A Leica M interesting Question.

[chuck_t]

I found something interesting. The Nikon FM2n and FM has the same

weight and thickness of the Leica M. And with the new compact 45mm

pancake silver lens attached, it is thinner than the Leica M with

elmar 50mm 2.8 lens attached. The height is a bit taller due to the

prism.

 

If Leica copy and make a better SLR like the FM2n with a thinner body

plus different types of R series pancake lens, would Leica M be

obsolete and replaced? Remember, with a SLR, what you see is what you

get. Oh, of course, the shutter would be even quiter than the Nikon

F100. It is possible to have a quiter SLR with German design. Look at

the 1971 Leicaflex and Nikon F2, the Leicaflex is quiter than the F2

in the 70's era. No offence, here and I hope I did not miss

anything.

[el_fang]

Impossible. If Leica were to make an SLR with the actual quality and reliability of the FM2N it would cost almost 5 digits. But one thing I have noticed - is that any camera with a prism, no matter how small, is almost automatically recognized as a "pro" camera. For me anyway, the draw of the Leica M is that it's quiet and unassuming. The one thing that will be the death knell of the Leica M is a compact digital that offers comparable manual focusing and no shutter delay. I'm waiting.

[kurt_teerlynck]

I always wonder how important the vibration caused by the mirror is in slow shutterspeeds, it feels important when you shoot Leica M for 90 % of the time and then use slr again but is it ?

Another very important thing is the moment of puching the release button and actually taking the picture, Leica M means you loose no time which I like very much!

But I think all Leica R users would be very happy with a very compact r body and lens !!!

[ken_chi]

Well, size... is not the question/answer here I believe. And no, Leica M will not be obsolete and replaced. But you have raised a good question to why Leica M has a special place in photography.

 

I think first of all you shouldn't compare rangefinder and SLR designs since they're simply different fruits. SLR is more... contemplative (maynot be the best word, but I find that with my TLR which is similar) in a way because you isolating the things outside a frame on a rangefinder, and it is in a way more focused because you can't see the other fields (near far objects)when the SLR lens is wide open. As for a rangefinder, you can see multiple elements in situations where an SLR won't allow, such as 3 persons facial expressions at different distance and perhaps a dog on the side as well(look at Elliot Erwit or HCB's work), therefore the visual awareness point is much more expanded rather than focused at a point (unless you're focused on infinity shooting landscape with an SLR, anything close between say 3feet to 10feet you focus is limited)

 

I started with FM3A which was great for long lenses like the 105/2.5 as you get what you see, but now my style of photography is different when I shoot M which is more like a quick 'draw' (no pun indeed) style. I have learnt to previsualize a scene down to the printing stage before I point the camera and shoot, it's is perhaps a technique that many leica users have learnt naturally because of the way rangefinder operates.

Having said all that, I believe SLR has its many advantages with the obvious one as being the long lenses... But M photography I think should be close and personal.

 

One last thing, the pancake 45mm is kind of a special due to the Tessar design making it very compact. I don't think that can be the same with the wides and long. If you shoot more than one lens (though I personally have a 3lenses and 2bodies), I am sure the size and weight won't compete if you have like a wide/normal/long combination.

[steve_barnett2]

No Chuck, the M wouldn't be obsolete because you would be designing out all the things that make the M so useful. Like no mirror slap, like a bright viewfinder, easy focusing in low light, and you would be also consigning fifty years of usable lenses to the collectors drawer. Go back and have another think. 3/10 You must try harder, your looney ideas are just to transparent.

[terry_rory]

My venerable Contax 139Q with 45mm Tessar F2.8 (pancake) attached is also a small, light package that attracts hardly any unwanted attention, not that I care less if people think I have a camera because I have! Why are we so bloody worried whether people think we are pro's or snappers or even just weird nutters with a pretend camera who like to look like a photographer. The best street shooter I ever had, bar none, was a Rolleicord VA2 which is a giant compared to my Contax SLR or any Leica M. I dont know why but people never noticed it or gave it any credence as a camera. Maybe Rollei had built in some sort of prototype-invisibility cloak into my one?

 

I dont really mind if a camera goes 'Snick' or 'KA-KLUNK!!!' when I fire it. My only concern is whether I would interrupt concentration (of someone driving for instance or a crowd watching a quiet event) but NOT other peoples feelings about whether I am a photographer. Sod em! I get annoyed by other peoples inapproprate/unsafe use of mobile phones which is often far louder and more obtrusive than me going 'click' somewhere in the corner.

 

Anyhow, I digress, get a nice old Contax 139Q and a 45mm Tessar f2.8 which (mint used) will cost a fraction of the money spent on a Nikon FM2 or FM3 and their 45mm offering and of course you get Zeiss glass. (My 139Q cost £100 UK and my 45mm Tessar cost £90 UK and both were almost mint)

[steve_chan5]

I think that one of the main selling points of Leica M is the optical quality wide open, and the lack of mirror slap. I don't think a Leica R would be able to do away with those advantages.

[tao]

Chuck - I mostly use a <b>M4P</b>, a <b>M6ttl</b> and a <b>FM2</b>. <br>

<p><b><u>Ms</u></b> : addicted to the viewfinder, IMHO prism system can not compare to the experience of a direct viewfinder, BTW your statement about WYSIWYG is partially false ; <b>Ms</b> allow me much much slower speeds than the <b>FM2</b> ; <b>Ms</b> are les conspicuous ; my <b>FM2</b> with a tamron 90mm macro lens takes much more room in my bag<br>

<p><b><u>FM2</u></b> : I like the <b>FM2</b> for its construction, simplicity, no electronic (except for the lightmeter, which I don't use) - I use the <b>FM2</b> for macro work and focals > 90mm ; the "prism" view is ok but so less bright than a viewfinder ; I changed the standard visor for the grid visor which is ok <br>

<p>The thing you missed is that the viewfinder system has intrinsic qualities and drawbacks ; it is the same for SLR ; two different systems ; two different uses.<br>

Cheers,<br>

LL

[david_killick9]

How low can you go? With an M and no mirror, very low - though I

reckon weight and balance have something to do with the

equation as well. The Olympus OM series was also

commendably compact, but the rangefinders have a distinctive

direct feel all their own. Interesting though to contemplate what

success an OM or FM-sized Leica might have had in the early

60s. Now? I wonder how much R&D is being invested in new

SLRs (or rangefinders or even P/Ss whatsoever) - digital seems

to be taking over everywhere.

[travis1]

Trevor, the Tessar 45/2.8 is a beauty, isn't it?;)

[roger c]

[OT] but what's the point of a digital SLR anyway? Surely the mirror could be dispensed with and replaced with a decent LCD display fed straight from the CCD/CMOS, like a camcorder [1]. I'm sure a digital camera could also be made without a moving shutter - just energise the capture circuit for a certain number of processor clock cycles depending on the desired speed. You'd have a solid-state camera with no vibration at all.

 

[1] I understand LCD resolution can be a slight problem for accurate manual focusing, but as they all have autofocus with focus lock...

[lee_shively]

Rangefinders have been obsolete for years anyway. It's only dinosaurs like me that still like them and use them. Real men use digital SLR's, you know.

 

But, no, a small and light SLR built by Leica or anyone else is likely to make people like me toss out the M's and wax ecstatic about their SLR's. Hell, I've got six or seven SLR's around already, including a Rebel 2000 that is about the same size as an M6. I don't use any of them as much as the M6.

 

I'm sure I'm gonna piss off a bunch of you but, here goes. The Nikon FM/FM2, whatever, ain't that great a camera. When they were introduced by Nikon, they replaced the Nikkormat. I was doing newspaper work at the time and just about all of us bought FM's and FE's because they were smaller and lighter and cheaper than the F2 and they also took a motor drive. Compared to the F/FTn and F2/F2 Photomic/F2A/etc., the FM was pretty shabby. Nikon Professional Services had a field day unjamming them for our newspaper staff and the motors sucked bigtime. One of the photographers I worked with simply took the batteries out of his motor because he liked the way the camera handled with the handgrip but couldn't rely on the drive to function. I took my motor off the camera and smashed it on the sidewalk when it jammed up on me in the middle of an assignment once too often. I'll never forget the feeling of pushing the button on an FM motor and nothing happening while you watched the photograph you wanted evaporate in the viewfinder. I'll never forget the feeling of manually advancing the film and discovering the advance lever stopped and the shutter release froze. It's a sad reflection on the basic quality of cameras being built in the early 21st Century that the FM variations from Nikon are looked upon with such adoration. Of course, there is nothing in the fully manual SLR range currently built that is really any better, so what you gonna do?

 

Sorry for the rant so early in the morning.

[bobtodrick]

If someone came out with the 'perfect car' would it make all others obselete. Of course not. I need a minivan, the next door neighbour likes his station wagon, and of course the young guy down the block loves his sports car. I like the fact that with a rangefinder I can see what is coming into the frame before it is actually there (by using the space around the framlines). I have an R camera that is definitely quieter than my long gone Nikons, but in no way would I feel comfortable regularily handholding it wide open at 1/8 sec, which I often do with my rangefinder. Different tools for different jobs. I think we've all found that the 'one size fits all' shirt (dress, slacks, etc)....don't!!

[jay_.]

<<all the things that make the M so useful. Like no mirror slap, like a bright viewfinder, easy focusing in low light, and you would be also consigning fifty years of usable lenses to the collectors drawer.>>

 

Like what will happen in a few years if there is no digital M or back.

[al_kaplan1]

One reason the M allows use of very slow shutter speeds compared to an SLR is that you're looking through the viewfinder during the exposure. It has nothing to do with vibration, mirror bounce, shutter movement, but just the fact that you subconciously are lining up the visible image with the framelines and rangefinder patch. Try using your M at 1/4 or even 1/15 with your eyes closed, and see if you get the same percentage of sharp photos.

[el_fang]

<b>"I'm sure I'm gonna piss off a bunch of you but, here goes. The Nikon FM/FM2, whatever, ain't that great a camera." -Lee Shively</b>

<p>Oh really. Have you used an FM2/FM2N? If the FM2N, of which I have four and beat up on a daily basis, isn't that great a camera, then Leicas aren't even cameras, period. Yes, I can name a few things that can be improved on my FM2Ns. But reliability is where it's at, and there's where I wouldn't change a damned thing.

 

<p><b>"When they were introduced by Nikon, they replaced the Nikkormat. I was doing newspaper work at the time and just about all of us bought FM's and FE's because they were smaller and lighter and cheaper than the F2 and they also took a motor drive. Compared to the F/FTn and F2/F2 Photomic/F2A/etc., the FM was pretty shabby.</b>

<p>I ask again, have you used an FM2/FM2N? Obviously not. You pissed me off all right, but not for the reason you think. I hate it when people talk out of their rears about things they have no knowledge or experience of.

 

<p>It's like saying that "the Leica M3, M2, M4, M6, M7, whatever, ain't that great a camera, because at our awesome Pulitzer newspaper we used the M2 and it kept jamming." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? You need to get more sleep and/or drink less coffee, Lee.

[el_fang]

<b>"I'll never forget the feeling of pushing the button on an FM motor and nothing happening while you watched the photograph you wanted evaporate in the viewfinder."</b>

<p>I'm sure Leica R8/Winder users can relate to this feeling, at least when Leica first brought the junk out and, in keeping with tradition, used their own customers for quality control.. ;-) Gee, must mean that the R8, R9, and future R10, R11, R12 etc. must automatically be junk, right Lee?

[kenny_c.]

Chuck, I am also fan of manual cameras. The only "manual" camera from Nikon I will use is Nikon F4 with MB20. The problem with FM2n is the cheap feeling of the overlapping film back. The VF is OK but not really good. The matching diode metering is hard to use than matching needle metering. The pancake lens is easy to carry but just too short to focus confortably (Why not carry w lens unattached). Lastly the Nikon lenses are OK but not my taste. The only thing I like is the 1/250 sec flash sync but I really use flash these days. My favorite samll manual cameras are Olympus OM-1n (M. shutter, mecury bat. true MLU) and OM-2n(E. shutter) with their excellent Zuiko lenses. OM-2n is almost perfect but w/o the exposure lock.

[shambrick007]

Hello Chuck.

<p>

While I don�t believe a smallish SLR and lens will replace the Leica M, I have had the same thoughts as you. While I love the fit, feel, finish, and �quirkiness� of Leica rangefinders, sometimes I crave the WYSIWYG of an SLR � especially for close up work and to know what your �real� depth of field will be. Also the TTL metering is nice since my current Ms are not metered.

<P>

I�d love to have the FM2/3 with the 45/2.8 pancake, or a Pentax MX with the 40/2.8 pancake. But since I (will soon) have free access to a Minolta XE-7 and X-700, I�ll have to try that combo with the MD Rokkor 40/2.0.

<p>

Take care.

[lee_shively]

Hi, Al. (I knew I'd piss someone off.)

 

Nope. I never used an FM2. My experience with the FM was enough for me. Other photographers I worked with used them and they still had some problems but nothing like as much as the FM. I think Nikon improved the camera--after all, it couldn't get much worse than it was. I jumped right in there and bought an F3 instead of an FM2. You know what? It was worse than the FM. Damned electronics shorted out constantly. It was less dependable than the FM. I raised hell with NPS to the point they shipped our paper a box of eight F3P's for the photographers to use for a month. The F3P was Nikon's response to the screams from professionals who bought early F3's. The F3P was heavily modified--many of the modifications were included in future F3 HP's. Of course Nikon was willing to sell them to us directly but I already had the standard F3 and I was pissed that they would sell something that didn't work like it should and then expect me to buy the improved model at a premium. I passed and so did the other photographers I worked with. I bought used F2A's. They worked. They never quit working until they were stolen or destroyed on the job. I had a couple that were smashed on assignments and a couple that were stolen. I still have two F2's, the oldest was bought in '73 or '74. It still works great.

 

I wouldn't know about the Leica SLR's. Never used one. Never had any use for them. I guess the lenses are pretty good but they never struck a chord with me. For SLR's, I now use EOS bodies. Wunderplastik. Good features for the price, nice lenses. Just regular cookie-cutter SLR's. They work better than the FM or F3 ever did.

 

I kind of like Leica rangefinders, too. You can get emotionally attached to a certain camera. I'm sure you know what I mean, liking the FM3 as much as you do.

[stevep]

Just for the record, I bought 15 Nikon FM2s in 1983 for use by students in a group of

college media programs I managed. When I left in 1993, every camera was still

working. Yes, many had been repaired, but mostly due to the finger-through-the-

shutter syndrome. We also had a half dozen motor drives which never gave any

trouble at all. If only the Profoto flash equipment I bought had been so reliable!

[robert_byrd1]

I bought an FM back in 1982--new--and the shutter went out in two weeks. I brought it back to the dealer and got an FM2, which had just appeared. The advance lever came off of it after a year or two, but after that was fixed it proved to be an iron horse.

 

BTW, thanks for pointing out the similar dimensions of the FM2 and the M Leicas. I didn't have a case for my FM2, so now I will use my Leica case for two camaras!

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re Lee's "The Nikon FM/FM2, whatever, ain't that great a camera."<BR><BR>This camera series did have some early problems; but they seem to be long forgoten. have heard associates call them totally crap; after several failed on the job..........Today all of this is ancient history; the later models have a strong following; and their users resent hearing how the early users got stuck with a garbage camera; which let them down..............<BR><BR>The first wave of Nikon F2's and their motor drives had bad problems; which got fixed real quick; today it is viewed as a real workhorse..............................<BR><BR>My new black Nikkormat FTn-K of the mid 1970's had a mid time to failure of just a few rolls; it ; the "spare backup" was a total piece of junk; it jammed up three different times; and spent most of its life in Garden City; under warranty repair........It got stolen; good riddance for a MTBF of just a few rolls................<BR><BR>My older chrome Nikkormat FTN has never been repaired; or requied a CLA; in over 3 decades; and is today still a workhorse....................<BR><BR>Maybe chrome Nikkormats are more reliable than black ones???????? :)