M6/M7 Vs OM1/OM2

[tom_tong]

Thinking of the relationship between M6 and M7, this is somewhat more or less the same as OM1 and OM2 of Olympus which happened almost 20 years ago. Now that Olympus gives way to digital, will Leica do the same thing 10-20 years later? If this is the case, will M7 be the last model before Leica turns to digital totally?

[bobtodrick]

In actuality I don't think this is the same thing at all. Although

Olympus did make some advertising allusions to the M cameras - small,

lightweight, compact - all it was was a compact SLR, much the same as

a Nikon F80, Elan 7 is today when compared to their full sized

brethern. The rangefinder entails a different way of 'seeing' - the

floating framelines that promote keeping the camera at the eye at all

times, its low light focus ability with wideangle lenses etc., all

make for a different seeing experience. Olympus has ditched thier OM

series cameras not because of digital, but because they don't compete

well with what is on the market. They don't have A/F or a gazillion

auto exp modes, which is what you need to compete in todays SLR

market, nor did they ever seriously compete with the rangefinder.

Who knows if Leica will be digital in 20 years, but it will have

little to do with the OM cameras.

[msitaraman]

Tom is comparing relative positioning, rather than Leica to Olympus.

In that he is correct, that the automated aperture priority OM2 bore

the same relationship to the manual metered OM1 as the M7 does to the

M6. But there does seem to be little reason to compare the corporate

or product line development of Leica to Olympus.

 

<p>

 

I do tend to agree however that in some ways the Olympus OM cameras

had some of the characteristics of Leicas. Premium priced, well

engineered and solidly finished, small and compact in their class,

with premium glass in its time.

 

<p>

 

Too bad the market moved away from them and put a premium on

automation over size. I daresay the engineers also relaxed the size

weight constraints in favor of automation.

 

<p>

 

We'd all love to see EOS1Vs and Nikon F5s as small and lightweight as

our Leica Ms and Olympuses (or Pentax MEs). I might even consider

giving up the M body.

 

<p>

 

No, I take that back...

[michael_darnton1]

When I worked professionally, I had parallel M-Leica and Olympus OM-1

systems, as did a number of other people at the same time. I viewed

the OM-2 with the same suspicion that I now feel for the M-7, but

eventually I came over. . . but I do agree with the others that the

Olympus OM system didn't fall to digital--it failed when the company

abandoned developing the system a decade or more ago. Leica, however,

doesn't have any real competition in the serious RF field, so they

don't have anything to fail to keep up with, if you get my drift.

[raymond_tai]

The Olympus warrants comparison to the Leica because of similarity in

size and both have quality optics. There is even an 21mm f/2 Zuiko!

However the last time I checked the OM3Ti costs as much as an M6.

The similarity ends here as the Zuiko line has been stagnant for ages.

I had an used OM4T and 50mm f/3.5 Macro a few years back and was

quite impressed with the optics. The lever advance of OM cameras

feels like sawing wood.

[andy_piper2]

1. Olympus paved the way for the Leica M metering system as the first

company to use light reflected off the shutter curtain - I remember

seeing the OM2 with it's checkerboard dot pattern and thinking "Hmmm -

Leica could do something like that." ABout 10 years later they did,

with the Minolta CLE as an intermediary.

 

<p>

 

2. On system development and technological change - I have a vision

every so often...

 

<p>

 

It's 1929, and Leica stands more or less alone in producing a 35mm

camera (yeah I know there were others, some earlier - none survived

more than a few years.)

 

<p>

 

By 1935, Leica is competing primarily with Contax, with a scattering of

other camera-makers using Leica's format (Argus, maybe early Kodak)

 

<p>

 

Then the post-war Japanese revolution - dozens of brands copying and

improving on the Leica format. The frenzy builds in the go-go 60s:

faster shutters

builtinmeteringTTLmeteringzoomlensesmotorsVietnamLifeLook3535CanonF1aut

oexposuremulticoating68conventionsgo-

gofastcolorfilmsOlympusOM1shutterpriorityaperturepriorityPROGRAMMODEseg

mentedmeteringpointandshootsJonestownMinoltaMaxxumAUTOFOCUSplasticlensb

arrelsEOSdarthvadercamerasfastzoomsfasterzoomsMarslanderspixeltransmiss

ionsDIGITAL...digital...digital...

 

<p>

 

...and as the madding crowd disappears over the distant horizon baying

in pursuit of megapixels and more megapixels - it's 2029.....and Leica

stands more or less alone producing a 35mm camera.....

[msitaraman]

Andy, that's brilliant.

 

<p>

 

ROTFL :-D

[jerry_pfile]

Tom,

 

<p>

 

I suspect the time will come that Leica will produce a digital M, but

in their own good time. Which is to say don't hold your breath.

 

<p>

 

I suspect you'll see a digital R first, although probably in the form

of a digital back or kit to adapt to their current R or the R in

production at that time. However if the R continues to stay around,

I think you'll see amodel with focus confirmation first, not AF or

digital.

 

<p>

 

When they get around to it with the M, it will probably be a new M

that is wholly digital. That will be awhile though and I don't think

it will replace a "film" M. They will probably be around as long as

there is both film and Leica. But neither is forever of course. I

think that's a situation that our Grand kids may have to cope with,

but not us.

 

<p>

 

Best,

 

<p>

 

Jerry

[david_killick]

An interesting comparison. I had the OM2 for quite a few years and it

performed admirably (better than the zoom lens in fact wich packed

up). It's similar to the M7 only in that it's aperture priority

autoexposure and a fairly compact package. Actually I'm not so sure

about semi auto exposure. The same applies to my first

shutter-priority Olympus 35RC. Yes, it makes taking pictures quicker.

Exposures are often fine. But it gives you no insight at all into why

you choose a certain exposure. With an M3 or IIIa you think about the

aperture and shutter speed. Same, though to a lesser degree with an

M6. Does this matter? I'm not sure. To paraphrase Stephen Gandy: "yes,

no, perhaps and may b

[jay_.]

If Leica isn't making a digital body in 10 years, they better be

making film and processing it. Though I suspect there's a cadre of

Leica owners who wouldn't even notice if there were no film for it;>)

[jerry_pfile]

Jay,

 

<p>

 

Ten years? I think that might be a little quick. An interesting

technological comparison may be the the demand for VHS, Hi-8, and

DVDs.

 

<p>

 

The latter is gaining in the market of course, but certainly not to

the demise of the former. As long as there is a large population of

VCRs out there, someone will fulfill the demand.

 

<p>

 

As stated, our Grand kids may well look upon film as my Grand parents

looked upon tin types and air shutters, but it will take awhile.

 

<p>

 

Best,

 

<p>

 

Jerry

[preston_merchant]

I think you are right about the OM 1 to 2 analogy, which is why the

furore over the aperture priority functionality and the electronic

shutter of the M7 is puzzling. M7 and OM2 are still dinosaurs,

despite the fact that they have been "souped up" a little.

 

<p>

 

Bottom line: you can still shoot in the glow of satisfaction that

obtains when using a manual camera, and if your slides are slightly

better metered or if a few more of your grab shots are successful,

then won't you be happier in the end?

 

<p>

 

If I understand Olympus' history: the company moved farther and

farther away from 35 mm photography after producing some top-flight

cameras and lenses of their day. The OM 3 and 4 are comparable to

Leica's R series. After you have built four quality bodies (each a

slight "improvement" on the other) and your technology has been

adopted by your competition (off-the-film metering) and your lens and

accessory system is vast and of high quality--what else is there to

do with it?

 

<p>

 

Olympus now makes scientific equipment and lenses for specialized

medical applications, some consumer point & shoots, a non-system

consumer SLR, and some consumer digitals. I don't think Olympus has

really "gone digital," so much as declared their OM mission a success

and moved on. What else to do with a manual-focus SLR line? The

company claimed they could no longer get parts for the OM line, but

they will service the equipment for the next ten years.

 

<p>

 

As for what happens after the M7, it will all depend on whether or

not people actually want a digital rangefinder. I suspect they

don't. If a few do, a different company will produce it. Don't

forget that you can buy an auto-focus rangefinder from Contax.

Perish the thought!

[phc1]

Doesn't the new "Digilux 1" answer the digital Leica arguments, for

the time being at least?

 

<p>

 

See http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux1/index_e.htm

[kristian dowling]

I agree with Tom. So what does it mean? What are Leica trying to

say? What is our interpretation, and how will we (potential

market) react to our intepreattion? And finally, how will our

reactiion affect sales. At the end of the day, the Sales figures of

leica will determine 1. Our support for the company, thus leading

to 2. The company's potential to exist and survive in the "go

digital technology" future.

 

<p>

 

Only time will tell. But Tom is right. If Leica is going to continue

with saying that 'less is more' this will be the final M film camera.

So what do they do if this doesn't work and the product's life

becomes shorter than anticipated, shorter than the comapny can

stand? What if so many people convert to newer digital forms of

technology, leaving Leica behind? More Leica gear on the S/H

market will result in less NEW purchases, making Leica face a

decision......Go with the market, OR keep traditional comapny

values and continue with a niche market that is only getting

smaller and smaller..

...

....well, we the consumers will help them make that decision.

[pat_dunsworth]

I was fascinated by a poll taken a couple of years ago by one of the

Photo magazines. They asked the pros to vote on their favorite 35mm

camera. The top ten included the M3, M6, a couple of Nikons, a

couple of Canons, etc. The number one favorite camera was the OM-1.

[ray_moth]

I agree with the similarity between OM-1/OM-2 and M6/M7. The Olumpus

OM cameras were designed by Maitani-san, who was inspired by Leica.

He set out to produce the SLR equivalent of the Leica M and actually

succeeded in at least two respects: small size and smooth operation.

Whether he also succeeded in the optical field is a different issue.

a few OM Zuiko lenses are undoubtedly very good but some I would

class as so-so. All are very small and light, however.

 

<p>

 

Unfortunately, the later OM models didn't entirely live up to

Maitani's original concept. The film advance of the earlier models,

OM-1(n) and OM-2(n), is incredibly smooth and quiet, not unlike a

Leica M. For some unknown reason, however, Olympus reduced the angle

of operation of the advance lever in subsequent OM-2S, OM-3(Ti) and

OM-4(T)(Ti) models, making it higher-geared and noticeably rougher.

 

<p>

 

Ray Tai's comment: "I had an used OM4T and 50mm f/3.5 Macro a few

years back and was quite impressed with the optics. The lever advance

of OM cameras feels like sawing wood" is unfortunately true of all

models following the OM-2n. Furthermore, the shutter speed ring

(around the lens throat) on those later cameras is thinner and

stiffer, to the point of being unpleasant to operate.