Leica M7 Camera Review

M7 is a fine and very capable machine. But I am not so sure about M7 becoming the "best loved Leica ever". Those "7 impressive innovations" were done by other manufacterers decades back.

I recently spent some time with the M7 and found it to be a wonderful improvement on the M6ttl. I plan to buy one in the near future for all those times when I need to stop metering and keep shooting. The electronics appeal to me as I understand that in the long run they will remain more durable than the mechanical linkages. This is a well written overview of a nicely done camera.

Kirk

This opinion is not aimed to detract from Tony's evaluation of the M7 but only to point out that stating that the M7 will be the "best loved Leica ever" is risky, at the very least.

My vote for "The Best Loved Leica Ever" definitely goes to the M3.

IMHO, Leica still has left to manufacture a better body than this old all mechanical marvel. It wouldn't be extrange for me if some M3s could continue working well after the M7 (and/or its batteries) had been discontinued. How long will it be, BTW: 10, 20, 30 years ahead of today . . .?

On the other hand, at 55 I think that I won't see the day when no M3s will be working any more. At least mine will, for sure, though they were manufactured more than 40 years ago ! ! !

-Iván

leica is re introducing the M3 some time within the next year and a half.

but you didnt hear it from me....shhhh....get my leica rep in serious trouble.

When I first read about the M7 everything about it seemed perfect. But when I tried one I was very put off by that annoying blinking dot. What were they thinking! I love to shoot XP2 but it has to be exposed at 250 or 320. It loses a lot of shadow detail at it's listed 400. Well forget that on an M7. That blinking dot is just too distracting.

The delay when you turn the camera on is really only 2 seconds, hardly any big issue, in my experience. If you really want safety, do what I used to do with my M6, keep it uncocked. The delay is due to internal electronic diagnostics. I don't know, but I'd bet that all today's Autofocus SLR's have similar startup times.

The ISO dial's tendency to be easily altered is certainly an issue that needs fixing. The dedents need to be depended or something. It's not a horrible problem, but it can be nagging if you're not careful. A little black tape will keep it in place with surety.

Yea, yea, I know that some people will holler at putting tape on a $2,350 camera. IT SHOULD BE PERFECT AT THAT PRICE! But get real, real-world companies make little design errors with all of their products, especially new ones; Leica just didn't do enough field testing to find a few small issues. If you don't like it, wait for the first rev in 6-12 months. I'm sure that current bodies will be upgradable.

Skip

Gordon, thanks for your comment, it helped to clarify a few things for me. This is why flash just isn't a typical M camera function (at least for most M photographers), no matter how hard the company tries to implement it into the M line. It's no different than a trailer hitch on a motorcycle.

Of all the "gotchas" of the M7, the blinking dot is the most insignificant to me; it really didn't bother me that much.

The most significant problem is definitely the ISO/DX ring on the back. Yep, for the price, I need it to be perfect.

Sorry to disagree, but that blinking dot in the viewfinder is a problem that needs to be addressed by Leica. Most people that shoot the better C41 films like to overexpose them a little (XP2, NPH, etc.). That means there is a blinking dot in the viewfinder ALL THE TIME! How can you not find this distracting? Especially in a camera thats supposed to "take you back to the basics". Also, if you push any film in this camera, the blinking dot is on for the WHOLE ROLL! Not very Leica-like now is it?

Some more M7 'gotchas' that have been mentioned in the LUG and LEG.

1. There is no exposure lock apart from partially pressing the shutter release, and that only lasts for one shot. This can make it difficult to use a motor drive in auto exposure mode.

2. The battery cover can easily drop off unexpectedly and become lost.

3. If you intend setting the film speed dial to the DX position, it's important to push the cassette fully home when loading a film, to help ensure that the DX sensors will make proper contact.

A nice review, not such semiscientific nonsense as the mentioned authority deemes necessary to give his reviews any credibility.

It seems that if you want to use the worlds most expensive 35mm system you have to get used to the quirks. A good thing for Leica is that it's fans will forgive the company almost everything. But then again every camerasystem has it's pro's and con's.

The best Leica M ever? I doubt it. The M5 was a much bigger step forward then the M7. If only it had looked better...

Thanks Tony for your lovely review. At least your review has pictures to accompany it unlike that of Erwin Puts' which was good for the scientific report.

I agree that the M7 is the epitome of the M series apart from the lovely M6 TTL. I believe that each M line has been unique and of course, no camera is perfect.

Granted the M7 has flaws but doesn't every camera have a few? Hopefully they can upgrade to a hybrid shutter system like that of the Nikon FM3a. I would be highly appreciative of that considering that one can stop worrying about battery dependence.

I don't want to nitpick, but your statement that the Leica M7 features flash synchronization up to 1/1000 of a second "with Metz flash" is a bit misleading. Basically, the flash unit strobes at a rate high enough to synchronize with the narrow shutter opening as it moves across the film. The "catch" is that the resulting output is low, so your maximum flash range is much less than what you'd get with normal flash synchronization. This may still be okay for flash-fill outdoors, but also bear in mind that this feature works only in the manual mode, not TTL-flash mode. In other words, the FLASH controls the flash duration, not the camera.

As a final note, the flash this review refers to is the Metz 54 MZ3, which looks like a bulkier version of a Vivitar 283. The required flash-to-camera adapter only adds to the bulk. Anyone who's ever mounted a large flash unit on a Leica rangefinder knows exactly what I mean: The camera becomes extremely top-heavy.

Bottom line: Don't take this "high-speed flash sync" feature too seriously. As with its predecessors, the M7 is not really designed for convenient and flexible use with portable electronic flash.

I recently upgraded my M6TTL to a M7. While I don't regret it, I personally think I would have been just as happy to stick with the M6TTL and apply the cost variance to another M lens. But that's a personal opinion. I do admire Leica for staying with tradition and only adding improvements. They didn't take anything away that I enjoyed on my M6TTL. It will come in handy to have an automatic during times of candid photography. I am also pleased that it is aperture priority.

A Leica M camera becomes such a part of you with time....maybe this explains my disappointment with saying good by to the M6TTL...it never let me down! With time the M7 will grow on me.

J. P. Mose

Just a correction: the M6 TTL has shutter speeds from 1/1000 to ONE second, not 1/1000 to 4 seconds, as stated in the original review.

Cheers,

While I'm sure the M7 is a very capable camera, I am disappointed to learn that Leica has failed to make it into a truly modern camera. Retaining the cumbersome film loading method and slow flash synch speed limits its usefulness to me. The company's persistent attachment to the past is ironic: at one time the Leica rangefinder camera was a radical departure that changed photography. Perhaps it is time to check out the Konica Hexar RF.

I am relieved that Leica has saved the M camera from turning into "a truly modern camera." The Leica M is not an appropriate tool for serious flash use.

One interesting difference between the Leica M camera and just about any other camera is that, like the flavor of whiskey to a nine year old, it cannot easily be sold. Most non-M photographers go bleah at the feature list of the M and swiftly dismiss the camera as obsolete and hopelessly inadequate for today's "modern" purposes. Ah heck, they're probably right.

you can now buy a model T ford with a automatic transmission, but at the price of a Rolls Royce. These are going to sell like hotcakes. I am not anti leica I love the old ones but this is truely rediculous. Michael

My disappointment is rooted in Leica's failure to make the camera a better tool. It could be used very successfully with flash (I use an M4-2 with flash regularly and I know others who use the M with flash) and would be a more capable and versatile tool with a higher flash synch; having to remove the bottom plate to re-load is a major pain in the ass when using a potatomasher flash like a Metz 45. I find many great qualities in the Leica rangefinder cameras; I simply want to be able to use them without unnecessary difficulty. But I'll not belabor the point. I'll use what I've got, and look elsewhere for more utility and friendlier ergonomics in a rangefinder camera.

I have been using my M2 since 1970. In 2001 I purchased an M6. I just returned from two weeks of street photography in Paris. I was sorely tempted to buy an M7 before heading to France--where I used only my M6 and my 35mm and 50mm Summicrons. Upon reflection, I'm not sure the M7 has any advantages over the M6 (or even the M2) for street photography. On overcast days, exposure can be determined with: 1) the light meter in the M6; 2) a hand-held lightmeter; 3) by experience. In full sun with 400 ISO film, just use f/8 at 1000/second. As one goes from full sun to full or partial shade the situation is a bit more tricky. I need a least 1/500 second to prevent camera shake when making grab shots and to stop most subject motion. This means my aperatures go as far open as f/5.6. The next critical judgment is setting the maximum hyperfocal distance for the focal length and the f/stop. Setting hyperfocal is relatively easy with a 35mm lens and quite difficult with a 50mm lens anytime the f/stop is larger than f/8.

My point is that setting shutter speed and hyperfocal distance for street photography are more important than setting aperature. In this context, aperature preferred auto exposure is not very helpful.

I have no doubt that I will own an M7 one day, but for the type of shooting just described (a Leica's sweet spot), I'm not sure auto exposure is particularly important.

What I would really like to see is a Leica M camera that has lenses with detentes for hyperfocal settings for f/5.6 and f/8. These detentes would communicate to the shutter the speeds that should be selected at the moment of exposure. In other words, if the f/5.6 detente is engaged on a 50mm lens, the camera would know that a shutter speed in the 1/500 second range (with ISO 400 speed film) should be selected. Similarly, when the f/8 detente is engaged with ISO 400 film, the shutter speed of 1/1000 should be selected. All I would have to do is determine if I'm in an overcast/shaded situation or sunny situation, set the appropriate lens detente and let the camera choose the shutter speed. This process would automate what I spent two weeks doing manually--usually quite rapidly. After I develop my forty-plus rolls of XP5 we will see how accurate my exposures were. But, after more than 35 years of estimating exposure values, I'm confident that most of my exposures will produce quality images.

Bob Gordon

A classic Leica moment

Looking at the excellent article and all the comments, as a keen M6 user (See my presentation on "Why I love my Leica" http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=149372) it looks to me that Leica seem to have added as many problems as they have added useful innovations. I can see new Leica users "leicing" the M7 because its less of a culture shock to their current modern cameras. However flashing lights in the viewfinder each time you vary the DX setting are a definite nono.

They also seem to have lost an opportunity with the flash. I rarely use it as one reader states it makes the camera extremely top heavy and balance is one thing leica's are all about. They could have come up with something radical that kept that balalnce and make you want to use it.

The 2 second start up seems another real problem as the whole pleasure of the camera is to be able to react to street situations nearly instantly.

I will continue to read about the M7 and maybe try one out, but in general I think I would rather add a Noctilux to my three other lenses.

I read somewhere in the net that Leica approached Konica to build the M7. Apparently, some of the technologies in the M7 lens share somethings with the Hexanon lens. Can anyone confirm that?

Various writers have commented on the slow flash sync. capabilities of the Leica M series. This is a direct consequence of the low-tension, horizontally travelling cloth shutter. Unfortunately, this shutter is what makes Leica M's so quiet, and one of the reasons for the very long time before failure. Other companies have gone to a metal, vertically travelling shutter to increase the speed. It makes quite a different sound.

Having just upgraded from an M6TTL to an M7, I'd like to respond to a couple of the points made previously.

After reading the previous comments, I assumed that the "blinking red dot indicating camera setting" was the same size as the big ol' red dot that indicates correct exposure on an M6. (nobody said this; but they didn't describe the size of the dot either) It turns out that it's a tiny pinprick of a dot, like a really small decimal point. It's definitely visible when I look for it, but when I look up enough to be composing, I find it completely ignorable.

To the people who commented about Leica not making the M7 a "modern camera", or making the film loading simpler, or improving the flash sync speed: I can certainly understand their disappointment at not seeing a camera that suits their needs better; heck, I'd rather the M's had an actual spot meter, instead of a sort-of spot meter.

However, the whole design vision of the M's is for a very specific kind of usage. They're not a general purpose camera. For that, there's the R cameras (or Nikons or Canons or Minoltas etc.). Easy loading, more robust auto exposure, same beautiful lenses.

All the M7 has done is address some very specific design issues with the M6. The shutter speed dial turns all the way around now. There's an on/off switch that locks the shutter. There's a better anti-reflection coating on the rangefinder. Oh yeah, and now, instead of having to manually reach up and fuss with the shutter speed, you can do that by pushing the shutter release halfway down and recomposing, a much more fluid operation.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting faster flash sync, easier film loading, more robust metering that works well with a motor drive, etc.; I find those very useful myself. That's why I have another camera that does that.

But when I need to shoot in a quiet, inobtrusive, contemplative way, I reach for an M; and the M7 to me is now the perfect camera for that task.

Best-loved Leica ever?

I have to predict that fourty years from now, most of the M7's will be inoperable due to failure of the electronics and no replacement parts. Yet, those other M-series cameras will still be usable and repairable, even if for some like the M6, the meters will not work. However, with an electrical problem, the M7 becomes almost inert, with only a few manual speeds.

Where Leica completely missed the boat is to not go far enough. They aren't embarassed about marketing point and shoots made by another company. A really smart thing to do would be to license a camera like the Konica Hexar Rangefinder and produce it as the Leica M7. The Hexar RF needs some work-- namely more viewfinder magnification options and the lens flange distance needs to be corrected. But with those changes, and the addition of Leica's TTL flash, you have a really crackerjack "modernized" M-camera with film-door loading, integral motor drive, aperture-preferred or manual operation, and a good viewfinder/rangefinder. You also have much faster shutter speeds, a point that Leica only seems to have recently recognized.

As a Leica user, I really have no interest in the M7. I have an M6 and a Konica Hexar RF, and the combination is perfect-- When "stealth" is not an issue, I use the Hexar, and the M6 is there when I need quiet operation. The two really compliment each other. And the Hexar with lens and flash cost less than half as much as a new USA M7-- the difference helped buy a 24mm Elmarit-M Aspherical.

The biggest problem of Leicas is the dumb metering system. The simple and true statement that a meter on a camera does NOT tell a photographer the right exposure is the reason.

The only thing an exponometer does is tell the exposure needed to turn the measured surface into neutral grey. Therefore to measure correctly a for example darker human figure against a lighter sky one needs to find out the exposure for the sky, for the human, and not in absolute, but in RELATIVE stop values: If I know that sky is plus 4 stops, I'll set my camera correctly.

So what is needed is an average meter, a spot meter (switched with a button pressed by your right thumb) and a way to see how measurements fall on an uninterruptable scale, 1 EV to 20 EV - (or in absolute f-stops and shutter speeds, which do NOT, NOT! change both at the same time). I see the average reading, press the spot button, check highlight and shadow - and lock the average reading keeping it, or: use spot on a human face, letting everything else fall where it will, or look very quickly at two points, and lock spot at some point in between.

Such a rangefinder was in production in the 70s, with manual or automatic modes (fully automatic or shutter priority or measured manual for both spot and average. Aperture priority would make more sense, but was not easily achievable without electronics at the time).

The moronic belief that meters are to tell us the "right" exposure let to the 3-LED system on many old cameras, and survived on Leicas (and now they are put on Bessas as well). Now I need to click-click-click the lens ring CONSTANTLY PEERING into the viewfinder to the suggested medium grey position, then click-click it to the corrected position - and I do not even know well the exact exposure I am selecting! And I cannot even see how much brighter the wall behind is, all I know is that it is brighter. The only way for me to find out is click-click-click peering into the viewfinder coundting clicks, then click-click to the position for correct exposure. If my metering pattern is a comparatively wide average, I cannot even compare (would need to run close to the subject for that), all I get is average, and I have no control besides my invaluable "leica experience" and guessing.

I do not even need to tell this procedure is several times slower than having a spot button to read and lock the selected setting.

This insane system has survived for so long for 2 reasons, basically:

(a) many real-life scenes are "average", bright spots compensate the dark spots. This belief makes point-and-shoot producers now talk about the "percentage" of right exposures their metering schemes achieve. How ironic that Leica users, on the one hand insisting on their "full creative control" have to rely on similar approach.

(b) latitudes of negative film are wide enough to accomodate wrong exposures.

The only way to get real-life quickly changing moments on film is by pre-setting one's camera. The awkwardness and slowness of handling a camera with such ancient metering system precludes many shots in the "street" situation, for which Leica wants to think it is exceptionally well suited. And think only that about 30 years ago - on rangefinders, great cameras those little rangefinders are - we had much better alternatives.

I can just hear the comments now, but what would make M7 (or M8) the most-remembered Leica of all time? Autofocus. Guys, let's face it, Leicas are no more durable than pro-caliber Nikons (I own a IIIG, M3, and M6). Lens quality? Some pro-grade Nikons (80-200 2.8, 300 2.8 for example) are every bit as sharp as the best Leica products. What do I like about Leica? The "feel" of quality and workmanship that could just as easily exist with autofocus. Autofocus doesn't take away from the need to compose and understand the image. It's like the guys who say "cars aren't made the way they used to be". That's true, cars today are better. I have a Nikon F4S and, while large and heavy, it is a superb camera in every way. It will last just as long as the M7, M3, or M6. Many, many F2s are still around today and working fine. For Leica to regain any real share of the 35mm pro market, it needs to get with the program and at least offer up-to-date technology. I also own a Contax G2, and for MUCH less money than an M7, it offers much more capability, terrific optics, and ease of use. It's build quality is super. If Leica would produce an autofocus M-series camera and lenses, I for one would ante up the extra cash to buy it. I don't use my Leica equipment very much now because I have discovered that I would rather shoot photos with my Nikon or Contax and sit at home and admire my M6 in front of the TV.

Oh, now you've done it! Some Leica purists are still apoplectic because Leica introduced an M-series rangefinder with aperture-priority auto-exposure. Autofocus is like suggesting that the Queen of England wear a push-up bra.

On a more serious note, I too own a Contax G2 and I have owned a Leica M4 for several years. I find that the G2's AF is a hit-or-miss proposition. The more careful you are about verifying focus, the more hits you get, and vice versa. But being that careful takes time--more time than it takes me to carefully focus an M-series Leica.

If I'm going to pay extra for autofocus (and you can rest assured that such a feature would cost a LOT more), it had better be a lot faster, more accurate, and more reliable than I am. If Leica can do this, more power to them. If they can't, or if their market isn't interested, then what's the point? Besides, if you REALLY want an AF Leica, they have several point-and-shoots to choose from. What more do you want?

I am opposed to Leica licensing out the M7, or any other M or R camera for that matter. Keep the German engineering and manufacturing superior. Enough with the cross-breeding already!

Glad to see I'm not missing much with the M7. I have a M6 and a M6TTL and am completely satisfied with the combo. Blinking light my butt. Like stated by others, better to buy a new lens than the M7 if you already have an M camera.

Dear "Camera Girl,"

You wrote: "Keep the German engineering and manufacturing superior. Enough with the cross-breeding already!"

Are you a member of a Hitler Youth group? The KKK? Are you quoting Mein Kampf? Your comment really ought to read, "Keep the illusion of German manufacturing, even though much of it is done in Portugal."

The M7 appears to be a breakthrough camera for Leica. I still wonder if it is a prelude to some future digital M camera.

I love medium format film quality for professional use with my Hasselblad. I love digital capture for some personal use with my new Nikon D100. It is my new toy.

However, I am leaving for Ireland tomorrow. Those two cameras are staying home. I am taking my M6 with 28, 50, and 90mm lenses. My wife is taking a Contax G1 with 35 and 90mm lenses.

This is not snobbery; these cameras are portable and will be used.

Now the M7 holds some hope for an M series digital camera in the future. (Five to ten years)

Well, I just dropped off my six month old Fuji digital camera to be sent to Fuji for servicing. Lens won't retract. Second Fuji digital that had to be sent in for servicing while under warranty.

My Leica M2 (purchased new in 1970) keeps on working. It's been serviced only three times in 32 years. Purchase price was $200. Servicing totaled about $700. Body would still sell for close to $1000. Try using a 32 year old Fuji (or Leica) digital camera (or any contemporary camera) in 2034.

Bob Gordon

I'm still looking for some simple innovation to the classic M3/M4 series, just an M3/M4 with a basic and simple meter.

When Leica decided to break from the purely mechanical camera I think they missed the boat by not staying "basic," not retaining such operation with an included basic assist on the metering end.

Grab shots, sports, et al certain can benefit from the more advanced metering system of the M7. I used one for several months and enjoyed it, but there were too often times when I wanted the basic surety of Leica design plus simplicity. For at least 90% of the shots an M4-2 would easily have worked as well or better, keeping the ever blinking lights and computer-in-your-face technology out of my face.

The other 10% of the shots? I would have survived without them. I want a meter to help me think, not one that gets in my face and distracts me. Must be stodgy old fud....the M5-M7 models have never quite provided what I want. I'd rather have an M4 and fish a handheld meter out of my pocket when I need one.

Hi.

last week, I have compared the M7, the Bessa R2 and the Hexar RF in a shop. I was very surprised to find out that the Bessa R2 has a brighter viewfinder then the other two. A shame for Leica at this price difference.

I am in the thinking process of selling my M6 and buying one of the above. But after this test, the M7 is out of the list. I will wait now what happens in 2003 with a Hexar RF successor. I hope they will bring one out with a better viewfinder and a 0.72 magnification. This would be then perfect for me.

Dirk
www.contaxinfo.com
www.leicainfo.com

I remember buying the M6 TTL for several reasons, one of them being its manual operation. If I buy an M7, you can bet I'll be operating it in the manual mode.

Lovers of the M3 can now get a digital M3. Have a look: www.minox-web.de/minox2002/index.phtml?&speechchange=e&sprache=e

It never ceases to amaze me how there is a double standard in evaluating photo gear - the standards used for Leica and the ones used for everyone else. The features in the M7 that we are marvelling over have been around in one camera package for 17 years. For $100, one can get an OM-PC that has dx film speed setting, program exposure, TTL flash, and even has a self timer which the M7 dropped as a feature from the M6. Perhaps the OM-PC is not as reliable, but I can buy 20 of them for the price of one M7, and treat them as "disposable" when they break. Don't lile Zuikos ( and they are not as good as Leitz, granted) then how about the Nikon FE2, FA, or even N2000 (with DX reading) for their entree into Nikkor AIS lenses, many of which are every bit as good as Leitz lenses.

If one buys the M7 for entree to the lenses, that is a fair argument: but the cameras themselves are not the topic, it is the lenses. If another manufacturer introduced a new model SLR with only the features of the M7 (1/50th flash synch, top speed 1/1000, no self timer, hard to load, annoying flashing lights, etc the photo press would be all over that manufacturer in a heart beat and the public would ignore the camera. But not when Leica does it.

It is the image that counts in photography. in fact, nothing else matters when you get down to it. And I can use my OM-PC or Fe2 and have 2 grand left over to buy air plane tickets to travel to interesting places, and make interesting pictures, while the guy with is Leica is shooting street scenes in NY.

just a quick comment regarding the drawbacks people mentioned above

- boot up/switching on: isn't really as bad as people make it out to be, when I switch the camera on whilst lifting it up to eye I probably catch the last 'blinking' shutter speed (indicating it is 'booting up'). Fast enough to switch on/off between shots
- blinking exposure compensation/film-speed override. Not really a problem, then again, I wear glasses, so I'm not quite as close to the viewfinder as others.
- exposure compensation wheel loose: this is plain stupid engineering. It is moved by pressing in a small button next to the film-speed/exposure compensation wheel. This button is permanently pressed when the camera is in a camera case. I may actually drill a hole into my old never-ready case, so *I* can choose when to compensate, not the case...

not going to enter into the philosopy-discussions above, for me there are occasions where the auto-exposure is really useful, at the end of the day, if it allows me to get the shot that I would otherwise have missed, then that's all that counts.
Cheers
Veit
PS: almost forgot, beautifully quiet at slow shutter speeds, I always used to get paranoid shooting with my M6 in quiet places (church...) despite people behind me telling me they never heard anything. ...

I agree that unless you need a second body, the changes in the M7 do not justify the purchase. I for one generally shoot shutter priority anyway. As for that new M3, I doubt a new one would have the feel and build of the original. I read somewhere that to exactly recreate the M3 with the handwork, parts and machine working would be cost prohitive in todays world of plastic and molds.

LOVE my M3 nd M6ttl. Tried out an M7 and will purchase one when I can retrieve the film cannister without having to use a pair of tweasers!!! My fingers are simply too large and I'll be damned if I'll shake a $2,300. camera to remove the film cannister.

>I challenge anyone to make 24" x 36" prints or larger with their >Nikon lenses and compare those to what a Leica lens can do

If I were going to make a 36" print, I'd make damn sure I was using a much bigger piece of celluloid than 35mm, for a start. At that size, grain is going to be a rather bigger issue than Nikon or Leica's ability to make lenses.

If what you want to do is make huge exhibition prints, use a medium format, or better still, a view camera.

And it'll blow *any* 35mm camera out of the water. For much less money than an M7.

Jim:

We’re getting a bit off the point… but let me make one final remark here. I've always used 35mm (I tried a Hassy about 10 years ago and didn't like it – too bulky). I almost always use K-64, so grain in "poster" size prints has never been an issue. Enlargements used to be a joy prior to the demise of the Type-R process; however, it can still be done with very good results. While your point is well taken, you would have to try it yourself to believe it. While a Hassy (being of simmilar quality glass) would give me a run for my money on shear size (and their lens prices rival and even exceed that of Leica’s), I'll go out on a limb and stack up my 35mm Leica against almost any other up to medium format. We're dealing with the sharpest lenses in the world here!

Case in point: My step dad worked as a pro until he retired about five years ago and he used a Bonica medium format for most of that time. Then I came along with my "peon" 35mm Leica... My 8x10s blew his (medium format) out of the water! I sold his Bronica equipment for him while he was still a working photographer after he bought his first Leica. You see it isn’t just sharpness, but color saturation and contrast. In retirement, he uses a Leica R4 and loves it.

Your servant sir...

I have used a number of rangefinders over the years and while I have never owned a Leica, I have lived with the expectation that there was one in my future. The M7 with its AP and AE lock sounded like it was going to be THE one. However, 95% of my shooting is done with film rated at something other than its listed ISO rating. I shoot Tri-x and Delta400 @ 250 and FP4 @ 64. If the light is really low I will push the Tri-x to 800. It is a bummer that you can't override or turn off the blinking light. So now I have to decide whether I will wait for a revised M7 (I've waited this long, it won't kill me to wait a bit longer) or forgo the AP and AE lock and buy an M6.

I am also disappointed about the new Leica M7 "innovations" while giving away the one precious thing that makes Leicas so unique and valuable: full reliable, mechanical function, without batteries. I have only owned older screw-mount Leicas, which I bought used and I liked their quality and size.

For me to spend the money for a current M Leica it would have to have battery-independence, the viewfinder of the M3 (0.85) the shutter speed dial of the M5 (large and easy to turn integrated with advance lever - this was a truly innovative Leica!), the exposure meter of the M6 or M7, and yet retain the mechanical selftimer of the M2-M4. Jan

Jan:

You (and some others here) make a good point about the so-called "innovations" on the M7. When it first came out I was somewhat reminded of the R3 and its "innovations"! But something tells me Leica is a bit more on the ball these days, especially after the recent release of the MP - I like it! It's only missing a self timer (I guess that'll be the next innovation from Leica). As to your observation about the M5, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, why not just get one? They're not scarce. I had one and really enjoyed it.

I'm further reminded of how spoiled I've become with a meter in my M6. When I was younger, I never needed a light meter. Now that I think about it, I didn't used to need a calculator either...

As to the M3 finder... it's .92 (not .85) and will not facilitate the 35mm frame line.

My current M7 .72 is my 7th M series Leica. I truely enjoy the camera, but like all M cameras, it sure has some ergonomic problems. I have to use either a grip or Motor drive to provide a decent handle to keep my greasy (usuallly) fingers off the range-finding and viewer windows. This can be annoying,especial with critical focusing and flare from the finger smears. I have also added shutter buttons to all my M's to allow for a smoother shutter release. The automatic shutter mode is really great and if I want exposure compensation, I go back to the manual mode and adjust accordingly, so no blinking viewfinger dot. What really annoys me the most about the Leica flash system is the lack of a decent off camera flash cord. Why on earth do we have to deal with that overszed Metz sca 3008A with its module that requires breaking down the Metz flash, instead of the simple nikon/canon style off camera flash cords. That would also allow you to use any compatable flash on the Leica. "In 40 years", my M7 will probably be repairable and also be upgradable due to the electronic shutter portion of the camera. The M series Leicas have really two objectives: The unique experience of the handling of a finely crafted precision machine, and when used properly, an end result of outstanding optical quality. If you really miss all the toys and bells of the "modern cameras", perhaps you should look for a Nikon/Canon auto-everything.

Enjoyed the review.

Roger

I have owned an M7 going on a couple of years now. I transitioned from shooting primarily with a Nikon outfit that included an F5 and a pair of F100 and various lenses. The M7 with aperature priority suits my shooting style for I want to choose the depth of field. I am very impressed with the accuracy of the simple light meter, even with long tripod exposures. I use a 21mm Elmarit and a 50mm Noctilux and these lens cover my needs. I use a motor drive and it aids quick bracketed exposures though the manual rewind is quiet and I use it too. The motor drive adds a "handle" that is useful. I shoot with Fuji Provia 100F for realistic color and fine grain to get the most out of the optics.

All of this being said, the camera is a gem and it is such a small and easy to use package. It is different and requires that you slow down and carefully expose your images. The approach to photography is different with this tool. It demands your attention. It is cold and heavy in your hand. The classic design and feel can only be compared to the M3 my father carried in the late 50's and it served him so well. I am a believer now, but more importantly an M user. I have read all of the good and bad and comparisons. This is an M camera and it is unlike anything else available. I have started too amass Leica images which will be my legacy to my family as my father's Leica images are his legacy to me.

Just buy one and see. Life is short...

Hello all: I've used both Leica and Nikon over the last 35 years since I was introduced to photography in Jr. High School (where I was blessed to learn on an M3).

The way Leica has cheapened their M bodies is disappointing. At the end of the day, it's about cutting costs for the consumer and still remaining profitable as a company. Case in point: they discontinued the SL2 becase it was too expensive to make, not because of lack of success. However, they still strive to the best lens quality.

Now to my point: The comments made about comparing Nikon lenses with Leica really piss me off. I've used both, and although I've never made serious money with my camera, I like to blow up my own slides into posters (my home is full of my own framed pictures). I keep going back to Leica because no Nikon lens I've ever owned comes close enough. For those of you who said so, I don't know how you come off is by saying that Nikon lenses are "just as good" as Leica, because that statement is flat-out false! I dare say, you simply don't know what you're talking about! I challenge anyone to make 24" x 36" prints or larger with their Nikon lenses and compare those to what a Leica lens can do. I've done it and the difference is in some cases striking (especially on the edges). I'll say that some Nikon lenses come close, but they still don't measure up under close inspection.

As stated by experts and amateurs alike, the Leica M line has some of the sharpest lenses in the world. I don't know if I'll ever own an M7, but I'll never own anything again but a Leica!

You simply get what you pay for.

I know the last post is about 4 month's ago, but I'd like to share some thoughts anyway. The Leica lenses are realy amazing, it's true that these are the best. Unfortunately, I don't own a Leica myself. It's just that I'm 21 years old, and n�w I can purchase a Leica. It's february 2005, and digital is slowly taking over. I don't know if it is a good idea to buy a Leica at the moment. Maybe in a few years from now, digital camera's are the gear you need. I guess this is something no one can predict.

Maybe you guy's have some thoughts/experience with this. I just don't want to buy an expensive camera and not being able to use it well. I can understand that when digital is anything you need, less people are going to use the old system. Ergo, my Leica camera is less useful.

I don own an Minolta Dynax 5 at the moment. It's a good camera for me, but I'm more interested in the mechanical camera's. Leica is really easy to carry around everywhere you go. I'd like to do some street photography. Digtal has some great advantages. But I think the pictures aren't that good as they probably will be in the near future.

Thanks!

Tom.

Last Auguest I bought an M7 at Tamarkin. Had no intention of doing so when I went up and in. But suddenly, as if the gods were directing me, I was forking over a not small percentage of my income for a black used M7 with MP finder that had been serviced by Leica and carried a one year guarantee.

The M7 is not "fondable." That is reserved for manual cameras that your hands are constantly manipulating. The M7 doesn't need it. Thus, you tend to forget about the camera more as you use it.

The M7 is like a covertable with an automatic transmission. You get the wind in your face but miss the debatable pleasure of manually changing gears.

A Leica RF is a Leica RF and the "wind in the face" is a given. So it is with the M7. I love my M2. I like my M7. And like over love has keep the M7 busy and my manual Leica Ms idle of late. The automatic shutter, like the automatic transmission, spoils one.

There are two quirks that the M7 has that I dislike and still make me distrust it. It takes a few seconds for the automatic shutter to log in after you turn the M7 on. The other is that once the shutter is wound the meter stays on rather than cutting off after a lapse of time when it is not triggered. These two quirks would perhaps not be so annoying in 1970. They are annoying in 2005. You'd think the instant on and automatic off would be standard electrics by now. Why were they not incorporated into the M7? Good grief, they were incorporated into the CLE which came out in 1980!

But I really and truly like the M7. It rescuses me from the necessity of "fondling" and let's me be faster and more spontaneous in street photography. The meter is pretty much dead on. It's quiet. I use it with an Abrahamsson Rapidwinder. The quiet Rapidwinder, the quiet and automatic M7. Just like a convertable with an automatic transmission.

I bought an M2 in 1970 and still bring it out once in a while.

I've had a couple of M3s over the years, but sold them long ago.

I had an M6ttl for three years and sold it two years ago to buy my M7.

I use Leica's for street photography and the addition of auto exposure makes it for me the most convenient (read "best") Leica I've used. I don't understand the comments about the delay when you turn on the on/off switch. I leave the camera on all the time--even when it sits unused for days on end. I shoot a lot and after two years am still on just my first battery.

I sold a bunch of gear and was set to buy an M8 when I finally got back into the darkroom. I still prefer the aesthetics of silver prints (Ilford Multigrade WarmTone fiber) so for now I'm sticking with my M7.

My first foray in street shooting in Chicago with a Nikon D200 and printing with an Epson R2400 on Epson Lustre was OK but the weight of the camera and the SLR viewfinder made the experience less pleasing than shooting with a Leica.

The optical viewfinder and ergonomics of a Leica are often overlooked or downplayed in importance when people review these cameras.

Hi there, I'm a Canon using amateur photographer, but I recently just saw the price of the M8 (for the first time), and now I'm very curious, why exactly is this camera that expensive?

... gone through all your discussions, and still cant figure out why