Size comparison between Leica M digital and film

<p>How do the Leica M7 vs M-240 vs M-60 special edition compare in size. Primarily the dimension from lens mount to the back of the camera. The digitals are thicker I want to know without the LCD how much room can be saved?</p>

<p>I don't know if the M-60 is any thinner but it certainly doesn't feel any thinner. I really do love it though. It's not just about not being able to see your pictures it's about not having all the digital stuff to fiddle with. I wish more cameras could be this simple and manual in the digital age.</p>

I'm often out with an M9 and either an M4 or M6. Swapping back & forth I just don't "feel" enough of a difference that it

makes any difference. There's more of a difference in the feel of the shutter releases than how thick or thin the bodies

are.

<p>You can go to camerasize.com to get an idea of the differences - unfortunately they do not provide the exact measurement you're after. The overall thickness difference between M film cameras and digital M seems to vary from some 8mm thinner to 1 or 2 mm thicker - but that takes protruding elements in front and back into account. <br>

Just did a quick comparison between the F3, F100, D700, and D810 eyeballing measurements from the sensor-plane indicator mark to the back - with the F3 having the thinnest back and not all that much difference between the other 3; it appears that at most 10mm could be shaved by omitting the LCD (and all the other buttons on the back).</p>

<p>The additional thickness is why the finder is 0.68X instead of 0.72X, to retain an acceptable "eye point."</p>

<p>Looking at this image, where I lined my M4 and M9 back to back, the difference from front to back is very close to the same if you include the two sync caps on the back of the M4. That's about the difference between the two bodies.</p>

<p>This coming Tuesday I am supposed to take delivery of a new M262 and can make a similar comparison.</p>

<p><img src="https://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Other/Olympus-E-M1/i-hdTGmBF/0/X2/P2270155-X2.jpg" alt="P2270155" /></p>

<p>Greg, your point about the differing shutter releases is probably the more significant difference for some. The sync caps are often left off the M film cameras so the real difference in size (thickness) is palpable. But my IIIc/f is much smaller than my M film or digital and therefore has an advantage in that respect, but it is also mainly forgotten after a few minutes of use of either M camera. The hunt of the image then takes over.</p>

<p>The M9 shutter release has two options, 3-stage and 2-stage. The latter passes for a soft release, and is the option I prefer. I also use the "discrete" option, which delays winding until you let up on the shutter release. I use the same technique on the M9 as on the film bodies - roll my finger onto the release, rather than poking it. It worked in 1964, and works now.</p>

<p>The slightly thicker body has little effect on the relative feel of the two cameras. Having to remove the base plate to change cards and batteries maintains the illusion of tradition, not necessarily in a positive manner. Having the tripod socket in the center is a welcome update. The M9 has very high resolution, which is wasted on landscapes if you don't use a tripod. It wouldn't matter for street photography, in which sharpness and level horizons have little importance.</p>

I actually like removing the badeplate to change cards and batteries. Inevitably with every camera review, what's one

weakness you alwsys read about? Battery doors.

<p>When I remove the baseplate on my M8.2 I *still* get a little twinge - did I remember to rewind the film? Too many rolls of film thru five Leica M film cameras. LOL. As to the topic I don't notice much difference in size. I did notice the size difference between the M6 and M6TTL. No, I never owned an M5. THAT was a size difference.</p>

<p>It's interesting for sure.<br /> I have the M240, M6TTL and M3, the M6 & M3 feel and handle fantastic, just the right amount of clamping feel. The 240 feels a lot thicker in actual handling and no where near as good in the clamping department. It's usable but not nearly as nice as the film M's. <br /> Now, when I go from my FM3A, F3, F100 to my D750 or D810, that is a much better transition, the ergonomics on all of those cameras are near perfect, the nicely formed grips on the digitals easily making up for the thicker clamping distance. </p>

<p>Having played a few minutes with my just received M262, I have to say, I believe my issues with the digital M's shutter release may be over. This is really nice.</p>

<p>Having "grown up"with the Barnack cameras, I never did get to like the larger/heavier M-cameras. The CL, however, is a real jewel for me!</p>

<p>I always had a half case on my M3 for its protection which made it thicker anyway. The M9 feels pretty close to the same, particularly as I was able to shoe-horn it into the same kind of old Zenit cow-hide case, with a cut-out for the screen and controls.</p>

<p>Incidentally, a lot of people in the 50's and 60's kept and used their M3/M2's in those great lumpy Leica ever-ready cases lined with velvet (? cloth anyway). That's why so many of them remain in circulation and have come to us in such good condition. They were wide and thick and their only handling virtue was the substantial tripod ready screw on the base.<br>

At the other end, a lot of professionals must have carried their Leicas in nail bags filled with nails and bits of sandpaper :-)</p>

<p>James Elwing made me think.....when I got married the first time in the 1970's the photographers at the newspaper where I was a staff photographer tied a bunch of stuff on the back of my car to drag down the street - all to celebrate my impending doom. In this case it was old Dektol cans and that type of stuff. Included was an M4 ever-ready case. It had so little value that dragging it behind my car was of no consequence.<br>

One other story about ever-ready cases. One of the Agency VII photographers was trying to get into a country in Africa that had a terrible problem with big game poaching. No media were being allowed in country. He wore his best shorts, dark socks and put his Leica M3 in a Luigi (I think) half case. He wore it around his neck and went in with no problem as a tourist. He got the photographs he needed.</p>

<p>I never used a "never-ready" case for my workhorse M2, and never suffered any dings nor scratches as a result. However it did sustain damage to the vulcanite covering on the body, probably due to chemical damage from the shoulder bag I kept it in. As you may know, urethane foam deteriorates with age, and after about 20 years turns to a sticky, tarry substance. I would expect outgassing occurs, which could account for damage to the covering. Fortunately none of the lenses were affected, and are still quite usable after 50 years.</p>