HERE IT IS: Erwin's Leica M7 essay!

> All that said I have some concerns with the new M7. Primarily the downstream availability of electronic circuit boards both the M6 and M7 require. <>.

>I suspect these pieces are subcontracted as tooling to mass produce them is expensive to the degree that Leica probably hasn't the means to invest in them.

<p>

Leica is making himself the complete electronic circuit boards for both

the M6TTL and M7. Then their are all controlled electronically and

visually.

<p>

Lucien

My answer an insult??

THis isn what Kristian asked.

<p>

> Hi Erwin, you have helped me once before and I now need your

help once more.

> I am about to purchase a Lux 35 and would like to know the

actual weight of

> the black version. Is it 250g or 310? And is there a noticeable

weight

> difference between the black and chrome in the field? Thanks

in advance

>

> Kristian

>

>

Here is my answer; more than 5 words, and I believe I could not

add more to it.

***

250 grams. Yes it is, the chrome one feels and is much hevier.

<p>

Erwin

Giles: the IIIg was introduced in 1957, a charming anachronism three

years after the M3, so the big jump was from the IIIf...............

Here is <a

href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/m7.html">Erwin's report

with all the pictures</a>.

Here's a bizarre piece of ErwinSpeak:

<p>

" While there certainly is sometimes the need for speeds faster than 1/1000,

we should note that with ISO100 film and a blazing sun, we need 1/1000 and

f/5.6 for a correct exposure. That will do for most situations and subjects. If

you wish to use a narrow depth of field that you get when using f/2.8 or f/2.0,

even 1/4000 will not be of much help."

<p>

I think 1/1000 at f5.6 and 1/4000 at f2.8 give the same exposure value. Can

someone clarify how 1/4000 would not be of much help? It seems to me that

it would be quite useful if (as I often do) you want to narrow depth of field

under bright conditions.

Erwin,

<p>

I am glad you are on this forum, because I'd like you to know that

was one of the worst product reviews I have ever read. Pompous,

inaccurate, irrelevant and condescending. It is a shame as you are

obviously knowledgeable and have reseached the article thoroughly

(like most of your life :).

For me it kind of captured all that is bad about the mythos Leica.

It's a tool, not a religion!

<p>

A more objective review would would have done your effort and Leica's

more justice.

<p>

"M3 cameras from 1954 are still functioning perfectly after more than

50 years of use."

<p>

- Duhh..LMAO...getting a bit ahead of ourselves here Erwin!!

<p>

"...the silent, slow moving, vibration free horizontally running

cloth shutter."

<p>

- Since when was the Leica shutter silent? It sounds cool, but my M2

is much noisier than my Rolleflex. About the same as my EOS 50 just

to me a nicer sound.

<p>

"This speed must be forced to zero and compares to the force of a car

crashing into a wall with 70km/hour."

<p>

-Except the mass is a little less, so actually ..no.

<p>

"Presumably the engineers had no idea how difficult this simple

decision would be in the real world of engineering mechanics and

electronics. The M7 was targeted for Photokina 2000, but marketing

wishes have no precedence over sound engineering requirements."

<p>

- I didn't realize Leica had an engineering staff large enough to

completely separate design engineers from production engineers. Both

of your statements sound seriously detached from reality, and an

insult to Leica's excellent engineers.

<p>

"we should note that with ISO100 film and a blazing sun, we need

1/1000 and f/5.6 for a correct exposure. That will do for most

situations and subjects. If you wish to use a narrow depth of field

that you get when using f/2.8 or f/2.0, even 1/4000 will not be of

much help."

<p>

- Duhh...1/1000@f5.6 = 1/4000@f2.8

<p>

"Take pictures with an M6 and then switch to Konica Hexar

RF or Contax G2. You will have a long period of adjustment and a

steep learning curve to change your way of picture taking."

<p>

- Not crediting your readers with much intelligence are we? Hands up

how many Leica owners also have an AF SLR, maybe some MF cameras.

<p>

"The Hexar RF...<snip>...The lineup of lenses is small...)"

<p>

- Yep, exactly the same size as the pool of lenses which fit the M7.

Big advantage for the M7?

Giles wrote: "Why do you use a Leica if not for the way it is made

and functions? - ie, mechanical, manual, high accuracy RF,

quality feel, ergonomics (and obviously access to Leica 'glass')

etc, etc. Are your reasons *really* not *at all* some of these?"

<p>

Well, you changed the terms a bit. Initially you said "the reason

people buy and enjoy Leica's is bacause of what they are and

the way they are made and function."

<p>

I don't want to be tossed into that stew because I don't

particularly care about the historic "what they are" silliness and

my only concern about the way they are made is that for the

financial outlay involved they should be made better than most

other cameras. From my experience this has been true, though I

do wonder why my Leicas have been serviced more than any

other cameras I've ever owned. In the past you have expressed

great appreciation for brass top plates, script engraving, nubbly

vulcanite, self timers. I could not care less about that nonsense.

I would honestly like my M6's better if they were entirely black,

unmarked, rubberized lumps.

<p>

So, the common ground becomes function. I use Leica M's

because of the way they work -- bright, accurate rangefinder;

relatively quiet shutter; small, inconspicuous, unintimidating size

and (once blacked out) appearance.

<p>

Since I don't get all misty eyed over these photographic tools, I

wish Leica had figured out a way to put a little more into their

electronic M. I'm certainly in line with those who say 1/4000 top

shutter speed would be more than a trivial improvement. I don't

shoot ISO 100 film as a general rule. I shoot ISO 400 black &

white film, at either EI 400 or 800, as my default. In bright sun I

could shoot at EI 800 at 1/4000 at f/5.6 as opposed to something

like 1/1000 at f/11 or 1/500 at f/16 -- stopped down more than I

desire. To be able to move effortlessly from a normally lit interior

to bright daylight with fast film would be a plus for me and, I

suspect, for other photographers doing handheld candid work

with their Leicas.

<p>

Nobody has commented that it looks like Leica returned to a

solid metal, engraved shutter speed dial on the M7. Ah, tradition.

Maybe that alone is worth the higher price. . . .

Wow! Looks impressive, even if I don't care for built in meters,

automatic or otherwise. The ability to do daylight fill flash at

above 1/50th is enticing. Provided, of course, that the flash can

easily be used off camera!

Robert, without the benefit of a direct conversation our words are

open to interpretation. You have interperated them differently to

the way they were meant.

<p>

"..historic "what they are" silliness.." By 'what they are' I meant

the way they work - you will acknowledge that they do not work the

same way as many other cameras, I was not referring to the historical

aspect of what Leitz stand for.

<p>

I said -"..what they are and the way they are made and function"

<p>

You said - "I use Leica M's because of the way they work -- bright,

accurate rangefinder; relatively quiet shutter; small, inconspicuous,

unintimidating size and (once blacked out) appearance."

<p>

Robert, what you have said above is EXACTLY what I meant - the way

they are made and function!!! Sorry it should offend you that I

suggested we all use Leica's for these reasons but you seem to have

accepted that you do too (just like the rest of us mere mortals).

<p>

You seem to have a remarkable memory for my previous postings but you

also seem have a remarkable ability to contradict yourself.

Plus: Metered manual, brass cover, shutter improved mechanically

<p>

Minus: Continuous metering, battery dependent (no mechanical back-up)

<center>

<img

src="http://www.ravenvision.com/images/denisestalk8.jpg"><p><i>Denise

[Atrium #8], 2/25/02</i></center><p>I sincerely hope the M7 isn't the

demise of Leica. Why not an M6 AE, and an all-electronic wonder--an

F100--w/M mount? The further Leica gets behind technologically, the

more people will just sigh deeply and go somewhere else. I love my R8

for the Summicrons and their gorgeous bokeh, but I�m not so sure I

couldn't do just as well with a couple of older, classic, MF Nikkors

on my F100.<p>I recently wanted to add a 135mm lens to my outfit. I

had the choice of a 135 Elmarit-R used for $550 or a 135mm f/3.5 AI-S

Nikkor in 10- condition for $125. I went with the latter. The Elmarit

would have only been about $200 less than a used 135mm f/2D DC AF

Nikkor. The AI-S is a classic, very sharp, not overcorrected, with

beautiful bokeh. And CHEAP. And the F100 is a superb camera, probably

the best Nikon I've owned in 40 years of shooting Nikons.<p>I don't

know. I really am shaking my head here. As much as I love the old

Leicas, they are really becoming an item for dilettantes, collectors

and anti-technology die-hards.<p>And I�m not talking just theory

here. I actually shoot with my cameras, nearly every day. I did a

shoot with my wife yesterday, for example, in the lobby/atrium of a

local hotel. F100, 3 lenses (18, 35, 135), Aperture Priority, Portra

800 film. First, the whole outfit cost about $2300, less than an M7

body. Second, two of the lenses were autofocus so I could do follow-

focus shots. Third, I had an 1/8000 second speed to handle the ISO

800 film in brighter light. Fourth, I could select Matrix or spot

metering to suit the condition. Fifth, I had a motor. Sixth, the

camera was fast, responsive, handled like a dream. Seventh, a similar

array of lenses for an M would have cost (very ballpark) about $4500

used, making it about $7000 for the entire 3-lens outfit, or about 3

times the cost of the Nikon outfit. Eighth, I had focus confirmation

in the VF for the MF lens. Ninth, the 35mm lens focused to under 1

foot, so I could do a few dramatic close-ups. Tenth, I could frame

with absolute accuracy, with a big, bright VF, thus assuring perfect

juxtaposition of background and foreground elements.<p>Eleventh, the

negs came out perfect.

I think it would be nice to see more postings by Erwin, undoubtedly

one of the top authorities (in the world) on Leica optics and

cameras. I mean, it would seem to make perfect sense; this being a

Leica forum. But from reading a couple responses above, however, I

kind of doubt we will ever see him again. Whatever happened to a

seemingly little-known concept around here called "graciousness"?

It seems to have flown right out the door!

Tony is absolutely correct. This thread seems to have attracted

flamers with nothing constructive to add. Several posts devoted

exclusively to bashing Erwin, including posts by people I have never

seen here before. It doesn't take much courage to lay in wait and

then pounce on someone whose views you don't like. Or maybe some of

these people are just trying to discourage others like Erwin from

contributing.

<p>

i personally found Erwin's review of the M7 to be very useful. And

it cost me nothing to read. There is no other single source that

provides as much information on this model. If you don't like it you

can comment graciously.

According to my calculations, the curtain speed is about 6m/s, not

72km/s.

According to my calculations, the curtain speed is about 6m/s, not

72km/s.

Even after (accidentally) posting twice as usual, I mistyped.

Curtain speed is 6km/hour not ~70km/kr as claimed by Erwin

Well if I was paid by and looked after by Leica I too would be one

of the great know it all's. Another email I asked Erwin if i could

get a copy of his book and he never replied. Erwin is just a public

figure for Leica who potnetial consumers can relate too in order

to persuade purchases. I'll decide for myself and listen to other

noon-paid users before i seek advice from Erwin again. And he'd

be pleased with that too.

Just kidding. I've been moody lately and on a role. I actually think

that Erwin is a great ambassdor for Leica and I always find his

information useful, though sometimes a little difficult to

understand. I guess he was just busy when i emailed him, and

what more could he really say to such a simple and silly

question. No hard feelings Erwin. Keep up the good work.

Why not bash a man who spouts a lot of numbers but can't even do simple math

correctly?

<p>

"The speed of the shutter curtains then is 2 meter/second or 72 km/hour."

<p>

2 meters per second times 3600 (the number of seconds in an hour) equals

7200 meters, or 7.2 kilometers per hour. Erwin is off by a factor of ten. His

remarks about high shutter speeds, where he couldn't figure out that 1/1000

at f5.6 equals 1/4000 at f2.8 have been noted. These are simply the things

that we can see are wrong because we can do the math. Who knows how much

other bullshit he has thrown in when talking about mechanical tolerances, CNC

machines, shutter release lag, etc. How many other decimal places have been

moved around? How many other numbers have been fudged or ignored? It's not

a personal attack or a flame. I don't really care if his tone is arrogant or not.

He has his facts wrong, at least the ones that we can check, so why believe

anything he has to say about the stuff you can't check? Think of him not as a

world-renowned Leica guru but as a journalist, and you realize what he has

written is trash. It isn't credible.

"He has his facts wrong, at least the ones that we can check, so why

believe anything he has to say about the stuff you can't check? Think

of him not as a world-renowned Leica guru but as a journalist, and

you realize what he has written is trash. It isn't credible"

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto

<p>

A perfect summary of what motivated me to write me previous post.

You are correct about the shutter curtain speed; it is 7.2 km/hour,

not 72 km/hour. I do acknowledge it and can only say that my

calculator said 7,200,00000 and I overlooked one decimal. My

fault. This quite obvious error gives some people the excuse

they need to discredit my report.

I have but one thing to say to Masatoshi Yamamoto and Mark

Wrathall: Just stop. You're making fools of yourselves.

<p>

Welcome to our list, Erwin. This thread is not typical (yet) of the

normally mature and tactful way in which we talk to one another.

Yes, Erwin. We hope you will post more frequently here. I for one

happen to think your reviews are very well thought out and, for the

most part, agree with my own experience. I suspect most people who

contribute regularly and are thinking of buying a particular Leica or

CV lens will read your review first and incorporate it into their

decision-making process. Unfortunately, it is the flamers who tend

to be most visible on websites. They don't speak for me; and I

suspect they don't speak for most of us.

Erwin, sorry you had to get flamed during a rare episode of ill-

temper on this forum. We usually disagree a bit more agreeably :-)

<p>

Hope you find reasons to drop by again!