`? and even on IQ, unless we're really doing large prints, as i review my rd1/leica lens results i constantly think to myself 'what more do i need from a camera'? when i want that modern hairsplitting resolution, i'm really not looking to an m9, am i? i'm more looking to my 24mp rx1 or thereabouts.

sisser
12-21-2014, 05:53
I make very poor photos and that won't get any better with an expensive Leica.

splitimageview
12-21-2014, 06:56
I have yet to read a complaint about battery life on the M240, nor corrosion.


Just complaints about loose lugs and poor white balance.

:)

Out to Lunch
12-21-2014, 06:56
I took one of my Epson's out this afternoon and put the Voigtlander Nokton 1.2/35 lens on it. The results are great. The three Epson's I bought over the years still cost less than one Leica M 240. For the time being, I don't need a digital Leica. I do own an M6 and an M7 but that's a different story.

splitimageview
12-21-2014, 07:04
Because its digital and doesnt hold its value... simple


I don't think I've ever bought a camera or anything else for that matter based on that train of thought.

Resale value is a factor that many people deem important in an auto although not everyone, of course.

Since I know I'll always be trading gear, it's important to me.

I don't mind sinking a fair amount of cash into some exotic gear if I know I'll get nearly all of it back when I move to something else.

So for me with Leica digital t's not the price, it's the cost of ownership.

Timmyjoe
12-21-2014, 07:12
I had an M8.2 and while some aspects of it were nice, there were too many issues, it was too expensive, it lost its value too quickly, and it was a royal pain to get serviced when something was amiss.

The only real advantages IMHO of a digital Leica M is that it was more convenient than processing film, and it did better color than I've been getting with film.

But all the reasons listed in the first paragraph out weigh the convenience; and for personal work, I usually do Black & White.

nobbylon
12-21-2014, 07:35
I have yet to read a complaint about battery life on the M240, nor corrosion.

I admire your support of the brand and also your seemingly good luck with it!
Consistantly you have supported and excused their failings and I admire that considering how much cash you've paid them.
I'm amazed by others resolute support when the facts are laid out. I'm the same with a certain German sportscar manufacturer,
Regards John

rbelyell
12-21-2014, 07:35
yeah, thats true about difficulty of service. ya' know how easy it is to fix rf alignment in an rd1? get yourself a screwdriver, leave yourself about 1/2 hour and find out! ): compare and contrast to other well known brands and get back to me.

john, your post is a hoot!

narsuitus
12-21-2014, 08:43
I currently use four digital compact cameras; none of which have all the features I desire. Some have some of the features but all lack certain features I need (such as rangefinder manual focusing).

The digital Leica M cameras also lack some of the features I need (such as dependability). Plus, the digital Leica M cameras cost a heck of a lot more than the four digital compacts I am using.

Therefore, I voted for "there are other (digital) camera options that suit me better."

https://flic.kr/p/m4M9Rd

coelacanth
12-21-2014, 09:53
I have bought and sold several (M8.2 x 2, M9 x 2, M9P, MM). Each time, I was buying one for convenience because I was "too busy to deal with film" or didn't want to deal with traveling with films.

Most recently I sold the Monochrom because I realized I was really shooting it like how I shoot film M. I didn't shoot any more than one or two rolls worth of frames at a time at most, and most often I didn't need the photos right away after the shoot. Then I realized I could easily do the same with a film M while making the package a little smaller, cheaper to maintain, and so on so the MM became a part of my motorcycle projects...

I'll see how I'd do travels, but I don't take large (relatively speaking) for business trips, and I use underwater setups for diving trips. I'm planning to fly without a film and then buy some in Shinjuku for my next Japan trip and see if that works.

I decided not to buy the M240 or its variants because I just personally didn't click with all things they've added.

Will I buy another digital M in the future, very likely yes. For now I'm happy with what I have, and I'd like to spend more time (and funds) in the darkroom, traveling and wrenching motorcycles...

eastein
12-21-2014, 09:59
Lots of interesting thoughts here, many are economic. If you agree shooting film costs $0.50 per shot 10k shots is an approximate break even cost of using a $5k M. Also while there is a fear of rapid depreciation, digital and film M's retain value better than just about anything out there, look at the incredible values out there on former pro Nikon/Canon gear. My experience with Leica started when I inherited my grandfather's 1959 era M3 and couldn't put it down leading to a M240.

Vics
12-21-2014, 10:55
I'm perfectly happy shooting film, and if I bought a digi Leica, I'd probably not make better pictures. Also, I find that digital electronics bore me.

Dektol Dan
12-21-2014, 15:16
My first M was a military M2 R I bought through a PX in Japan in 1966 (with my father's government connections).

Two years later I traded that for an M4 which I still have along with all my other Leicas; and now I have a Monochrom.

I didn't own my first SLR until 2008: an Olympus OM-1,
although I've borrowed and shot many SLRs.

From reading this blog I feel that experience is trumped by hearsay. All of my Leicas have been reliable and repairable.

Don't get me wrong, I now own Canon digital SLRs but they are for copy work, zoom, macro, flash and access to cheap glass.
In a word, one size fits all, but light and sporty they ain't.
That means, when it come to 90% of my shooting they sit in a bag on a shelf. I consider myself a quick draw master and damn proud of it. I can can compose and shoot on the fly because I shoot Ms. Leica Ms go where SLRs can't.

Full frame digital SLRs are just to damn big for what I do most of the time. And, because they don't hold their value, they are essentially throw a-ways, like out of date computers.

I am rangefinder shooter who likes to use the classic Leitz glass from the past, just for the look. I can see the romance in the pictures.

Leica Ms and glass are expensive even second hand, but they do what only Ms can do in the hands of an experienced shooter.

nobbylon
12-21-2014, 15:47
My first M was a military M2 R I bought through a PX in Japan in 1966 (with my father's government connections).

Two years later I traded that for an M4 which I still have along with all my other Leicas; and now I have a Monochrom.

I didn't own my first SLR until 2008: an Olympus OM-1,
although I've borrowed and shot many SLRs.

From reading this blog I feel that experience is trumped by hearsay. All of my Leicas have been reliable and repairable.

Don't get me wrong, I now own Canon digital SLRs but they are for copy work, zoom, macro, flash and access to cheap glass.
In a word, one size fits all, but light and sporty they ain't.
That means, when it come to 90% of my shooting they sit in a bag on a shelf. I consider myself a quick draw master and damn proud of it. I can can compose and shoot on the fly because I shoot Ms. Leica Ms go where SLRs can't.

Full frame digital SLRs are just to damn big for what I do most of the time. And, because they don't hold their value, they are essentially throw a-ways, like out of date computers.

I am rangefinder shooter who likes to use the classic Leitz glass from the past, just for the look. I can see the romance in the pictures.

Leica Ms and glass are expensive even second hand, but they do what only Ms can do in the hands of an experienced shooter.

And my weather sealed Nikons can go where M's can't! Pouring rain, sandy beaches or deserts without fear of them packing up. shooting Holi in India with camera covered in paint powder and with a weather sealed 24-70 having someone point and spray water from a hose directly onto the front of the lens while I was shooting. No problem. I'd like to see a digital M pull that one off! I don't want to offend or argue but your point here is hardly why you did NOT buy a digital Leica. Resale? M8 prices are on the floor and I wager that once support for sensors in M9's is withdrawn residual value will also be silly money compaired to purchase price.
If it's the 'look' with vintage leitz glass then it's not only an M body that can produce the goods. I and many others manage to compose and shoot SLR's just as fast as we do M's IF indeed that is the goal. Personally I've never felt the need for speed when taking a photograph and so far have managed to get what pleases me during 40 years of photography.
I'm happy that you've had reliable Leicas but in reality the monochrom is still an infant when it comes to a track record for reliability and factory backup.
My Nikons are definately not throw aways and in 6 years of service my D700 and D3 have never had IR issues, cracked or corroded sensors, memory card problems, freeze ups, coffee stained rear view panels, dust on sensors, oil on sensors, need I continue? oh and they've never needed cla's or lens calibrations for focus errors either.
I really like using my M2 and M4 but seriously this Leica 'myth' is exactly that! In reality there is no one camera system to use in any given situation, there is a choice,
regards john

jaapv
12-21-2014, 16:43
:confused:The M 240 is weathersealed and the prices of the M8 cameras I see in the shops are considerably higher than those of other digital cameras of the same vintage....
I am struggling to follow your argument, unless of course it is meant as a straightforward bash. I that case it is crystal clear :rolleyes:

Dektol Dan
12-21-2014, 18:22
And my weather sealed Nikons can go where M's can't! Pouring rain, sandy beaches or deserts without fear of them packing up. shooting Holi in India with camera covered in paint powder and with a weather sealed 24-70 having someone point and spray water from a hose directly onto the front of the lens while I was shooting. No problem. I'd like to see a digital M pull that one off! I don't want to offend or argue but your point here is hardly why you did NOT buy a digital Leica. Resale? M8 prices are on the floor and I wager that once support for sensors in M9's is withdrawn residual value will also be silly money compaired to purchase price.
If it's the 'look' with vintage leitz glass then it's not only an M body that can produce the goods. I and many others manage to compose and shoot SLR's just as fast as we do M's IF indeed that is the goal. Personally I've never felt the need for speed when taking a photograph and so far have managed to get what pleases me during 40 years of photography.
I'm happy that you've had reliable Leicas but in reality the monochrom is still an infant when it comes to a track record for reliability and factory backup.
My Nikons are definately not throw aways and in 6 years of service my D700 and D3 have never had IR issues, cracked or corroded sensors, memory card problems, freeze ups, coffee stained rear view panels, dust on sensors, oil on sensors, need I continue? oh and they've never needed cla's or lens calibrations for focus errors either.
I really like using my M2 and M4 but seriously this Leica 'myth' is exactly that! In reality there is no one camera system to use in any given situation, there is a choice,
regards john

John:
Your Nikons have held their value? They shoot underwater?
They always are in focus? Perfection guaranteed? Oh please!!!??
You can put your zoomy Nikon in your pocket in India?
You've experienced all those Leica failures?
Yes there is a choice. For 90% of my shooting I've chosen my Leicas. You like Nikon. Fine. My experience is not yours, and my work speaks for me. I'm happy with my choice.

Pioneer
12-21-2014, 18:25
John. You certainly are upset at Leica. You were obviously not happy with what happened to you, and you have every right.

But...it was my money that purchased my digital Leica cameras, not yours. So far I have not experienced any of the terrible things that you and others have described. Maybe I've been lucky, maybe these problems have been blown way out of proportion by the internet.

I am certain they have happened to a few people, otherwise the experiences would not have been discussed on this site and others. But frequently problems that happen to a few sound like they have happened to a lot when a few people post a lot.

I am sorry that you had these problems, and I do hope that you enjoy your Nikons. But I should warn you, I have read similar tales of woe on Nikon forums as well.

Regardless, I appreciate you providing a heads up, but I think I'll make my own decisions on whether or not I have made a good choice. At this point I believe I have.

leicapixie
12-21-2014, 20:02
[quote=, buy a film M and scanner, not really looking forward to scanning and removing dust from 35mm film,

The 240 has no dust/spots removal system as in Canon,Nikon,Pentax,etc.
So it's learn to spot digital as film/scanner route.
The cost of a 240, the intended short life of any digital camera,
makes it a tough investment.

Cyriljay
12-21-2014, 20:23
I have voted as too expensive.....
I already have a M6 few lenses and Have a m8 of nearly for 4years.
Some people have bought form M8 to M9 ,M24o and to Mm and still say it is too expensive and hope some other brands will appear to help them .

Me I understand M9 and a MM is a great camera if the prizes goes down I bite the bullet to get one . They are good cameras but very unreliable in so many ways . And they never long last as the M negative cameras. My m6 bought 15years ago as second hand still looking as it was bought yesterday. Work horse camera in sort of. But M digital is never the same . I can't rely on that to go on a holiday. or using on an assignment with out any other body.

More over i have several other Negative camera including a Hasselblad . So i am happy with my negative photography and use the m8 from time to time . :D

DKimg
12-21-2014, 20:32
I think it's too expensive for digital gear. Like others say, technology depreciates quickly... Film is fun, and I'm enjoying it while I can :)

nobbylon
12-21-2014, 23:19
In reply to your points Dektol Dan,
Your Nikons have held their value? As much in percentage to their similarly aged M digital ? yes
They shoot underwater? I never said they did!
They always are in focus? Yes pretty much!
Perfection guaranteed? where in my post did I claim this?
You can put your zoomy Nikon in your pocket in India? You'll need big pockets to cover the same scope of images and no doubt some lens changes causing even more grief with sensor probs using a Digi M :)
You've experienced all those Leica failures? No because I realised along with others that it's a time bomb and sold it.
Interestingly I sold that camera for €4500 and I doubt I could get €2500 for it now and yes it had card compatibility issues.
regards j

nobbylon
12-21-2014, 23:20
I give up ;)
It seems that because I like a debate and because I disagree with some of the fan base I'm labelled as a basher. I'll sit this one out now and come back in 12 months when there's another tale of woe. Good luck in 2015 everyone
regards john

VertovSvilova
12-21-2014, 23:43
Your Nikons have held their value? As much in percentage to their similarly aged M digital ?

I sold my D3s several weeks ago for $3100.00 (and picked up the D4s.) I used sold listings on eBay to determine fair pricing. M9 bodies are going for the same price as the D3s on average ($2900 min to $3500 max.)

But the D3s cost $4990.00 when new. The M9 cost $6999.00 new. It seems the Nikon cameras do keep their value in respect to their original price (and a D810 is just under $3000 new these days; M240 is $6500.) There doesn't seem to be that wide of a retained value issue with Leica.

nobbylon
12-21-2014, 23:51
I sold my D3s several weeks ago for $3100.00 (and picked up the D4s.) I used sold listings on eBay to determine fair pricing. M9 bodies are going for the same price as the D3s on average ($2900 min to $3500 max.)

But the D3s cost $4990.00 when new. The M9 cost $6999.00 new. It seems the Nikon cameras do keep their value in respect to their original price (and a D810 is just under $3000 new these days; M240 is $6500.) There doesn't seem to be that wide of a retained value issue with Leica.

Thanks for the numbers. I was too lazy to quote them,
regards john

VertovSvilova
12-22-2014, 00:11
Thanks for the numbers. I was too lazy to quote them,
regards john

One can do the same for Nikkor lenses (both AI/AIS and D and G lenses) and Leica lenses. Compare prices when new from both Nikon and Leica to the current used prices. e.g., on average a Summilux 35mm FLE drops $1000 from the new price the minute it becomes a used lens ($5000 new to $4000 used.) Look at the price of a new 85mm 1.4 AF-S G lens: $1600.00. Used sales on eBay: from $1350 to $1450.

Maybe Leica used to retain value, but it doesn't seem like it anymore.

oltimer
12-22-2014, 04:02
I give up ;)
It seems that because I like a debate and because I disagree with some of the fan base I'm labelled as a basher. I'll sit this one out now and come back in 12 months when there's another tale of woe. Good luck in 2015 everyone
regards john
Nobbylon, "you are not a basher" as you lead yourself too think. I enjoy your honest and straight forward comments about using your Nikon's and past use of Leica's. I'm 73 years young and was in the lithography field for many years. I own Leica's; and they are not for so called fast shooting as some so declare. I've never shot my Leica's off a tripod, or maybe I'm missing something? The Nikon F's and the Hassy's I use while doing hunting/fishing resort folders during the '60's to the 1980's did the bill very well. Keep up with your great comments, as they are factual in how you used your cameras, and have given much thought on other ones you used before you commented. Thank you.

Mcary
12-22-2014, 04:26
[quote=, buy a film M and scanner, not really looking forward to scanning and removing dust from 35mm film,

The 240 has no dust/spots removal system as in Canon,Nikon,Pentax,etc.
So it's learn to spot digital as film/scanner route.
The cost of a 240, the intended short life of any digital camera,
makes it a tough investment.

I've scanned 35mm film and have used plenty of digital cameras that don't have dust removal system and its been my experience that scan film equals a lot more time spent in post removing dust. Now your experience may be different but that been my experience.

NeeZee
12-22-2014, 04:26
Uhm, I never decided not to get a digital Leica. It's not like everytime there's a new camera on the market I have to decide not to buy it in order not to buy it, I just don't buy it.

Mcary
12-22-2014, 05:00
One can do the same for Nikkor lenses (both AI/AIS and D and G lenses) and Leica lenses. Compare prices when new from both Nikon and Leica to the current used prices. e.g., on average a Summilux 35mm FLE drops $1000 from the new price the minute it becomes a used lens ($5000 new to $4000 used.) Look at the price of a new 85mm 1.4 AF-S G lens: $1600.00. Used sales on eBay: from $1350 to $1450.

Maybe Leica used to retain value, but it doesn't seem like it anymore.

May not be the only reason that people take a huge hit when buying then turning around and selling new Leica lenses but one the main reasons is a good number of people buying used Leica lenses don't care if the lenses are 6 month old or 6 years old as long as the lenses in good shape that's all that matter.

What about comparing how much of the original cost lens that were sold 10, 20, 40 or more years ago vs how much they're going for today? Wonder if my Summitar 5cm F2 sold for $300 in the 1950s or my Elmarit 28mm F 2.8 sold for $995 in the 1970s.

jsrockit
12-22-2014, 05:29
I've used a M8 and M9 in the past, but now find that mirrorless suits my photography better. I've learned to like AF, high ISO, and close focus.

raid
12-22-2014, 06:29
I chose to buy used M8 and M9 cameras. Computers lose resale value quickly, and any digital camera also loses resale value quickly. The Leica lenses I already own. I did not sell any film camera. I really like images from film cameras. My busy work schefule simp,y has not yet allowed me to think a lot about where to develop film and where to have it scanned or which scanner do I buy. I failed twice in a row with buying film scanners. It was bad luck maybe. Just after buying my two digital M cameras, I bought a really nice film camera so that mentally I still had an anchor to film. I got the Hasselblad SWC. It is an old camera, so it won't hurt it to sit there in some camera bag for a while before being used again.i may surprise myself, and I may make my next vacation a "film vacation" so to speak.
I enjoy tremendously the options available to me in photography, while I also enjoy tremendously (again!) my research at the university. Yesterday, it was a day filled with discussions with research collaborators about fertility and edometriosis, followed by discussions on shark attacks and white sharks. Life is good.

Photography keeps me happy.
The M8 is for me a portrait camera. Using a 50mm lens (sharp, small, inexpensive) gives me a tighter fit with the M8. Use a 85mm lens, and it is also perfect for portraits on the M8. The B&W jpg inages lok great from the camera, but I have been using DNG because RFF members told me to do it!

The M9 is a good camera, but I am sometimes worried about repair cost. I will try to enjoy it as long as it works well for me.

Godfrey
12-22-2014, 10:15
Uhm, I never decided not to get a digital Leica. It's not like everytime there's a new camera on the market I have to decide not to buy it in order not to buy it, I just don't buy it.

Best answer yet.

G

danielsterno
12-22-2014, 10:40
being the majority of not buying Digital M's is price as in value for the money over time, from many who have M glass from film M's like myself, thus looks like Leica can look at this as a sample for a simple FF digital model, with easy access to ISO dial, white balance(versus menu's)- dynamic range and a lower price point. so we can use our glass….

Godfrey
12-22-2014, 11:45
being the majority of not buying Digital M's is price as in value for the money over time, from many who have M glass from film M's like myself, thus looks like Leica can look at this as a sample for a simple FF digital model, with easy access to ISO dial, white balance(versus menu's)- dynamic range and a lower price point. so we can use our glass….

You mean, like the M Edition 60, but without the special edition fancy stuff and limited run tariff...? ;-)

G

Duane Pandorf
12-22-2014, 11:45
I've used a M8 and M9 in the past, but now find that mirrorless suits my photography better. I've learned to like AF, high ISO, and close focus.

I didn't know the M8 and M9 were not mirrorless? ;)

Godfrey
12-22-2014, 11:54
I didn't know the M8 and M9 were not mirrorless? ;)

Well, they do have mirrors (or prisms, same thing) in the rangefinder mechanism. But I think I understand your barb... ;-)

However, the M typ 240 series models do have mirrorless (electronic TTL viewing) operation capability. None of the M8, M9, MM, or M-E series models do.

G

MCTuomey
12-22-2014, 11:57
if i'm reading the poll correctly, 83% of respondents cite the expense or preference of another camera as reasons not to buy a digital M.

not surprising at all. the digital M's are niche, luxury products. they are not for everyone, by design and by price.

aeturnum
12-22-2014, 13:28
I found the digital Leicas prior to the M240 performed too poorly (frame rate, buffer, high iso, bugs) for general use no matter the price. The M240 is, 'good enough,' and is a rangefinder (which is what I really care about).

That said, would it kill Leica to put the ISO, aperture estimate & shutter speed into the viewfinder? The world is ready for the state of the art in 1980s LCD technology.

Godfrey
12-22-2014, 15:50
..
That said, would it kill Leica to put the ISO, aperture estimate & shutter speed into the viewfinder? The world is ready for the state of the art in 1980s LCD technology.

I'd rather they didn't. I much prefer the "quiet" of my M4-2 viewfinder, with only one or at most two frame lines showing and just the rf patch. No distractions.

It's funny because with my EVF cameras I like having the histogram and other data at my disposal. But even there I turn most of it off, most of the time.

G

Bingley
12-22-2014, 16:28
The reasons I haven't bought a digital M:

(1) Cost
(2) I enjoy shooting film too much to spend that kind of money on a digital camera (see #1 above)
(3) I've bought into the m4/3 system, and my E-P5 and GX1 are all I (currently) need in the digital department. And their small size compared to a digital M is a plus.
(4) I've read a lot of user commentaries on problems with the M8 and the M9, which seem discouraging in cameras that are so expensive.
(5) That said, I would consider an M Monochrome or an M240 if they weren't so expensive (see #1 above).

Pioneer
12-22-2014, 16:32
I'd rather they didn't. I much prefer the "quiet" of my M4-2 viewfinder, with only one or at most two frame lines showing and just the rf patch. No distractions.

It's funny because with my EVF cameras I like having the histogram and other data at my disposal. But even there I turn most of it off, most of the time.

G

That kind of sounded like my Pentax SV Godfrey.

Quiet shutter, no distractions in the viewfinder, not even any framelines. :)

splitimageview
12-22-2014, 17:04
The world is ready for the state of the art in 1980s LCD technology.

They went far beyond this with the M9 LCD, it came from a 2002 P&S.

:)

raid
12-22-2014, 19:54
If we summarize all the feedback here that explains why people did not choose a digital Leica camera, and then we email the summary to Leica headquarters, maybe there will be a change in how Leica makes their cameras and the way it prices cameras?

mynikonf2
12-22-2014, 20:30
1.) The digital M's are over-priced for me.
2.) I'm still shooting my D200 when I need digital.

Emile de Leon
12-22-2014, 22:11
Leica M is well built and feels good in the hand..nothing like it..
But that said..
Cost is too high...
Unreliability is too high and problematical as well when something goes wrong..as in shipping cam out for weeks etc..
Leica warrantee is great..but..you will probably need it..
Like a fancy sports car..loads of problems..but the wow factor is definitely there....
Didn't buy one after the M6..just went Japanese 4/3 for years now..and perfectly happy w/that..
Just like my cars..Japanese all the way..
I need reliability..
I don't like to get stuck on the road..

noimmunity
12-22-2014, 22:29
If we summarize all the feedback here that explains why people did not choose a digital Leica camera, and then we email the summary to Leica headquarters, maybe there will be a change in how Leica makes their cameras and the way it prices cameras?

It cannot hurt to try.

Not only does the company rely on existing user base to outsource R&D costs, it can also rely on consumers to provide free marketing research.

noimmunity
12-22-2014, 22:48
I did buy both the M8 and the M9, new, at the end of their production cycles.

So the question for me is rather: why did I sell my digital Ms? And again, why did I not continue along the Leica upgrade path?

1) I was not convinced of the supposed vaunted superiority of the Leica CCD-based bodies at base ISO. It is entirely subjective, but in side-by-side comparison, I preferred another camera.

2) High ISO performance, even with the M240, is not impressive.

3) The CCD-based models did not have live view.

4) Reliability is too questionable for such a high-priced product given my disposable income.

5) I have been more impressed with after-market service from another brand.

6) I still have awesome film RFs.

7) There is a lot of good glass in other mounts, and a lot of pleasure in other bodies.

The one thing that I really do not want to give up is the coincident RF/VF. I would pay a premium for such a body again, but not at current luxury-niche market pricing, provided it were proven reliable in most cases.

Lss
12-22-2014, 23:19
This thread shows pretty well the massive distrust in reliability of digital Leica cameras (especially so among non-owners), although it is mostly manifested by only few individuals. While it will surely take time to change that overall perception, it is positive for Leica that so many people anyway care about their cameras (or perhaps the brand). Many of those would probably change their mind if Leica's pricing was more mainstream.

The only Leica camera I have ever owned is the M8 that I still use. It remains the most cost-effective solution for my camera needs. I will switch when something better comes out at a price I can afford, but I really wish to keep using my excellent lenses (many of which are Leica). If the hypothetical better system actually requires AF, I may even sell most/all the lenses.

jaapv
12-23-2014, 06:23
2) High ISO performance, even with the M240, is not impressive.




Hmmm...

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/barnacks-bar/356740-merry-christmas-post-your-christmas-card.html#post2847291

ISO 5000 , basically out of camera, no noise reduction. Actually I took the same shot with a NEX 7 first and ran into horrible banding in the sky @ ISO 6400.

burancap
12-23-2014, 06:35
Actually I took the same shot with a NEX 7 first and ran into horrible banding in the sky @ ISO 6400.

Would you post that shot? It would be a great comparison! Thanks!

jaapv
12-23-2014, 07:05
Woops - I binned it (need a new hard drive and backup,being stingy with space.) But a good idea- I'll do a comparison when I have time :)

danielsterno
12-23-2014, 07:41
If we summarize all the feedback here that explains why people did not choose a digital Leica camera, and then we email the summary to Leica headquarters, maybe there will be a change in how Leica makes their cameras and the way it prices cameras?

Raid- My thoughts exactly. IF I was a Leica manager who cares about "qualified" market perceptions- these feedbacks are what they pay expensive study groups to compile. Anyone have a contact at Leica?…..

raid
12-23-2014, 07:58
I am a Statistics Professor, so collecting data cones with the profession,

burancap
12-23-2014, 07:59
If we summarize all the feedback here that explains why people did not choose a digital Leica camera...

Sure. But, what is Earth-shattering in the feedback?

Make it better. Make it reliable. Make it cheaper less expensive.

We could be discussing blenders...

YYV_146
12-23-2014, 09:27
Hmmm...

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/barnacks-bar/356740-merry-christmas-post-your-christmas-card.html#post2847291

ISO 5000 , basically out of camera, no noise reduction. Actually I took the same shot with a NEX 7 first and ran into horrible banding in the sky @ ISO 6400.

To be fair, the NEX7 is over twice the pixel density on an older manufacturing process compared to the M. It is an older camera (by a year) and the sensor is even older in comparison (two years).

My experience is that the M240 cannot compete with good Canon FF sensors (6d) on chroma noise control, nor with good Sony FF sensors on color noise control. Color noise becomes rather problematic above iso 3200. Not bad performance by any means, but nothing to write home about in the modern days of digital.

The image looks like iso 25,600 OOC from my A7s. Of course, the A7s really has no competitor in the high iso department out there...

burancap
12-23-2014, 09:31
Woops - I binned it (need a new hard drive and backup,being stingy with space.) But a good idea- I'll do a comparison when I have time :)

Well, at least you recalled the exact ISO of the binned shot. That helps!

raid
12-23-2014, 09:38
Make it better. Make it reliable. Make it cheaper less expensive.

..

Maybe it is as basic as feedback for a blender, :D

YYV_146
12-23-2014, 09:47
Been following this thread for awhile, so I guess I might as well pitch in.

Speaking strictly about the M240:

1. Horrible attachment EVF. In my experience with using the M240 I use the EVF for 40-60% of my shots. Some of my lenses are uncoupled, others are too wide for the window, and yet others are just too damn hard to focus with the RF patch. The M240's EVF is slow, has strong tearing effects, cannot accurately reflect color and contrast, and just feels aged in general. For a $500 piece on a $6000 camera, I expect better.

2. Shallow buffer. Way shallower than most other FF digital bodies (about half as many RAWs as the A7, 1/4th as many as the D750). I shoot concerts and occasionally find the need to spray shots. The M240 doesn't handle this well.

3. Metering. The traditional neutral gray metering is prone to underexposing with highlights in the scene. The sensor metering is considerably better, but using that mode means extended shutter lag. Leica should make sensor metering the standard and implement some type of electronic front curtain (as almost all other brand have).

4. Banding at high iso levels. pushing from 3200 can be painful because of the banding. The M240 is not really capable of producing usable 20,000 iso equivalent shots. I'm probably in the minority when I worry about this, though.

5. Size, weight and handling. The 240 is definitely much heavier than any film M, and approaches DSLR territory in terms of weight. With a grip and thumbie the body is heavier than a Canon 6d. I would like to see the body be kept closer in profile and weight to the M6. If that's not possible, at least go back to the slightly more trimmed profile of the M9.

I'm actually fairly optimistic in believing that most of these issues will be addressed by the next generation M digital. I can afford the camera, but when I'm spending four times the price of an alternative full frame, I expect nothing but the best in both user experience and performance.


Oh, and I want a manual frameline switch and/or rear iso dial...:D

Emile de Leon
12-23-2014, 10:05
Sony should make an a7s rangefinder..
Leica problem solved..

barnwulf
12-23-2014, 10:09
The high cost was my first stumbling block for me for Leica digital bodies. I bought a used (like new) M8.2 in 2009. The lens coding and UV/IR thing was a real turn off for me. I liked the camera OK, but I hadn't used digital cameras much before that and it just didn't fit with my shooting rhythm the way that film did. I often shoot when there is strong high contrast lighting and I just was so frustrated with blowing highlights since it didn't have near the latitude that film had. I went back to using my M6 and shooting film again and stayed mostly with that for several years. Now I think I have finally adjusted to using digital and I shoot mostly with a Sony NEX 7 and just this year bought a A7r. I am very satisfied with the images and the hightlights stay under control much better and my total investment is only a fraction of what a Leica digital would cost. I have made some 12X18 prints from these cameras that are excellent. - jim

Godfrey
12-23-2014, 10:23
Out shooting with the M9 for a moment this morning, catching the fog using the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH (LTM) ...

Whatever the reason all'y'all chose not to buy one, I'm happy I did buy one. :-)

Happy Holidays! Señor M9 and I head to Tijuana tomorrow for a few days with family and friends, and then ride the train home again. Can't wait!

G

Duane Pandorf
12-23-2014, 10:46
Sure. But, what is Earth-shattering in the feedback?

Make it cheaper less expensive.

...

Or Mercedes, Porches, Lexus, Rolex, etc.

Oops it appears some are having issues with the new Nikon D750:

Nikon D750 Users Report Internal Reflection Problems Causing a Dark Band Problem
(http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/12/23/nikon-d750-users-report-internal-reflection-problems-causing-dark-band-problem/#.VJm3msByo)

bhop73
12-23-2014, 10:55
For me it's only cost. I'm pretty happy with my Fuji X100T though, so I don't really have the desire for a digital M anymore to be honest.

burancap
12-23-2014, 11:17
Oops it appears some are having issues with the new Nikon D750:

Nikon D750 Users Report Internal Reflection Problems Causing a Dark Band Problem
(http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/12/23/nikon-d750-users-report-internal-reflection-problems-causing-dark-band-problem/#.VJm3msByo)

Yikes! Good fodder for a "Why did you decide NOT to buy a D750?" thread!

robert blu
12-23-2014, 11:19
...

Make it better. Make it reliable. Make it cheaper less expensive.

...

...and organize a quicker technical service in case of failures...
robert

fireblade
12-23-2014, 11:21
Hmmm...

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/barnacks-bar/356740-merry-christmas-post-your-christmas-card.html#post2847291

ISO 5000 , basically out of camera, no noise reduction. Actually I took the same shot with a NEX 7 first and ran into horrible banding in the sky @ ISO 6400.

if we are going on ISO and noise, thats a shocker, not good at all, but it is ISO-5000 for a leica.

here is ISO-5000 (by trenchmonkey) from a now $600 camera, and completely OOC,
http://s244.photobucket.com/user/rvrsbnd/media/de8c4ba4.jpg.html

GaryLH
12-23-2014, 13:01
...and organize a quicker technical service in case of failures...
robert

I don't think that will really happen in terms of a true drf.. The cheaper Leica cameras are going to be their apsc cameras like the new T. Remember what happened to the Minolta/Leica CL? Lost money on their M bodies to the CL from what people have told me.

Gary

jaapv
12-23-2014, 13:29
if we are going on ISO and noise, thats a shocker, not good at all, but it is ISO-5000 for a leica.

here is ISO-5000 (by trenchmonkey) from a now $600 camera, and completely OOC,
http://s244.photobucket.com/user/rvrsbnd/media/de8c4ba4.jpg.htmlWell, if you are into plastic fantastic in-camera NR with sad colour rendering it is OK I suppose... The Leica is virtually noisefree out of sensor...

Platinum RF
12-23-2014, 13:41
Sure. But, what is Earth-shattering in the feedback?

Make it better. Make it reliable. Make it cheaper less expensive.

We could be discussing blenders...

Three thumbs up

Pioneer
12-23-2014, 13:48
Fix the sensor on the M9/MM/ME series and then leave it be. It is almost perfect just the way it is.

Platinum RF
12-23-2014, 13:50
The cheaper Nikon D5300 offers better features, reliability dependability and disposability. Leica digital M is a special camera, will not fit everyone's expectation or needs, but it has its own market.

rbelyell
12-23-2014, 15:10
it only has its own market because no one else has joined it. if anyone did leica would p*** their pants. as it stands the rd1 at 6 mps has much to recommend it over the m8. to quote pink floyd: is there anybody out there?

jaapv
12-23-2014, 16:11
There is nobody out there. Why? Because nobody knows how to build a DRF at a price to compete with Leica ...

Godfrey
12-23-2014, 16:45
it only has its own market because no one else has joined it. if anyone did leica would p*** their pants. as it stands the rd1 at 6 mps has much to recommend it over the m8. to quote pink floyd: is there anybody out there?

The fundamental issue, and the reason why Leica alone is in this digital rangefinder market, is that building a digital rangefinder to use existing LTM and M-Bayonet lenses is freekin' HARD if you're going to get the kind of quality these lenses were intended to deliver. It is FAR more sensible—more doable, less expensive, easier to develop, etc—to design a new body and a new lens line than to try to make a compatible body for the existing lens line. Any attempt to build an opto-mechanical RF rather than an EVF/LCD based new body/lens lens is going to be shot down on the basis of development cost and perceived marketability by any company other than Leica.

If you don't care whether what you buy is a rangefinder, and all you're looking for is image quality, there are plenty of other perfectly good choices available at much lower prices.

Leica is never going to have any competition for a digital rangefinder compatible with existing lenses. Those that want a digital rangefinder, well, suck it up and buy the Leica. Warts and all, it is now, has been, and will be the only game in town. Aside from the short-lived Epson R-D1 (built in very small numbers for a short period of time based on existing Cosina body parts), no one else has even attempted. Or will; my understanding is that Epson lost money on every one of those cameras, despite how expensive they were.

G

maddoc
12-23-2014, 16:52
Given the steadily increasing prices for film I would love to see an affordable and reliable digital RF with FF sized sensor for about US$2000 new. Considering the price range and reliability problems of Leica`s digital rangefinder cameras I would rather buy a Nikon Df and Fuji x100 as a digital substitute and skip the RF experience.

fireblade
12-23-2014, 16:53
it only has its own market because no one else has joined it. if anyone did leica would p*** their pants. as it stands the rd1 at 6 mps has much to recommend it over the m8. to quote pink floyd: is there anybody out there?

This is true, and Leica is such a small market hence the price, due to the manufacturing numbers, the others know this so why join a very small market.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn46/intruder61/Piechart.jpg (http://s301.photobucket.com/user/intruder61/media/Piechart.jpg.html)

maddoc
12-23-2014, 16:57
There is nobody out there. Why? Because nobody knows how to build a DRF at a price to compete with Leica ...

I think it is less the problem of building a DRF at a price to compete with Leica but also building a complete line of lenses at the same time.

splitimageview
12-23-2014, 17:41
There is no special magic to building an optical rangefinder (or even EVF-based system) that works with Leica lenses. Any of the major players could do it in their sleep. It just doesn't make financial sense. They can make a LOT more money doing something else.

rbelyell
12-23-2014, 17:53
The fundamental issue, and the reason why Leica alone is in this digital rangefinder market, is that building a digital rangefinder to use existing LTM and M-Bayonet lenses is freekin' HARD if you're going to get the kind of quality these lenses were intended to deliver. It is FAR more sensible—more doable, less expensive, easier to develop, etc—to design a new body and a new lens line than to try to make a compatible body for the existing lens line. Any attempt to build an opto-mechanical RF rather than an EVF/LCD based new body/lens lens is going to be shot down on the basis of development cost and perceived marketability by any company other than Leica.

If you don't care whether what you buy is a rangefinder, and all you're looking for is image quality, there are plenty of other perfectly good choices available at much lower prices.

Leica is never going to have any competition for a digital rangefinder compatible with existing lenses. Those that want a digital rangefinder, well, suck it up and buy the Leica. Warts and all, it is now, has been, and will be the only game in town. Aside from the short-lived Epson R-D1 (built in very small numbers for a short period of time based on existing Cosina body parts), no one else has even attempted. Or will; my understanding is that Epson lost money on every one of those cameras, despite how expensive they were.

G

ive made numerous posts in this thread and never even alluded to a camera that was not a rangefinder, so most of your post is inapposite to my views. its hard to build any kind of digicam. thats assuredly not the reason for the lack of competition in this market. its solely because theres no money in the lenses going forward. no ones gonna make rf lenses anymore. having said that, i repeat, from its inception, the lowly 6mp rd1 has much to recommend it over the many times over more expensive m8. to me, and most who don't suffer from red-dot glaucoma, this proves a very competitive product can easily be put out there. epson did it and they're not even a real camera company for crying out loud! i'm not sure what your 'understanding' about their losing money is based on besides leica-loyalty, or what relevance that has to the quality of the product. only the lack of forward lens sales stops competition, not innate leica engineering know-how. but, i live in hope that one day a 21st century epson will emerge. the we'll see what happens to leica prices/quality.

and btw, i want the digital rf experience, and i chose not to 'suck it up and buy leica'. I've got and am immensely happy with my rd1. and i'll bet you my last dime you couldn't distinguish my results from an m8 in a side by side. as an aside, lest one incorrectly label me anti-leica, all the lenses i use on my rd1 are in fact leica. there, leica quality is imo not disputable.

and btw btw, merry christmas to you!

Godfrey
12-23-2014, 18:43
and btw, i want the digital rf experience, and i chose not to 'suck it up and buy leica'. I've got and am immensely happy with my rd1. and i'll bet you my last dime you couldn't distinguish my results from an m8 in a side by side. as an aside, lest one incorrectly label me anti-leica, all the lenses i use on my rd1 are in fact leica. there, leica quality is imo not disputable.

and btw btw, merry christmas to you!

I'm glad you like the R-D1. I tried one and was utterly disappointed with it, returned it pretty quickly. For me, the way it worked was beyond clunky and obtuse, and the image quality wasn't up to the standards of my 2004 Pentax *ist DS. I know others who love it too; but this is my experience and my opinion, not a disparagement of the camera or its enthusiasts.

Whether I could tell the difference in your photos is irrelevant. Heck, I bet you couldn't tell the difference between what I shot with my iPhone and what I shot with my M9 once I felt good enough about a photo to post it. This is because good photography transcends the equipment and is most reliant upon the photographer, not the equipment.

If a coming up on ten year old R-D1 is doing the number for you, life is good. After all, my eleven year old Olympus E-1 still does the number for me in several of my photographic endeavors, despite that it isn't a digital rangefinder.

G

Godfrey
12-23-2014, 18:48
It's not just hard, the only lenses that have the user base and reputation are made by Leica.

I just cannot imagine any company building a body for Leica lenses. There is just no margin there. Certainly no one could use the Leica lens coding -- Leica would be crazy to allow it. ...

Ricoh did a darn successful job of it building the GXR's M-mount camera unit. Although only APS-C, it's more compatible with more RF lenses across the board than the M8 and M9 are. It is too bad that they didn't continue development on it, but the niche market it was selling to was probably saturated after a year or so of sales. I still have mine, although I haven't used it much since I bought the M9.

G

x-ray
12-23-2014, 19:30
I suppose -- but the M is really pure in its execution, more so with each version.

It truly has no clumsiness about it, and users can feel that. That is one thing I really do understand.

One of my complaints about my M9 was how bloated it felt. IMO the feel was nothing like a film M. I'd call it clumsy when you have a difficult time holding it without a grip of thumbs up. Ymmv.

No one has produced a pure RF with M mount because there's a tiny market. I think I read an estimate of 40,000 M9's in 5 years. How many D800's would you say Nikon has produced in 2 years for example? Nikon has all the technology and a fantastic RF to adapt to digital. Neither Nikon or Canon are tiny little startup companies. Nikon has been producing pro digital gear for 15 years. Canon has been in it for close to that.

noimmunity
12-23-2014, 19:35
I suppose -- but the M is really pure in its execution, more so with each version.

It truly has no clumsiness about it, and users can feel that. That is one thing I really do understand.

Purity-of-execution, for sure.

No-clumsiness? I wonder how those people who contemplated the sight of their base plate firmly attached to their tripod while the rest of the $7000 body lay dented on the ground would feel about that? And that's just the tip of the iceberg, no?

VertovSvilova
12-23-2014, 19:47
Because nobody knows how to build a DRF at a price to compete with Leica ...

As others have quite correctly pointed out already, it's not that nobody knows how to, it's that they don't want to. What's the point with such a tiny user base.

Emile de Leon
12-23-2014, 20:06
Leica makes money off Rangefinders..
Someone else could too...
Most people would want it as a 2nd cam anyway..just for the experience..
Put bodies out at 2k to 3K..tap into Leicas market..make it in China..
Make it quiet and reliable..
They may have more buyers..worldwide..than anyone suspects..
Not good for Leica's market though..

aeturnum
12-23-2014, 20:09
I'd rather they didn't. I much prefer the "quiet" of my M4-2 viewfinder, with only one or at most two frame lines showing and just the rf patch. No distractions.

It's funny because with my EVF cameras I like having the histogram and other data at my disposal. But even there I turn most of it off, most of the time.

G

I'd hope they would give the option to turn off all the information displayed but since the M240 can't control what frame lines it displays there are no guarantees. :rolleyes:

splitimageview
12-23-2014, 20:22
Leica makes money off Rangefinders..
Someone else could too...
Most people would want it as a 2nd cam anyway..just for the experience..
Put bodies out at 2k to 3K..tap into Leicas market..make it in China..
Make it quiet and reliable..
They may have more buyers..worldwide..than anyone suspects..
Not good for Leica's market though..



Leica makes money off DRF because their tiny market will accept the high prices they charge.

Put the price at 2k-3k...combined with no associated lens sales...why would would any of these companies bother, when they can sell another 2k-3k product into a significantly larger market, along with lots of lens sales and other accessories, grips, etc?

willie_901
12-23-2014, 21:12
There is nobody out there. Why? Because nobody knows how to build a DRF at a price to compete with Leica ...

Or

It's a niche market share other brands dimply don't care about.

willie_901
12-23-2014, 21:13
Well, if you are into plastic fantastic in-camera NR with sad colour rendering it is OK I suppose... The Leica is virtually noisefree out of sensor...

It is physically impossible to be noise free. Who are you to call the color sad?

Emile de Leon
12-23-2014, 22:47
Leica makes money off DRF because their tiny market will accept the high prices they charge.

Put the price at 2k-3k...combined with no associated lens sales...why would would any of these companies bother, when they can sell another 2k-3k product into a significantly larger market, along with lots of lens sales and other accessories, grips, etc?
Sometimes you do things..just to do em...not because its gonna make you $$$...there are plenty of examples of this..
and.. why not.. put stress on the competition..maybe a lot of stress..
And cameras are not exactly flying off the shelves..esp 7K Leicas..
A $2500- digital M substitute..would be a fun project for any company...make it...just for the fun of it..and to say..yup..we did it...doesn't it look pretty..
Wanna buy it..Leica people..? Wanna...it does more than a Leica M..and is less than 1/2 the cost..try it...you might...like it..or should we say...Leica...it..

aizan
12-23-2014, 22:55
i don't have the money to forgo being picky. with the m8, it was the crop factor and purple blacks. with the m9, it was the noisy sensor. with the type 240, it's the new design. and they're all too heavy.

that said, the x type 113 is a built-in evf away from being sort of appealing.

Michael Markey
12-23-2014, 23:51
Or

It's a niche market share other brands dimply don't care about.

That`s right ...outside of these forums I know no photographer who uses one.
They are often surprised that people are still using RFs ...that`s if they`ve even heard of such a thing.

There is no market ...

nobbylon
12-24-2014, 00:42
I honestly don't believe users here or on Leica user forum are the target buyers anyway. Somebody mentioned a figure of 40,000 M9 units and there aren't 40,000 owners on RFF or LUF, far from it however with these forums we are a combined voice on a very search accessible internet.
Where are these 40,000 units? Probably in wealthy hands never getting used?
Leica have already admitted they read all these threads on forums. I bet they do! probably in an attempt to keep the users of these cameras happy because otherwise their actual target customer ie camera jewellery wearer will do a search and find out all the problems and move on to something else.
I dread to think how many sales they've lost because of this latest debacle.
I've actually changed my mind with regard to the M9, yes I'll buy another but as a disposable camera and only when the price hits a €1000. The M8 is already there but I'll wait for a 9 ;)

Michael Markey
12-24-2014, 00:50
I`m sometimes minded that there is no actual target audience for the M.
Its just a kickstarter project for the new Leica company in order to fund much more market orientated cameras.

Given the technical problems which they`ve had already had a result of trying to incorporate the old technology of the lenses and body shape with the requirements of a digital sensor I find it difficult to believe that the M will be a long term objective.

nongfuspring
12-24-2014, 01:26
I don't have the money, which precludes me from having to make the decision, but if I did I still wouldn't buy one. Reason is I'm just not that attracted to digital Ms, they seem nostalgic and conceited to me, I'd rather buy a film M. I'm far more interested in cameras like the X1 and X2 that found a fully digital means of continuing the traditions of the company but through fully contemporary technology.

oltimer
12-24-2014, 07:41
I have a lot of Leica glass, and was ready to jump at one when all this news hit about sensor issues. I'm waiting this out till I see a clear direction on how this all settles, as my glass is made to run as a family member to these cameras.

jaapv
12-24-2014, 09:16
Who are you to call the color sad?
Because it is....If you dislike critique you should not post on the Internet and point as a paragon of quality...

mynikonf2
12-24-2014, 09:18
Another reason for not going with the digital M's is the same one I have with all digital cameras, depreciation. Even though the M's do not depreciate at the same rate as other digital cameras (the Leica mystic working in their favor??) they none the less do shed hundreds of $'s the moment you pay for it.. I prefer to not start at such a high water mark. ;)

p.s. Now Leica glass & a analog cameras are a different story altogether.

burancap
12-24-2014, 10:07
Because it is....If you dislike critique you should not post on the Internet and point as a paragon of quality...

Or you could just make "stuff" up, correct? The only thing worse than FUD, typically perceived, accurate or otherwise ... is ANTIFUD, typically contrived, inaccurate or otherwise.

There are lots of reasons to NOT buy a digital M, but I find it difficult to believe that a fault with another manufacturer's product is a reason to NOT buy one.

Pete B
12-24-2014, 11:21
Another reason for not going with the digital M's is the same one I have with all digital cameras, depreciation.


I've never purchased a camera with depreciation in mind. I always purchase hoping that it is the last photographic "tool" I'll ever buy. I purchased the M8.2 and M9 (but quickly sold them) with "It'll do until something more adequate comes along". Unfortunately, they weren't fulfilling enough for me to wait any longer. I'm very content with my film Ms.
I'd like to see Leica put their mind to a superb film scanner which exceeds the convenience of the Pakon 135+ and the performance of a Hasselblad X1. What are the chances? :(. But, my goodness, with the right price tag, that thing would sell!
Pete

jaapv
12-24-2014, 17:18
There are lots of reasons to NOT buy a digital M, but I find it difficult to believe that a fault with another manufacturer's product is a reason to NOT buy one.Indeed it is not - actually I bought five digital M s in all over the years...

emraphoto
12-28-2014, 19:09
i would never buy a digital leica camera again. almost bought an m9 recently but came to in the morning.

that said, the M design continues to be my favourite camera in hard use.

uhoh7
12-28-2014, 19:33
I would buy another M9 in a heartbeat if something happens to this one. Someday there may be a true alternative, but today there is not, from my perspective.

I won't live forever, and prefer to wait on buying a new car or motorbike or deck or bathroom, than forgo M9 with M glass.

raid
12-28-2014, 19:43
You could be a spokes person for Leica!

rogazilla
12-29-2014, 11:56
I would buy another M9 in a heartbeat if something happens to this one. Someday there may be a true alternative, but today there is not, from my perspective.

I won't live forever, and prefer to wait on buying a new car or motorbike or deck or bathroom, than forgo M9 with M glass.

That's just it. There is no true alternative. If you want rangefinder camera. This is it. If you want a Digital Camera with a proper manual focus mechnism, this is it.

We can talk about X100, A7 but none of them are in my opinion as intuitive to use as a rangefinder. They are both great cameras btw.(X100t's new hybrid VF I have not used. very intrigued and might just be an alternative?)

Many have talked about how much they love their film M but in the digital side of things, Digital M is really the only thing closest to that experience. IMHO.

Pioneer
12-29-2014, 17:22
That's just it. There is no true alternative. If you want rangefinder camera. This is it. If you want a Digital Camera with a proper manual focus mechnism, this is it.

We can talk about X100, A7 but none of them are in my opinion as intuitive to use as a rangefinder. They are both great cameras btw.(X100t's new hybrid VF I have not used. very intrigued and might just be an alternative?)

Many have talked about how much they love their film M but in the digital side of things, Digital M is really the only thing closest to that experience. IMHO.

This is very true. I primarily shoot film, but I actually enjoy working with digital when I am shooting with the M9 or Monochrom. I'm sure I would probably feel the same with the M. I have tried many others, still own some. But they rarely get used. I just don't feel the same enjoyment.

So it is either step away from digital all together, or come to grips with the issues involving the digital M cameras. Tough choice. I just wish Leica hadn't forced the choice on me.

peter_n
12-30-2014, 18:20
Just voted other and my other is unreliability. I don't have the time or the patience for something that might not work and I prefer B&W film anyway. I don't think I'll ever buy one, and if on the rare occasion I need to use color a Sony mirrorless works just fine with my Leica lenses.

gho
12-30-2014, 18:29
The M240 is only for a.) professional photographers that can amortize the cost in a short period of time and b.) rich amateurs.

For me as an amateur it would be rediculous to spend that amount of money for a camera given the fact that results that suffice my purposes can be obtained by a fraction of that cost or even for free.

John E Earley
12-31-2014, 04:36
I have RF lenses that I now use on my a6000 and one day I will likely buy an M6 so I may apply them to film. Digital M's however do not bring enough to the plate to justify the cost of use and they may not be as reliable or as wise an investment as the film M's.

Texsport
12-31-2014, 09:33
Four main reasons:

(1) I prefer MF film cameras for image quality
(2) Smaller format cameras are just "walking around" cameras
(2) Olympus 35SP is simpler and quicker in hand.
(3) Carry a multi-opportunity walk bag - Oly 35SP,XPan,Widelux,m43 with legacy macro,low light f0.95 and tele lenses.
(4) CineStill 50D and 800T films.

Texsport

ndnik
12-31-2014, 11:03
I prefer film (using the Leica M system). That said, I think that the Fuji X100 and X-Pro 1 are a better digital implementation of the rangefinder-style camera than the digital Leicas.

The way a camera measures distance to focus is irrelevant (to me), so I don't care they're not "true rangefinders", whatever that often-stated phrase really means. What's important about the rangefinder camera is the clear, always in-focus, and larger-than the lens' field of view viewfinder.

- N.

Rob-F
12-31-2014, 11:15
I decided not to buy an M9 after reading all the anxiety about the sensor problem. I would be fine with one that had had its sensor replaced, if it meant that there should be no more problems. But evidently that is not the case, if the replacement is the same as the one that failed.

I do have an M8.2. For a while I thought I might upgrade to the M9, but now I'm glad to keep the M8.2, which is apparently less trouble-prone (if not trouble-free).

Actually, I think the M8.2 is a better camera for me, anyway. The finder frames are more accurate at my usual shooting distances. I can use my 28mm lens on it, and I can see the 28mm framelines (37mm equivalent) with my glasses on. If I tried to use my 28mm on an M9, I wouldn't be able to see the full-size 28mm framelines. And I can get the 28mm FOV by using my 21mm lens and a 28mm auxiliary finder.

Then again, I wish my M8.2 let me enter the focal length manually, as I've been resisting paying to have my lenses coded. And they are up to what, now, $300 for this? And my M-coder doesn't work too well on many lenses. The 28mm Summicron takes the coding very well, but that's an exception. The 21mm tends to read out wrong when coded. My 15mm CV reads out as 18mm. And my 35mm version IV can't be coded at all, there's a screw in the way.

I like my D700 better. No frustrations at all. Same goes for the X-100, X-10, D-Lux 6.

roundg
12-31-2014, 11:22
I am using a M9 now and quite happy with it.You must know it's limitation and what you should expect.

It's a real rangefinder and I can use it in the same style as my film leicas --- that's the most important thing.

Godfrey
12-31-2014, 20:47
I prefer film (using the Leica M system). That said, I think that the Fuji X100 and X-Pro 1 are a better digital implementation of the rangefinder-style camera than the digital Leicas. ...

The digital Leicas are not "rangefinder-style cameras"—they ARE rangefinder cameras. The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G

Keith
01-01-2015, 23:43
The digital Leicas are not "rangefinder-style cameras"—they ARE rangefinder cameras. The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G


I remember when the X100 came out we were all stunned at how much the styling copied the Leica M and I think at the time Fuji admiitted that was their aim. :)

Michael Markey
01-02-2015, 00:17
The digital Leicas are not "rangefinder-style cameras"—they ARE rangefinder cameras. The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G


Indeed so ...this confusion (about what constitutes a rangefinder ) seems to crop up here all the time.
Its clear that to many the term Rangefinder has come to simply denote a shape of camera rather than an method of focusing.

I can only conclude that to some (many) the method of composing and focusing using a co incident rangefinder has now ceased to become important and its only the style of the camera which is the attraction.

nongfuspring
01-02-2015, 01:53
The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G

Then are viewfinder cameras and point and shoot film cameras also fake rangefinder marketing things?

A corner window viewfinder is simply the most practical way of making an integral compact OVF, there's nothing conceited about it. Also, while most people compare the XP1 and X100 to Leicas, they have a lot more in common with Kyocera Contaxes. I'm sure the company is happy to have the public associate their product with a more famous and respected brand, but I'm pretty sure their design team paid far more attention to the Contax T and G series than the Leica M - which frankly I think is just as well.

fberna
01-02-2015, 02:09
Money are not the problem. The problem is what you get in return. After using a M9 for a month, I found nothing which could justify the price.

With much less money you get at least the same result in terms of quality of pictures.

Those used to film rangefinder and unable to learn how to properly use other systems -like fuji- are the perfect prey of Leica marketing guys.
The range finder alone, with all the quirks and problems affecting the digital Leica tools, does not, and by far, justify the outrageous price.

Just like Harley or Lacoste, Leica is now charging brand more than quality of products.
If you buy Leica you will be part of the Leica experience, you will be a Leica selected customer and all this crap. Just look at their stores and marketing activities.

To me it makes sense to fork out the right amount for a Porsche GT3 RS. You get a technically sophisticated tool, with performances way above cheaper cars. I'll bring it to the racetrack and I get the fun no VW GTI could deliver.

Paying for the digital Leica and maybe adding the absolutely necessary Billingham... would make me look a funny prey of fashion.

Keith
01-02-2015, 02:17
I'd have the GTI VW over the Porsche any day ... think of the savings I can put towards Leica glass for my 240! :angel:

bigeye
01-02-2015, 02:52
I haven't bought enough of the other crap systems that I can sell off to finally get what I want.

varjag
01-02-2015, 02:55
I made my own :p

paulfish4570
01-02-2015, 05:58
really, talking true, i never decided to NOT buy one. i knew i could not afford it - nor a lens - and never would be able to afford it. so i make do, like most of us. have fun ... :)

Lss
01-02-2015, 09:07
With much less money you get at least the same result in terms of quality of pictures.
You may depending on what works for you. One size does not fit all.

semilog
01-02-2015, 09:35
I chose "other." I like the M form factor for a film camera, and particularly the shape of the body. Still shoot with an M6 on a regular basis.

As a digital it makes little sense. With film, the Leica always had a state of the art sensor and some of the best lenses available. But Leica digital sensors have always been behind the curve. Where's the upside on dropping a pile of money for the same -- or worse -- image quality?

Moreover, the M interface, always a compromise (sometimes a good one, sometimes not), is poorly suited to digital photography.

Finally, the fatter body is, rather than being "just right," "just wrong." With the M3, Leica got the proportions exactly right. Even the slightly-taller TTL was a step in the wrong direction. The bloat of the M digitals is really unfortunate. I hate the way they feel in the hand, particularly in light of the unavoidable comparison to an M2/3/4/6.

Oh, and I loathe the conceit of the removable baseplate. That "feature" pretty much says everything about who the target market for the digital M's is.

raid
01-02-2015, 10:32
I have not voted in my poll. I bought a used M8 first, followed by a used M9. They sre not the same as my M3 or M6 film cameras, but this because they are digital RF cameras. Both types of cameras are dear to me. It is a personal choice to buy or not buy a specific camera. Often, the main factor is the cost that makes potential buyers not buy such an expensive toy.

MCTuomey
01-02-2015, 11:02
My film M is an M6ttl. Wonderful in the hand (never held or used a film M I didn't like). I have been through the M8/M9/MM cycle over the last 5+ years and, once I adjusted to their difference, found them wonderful to shoot as well. Size variation is nothing consequential to me. Other things on the digi models, like shutter actuation and recocking and continued use of the anachronistic bottom plate, bothered me a bit, but not enough to make me move from Leica. I'm rethinking my loyalty now (which is why I'm posting but not voting on this poll).

VertovSvilova
01-02-2015, 11:09
I chose "other." I like the M form factor for a film camera, and particularly the shape of the body. Still shoot with an M6 on a regular basis.

As a digital it makes little sense. With film, the Leica always had a state of the art sensor and some of the best lenses available. But Leica digital sensors have always been behind the curve. Where's the upside on dropping a pile of money for the same -- or worse -- image quality?

Moreover, the M interface, always a compromise (sometimes a good one, sometimes not), is poorly suited to digital photography.

Finally, the fatter body is, rather than being "just right," "just wrong." With the M3, Leica got the proportions exactly right. Even the slightly-taller TTL was a step in the wrong direction. The bloat of the M digitals is really unfortunate. I hate the way they feel in the hand, particularly in light of the unavoidable comparison to an M2/3/4/6.

Oh, and I loathe the conceit of the removable baseplate. That "feature" pretty much says everything about who the target market for the digital M's is.

That is now pretty much my feeling about Leica digital, too. Unfortunately I wasn't thinking very pragmatically and bought into the whole M9 thing. Like a lot of people, I had assumed I could replicate the Leica film experience with the M9 (the M9 shutter sounds like a toy camera!! :eek:) After a year I bailed out of Leica digital (fortunately I was able to sell mine at a decent price compared to what they are selling for now.)

The M9 was a mistake for me, personally (I also had to have it serviced 2x due to manufacturing faults.) However, I've kept my M4 and M6 and a couple of lenses which I use a lot. To me this is the original 'Leica experience' that I feel comfortable with (although to be honest, I can also get equally good images from a Nikon F3 and Nikkor lenses :).)

With digital there are many other options that offer me functionality + image quality, and for a lot less money. I have no desire anymore for a digital Leica, whether it's the M240 or whatever else they come up with.

Michael Markey
01-02-2015, 11:50
As a digital it makes little sense. With film, the Leica always had a state of the art sensor and some of the best lenses available. But Leica digital sensors have always been behind the curve. Where's the upside on dropping a pile of money for the same -- or worse -- image quality?

Moreover, the M interface, always a compromise (sometimes a good one, sometimes not), is poorly suited to digital photography.


After a lot of soul searching considering a digital Leica that about sums it up for me too.
I look to other makes for my digital shots.

Brian Atherton
01-02-2015, 13:21
I don't need one.

jonmanjiro
01-02-2015, 16:32
The sensor horror stories scared me away. That and I should really use the 400+ rolls of film stashed in my fridge anyway.

KM-25
01-02-2015, 17:05
The digital Leicas are not "rangefinder-style cameras"—they ARE rangefinder cameras. The X100x and XPro1 are rangefinder-styled marketing things.

I'll take the real thing over a style-fake any time, thank you.

G

"Is that Mt. Kilimanjaro sticking up into the jet stream? I did not know it was so high."

"No, it is Godfrey's nose. Apparently he is dreaming so it is pointed straight up."

"I think some friends of mine are actually planning to climb it...."

"Oh dear...tell them to be really careful. I have heard it is very avalanche prone due to the snowpack being comprised of mostly Koolaid."

"OK, I will pass it on. It kind of looks like Mt. Fuji come to think of it."

"Yeah....don't say that to the climbers...they won't Leica it one bit."

paulfish4570
01-02-2015, 17:35
bwahahahahahahhahahahaha! ^

raid
01-02-2015, 20:53
You must be in a good mood, Paul!

jamais
01-03-2015, 02:55
1) it is too expensive
-> In my country a film Leica costs about 2 average salaries (after taxes). This is the highest amount of money I could somehow imagine to spend. Given the fact I get a very long lasting product. A digital M is both - much more expensive and obviously much less durable.

2) there are other (digital) camera options that suit me better
-> Honestly I do not really need a rangefinder in a digital M (M stands for the german word "Messsucher", meaning "rangefinder", doesn't it?). Take the concept of a Sony 7, add some kind of split image of an X-T1 and you are fine. For the time being I am fine with a Fujifilm X.

4) other reason ... [explain]
I do not trust in Leica's competence in producing high quality electronic products. An R-Leica of any age will most probably be faulty (I have tried 5 so far, all being junk). They weren't even able to implement a DX readout properly, decades after invention. And the DX coding is certainly not high sophisticated technology.

paulfish4570
01-03-2015, 06:15
yes, Raid, a fine mood despite a nasty, nasty, nasty cold ... :)

MCTuomey
01-03-2015, 07:21
2) there are other (digital) camera options that suit me better[/I]
-> Honestly I do not really need a rangefinder in a digital M (M stands for the german word "Messsucher", meaning "rangefinder", doesn't it?). Take the concept of a Sony 7, add some kind of split image of an X-T1 and you are fine. For the time being I am fine with a Fujifilm X.[I].

Fuji (specifically an X-T1) is what's making me think about dropping digital M's. I've used one on-and-off for nearly a year. A fine, reliable camera with great support for a reasonable price. Doesn't give what a digital M does, but gives a lot of what a digital M doesn't.

I'm sure my view is self-centric and limited but it seems to be a dangerous time for Leica's FF digital platform. So many alternatives are available - small form dSLRs and mirrorless products - that threaten their functional niche (as opposed to their luxury and brand cachet).

Skiff
01-04-2015, 02:35
Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?


Because:
1. The price-performance ratio is too bad. Too much money for a camera with a quite limited (in comparison to a film M) life span.
A film M can be used for several decades, for the rest of your life.
That isn't the case with the digital Ms.

Considering that you can use a film M for 50, 60 or more years (and even your children will probably be able to use them), even a brand new film M is one of the cheapest cameras with the best value you can get (same is valid e.g. for a brand new Nikon F6, Rolleiflex, Voigtländer Bessa III).

2. After some years with a focus in digital imaging, I am now returning more and more back to film.

3. If I buy a Leica M ( I am tempted ;)), it will probably be a brand new M7.

jaapv
01-04-2015, 02:46
4) other reason ... [explain]
I do not trust in Leica's competence in producing high quality electronic products. An R-Leica of any age will most probably be faulty (I have tried 5 so far, all being junk). They weren't even able to implement a DX readout properly, decades after invention. And the DX coding is certainly not high sophisticated technology.
You have a big problem leaving your house then. The M8 and M9 electronics were designed in conjunction with Jenoptik, who are a big player in military design, avionics and road safety systems...:rolleyes::D

VertovSvilova
01-04-2015, 03:49
You have a big problem leaving your house then. The M8 and M9 electronics were designed in conjunction with Jenoptik, who are a big player in military design, avionics and road safety systems...:rolleyes::D

A classic non sequitur...:rolleyes::D

But nonetheless, a 'big player' in certain arenas doesn't always equate to doing it right in other segments when contracting out services (i.e., digital camera electronics for Leica AG.) And anyway, the M8 and M9 have had electronic issues to where extolling the Jenoptik and Leica AG relationship doesn't really make all that much sense.

jamais
01-04-2015, 04:09
You have a big problem leaving your house then. The M8 and M9 electronics were designed in conjunction with Jenoptik, who are a big player in military design, avionics and road safety systems...:rolleyes::DNo, I have really no problems leaving my house. I trust in a good implementation of any part in the products you have mentioned;)

Rodchenko
01-04-2015, 04:30
"Is that Mt. Kilimanjaro sticking up into the jet stream? I did not know it was so high."

"No, it is Godfrey's nose. Apparently he is dreaming so it is pointed straight up."

"I think some friends of mine are actually planning to climb it...."

"Oh dear...tell them to be really careful. I have heard it is very avalanche prone due to the snowpack being comprised of mostly Koolaid."

"OK, I will pass it on. It kind of looks like Mt. Fuji come to think of it."

"Yeah....don't say that to the climbers...they won't Leica it one bit."

Oh dear. I am reminded of Duane Michals. :D

JChrome
01-04-2015, 16:34
I don't think I'll ever buy a Leica (digital or film), unless I find a tree that grows money.

Why shoot 35mm with a ridiculously expensive camera when there are medium format options that are so amazing and inexpensive?

mfunnell
01-05-2015, 21:46
I voted "other" rather than "it is too expensive" because, while it was cost that kept me away from digital Leicas, it was not that the cameras themselves are too expensive - though they are very expensive compared to other cameras of superficially similar or "better" specification. It was that although I could have afforded one, at a stretch, I had other things I preferred to use the money for - including keeping it in the bank at a time when I had considerable employment uncertainty (and repeated periods of unemployment) and felt I needed the buffer more than I wanted a digital Leica (and I did want one, rather a lot).

I kept looking, and kept wanting, and kept deciding not to buy because I felt I had better things to do with the funds. Then, when my circumstances changed, I did buy one. I think I made the right decisions under the differing conditions.

...Mike

jaapv
01-09-2015, 00:52
I don't think I'll ever buy a Leica (digital or film), unless I find a tree that grows money.

Why shoot 35mm with a ridiculously expensive camera when there are medium format options that are so amazing and inexpensive?
Tried that, too cumbersome. The Leica M has been my everyday and travel camera for a long time, supplemented with an R system ( and Canon whilst waiting for Leica to go digital DMR after that.) for wildlife.
Actually I even took a Mamiya 645 on safari (with 500 mm lens and TEX)- once and never again...
Now I can take just the M240 as a single system and a small Sony backup for travel; it all fits into the smallest Lowepro Sling backpack - and the M240, M9 and MM as triple camera system that can handle anything I want or need. Life has never been better :) :):angel:

BTW, I handled the Leica S - beautiful camera, superb results - but you need a donkey to carry your gear....

kossi008
01-09-2015, 01:51
A combination of answers 1,2, and 4:
For what I do with digital, a digital M is way too expensive. Even a used M8...

jsrockit
01-09-2015, 05:40
BTW, I handled the Leica S - beautiful camera, superb results - but you need a donkey to carry your gear....

The ultimate Leica accessory.

kuuan
01-09-2015, 07:32
Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?
by way of exclusion, never considered to buy one. main reason is the high cost, secondly the exclusivity, also anxieties, that come with it.

jaapv
01-09-2015, 10:14
The ultimate Leica accessory.
Yep - you just need to tape up the red dot on its behind....

apostasiometritis
01-09-2015, 11:47
You have a big problem leaving your house then. The M8 and M9 electronics were designed in conjunction with Jenoptik, who are a big player in military design, avionics and road safety systems...:rolleyes::D

I am sorry but everyone is judged by the result of their efforts. In the case of digital Ms reliability has not been exactly stellar. I do own an M8, the only connection to anything military is the shutter sound. Reminds me of my HK G3's breech sound back in the day.