The Digital M: and a few thoughts for Leica's Crititcs:

IMO, the Leica forum has become increasingly polarized over the past few months. It has

gone from M discussions that tout the "glass as half full", to "it's half empty", to "it's

completely empty" with some folks.

 

On this forum there are those who actually take photographs with a Leica M, as opposed

to "talk about taking photos". And just as an observation, it seems the most vocal and

deriding critics of Leica in general are those who we know don't even use a Leica camera,

or we have no idea if they have ever actually taken a photograph with any kind of camera.

The latter could be nothing more than photo "groupies" for all we know. Groupies often

know a lot of details about the subject, but can't do anything themselves ... whether this is

true or not cannot be discerned, because there is no proof offered as a counter point.

 

Why these people relentlessly attack any positive feelings for Leica, on a forum dedicated

to the camaraderie of those who use the system for work or pleasure, escapes me. To be

publicly "right"? To look superior? To garner attention? To make people feel bad? To kill

a company? Counter point arguments are one thing, but unceasingly and bitterly negative

pronouncements of opinion as fact is another.

 

There are many of us who do use a Leica M, have proved it, and have done so for many

years. Even decades. Even a lifetime. The system has served us well, and as a result we

have developed a fondness for this well made, simple little tool that has delivered. This

has nothing to do with level of the users talent as evaluated by self appointed critics. Yes, I

agree that "the camera doesn't make the photographer" as pointed out ad nauseam by

self-styled "superior" photographers here. Yet, many who actually use the M system think

and feel there is something different about the results that goes beyond just the cultish

Leica mystique. It is a sensory opinion based on looking at the results in comparison to

results from other gear. Yes, it's still a subjective opinion, but an informed one based on

actually using the equipment. And this IS the Leica forum for God's sake.

 

Now the digital age looms even larger, and is being used as a blunt instrument to bash

Leica. Lots of opinions flying thick and heavy. Yet, again, how many based on actual

experience? Searching out third party opinions on the subject to support arguments may

be valid, but that technique can be used to support ANY opinion because the opinions are

also polarized like crazy.

 

At this stage of digital development, it is rumored that Leica will now attempt a digital M.

And the negatives have come out of the woodwork. Comparisons to Canon and other

giants perplex me. It's apples and oranges just the way it's been for decades. IMO, a digital

sensor of near full frame size @ 8 to 10 meg will serve the Leica photographer well into

the future, even as the technology from the giants marches on. If Leica keeps to their

heritage of simple, personal control, such a M digital will be highly useable in the manner

we who use it are accustomed to. The areas of firmware and software are where upgrades

can then be manifested to keep the digital M viable for a longer product cycle.

 

Based on experience, I believe the current M glass will deliver. My rigged experiment to

actually shoot a digital image with M lenses on a Canon Digital camera proved that to my

eye (not just web uploads, but 12X17 ink-jets off my Epson 2200). If new sensor

technology allows anything like it with an M, then we can have a true Leica M digital with

many of the characteristics we've grown accustomed to... for real life usage as opposed to

banter here on this forum.

 

May Leica be successful, and I wish them all the luck and support I can muster as they

march forward on their quest for a viable Leica M digital camera that allows me to use my

current M lenses.

 

For those who missed the rigged experiment of M glass on a Canon here is one of the

examples (and this was on a Canon 10D @ only 6 meg with a 1.6X factor, i.e. less than full

frame... so imagine a 8-10 meg sensor @ full frame).

 

 

<div></div>

Here's a detail from the above shot. The large ink-jet print I made from the full image

above confirmed the ability of the current lenses to render images in the way I expect from

a Leica M lens. To my (subjective) eye, they are superior to the Canon glass I also use on a

regular basis.<div></div>

Well said.

 

Everyone on this forum has something at stake with Leica's reported digital initiative. Even if individual forum members never plan on using a digital "M" it could secure the company's future. And of course getting it wrong could mean the end for an iconic photographic symbol that's inspired and delighted us all.

FWIW I agree entirely with the above. It's extraordinary to me that people would hang around a Leica forum just to continually and rather boringly knock the brand - does this happen, I wonder, on the Nikon/Canon forums, or do these marques not inspire the same passion/hatred/irritation/envy?

Marc: Well said!

 

I wish I could be a bit more coherent in responding - but it's 5 am.

 

There has been too much 'debating' going on - which is pointless, since on an open-ended forum like this, no question can ever be finally settled. Much of what gets posted is unsupported opinion - and any 13-year-old (or 73-year-old) with a modem can have an opinion.

 

Let's get back to showing/critiquing pictures and providing useful information (preferably backed up with fact) to people who ask for it. Ideally, made with (or on the subject of) Leica (or Leica-compatible) equipment.

 

The 'film vs. digital' subject in particular has brought out the worst from many of us - which is especially silly since it isn't a either/or question. One can use film; one can use digital; one can use both - or neither.

 

Me, I'm looking forward to riding BOTH the digital and film ponies - and posting images made with my Digilux-2 as well as my M6s (if they are worth posting!). And eventually with the digital M if such comes to pass.<div></div>

The picture above was taken with a one of the best small tele of the market, on one of the

best 1,6x Cmos.

 

I had been very surprised if it was not excellent, because I'm using the same lens in R

mount on a Canon 300D.

 

BUT, this doesn't say anything about the quality of a Leica M wide angle on a bigger CCD

or Cmos.

 

I suspect that Leica M users use more often 35mm than 90mm.

I totally agree with you. I've been taking pictures since I was twelve and went professional

about 7 years ago. Most of my work dictates that I use Medium Format and I soon

stopped investing in 35mm gear and also stopped carrying it around, and thus didn't snap

at all - I just went to work, came home and went back to work the next day. With the

release if the M7 that all changed. Purely from a design point of view, I fell in love with it.

It's like my Mac, I love it. None of my friends tell me they love their 'PC', and if they did I

would think I would just nod politely and run away quickly when they weren't looking.

 

So the passion that I thought I never really had for 35mm has manifested itself with the

Leica. I like the weight balance, ergonomics, compactness (of the lenses especially) and

the refreshing lack of buttons and flashing numbers that just distract me from my

objective.

 

I use digital alot because magazines and news agencies demand it, not to mention the

deadlines. I like digitals' convienience, but at the moment that's all it has over analogue. I

like messing with film, I like not knowing for sure how the film is going to come out - it

keeps my mind sharp and always looking for ways to improve my workflow. If a digital M

is made, I won't buy it. I bought a M7 because I want to carry a camera around day to day

and take pictures with film. If that's what they need to do to keep the company going then

I hope it works out for them. I use the M7 for pleasure and a pleasure it is to use. I don't

know why yet but perhaps becuase it looks and feels less like a modern camera which is

important to me. For what I have in mind it's perfect.

 

I'm new to this forum so I don't know what it was like before, but I was/am hoping to read

more positive Leica stories/messages. Digital is coming.... it will take over.... Well, one

day it will, that's for sure and I don't think we need debate it. But I think there are still

people out there who love the equipment for whatever reason and we want to live in our

little Leica-lover worlds and the others can live in their worlds. And as Marc proved with

his experiment maybe the two worlds will come together rather elegantly and there will be

peace.

Good points. I think it's funny to read the "attempt the impossible" thread below, which I just did a few hours ago. It's input like that that makes me seriously question the value of more than just a light perusal of this forum from time to time. Then I look at a folder like in "Challenging Untouchability", and find there are some nuggets of value here and there.

Mark, you're becoming an absolute pain. You not only take bloody good pictures but you talk sense too!

 

You'll kill off all the fun around here if you go on like that....

 

<grin><div></div>

OOPS!!

 

Sorry, 'Marc'

Thanks Mark for bringing a ringing sanity back to the forum. I chose Leica because of the quality of the bodies and lenses, the small size, the control and the simplicity. It fits all of these for me. Having invested in the glass I am very happy to see that Leica is trying to develop a body, hopefully with the quality, size and simplicity principles of the film bodies, so that the lenses will not become obsolete if the unlikely happens and film is no longer made. Of course to have the alternative of a digital body might suit some people better regardless - so it seems a sensible path to go as far as I can see.

 

Regarding the negativity of some of the more opinionated naysayers goes, it seems to me that they repeat their points so often and so fervently that they have turned themselves into preachers of doom. I can understand that it is sad when the world does not go the way one wants it to, or in the way that one thinks it should, or that others do not immediately concur with ones, obviously, deeply held views, but to turn ones opinions into an obsessional crusade makes one seem pretty foolish in the end.

 

My suggestion is to lighten up and taken some photos with your soon to be obsolete old Leicas while you can.

Well stated, Marc. For me to add anything more would be

superfluous.

I received a "Leica Camera Newsletter" in my email yesterday. It begins,<p>

 

"In the third quarter of fiscal year 2003/2004 (FY end

March 31), the Leica Camera Group, Solms, has

achieved an after-tax profit of Euro 2.9 million and sales

of Euro 30.6 million. <u>The profit for the quarter fully offsets

the losses of Euro 2.9 million incurred in the first half year

and results in a break-even after-tax result for the nine

months.</u>" [My emphasis] <p>

 

It goes on to say, in part,<p>

 

"In order to improve the Company�s

profit situation, which is still unsatisfactory, the Board of

Management plans an organisational streamlining

process. Implementation of all of the respective measures

is expected to lead to extraordinary expenditure in the

amount of Euro 8.5 million, spread over two fiscal years.

Simultaneously, the Board of Management has resolved

to take measures in order to safeguard and finance the

Company�s strategy for innovation and distribution over

the medium term. Leica Camera AG is issuing convertible

bonds in an amount of Euro 15 million. In addition, the

Company has entered into contracts with several banks

on the granting of credit lines which will become available

on issuance of the convertible bonds."<p>

 

So the company <i>isn't making money</i>. Further, according to the Dow Jones article referenced in another thread, Leica expects to take an overall loss for the year, on declining sales.<p>

 

Leica's response to this appears to be the best that could reasonably be expected - they are cutting costs (even though this means cutting into the highly specialized muscle and bone of their labor force) while preparing to make a substantial investment in R&D - thereby going further into debt and ensuring that earnings will remain flat for the next two years at least.<p>

 

In other words, a small company (by any measure), with meager and declining revenues, is operating at a loss and fighting for its survival. <i>Teetering on the brink of disaster</i> might be a good way of summing it up. And everything hinges on whether or not they can get sufficient funding - and buy enough time - to develop and market a digital direction for their products. And much of that - the funding and the time - depends on <i>perception</i>. Are they perceived as being a forward thinking, well organized operation appealing to a niche in the changing market? Are they seen as having the support and loyalty of long term customers with money to spend? And of being able to attract sufficient new customers? Are their products exciting and well made?<p>

 

Making an avocation of criticising Leica, whether out of love or rancor or something else, isn't, in my opinion, the same thing as tilting at giant corporate windmills. The latter is understandable and even necessary; Leica needs all the help it can get. If they go down the tubes, all your exciting, exquisite gear will soon become relics. And there won't be any more. Ever.

You're absolutely right, Marc. You know, we could be experimenting some of the «15

minutes of celebrity» syndrome here, from time to time. Some show off, as well. And

some letting off steam from everyday's little aggravations. «Let's vent it on Leica.

Aaah... that felt good!»

 

Digital M camera? Digital M lenses? Any time! I'm already eyeing on the Dlux 2.

 

BTW, your shot with M glass and digital Canon is gorgeous. One could even profile

you from the fingerprint on the VF ;-)

"BUT, this doesn't say anything about the quality of a Leica M wide angle on a bigger CCD

or Cmos. I suspect that Leica M users use more often 35mm than 90mm." - Lucien

 

Yes, that is probably true. Yet that has been the issue stopping Leica all along. If the newer

sensors do indeed hold out hope for a digital M, that will be the measure. Although I

personally would be satisfied with a digital body that utilized M glass from 28mm to

90mm.

 

In my experiment, I also used a Canon 1Ds full frame with a 50mm. Or course the

limitations are dictated by the mirror box on the SLRs, so you can't get a 28 or 35 close

enough to the sensor for anything but an extreme close up. So we'll have to wait to see the

performance of the 35 Lux ASPH or 28/2 ASPH. But if it is anything remotely close to what

I was able to get from the 50 Lux, 90AA and 135 APO, I think we'll have ourselves a digital

M.

Excellent post Marc. Leitz, and later Leica, have given many of us superb instruments that are a pleasure to use and provide excellent results. Folks should appreciate Leicas for what they are rather than for what they are not.

 

However, a word about posting photos on the forum. While I have a good supply of Leitz equipment as well as slides, negatives and prints produced by same, the only digital stuff in the house is my PC and CD player. I have neither the hardware nor software to post digital photos and have no short term plans to acquire any. I don't think that I am alone in this regard. Given this limitation I'll continue to make whatever positive contributions I can to the forum.

 

Again, many thanks Marc for a long overdue call for sanity on the forum.

Marc, good to see that you already have a 'hero' icon. You

deserve it for this post alone.

Well said, Marc. It gets regurgitated regularly on this forum that lens/camera performance doesn't matter, but that's simply not true. While it might be the least important aspect of any given picture, it can make a better looking pic if the details of lighting and composition are equal. My Canon 100 f2.0 isn't as good wide-open as my pre-asph 90 Summicron. Period. Quicker to focus and handle, yes. But the images it produces at full-aperture are duller. Equal by f4.0, but so what?

 

If available light, wide-open photography is important to you, the Leica M system delivers visibly superior results, all other factors being equal.

hear hear

Marc, any luck with that M to EOS adapter?

Best post I've ever seen on this board, hands down. Thank you Marc.

 

I too have become increasingly puzzled by those whose only contributions to this forum are negative. We know who you are. We understand your point. Why continually repeat it, ad nuseum? This is supposed to be a forum for people who love Leica. Now that you've made your point, please go somewhere else and stop trying to ruin the simple pleasure many of us here derive from our Leicas.

 

Yes, I do agree with the natsayers when they try to deflate some of the inflated claims some of us make about Leica's optical superiority; sometimes these claims can be silly. But, for me at least, there is something special about the Leica as a photographic tool - its pedigree, its simplicity and design, my personal history with it, all of these contribute to my continued fascination with the brand. Digital will take over, no doubt, but who cares? I'm happy to keep plugging along the low-tech way with my Leicas.

 

And one more thing: I've been incredibly blessed to have met and conversed with a number of giants of photography, and almost without fail, the subject gets around to cameras and Leicas, and they want to see the camera hanging around my neck or talk about the Leica they used to make such and such a picture. Almost invariably they continue to have an abiding fascination with Leicas as well, even though those still active are now using digital for their work. But its obvious they dont take the satisfaction in these newer technologies that they still do in the simplicity of their Leicas. And almost all of them still carry around the Leica for their personal work. This should tell us alot.

Well said Marc.

 

I'm actually reasonably optimistic about the future of both (true) b/w film and digital M. B/W is already a tiny part of the market and seems to have enough momentum to keep going. The price may go up, but with very good films, chemicals and paper already pretty cheap I could take a doubling or more in my stride. The technology is reasonably simple, well established and I see absolutely no reason why even a relatively small specialist company wouldn't be able to find enough consumers to maintain production indefinitely. Colour, especially transparency film may be more vulnerable, but you can't have everything.

 

As we all know digital M is an endless debating point. The problems are technical and not insurmountable. Yes, there are questions around microlenses, frame size and lens to sensor distance... but so what? There will be a solution, it may not be perfect, it may only work with the M7s, it may preclude the use of the wider lenses, but for the 35 to 135 range and modern M bodies I think they'll come up with something. They know they have to, and now it seems they are going to try. My only real concern is price :-(

I like my M6TTLs a lot.<div></div>

the search for an M body "that allows me to use my current M

lenses." i just don't understand why that should be leica's quest

-- and fear that if they make it their objective, leica will not be

around very long.

 

marc, i am not sure why you think questioning leica's decisions

in the digital arena constitutes being "anti-leica." so far, none of

their strategic choices on the digital side has made much

sense. indeed, scanning the archives, i see that you yourself

have suggested that the fabled R digital back will be DOA by

virtue of the competiition from canon and nikon. no one here

ever comments on the digilux 1, and i have tried myself to stoke

enthusiasm for the digilux 2, but all such posts are met with

"who would pay $1800 for a 5MP point and shoot" -- sentiments

even you have expressed.

 

i know from speaking with you in person that i have been a leica

photographer at least as long as you and, like you, use the

camera system professionally. i have invested heavily in leica M,

and hope to use the gear for many more years. i want leica to

keep making great lenses for the camera -- maybe a 21

summicron, a wide angle tri-elmar, and a "slow" 75. my concern

is that an ill-fated M digital platform will be enough to send them

under.

 

what i believe is this: (1) it will be hard/impossible for a tiny

company to remain viable long as an independent producer of

digital cameras. the devices change too quickly and consumers

WILL want the latest features if they are shooting in digital. i

don't think you or i can even imagine what digital is going to bring

us in three years. already there is talk of IN CAMERA image

stabilization, perspective control, and shadow/highlight recovery.

you have a romantic notion that leica can follow the "one camera

for 50 years" approach of the M in digital and people will be

satisfied. it just won't play out that way.

 

2. i think leica has WAY overestimated its need to become

digital. i strongly believe that a healthy prosumer demand for

high end film cameras will persist for many years. film WILL be

available and supported, and there will be a class of persons

who will revel shooting in film whilst the masses use digital.

and these consumers are leica's bread and butter.

 

3. leica could make a MITTFUL of money doing what zeiss is

doing -- making (or badging) lenses for 3rd party cameras. i

want them to follow a good business model so they will still have

the funds to make film cameras and lenses. zeiss is hugely

profitable. leica could be too. forty years ago, leica was bigger

than zeiss!!

 

with all due respect, in your words i detect something of the

reactionary. you want the world to change as little as possible

around the M system -- whilst still allowing you the advantages of

digital. its a pleasant vision, but i don't think it's one that is

feasible. enjoy your film leicas for years to come. look forward to

M quality lenses for the magical digital platforms the billion dollar

companies will give us. that's not being anti-leica. it's wanting

leica to remain viable as long as possible.

 

all i will say in closing is that i have expressed the desire a

number of times over the past few weeks that tony and josh

should try enforcing tony's "rules" for a test period -- and that

means NO mention of digital versus film. why not??

thankyou everyone for your input. If Leica is reeading this I just want to let them I'm already in the waiting line for a digital M. Just work faster - I can hardly wait! If a 10D/M adapter comes out I will buy itas well.