Waiting, just one more day

I used to work for a guy who said that there's hardly any decision

that isn't better made by reflecting on it for just one more day. But

with Leica you didn't have to chew things over, a new M camera came

along once in a blue moon so, if it fitted your needs and you had the

means, then why not just take the plunge?

 

I'm still reeling from the MP announcement and recent posts

conjecturing about second generation M7's (a possibility that seems

to fit with Leica's stated strategy of differentation within the M

stable) have brought me to the conclusion that Leica, if it's too

active on the development front, risks damaging the trust it has with

its users. If there is an upgraded M7 inside the next few years, or

another twist on the MP theme, then it'll be a message to wait before

you buy just in-case there's something better round the corner.

 

Outside of Leica rangefinders I've navigated a fairly incompetent

road to digital, for example I'm now sitting on four medium format

systems which is at least three too many! It's got to the stage where

I'm spending more time reading reviews and instruction manuals than

taking photographs. In a fast evolving world Leica was a sanctuary of

predictability, Photokina or PMA certainly weren't invested with

Leica expectations. Too much change too fast and that calm confidence

is eroded.

 

What's the forums' view, can you have too many new Leica M's?

Yes, and too many new posts like this. Can't we move on...where's a pic from Travis?

Yah, the philosophy of Leica M (to me) is simplicity. There's a Natl. Geographic photog (DAH?) who says he like one lens and one film, and basically doesn't like eqpt. and likes to keep it to a minimal. For most, easier said than done. I have Nocti-lust and will be getting one in on Friday (regional Leica rep is having Leica comb through their stock to pick one since I'm a picky bugger).

 

But, having said that I'll still be at 2 bodies and 3 lenses, which is probably 1 body and 1 lens too many. Variety is the spice of life though- I am impressed using the Noct, so I'll add it!

 

Then there's the binocs, if you don't have a pair I'd recommend them. Was watching a crow again, from about 25' away (10x42) and could see all the detail in crisp form- including dandruff flakes, blinking eyes, scaly legs etc. Maybe you'd might like to look at their microscopes- I hear they're dandy. hehehe...

Dear James, I am back in circulation, much to everyone's dismay.....hehehe

 

Gary, don't forget about the GPS system. Great (size-wise, especially with the tripod) piece of work, you'll like it.

Concerning buying a new Leica, it's an easy decision for me...I can't afford it so I don't mull over it. I have been mulling the purchase of a second used M6 because I've never owned just one camera body of any camera system I actually used. Since I use the Leica a lot more than my EOS system, I'll more than likely take the plunge and another hit on my credit card statement.

 

I have a theory on how many camera bodies of a system one should have in general, Gary. One body is okay if you're just an occasional snap shooter and vacation picture taker. Two bodies are necessary if you're serious about your photography. Three bodies are a good idea if you make a living at photography and you want to be sure you have a backup in case one of your other two bodies goes down. Four bodies...well, we're either playing it too safe or we're now a collector instead of a photographer. I have one EOS body too many and one Leica body too few right now.

If you have an M camera with a meter, then what you need now is more lenses! A ratio of three or four to one seems reasonable to me. If you only have one or two lenses, there's no point in having two bodies. If you have four or five lenses it starts to make sense to get another body. Assuming that you're into this as an equipment-oriented hobby. If you want to take pictures, one body and one camera is plenty...

"Sandy"! How good to see you again! Do you sell cameras perchance?

No James, only souls, especially poor soul like me. Very tough sale these days. Know anyone who is interested ? Will trade for an MP6 !

I'm not rich, Sandy, just loose with my coins on Leicas. :D

James, my cousin once told me that I was prostituting my brain (as if I have half of one !), which is fine with me. Now, finding a John for that is an entirely matter !!!!!

rrrrh, I meant - entirely different matter. Now you know why I am in trouble. Mind you, this mindlessness can be highly contagious.

Wow! Three M bodies is enough? For at least 20 years I maintained 4 bodies, 2 35mm Summicrons, 90 Elmar, 90 Elmarit, so I could carry a 35/90 pair for color and another for B&W. Plus an 85/2 Nikkor for low light. Still have 4 bodies but the offers I was getting for the black paint Wetzlar made first model 35 'cron got too tempting, and then somebody stole the three element Elmar. Insurance covered that. I put the empty box and bubble on Ebay and got almost as much as the lens had cost 30 years before. It's nice to carry everything set up and ready to shoot with 21, 35 and 90. Sometimes I carry a fourth body loaded but lensless. Think of it as an interchangeable back for a Leica lens when a body runs out of film. You can change bodies in a fraction of what it takes to change film. And sometimes I put a 50 on it.

As far as I can tell, the quality of the photos here is inversely proportional to the number of similar bodies one owns.

you need 5 bodies..one taped.<div></div>

Thanks Travis :-D

<i>

If you only have one or two lenses, there's no point in having two bodies.

</i>

<p>

If you have two lenses (or maybe even one) there's plenty of point to having two bodies. One for b&w and one for color, for example. What doesn't make any sense is a "ratio of three or four to one." What in the world would anyone do with six M lenses, let alone eight? Buy a Nikon at that point.

I phrased that badly, I meant can Leica launch too many new bodies?

Hmn, I think so if one considers the size of Leica as a company. Although the M7, MP, and maybe one more seems fine- given how the MP and M7 are fairly related. What would a good 3rd one be? Digital? One that Weill mentions? Would enough buy it? Or should the Leica M remain unto itself.

I need a new body, but it aint a Leica. In fact it's not even a camera. Ah, what am I talking about? I have no idea. I'm listening to Ornette Coleman (he was somewhat off his rocker you know) and it's been a long day.

Kristian, Ive notice since your return from selling all you Leica stuff that all your posts are crytical sarcasm. Yet when someone commented in one of your threads you went right off. Are you buying for the current job of "Thread Crapper" by any chance? If forum members cant talk about their thoughts and concerns of new models then I dont think I know what its for?

Ray! Finally I have something to contribute. Which Ornette are you listening to? I'm a huge fan. He's a genius at seeing things a different way. And to keep this vaguely on-topic, do you know that famous photo of Miles Davis at Newport, late 50's, where he's holding an M3 (I think) with meter? Looks like a cool tourist instead of the main musical attraction.

Gary,

 

Ignore Kristian. I agree with Joel. He is rude and offensive to many. Very immature. Contributes little but controversy. His mother was unable to teach him manners. On the internet we must suffer fools.

 

I can understand multiple leica systems. Each camera/lens has a different character.

 

Four Medium Format systems!!!! There has to be a story in there somewhere. You've got my curiosity aroused.

Ohmagawd! Ornette Coleman? I remember buying his "New York is Now" album when it first was released and I couldn't finish listening to it. I listened to it recently and I still don't get it. Now, Ben Webster...oh, yeah! Those old jazz album covers had absolutely great photography.

To answer Gary's original question, IMO yes Leica can (and also IMO *has*) introduced too many bodies, which serve only to undermine the resale value for those of us to whom it matters. They are operating under the conviction--and I have the distinct feeling it was well-researched and most likely right on target--that their biggest market has large disposible incomes and a $2500 toy every year or two is nothing compared to the new Benz or Jag they buy with the same regularity. I don't think this forum is in any way, shape or form representative of Leica's total market. At least the changes in the M6-to-TTL-to-M7 (whether you want, need or like them completely aside the point)were substantive. Aside from the "flare fix" (which could and should have been made to the M7 at the outset and offered as a courtesy upgrade to warranty-holders now)the rest of the MP is a couple tweaks to fix what ain't broken, but mostly retro/nolstalgic cosmetics.

 

A digital M OTOH is IMO a completely different issue. It's a step they have to take to guarantee the survival of the M series with a new generation of users, and to hedge against the shrinking availability of film and convenient processing.

Steven, it sounds like you should find a jazz forum. ;) Ornette just happened to be on the radio when I was posting. He's fine and

interesting in my book but I don't think I have more than one or two of his recordings. Miles was critical of him because as a sax player Ornette

played the trumpet without really knowing the instrument (if you believe Miles, and who wouldn't?!) Lee, I guess you don't like

discordance. You wouldn't be the first. You may want to keep away from Tom Waits....

 

Sorry for the OT diversion, but this is another MP thread, after all. It may deserve it. ;)