Leica M is a compact camera. Yeah Right!!!

[chuck_t]

<p>After so many years of using the Leica M3, I have found out that I have been fooled by many people.<br>

Many people said that M is a compact rangefinder camera. It is NOT true at all.<br>

I recently got a mint R4s and I have realized the Leica R is lighter and has the same compactness and height. I also got a new old stock old cron from another store. Although the lens barrel is larger, but the weight is lighter than the Summilux on my M3. Both lenses height are also about the same; in fact, the R Cron is a little more compact.<br>

My conclusion is that people love the M, because they have never touch the R.<br>

Quality wise, Is the M picture quality really better than the R? No, they are in the same league.</p>

 

[geoff_r1]

<p>If you compared a cron to a cron it may be different. Certainly, my fourth version 2/35 Summicron M is a fraction of the size and weight of my 2/35 Summicron R. I prefer the pictures the M makes, too, but that's more to do with character than quality. There's no doubt that the R series is great, and very under rated.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I love the Leica M3, M2, M4 and M6 and would probably love the MP if I could afford one. I also love the Nikon F2 in all of it's finder permutations. For me, it has to do with engineering and build quality. These camera systems represent the pinnacle of "manual", (mostly), film camera production, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Some people just don't get other photographers appreciation of Leica M series cameras. My appreciation of the Leica M boarders on obsession. </p>

<p>That's okay Chuck. There is a system or more out there for everyone, and you have your very legitimate personal preference.</p>

<p>In the end the camera is a tool, and we should invest in whatever works best for us.</p>

 

[mark_amos]

<p>Chuck, we all make decisions about what we like to shoot based on all aspects, and for some of us, small size is a heavily "weighted" parameter. Years ago, I made a spreadsheet comparing the size and weight of many compact cameras, and I found that the size increases are incremental. Canon Elph Jr. (APS) to Olympus XA to Rollei 35 to Olympus RC then RD to Canonet, almost the same as Leica CL then to Leica M6 or Nikon EM or FG and then to Nikon FM series all...the increases are small at each step. I have shot with the Leica R4 and R5, and they are admirably compact and solid and not so different in size to my FM3a (and OMs are smaller yet), but I believe they are typically lower at the shoulder than the M3 or M6, but very slightly taller at the prism. But when laid on the back, the lack of the mirror in the rangefinder camera allows it to be quite flat, resting flat in a shallow briefcase or extending less from your body as when hanging from the shoulder under a coat. This is particularly true with a Leica 35 cron, 40 cron-C, or collapsible 50 Elmar. I have the Nikon 45 2.8 GN and 45-P, and while these are truly small, with the added depth of the mirror box, the camera is about as big as a Leica with an f2 Leica wide-normal, which gives a stop advantage for size.<br>

My point is simply that if one likes rangefinder features and values the precision and options of the Ms over the fixed lens small 70s rangefinder cameras, then the Ms are also slightly more compact than most any SLR system, particularly because of the lenses.</p>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

<p>Compared to my D3, F3p w/MD-4, F4s my M4's are very compact.</p>

[jimsimmons]

<p>After using a borrowed M2 for quite a while, I sold my Nikon F and got a Leica CL with the 40mm Summicron (because I could not afford an M at the time). After many years of using the CL, I picked up a friend's M6 and could not believe how HUGE an M body was! <g> A lot has to do with what you are used to.</p>

[kens]

<p>Neither the M nor R bodies are as compact as the Leica screw mount bodies. It's all a matter of perspective and what features you think are important.</p>

[l_dasousa]

<blockquote>

<p>After so many years of using the Leica M3, I have found out that I have been fooled by many people.<br /> Many people said that M is a compact rangefinder camera. It is NOT true at all.<br /> I recently got a mint R4s and I have realized the Leica R is lighter and has the same compactness and height. I also got a new old stock old cron from another store. Although the lens barrel is larger, but the weight is lighter than the Summilux on my M3. Both lenses height are also about the same; in fact, the R Cron is a little more compact.<br /> My conclusion is that people love the M, because they have never touch the R.<br /> Quality wise, Is the M picture quality really better than the R? No, they are in the same league.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry that the world conspired to fool you in such a terrible way, and I am happy you now have the camera that makes you happy. The majority of Leica users still think the M is more compact than R, and is the way to go. Even Leica has discontinued the entire R system (at least for the time being). But there is more to it than compact (after all, since 50+ years there are now many very tiny cameras that are highly capable, not as it was in 1950-1970. When you will to shoot your R4S inside a nightclub, let us know how easy it is to focus your wideangle lens, compared of an M. Let us know how slow the shutter speed you can handhold your R4S and get sharp result as the M. Let us know how well you can use your R4S is inside a place where it must be very quiet, compared of an M. When you go to the show where is not permitted to take a camera, and you must hide him from the guard, let us know how fits your R4S in one coatpocket, and lens in another, compared of an M. There is place for R and place for M. Whatever you enjoy.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p >Compared to my D3, F3p w/MD-4, F4s my M4's are very compact.</p>

</blockquote>

<br />

<br />

I was thinking the same thing.

 

 

</p>

[soeren_engelbrecht1]

<p>Guess which camera that I chose to carry with me 24/7 ?? :-)</p><div></div>

[john tonai]

<blockquote>

<p>Guess which camera that I chose to carry with me 24/7 ?? :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pentax 6x7?</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<p>To the OP - I'm not sure your argument holds water.</p>

<p>About ten years ago I decided to settle on the M-line, partially because they are indeed more compact with no mirror housing, no prism, and smaller lenses. As has already been pointed out, a simple comparison focal-length to focal-length (of comparable speed), M lenses are substantially more compact.</p>

<p>Be that as it may, I have flip-flopped back and forth between Leica M and R over the years. I would agree Leica did a fine job on the R cameras (basically Minolta designed by the way) from the R4 onwards to the R6.2 (my personal favorite).</p>

<p>Setting aside size though, the primary factor, at least for me, is that I got hooked on the M-system very early in life (I was only about 13) and I find the Leica RF a much more enjoyable shooting experience. This has nothing whatsoever to do with size or weight - but simply user preference.</p>

[carol_christopher]

<p>I have always considered my Kodak Medalist a BIG camera, which it is, but was surprised to see the M8 profile not much smaller. In fact, I was trying to show how much BIGGER the Kodak was than the M8, but got fooled big time. So I have to agree, the Leica M series (late) are not all that compact.</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>To me, there is a point at which a camera becomes too small to be held comfortably and stably - the Leica M6 is about borderline - and so is the R4/R5. I no longer have my Nikon FM/FM2 - but if memory serves me right, size was about the same. The Nikon EM was smaller - too small - and so were the Pentax ME/MX and the Olympus OM-1/OM-2. I quite like the modern style with the build-in grip - the Nikon F4 was just a tad too thick, the F3 a tad too thin - my current D200/D300 are just about right. For hand-holding at slow shutter speeds, I still prefer the F5 - a lot of mass and a huge camera - enough to hold onto tight.<br>

I am always amazed when I compare the M6 and the M5 - on paper, the difference appears marginal - in reality, the difference seems huge.</p>

[Jeffrey L.T. von Glück]

<p>I have been shooting with Leicas for about 40 years. The M cameras are definitely more compact than the R series. I use Leicaflexes and R7, but the M's are clearly more compact. My favourite "pocket" kit is an M7 with 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. I sometimes throw in a 90/2 'cron or 135/4 Tele-Elmarit. Anything closer, I bring the R7 along with either primes or zooms. I can handle just about anything with the combo.</p>

[john tonai]

<p>Um Carol,</p>

<p>Now turn them sideways and photograph them ;^)</p>

[carol_christopher]

<p>John, I don't normally do sideways, but here goes:</p>

<p>Of course, I get your point, and I am not comparing the M8 to the old Kodak in any way. But who gives a rat's a** if the M Leica is a compact camera or not, it is what it is.</p><div></div>

[andresainderichin]

<p>Hi, How about the Old Leica II? I have one, it's in perfect condition, and with the 50mm lens collapsed, it fits in my pocket. That's compact "avant la lettre". And it's just as easy (if a bit slower) to handle as the M3. </p>

[Brian1664876441]

I was a bit surprised that a Contax II fits perfectly into a Leica M3 case. Move the retaining screw, done. The M3 is small compared with "modern SLR's". But that's why the CL came out, a drive back to compact cameras for Leica. The Leica III is compact. The Leica CL is compact. The M3 is not as small, but it's fits quite well in my hands..

[david_bivins]

<p>The point I see here is that the M <em>is </em> a compact rangefinder, and the R is an SLR. Right? The M is not described as a compact <em>camera</em> , but a compact <em>rangefinder</em> . Does anyone else see this as a big difference?</p>

[sfcole]

<p>My M2 is only slightly smaller than my Canon F-1 (just minus prism), but just as heavy, especially w/90 f2.</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>There is a historical misconception at work here. The Leica was heralded as a "compact" camera only back in the 1950s and earlier -- the reason being that at that time it WAS indeed a lot more compact than the medium format and other gear ("Speed" Graphics, for example) that were habitually being used as pro cameras.<br>

This was a marketing slogan of the time that has stuck and achieved near-legendary cult recall, along with the term "Leica glow."<br>

Today, the Leica M is still a LOT more compact than pro-level DSLRs, such as the ubiquitous Canons and Nikons.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>In my big hands, the Leica M is a compact camera. Smaller cameras like some digital point and shoot bodies are just too awkward for me to use comfortably. My fingers get in the way of everything.<br>

I have handled just about every camera on the market since the late 1950s and always opted for whatever worked best for me and my budget at the time.<br>

So what's the big deal, Chuck? Obviously you've found what you like. Why disparage the Leica M for those of us who find it to be the camera of our choice, or at least one of them?<br>

This post boarders on frivolous or even Trollish, in my opinion.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The M and the R4-6.2 are about the same size, but no one could deny that the M lenses are more compact than their R brethren - they also weigh less because of it (not that they are particularly light, though). I think a better way of looking at this is to say that the R4-6.2 are nice and small for an SLR.</p>

[bobtodrick]

<p>I will agree that the M is not much smaller than an R4//5/6/7.<br>

I think the difference still applies when carrying a kit, though even then it due more to the lens limitations of the rangefinder. A few years back I had a lllg (admittedly smaller than an M) with what is probably considered the standard rangefinder kit...35/50/90. Fit nicely inside a small Billingham Hadley.<br>

At the same time I had an R3 with drive, a 24, 35-70, 90 and 180. Easily took up 3 times the volume of the rangefinder kit. </p>