Leica M Edition 60: 'Pure Photography' as the Df should have been done?

<p>Looks like an early april fool's post to me.</p>

<p>That's the stupidest camera I've ever seen, but the LEICAMAN will buy it.</p>

 

<p><em>If you really want an "old time camera" just set your DSLR to M - Manual Mode, set the light meter to Center Weight, mount a 50mm or equivalent lens, and turn off autofocus and auto ISO. Voila, and old time camera. Want it small and compact, go with one of the entry level models.</em></p>

<p>It's even better with an entry level DSLR because they won't meter with a manual lens either, but because they have no AI meter follower they also can take pre-AI lenses safely. You get to guess exposure, and the modern part is that you can see your results right away and make corrections with the histogram. I've been using several pre-AI lenses on my D3200 and having grand fun on the cheap.</p>

<p>I think it's beautiful which is more than can be said for the Nikon Df.</p>

This camera would accessorize nicely with a plaid fedora and luscious hipster beard.

<p>Ignoring the irony that the press image appears to be bad CGI (it might be a photo that has been photoshopped to <em>look</em> like bad CGI), there really needs to be more information on this in order to laugh at it properly. I see it shoots raw only because there's no white balance control. There's no exposure compensation dial that I can see, making me wonder whether there's a meter (it may be a digital M3 rather than a digital M7). I'll find it hysterical if the viewfinder is digital. I assume there's something in there so you can tell when the battery's flat and when the card is full. The one redeeming feature is that Leica aren't known for nice digital UIs, so at least they can avoid that.</p>

<p>If the Df had been like this, the threads at least on this forum would have been much shorter, because I wouldn't have contributed so many posts trying to understand the appeal. I already (somewhere) have a digital camera without an LCD on the back. It's essentially useless, cost about $20 several years ago, and is so "pure" that there's no control at all other than the shutter release. I think it came on a key ring.</p>

<p>We are the Spanish Inquisition designers of the M60. Our one camera control is a shutter speed dial. A shutter speed dial and an aperture ring. Our two controls are the shutter speed dial and the aperture ring. And ISO. Our three controls are shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. And focus. Our four controls are shutter speed, aperture, ISO and focus. And exposure compensation. Among our many controls are...</p>

<p>I've never understood how features that help you get the shot are supposed to be "distracting". I have <em>once </em>missed a cheetah running at San Diego wildlife park because they released it without warning after five minutes of talking, and I happened to be adjusting a focus setting. I can't think of another time in the last fifteen years that having additional options on the camera made me less capable of taking a photo.</p>

<p>Any camera design has compromises, and each two steps forward includes a step back. But not putting a screen on a digital camera. It's really very hard to argue that not having a screen there helps in any way, especially if you're charging more than $50 for the camera.</p>

<p>Got to get those gloves.</p>

<p>I wonder if Panasonic will remove the red badge and sell 'em (in unlimited numbers) at 1/10th the price?</p>

<p>Nah! On second thoughts Panasonic has a better grasp of marketing and keeping their heads above water financially. Still, an FZ60M with a well-finished retro design (+LCD and menu button) and using the Leica M bayonet might well fly off the shelves.</p>

<p>A full manual Df, how would you focus the darn thing? I guess they could put a split image screen in, but still...</p>

<p>Hi Dan. I'm 76 and the cameras I have; NIKON D3s, D4, ( with all the modern and behemoth zooms) Yes party and social camera, D40+kit lens, and finally, the Df. I never using any AF lenses on my Df, and many of my late images in my portfolio don with the Df, My Df on <strong>"M"</strong> ( Manual) all the time and using centre w, metering, applying zone system, it is fast and easy for me, And the bulk of my outfit is a small shoulder bag, lenses; Nikkors, 18mm, 20/4, 28-50/3.5, 105/2.5 & 200/4 all of them AI, AI-S or AI converted lenses. Never had a problem focusing, and never had bad exposures. Only critical situation I check the monitor for high light blinking, most of the time I never see the monitor on the back. Light meter only, including necessary compensation etc. etc.<br /> So, What is your problem focusing with the Df?<br /> Lately, most of the time, I using the Df, not the bigger and so called much better total computerized D3s or D4. I wish the Df has some simple optional battery unit, grip, ( not that ugly Chines plastic junk) for better handling with bigger lenses then the tiny 200/4 AI-S.</p>

<p>Thanks Bela, I was thinking about manually focusing the modern AF lenses, which many times have an incredibly short focus throw.</p>

<p>But for the sake of full disclosure, I virtually always AF my Df using AF-S mode on the center focusing point, and that works great for my purposes.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Hi Dan. I understand you point. With AF-AF-S lenses, the short focusing throw is a problem. I like the old manual lenses, some of them more then 40 years old and delivering sharp images as good as the modern new AF-S lenses. The most advantage, for me, is the bulk and the solidity of those tiny, metal build lenses. The last disappointment of the new lenses I had, the new AF-S 70-200mm f/4 IS ED . . . . . , Shooting the same subject in the same time, on tripod,(heavy gitzo) same lighting condition, the new 70-200/4 IS wasn't better then my old and many, 200/4, I have 5 of them, non AI and AI, AI-S, 80-200/4, 80-200/4.5 AI lenses. Actually, my friend picked the best of the line up, unknowing witch is which, an image, taken with the 80-200/4 AI, second pick, a Nikkon-Q.C 200/4 AI converted lens.</p>

<p>I second the question--for USD 19,500, do you get a meter?</p>

<p>I think they will sell their 600 units. Most will go to status-hounds, but some will be sold to and used by real photographers who have the capital and think the M60 will be interesting. There is one fundamental problem, though, with making a digital camera as though it were a film camera--upgrading. The nice thing about (say) an M3 is that you can get the same Eye-Cue as an F6. Just use the same film. With digital, the sensors keep improving. Not as much as the manufacturers and gearheads want us to believe, but they <em>do</em> improve. A camera like the M60 will be "obsolete" in a few years in digiholic terms. Why couldn't it have upgradable sensor modules? That would make it a much more justifiable purchase for someone in the affluent class.</p>

<p>Or more simply, this is a film camera without film, and a digital camera without digital.</p>

<p>Les Berkley nails it.</p>

<p>The fact is, this is the digital age. This is Leica taking advantage of its rich fan bois.</p>

<p>Which is, I guess, okay.</p>

<p>Can you imagine the FX rig you could make with 20 grand?</p>

<p>People buy stuff like this when they have more money than sense. But then a lot of folks who buy D4s and such are the same, it seems. My camera rig is humble. It suits me GREAT.</p>

<p>I agree with Les, all the way. Todays digital cameras, almost like trow a way cameras, for an astronomical price for a thrown a way concept. Unfortunately, as digital sensors improve, so is the whole electrical circuit, processors, etc changing. It is almost impossible to design a camera, with a solid base model, upgradable with a coming better sensors, like film. All the film cameras usable today if it is maintained properly, but it is going to be a mountain of plastic digital cameras in the future, if it is not all ready. The new Leica, 001 to 600 limited production is a collectors camera, not a real user value camera at all. As long as people exist with unlimited resources, somebody going to produce some special items, cars, cameras name it for a price tailored for them only.</p>

 

<p>What I really like on this camera is; NO menu, NO monitor, you have to learn photography, instead of a 6000 dollar camera owners, whom shoot those cameras, like a point and shoot camera. You have to know photography, in an artistic and in the technical level too. Oooh. Almost forget, NO pop-up flash. Yes, it is pure photography people, but for that price.....?!<br>

Watched the video. Those rich collectors, jumping up and down, falling all over now.<br>

Regardless, I like Leicas. But, shoot with Nikon.</p>

<p>Peter Hamm, good point.</p>

<p>Give me $20,000, would I get the Leica M-60 & 35mm 'lux, or a really nice list of Nikon DSLR bodies, lenses, flashes and accessories? </p>

<p>Nikon for sure.</p>

 

<p>Oh. On the matter of the meter. The shutter speed dial has an "A" setting, so presumably there is a metering system.</p>

<p><strong>EDIT: </strong>The M-A film camera doesn't have a meter. Come ON Leica. </p>

<p>Ha! So Shun is right, it is actually a collector`s item. Why does it need to have a meter?<br /> Wait... maybe it is a digi-mechanical camera. Does it have battery?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The M-A film camera doesn't have a meter. Come ON Leica."<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The M-A is the 2014 version of the M2, which also lacked a meter. Leica already exhausted the market for film rangefinders with modern conveniences. They're after the real retro-retro crowd now, not the faux-retro crowd. But not so retro that they'll try another 0 Product Ur Leica. That's a bit too retro, unless you're seriously into pinhole or glass plates, in which case even the Ur Leica would seem convenient in comparison.</p>

<p>Neo-Retro M5 with a Blue-Dot® Flash-Cube socket.</p>

<p>Lex. I think Leica did OK with the new Ur Leica. They couldn't keep producing it because if they did it would no longer be as collectable. The M-A is also beautiful!</p>

<p>In 1960 an M3 Leica body only cost $288.00. Adjusted for inflation that is the equivalent of $2314.24 in 2014. The new Leica M-A, which is basically an M2, costs $4,750.00 (B&H Photo pre-order price). Is there any reason to think of this Leica, or most of the other recent models, as anything but collector editions for well-heeled Leica fan bois?</p>

<p>Does anybody here use gloves with their camera's? </p>

<p>Oh, my comment wasn't a swipe at Leica for the 0 Product Ur Leica reissue, Robin. That was one of the very few Leicas I was actually interested in when it first was available. I enjoy primitive cameras like my Agfa Isolette folder - the "soldier's" version, among the most primitive of the Isolettes, with the shutter release lever around the lens. I operate it with a flick of my pinky. Helps to have fairly long fingers.</p>

<p>And that particular Leica's operational sequence isn't much more complicated. I've since become accustomed to the arm's length hold for small digicams, so the bombardier sighting method of the pre-viewfinder Leica wouldn't be much different now.</p>

<p>Probably should have bought one a couple of years after it was issued, when prices occasionally dipped below $1,000. No idea what they're selling for now.</p>

<p>It'd be a fun shooter for street photography and a way to strike up conversations. I've found folks are intrigued by older film cameras like folders and TLRs, so the vibe is different.</p>

<p>Bela, your point about having to learn photography to use this primitive Leica camera, or any film camera for that matter, entirely disregards the way that learning works. Learning is a process based on feedback, assessment, reflection and to some extent experimentation. The whole process, or cycle, is repeated with adjustments to mental attitude and/or technique, and hopefully some improvement is made with each iteration of the cycle.</p>

<p>The quicker that the above feedback and evaluation can be done, then the quicker and more effective the learning experience. Film took a long time (and quite a lot of money) to learn with, because of the lengthy time between taking the picture and seeing the final result. Not only that, but the uncertainty of processing would sometimes prevent proper assessment of image quality - was it me or the processing house that messed up? The negative-positive process also added a second stage of complication and uncertainty.</p>

<p>So you're now suggesting we go back to lengthening the whole process again, and by only using RAW, not really knowing whether the exposure was "correct" due to the increased latitude of RAW shooting. This is a nonsense, and would actually shift the emphasis of image-making from the camera into the digital darkroom. Not your intention I suspect.</p>

<p>It's no co-incidence that the overall quality and creativity of pictures has improved since the widespread introduction of digital cameras. The only downside is that these days we're so swamped with images that it's difficult to pick out the really great stuff from the general dross. But IMHO even the level of that general dross has improved over the film era stilted snaps of uncle Fred standing in front of some famous landmark or other, or a blurred smudge of little Arthur taking his first steps.</p>