What if.. Leica Changed the way....

Clintock raises the matter of deleting features. Since my own Leica happens to be an M4-2, he has a point.

But the general concensus seems to be that the main reason the M5 was discontinued was that it was a flop in the marketplace. It was "different" in size from previous M's, and the wig-wag meter prevented at least some wide-angle lenses from being used on the 5. So in retrospect, it doesn't seem to have been much a step forward.

At least according to things I've read, the Leitz company was close to going belly-up, and had about decided to concentrate on the R models. But given their prices, that wasn't the most propitious move, either. So they came out with the 4-2, which has sometimes been called the model that saved Leitz from going under.

When I bought mine, it was new, but had actually already been discontinued for a while. At the time the current model was the M4-P, but the only real difference was frames for a couple of additional focal lengths in the finder. I really bought the Leica because I had spent half of my life wanting one, and I already had SLR's, so I decided I would stick with just 35, 50, and 90mm lenses. I've never changed my mind on that score, and they are still the only three lenses I have.

I might add that I bought all the stuff right around the mid-1980s. At today's prices, I'm afraid that I'd still be wanting. My whole outfit came to about $2,200 in total - which wouldn't even get you much of a lens today. Yes, the prices were relatively high then too, but not in the stratosphere like now. I'm a retired teacher, not CEO of General Motors - another outfit having problems.

I don't think all this debate is really going to change anybody's mind one way or another, but it's always interesting to see the different opinions and points that are brought up.
 
Last edited:
rover said:
Bottom line, what takes the picture, the photographer or the camera. Now I am no highly skilled artist, don't get me wrong, but I like my tool. You may like a different one, that is great. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, it just makes us different.

Has Leica made changes? Well, very slowly, but yes, Ala the M7. Would a faster shutter speed or flash sync be better, I guess so, but slower films work too, and who uses a flash? Different strokes for different folks.

What Leica needs most is a fully featured sub $1000 DSLR to use with kick a$$ lenses ala Canon, Nikon and Pentax to survive, not a change in their wonder niche masterpiece that is the M series.
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting..

Many fine posts here, a few upset posts, but all in all an education for me.

Like I stated in my original post, I did own a M5 I bought it used with a Black 35 Summicron. I think I paid $1,200.00 back than, in the 80's? It was a black 2 lug version. I DID LIKE that fast handling of the camera...The Meter, The way to focus, the lightness compared to an SLR of the day. I even liked the more squared shape too. The M5 was assume to use. I did not have a "Hard" time loading, just getting accustomed to it. Maybe if I tethered the base plate to a lug...I don't know. But, I guess I was hooked on hinged back loading with semi-auto type systems.

It was interesting to read about a prototype Leica too. Tradition is a good thing when you have a good thing to start with. Certainly Leica has a good thing going too with bottom loaders. and many good points have been brought up here to support that.

I was curious why Leica held to that design. And many respectful answers did follow too. Thanks for all of them.

After all, as someone mentioned...It is a LEICA....

Many here DON'T want Leica to change a thing. Some here would not mind a small feature set change (AKA faster top speed, or faster sync). Other than that, leave it alone.

Now for a sub 1K DSLR from Leica.... With one of these mounts: EF, NAF, PAF...
I don't see it.. Or to compete with Canon, Nikon, Pentax ??? But the R lens's would still cost a bundle. I don't see Leica melding in the main stream that much. They are keeping up with the times, sorta. Well it took over 10 years to come up with the M8. But, many say it was worth the wait. Others say, they released it too early...still had few bugs to work out. But it had to be released. Leica is still a business that needs to keep R&D and new products flowing. They have to sell stuff to stay in business like every one else. But I don't think the camera arm of Leica is their money maker. Most likely it is in medical and scientific products world wide.

What is an M9 the next Film M ??

with 21-135 frames, (with a VF magnifier for Larger VF image for longer lens frames), TTL Flash, TTL meter, Sync at 1/125s, Built in Leicavit trigger that's also comes off to bottom load the film. Price $4,599.00....Kidding.... Really $9,000.00 :D with a 28mm F/2 and 50mm F/2, 90mm F/2 and free pro pack of film (36x)
:D :D :D
 
A hinged back? Jesus, Mary and Joseph! That would have been nice anytime between, say, 1954 and 2000, but Leica has bigger problems now. A few of us film-shooting diehards ain't gonna save the company now.

I'm more interested in a working M9 at a $2500 price point.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother. :D
 
ferider said:
Like Ralph: wrt loading, the M6 is the easiest non-motorized camera I know, and I've been around the block ;)
Click to expand...
I think you've hit upon something we've all ignored up to this point: if you compared the M-bodies' film-loading system to SLRs of the pre-fast/auto-load era. For pro SLRs, that would run up into the late 1980s (yes, Canon had their QL system in place before the F-1 was released, but this was restricted to just one, "amateur"-level SLR body, the FT series, as well as their fixed-lens RFs). Leica's system was not at much of a disadvantage by comparison. Compared to contemporary film-based SLRs – at least those that remain in production – of course, the M appears hopelessly "outgunned." But one generally doesn't photograph with a Leica (or any roughly-similar RF) the same way, either.


- Barrett
 
I bought a Leica M in the first place because it was the best example of the kind of camera I like to use. I'm not bothered about flash sync as I never use flash, the loading is a non-issue, and as for higher shutter speeds, I just load slower film or fit a ND filter.I find the feature laden modern SLR adds nothing to the photographic process for me except a lot of confusing choices and viewfinder data that I don't need.
 
Last edited:
This brings up the old "bells and whistles" argument. I'm old enough to have started with cameras when one had to learn what shutter speeds and f/stops did. I'm under no illusion that current cameras do anything that much better. I can remember the early days of automatic transmissions - many people wanted to "drive the car", not "have it drive itself". But guess what - the automatics clearly won out.

I have both of the last Minoltas - 7 and 7D, film and digital. They are nice to use, and they take care of some things that used to mean a little figuring. But the M4-2 also still takes pictures, and it doesn't even know what a battery is. And until my arteries harden up enough, I think I can live with both types.
 
My car a jap has a stick, close ratio six speed.

Now he M8 - it needs a hinged back, for the ex SLR folks

Noel
 
I'm not bothered about flash sync as I never use flash, the loading is a non-issue, and as for higher shutter speeds, I just load slower film or fit a ND filter.
Click to expand...

Thinking like this is why the Leica M is the number one choice of hobbyists rather than working photographers.

The 1/50th flash sync, FWIW, is why I finally gave up on my M6TTL's for wedding work. The SF20 works much better than it's normally credited, but the slow flash sync speed of the M makes it worthless outdoors in sunlight.
 
Agree 100%

Agree 100%

markinlondon said:
I bought a Leica M in the first place because it was the best example of the kind of camera I like to use. I'm not bothered about flash sync as I never use flash, the loading is a non-issue, and as for higher shutter speeds, I just load slower film or fit a ND filter.I find the feature laden modern SLR adds nothing to the photographic process for me except a lot of confusing choices and viewfinder data that I don't need.
Click to expand...


This is the way I feel too. Plus as there are many choices, anyone can pick what they want. I have used so many different cameras over the years - SLRs with big lenses, Med format, etc, etc, and now Leicas. I still have some others and use them , but for now, it's Leica that I use the most. We will see what future holds, but I don't do photography professionally, so I go with what I enjoy and respond to. If some people find Leica limiting - there many other cameras to choose from. So what if I can't change film fast - I'm not in a hurry. When I felt like I was - I used EOS system. Plus its funny when people give me looks when I get my Barnack out while all others have their tiny Digicams.
It's all about choice. It's nice to have it. It wouldn't be so nice if we didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top