"Goodbye, Leica"

[Woody Campbell]

So here we are a page and half into this thread and only one passing mention of the glass. Leica glass has magic. The kind of magic varies from lens to lens. That's why some Leica shooters have two or more lenses in the same focal length. Other camera makers make lens with magic, but not a lot of them, and rarely in the wide to 50mm range where Leica excels. Almost all Leica lenses have magic. With my now departed Canon and Nikon gear I had to stop down a couple of stops from wide open to get to the lens's sweet spot. Not with Leica. Wide open works great. My 24mm Summilux may be my best friend ever, lens-wise. I agree with most of the criticisms (except the part about the lens cap - I never use them) but for my style of shooting I don't care about them. I have a GH-2 kit when autofocus, fast or long matter.

It would be nice is someone someday made a full frame CMOS alternative for Leica glass with electronic focus confirmation, ISO 25k and accurate frame lines but until then I'm happy with what I've got.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton "it's the glass, stupid."

 

[MGrayson]

Woody,

If it weren't for the glass, I wouldn't have stayed with that camera for 30 minutes. I thought that was a given in any discussion of the M.
I'm keeping the glass. I might even keep the M9, but the NEX 7 is looking dangerously attractive. Of course, what I really want is an S2, but I'd prefer to stay married a bit longer.

Best,

Matt

 

[Andrew Gough]

Woody,

If it weren't for the glass, I wouldn't have stayed with that camera for 30 minutes. I thought that was a given in any discussion of the M.
I'm keeping the glass. I might even keep the M9, but the NEX 7 is looking dangerously attractive. Of course, what I really want is an S2, but I'd prefer to stay married a bit longer.

Best,

Matt

This is really the whole thread distilled down to its essence. A camera is a tool, nothing else. Each type of camera has its respective merits or lack thereof. The original letter writer was expressing his frustration with the Leica body. He admittedly loved the lenses, but found the body wanting.Many of the posters accused him of some sort of defeat, but it is closer to a "realization". You may ask what realization that is, well for him, it was the impracticality if the body/lens combination for his particular use.

I commend him for this realization, it is not about the gear at all, its about his shooting requirements. This is an evolutionary step in the life of a photographer, he has evolved past the "gear for the sake of gear" and moved on to the the "photograph".

Now before all of you flame me for this Leica sacrilege, please allow me to continue. When one moves to the rangefinder world, one is doing the same thing. You give up many conveniences, speed, AF etc... Why, you ask, well its is because of the image quality that you gain. Does this come at a price, yes it does, you have to use the M body which is if the truth is told, well past its due date. Even Leica has recognized this, and comment on EVF/hybrid EVF as the future - perhaps the M10... But many users are willing to embrace or tolerate this because for them, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

For many photographers the system is just not fast enough, its just that simple. Their requirement is for speed, AF etc... Missing the shot is not an option for most Pro's. We have seen many people reluctantly move away from Leica due to failing eyesight (AF requirement) for example. The new NEX series offers a significant potential for these users.

Really, Leica needs to step up with a modern body. They have leveraged the past about as much as they can, and it is time to move forward. If they don't then they will get creamed by either Sony, Fuji, Ricoh or someone else. How long is it before somebody brings a Leica Mount body to market with a modern interface, not long is my guess... Look at the NEX, most of the lenses used are adapted rangefinder glass. How many Leica users already carry a 5N for back up?

IMHO

Andrew

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Perhaps you are also missing the point that for many photographers the body IS the point? Not just the lenses, which are admittedly amazing? The fact that it does not intrude into picture making process any more than it has to -- that the non-AF focusing system quickly, quietly and assuredly places the focus exactly where your eye wants it. The viewfinder operates at the speed of light with nearly perfect acuity -- the color accuracy, refresh rate and detail level is something that an EVF will never achieve, because it is reality, not a simulation. That there is not a complicated menu system and the ability to shoot full-HD video.

There are dozens of cameras out there that aim to have every last bit of technical wizardry that is currently possible, many of them will take M or R lenses with an adapter if you want to use them. There are extremely few cameras that are focused on providing the user with a clear, uncluttered interface, and an emphasis on only the things that matter most -- removing barriers between the photographer and subject (cluttered viewfinders, intrusive menus and functions, electronic warnings, bits and bobs and all manner of other things which CAN be useful, but are not always needed or desired), allowing the photographer to manually control the most important aspects of the shot with tactile input rather than button pushing and click wheel turning, and focusing on image quality -- so choosing a CCD without an AA filter that has better color fidelity and higher resolution than similarly sized CMOS sensors.

Anyway, I agree with people who will say to each their own -- I am totally onboard with that! Just please don't try to turn the M system into everything else out there! The NEX system is amazing, go shoot with that! Let those of us who LIKE the M system and want it to keep its general character intact live in peace! There is a reason that the fundamentals of the M system have not changed in 55 years or so -- it is because a lot of people really like them as they work now! If that does not work for you, that is certainly no problem, and says nothing about your talent or skill as a photographer, but it is like coming in and saying, "Automatic transmissions can now shift gears faster than manual, so all cars should now be automatic". Some people like manual!

 

[jonoslack]

Now before all of you flame me for this Leica sacrilege, please allow me to continue. When one moves to the rangefinder world, one is doing the same thing. You give up many conveniences, speed, AF etc... Why, you ask, well its is because of the image quality that you gain. Does this come at a price, yes it does, you have to use the M body which is if the truth is told, well past its due date.

Hi Andrew
I'd like to sit in a pub over a pint and discuss this post, but as I can't I'll keep it simple.

I think your argument hinges around this section - I've italicised your crucial mistake.
For me - and for many other M shooters, this is a by product of the real reason for shooting a rangefinder. The real reason is the rangefinder . . . it may be old tech, it may be slow (but only if you aren't practiced).
Having a fixed field of view through a bright viewfinder with framelines showing roughly what you're going to get . . . THAT'S why - (the splendid lenses and image quality are just a bonus).
The whole point is that it's like shooting with your eye - every other method gets in-between you and the image - of course, there are advantages in SLR viewfinders, good EVFs etc. - but they are simply different, not better.

I'd love to see a faster M9 - i.e. with a bigger buffer and better shot to shot times, more accurate frame lines, a quieter shutter, perhaps a thinner body. But otherwise I don't want to change anything - It's a special shooting experience that is it's own reward.

By all means bring on all the things you suggest - but put it in a DIFFERENT CAMERA - an M should always work just like it is. There is room for incremental improvement in an M body, but it is NOT past it's sell-by date (far from it).

A spray gun is never going to replace a paint brush - and I'm sure you wouldn't say it should. To my eye a Leica M is like a paintbrush - it can certainly be improved, but don't turn it into something else. . . . . . . . I use spray guns as well as paint brushes, and I'm planning on using a NEX7 along with my M for M lenses . . . . . and also a dSLR . . . horses for courses.


p.s.
Hi Stuart - thinking along the same lines . . .you're just quicker than me!

 

[glenerrolrd]

There are many different viewpoints for and against using an M body. It depends greatly on the type of shooting you enjoy(or need to accomplish) and the skill level you can attain. Much of the modern alternatives are just plain easier to use ..but this doesn t make them a better tool for everyone .

Most people can t focus an M well enough for digital unless they use the camera frequently ,have good eyesight and are willing to keep there equipment calibrated. With that said the camera can be very fast when you know how to use it (and yes work around its limitations ). Missing focus can just ruin the experience and kill confidence...I ve had plenty of friends say they just can t focus the $%%%^ camera . After calibration and adding the right diopter ..now they can. So its a fair point to note that it takes more effort than with modern designs .

I shoot a lot with my M9 s (50K or more per year) but I also use Nikon D3S/D3X for sports ..so I know the difference and for action,flash etc there is no comparison ....but for street and travel the M9s get taken every time .

I have an x100 ..a great camera but an entirely different working model ..I can get there with it but its hard and I know the EVF has some real advantages ...close but not replacing my M s .

All street shooters want faster handling (larger buffer etc) ,better ISO and easier focusing ..but we do enjoy using fast wide angles on a FF sensor in a high quality body with great glass. Fuji could do it but the trend is toward APS C sized sensors as the right balance between performance and cost . Leica could use some competition for sure ..but the M9 is best camera I ve ever had ..because it works for me .

 

[glenerrolrd]

Jono and Stuart ..you guys are fast !

 

[jlm]

I'd be happy with only one change to the M: changing the field of view in the viewfinder to match the mounted lens...maybe leave a little bit in the periphery to see outside the frame

 

[Andrew Gough]

Hi Andrew
I'd like to sit in a pub over a pint and discuss this post, but as I can't I'll keep it simple.

I think your argument hinges around this section - I've italicised your crucial mistake.
For me - and for many other M shooters, this is a by product of the real reason for shooting a rangefinder. The real reason is the rangefinder . . . it may be old tech, it may be slow (but only if you aren't practiced).
Having a fixed field of view through a bright viewfinder with framelines showing roughly what you're going to get . . . THAT'S why - (the splendid lenses and image quality are just a bonus).
The whole point is that it's like shooting with your eye - every other method gets in-between you and the image - of course, there are advantages in SLR viewfinders, good EVFs etc. - but they are simply different, not better.

I'd love to see a faster M9 - i.e. with a bigger buffer and better shot to shot times, more accurate frame lines, a quieter shutter, perhaps a thinner body. But otherwise I don't want to change anything - It's a special shooting experience that is it's own reward.

By all means bring on all the things you suggest - but put it in a DIFFERENT CAMERA - an M should always work just like it is. There is room for incremental improvement in an M body, but it is NOT past it's sell-by date (far from it).

A spray gun is never going to replace a paint brush - and I'm sure you wouldn't say it should. To my eye a Leica M is like a paintbrush - it can certainly be improved, but don't turn it into something else. . . . . . . . I use spray guns as well as paint brushes, and I'm planning on using a NEX7 along with my M for M lenses . . . . . and also a dSLR . . . horses for courses.


p.s.
Hi Stuart - thinking along the same lines . . .you're just quicker than me!

Hey I'm all for sitting in a pub and chatting about photography!

To me, and I stress - to me. The fundamental question is what works for the individual. In your case, you have given your reasons why the Leica experience is worthwhile for you, and they are no less valuable than the letter writers - just different. This is my point. each person will have their own particular reasons, but in the end its about the realization of what works for the individual and not about the gear per say.

The reasons why we shoot what we shoot, are more important than the gear itself. We have all seen stunning images from just about every type of camera/lens combo imaginable, this is the essence of it, the image is the raison d'etre.

In the forums these days, I see a singular obsession with gear... The general level of photography has split into two camps, gear testing and a small amount of really, really, good photography. I am guilty of this as well, it is fun to debate the merits of a lens, and it can often open doors to a new experience. But how often do we see a post your stunner thread vs a ZM/Leica/Canon/whatever thread. The best photographers, that I know, pick gear that works and concentrate on making great images. In fact, there are a couple that would come back with stunning images from just about any camera.

Andrew

 

[fotografz]

This is really the whole thread distilled down to its essence. A camera is a tool, nothing else. Each type of camera has its respective merits or lack thereof. The original letter writer was expressing his frustration with the Leica body. He admittedly loved the lenses, but found the body wanting.Many of the posters accused him of some sort of defeat, but it is closer to a "realization". You may ask what realization that is, well for him, it was the impracticality if the body/lens combination for his particular use.

I commend him for this realization, it is not about the gear at all, its about his shooting requirements. This is an evolutionary step in the life of a photographer, he has evolved past the "gear for the sake of gear" and moved on to the the "photograph".

Now before all of you flame me for this Leica sacrilege, please allow me to continue. When one moves to the rangefinder world, one is doing the same thing. You give up many conveniences, speed, AF etc... Why, you ask, well its is because of the image quality that you gain. Does this come at a price, yes it does, you have to use the M body which is if the truth is told, well past its due date. Even Leica has recognized this, and comment on EVF/hybrid EVF as the future - perhaps the M10... But many users are willing to embrace or tolerate this because for them, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

For many photographers the system is just not fast enough, its just that simple. Their requirement is for speed, AF etc... Missing the shot is not an option for most Pro's. We have seen many people reluctantly move away from Leica due to failing eyesight (AF requirement) for example. The new NEX series offers a significant potential for these users.

Really, Leica needs to step up with a modern body. They have leveraged the past about as much as they can, and it is time to move forward. If they don't then they will get creamed by either Sony, Fuji, Ricoh or someone else. How long is it before somebody brings a Leica Mount body to market with a modern interface, not long is my guess... Look at the NEX, most of the lenses used are adapted rangefinder glass. How many Leica users already carry a 5N for back up?

IMHO

Andrew

At the risk of seemingly contradicting myself, please allow me to answer your post. While I've repeatedly said the M is not easy to live with, note that I also said I have lived with a M for decades and decades in an unbroken chain from my first M4 through the current M9. That begs the question as to why?

I just finished a 20 page illustrated treatise regarding the use of a M for a fellow that I'm tutoring at his request, so the answers are fresh in my mind.

The M is a rangefinder. For various reasons that have changed over the years, it has remained the best rangefinder. Maybe someone will make a better one, but that has been the same statement of "maybe" since the M was introduced in the 1950s.

Because it is a rangefinder, the actual user experience is different from cameras that aren't a rangefinder, including things like the NEX. That experience can be distilled down to one word ... content.

When you shoot with a rangefinder, there are two visual elements set before your eyes through the viewfinder ... the subject, and how much of the subject is being recorded ... content and framing. No W/A effect, no telephoto effect, no DOF effect ... neither the part that's in focus or the portion that's OOF, no Bokeh ... nothing but WHAT you are shooting. It is a direct relationship with the subject matter, with minimal visual distractions.

While the M can be used for shooting almost anything, and is, it is best in the hands of photographers who's mission it is to record meaningful content as the over-riding creative intent ... emotionally, socially, or psychologically ... often they are less interested in technical exercises, or as slaves to today's photo culture that worships those technical exercises, and sets them as the measure of photographic excellence. This is not meant to absolve a M user from good technique and practiced handling, instead it should be of little or no concern after that practiced accomplishment is met. There-in lies the rub, impatience is not an attribute one applies to learning the rangefinder way of photography.

There is no doubt to anyone who is relatively familiar with a modern DSLR, that AF is quicker. All to often that quickness is necessary because the practitioner is often slow to see, therefore the camera has to be faster. Good rangefinder shooters (and there are many), get the shot because they are so focused on the content only, meaning that they are ahead of the curve and anticipate. I call it "emotional anticipation," ... so tuned into the subjects around you that you see the shot coming. This is a very hard concept to put into words, but those who work this way "get it", and others don't ... so even if it could be put into words more clearly, it wouldn't matter.

Can this happen with other type cameras? ... sure it can and most certainly does, but IMO it isn't nearly as much a part of their DNA like is of the M rangefinder.

My 2¢

-Marc

 

[Paratom]

another vote for the M9 body.

It is my favorite body of my camera "collection" besides maybe the S2.
Viewfinder, user interface, IQ just works very good for me. So the lenses might be the main argument for some, but for me (and maybe some others) the body is a factor as well.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Why, you ask, well its is because of the image quality that you gain. Does this come at a price, yes it does, you have to use the M body which is if the truth is told, well past its due date.

No, the M8/M9 is the only decent digital rangefinder out there. If I didn't have the M9 I'd still have a Mamiya 7II and shoot film. It's about the viewfinder you can look through even in pitch black, that shows the world minimally distorted by optics so doesn't distract from the image you envisioned before lifting the camera to your eye; it's about a rangefinder whose only purpose is to measure distance, and lenses with proper focusing scales. And, of course, the extremely high quality compact lenses - in my case, wide angles that don't have to clear a mirror box. For shooting subjects other than romping kids and sports and wildlife and such, this is an upgrade, not a compromise or downgrade. It's UNcompromising. Unlike a DSLR it's not a jack of all trades, ace of none.

 

[250swb]

I somethimes wonder how long some people would last outside, in the open air, left to their own devices to find a restaurant or coffe shop or their way home. Put a filter on your lens and don't use a lens cap, then you have one less thing to blame in your life

Steve

 

[Jan Brittenson]

All street shooters want faster handling (larger buffer etc) ,better ISO and easier focusing ..but we do enjoy using fast wide angles on a FF sensor in a high quality body with great glass. Fuji could do it but the trend is toward APS C sized sensors as the right balance between performance and cost . Leica could use some competition for sure ..but the M9 is best camera I ve ever had ..because it works for me .

Totally agree, and I think the M8/M9 is ridiculously over-engineered. A good RF doesn't have to be built like a swiss watch. The Mamiya RFs work just fine and they're far simpler, and even more electronic than film Ms. Higher ISO would always be welcome as it makes shooting easier, but I personally wouldn't compromise on clean long exposures. (Though those aren't contradictory, just the priority for me.) I personally would like a little more resolution; maybe 25-30MP without an AA filter. (Basically extend the 16x22 print quality to 20x30.) 5-6 fps in a high speed mode, but even more I'd love a quieter camera. And I wouldn't object to a focus confirmation indicator at the bottom that can be enabled for when I want a very precise distance measurement in low light.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Marc

Very nice summary of what makes a RF unique . Next year will make it 50 years of shooting a Leica M . When I earned my first pay check from a real job ...I jumped in my car and drove 6 hours to Chicago (Altman s) and bought a black paint M4 ....gave my Dad back his beat up M2 and borrowed his 35 summicron (which I thought was butt ugly because it was chrome).

I ve always had a SLR of some brand and even MF most of the time ..but RF photography works the best for the type of street,travel and family stuff I enjoy the most .

I view a scene generally without looking thru the viewfinder ..when I raise the camera to my eye there is no adjustment ,,just a quick focus bump and i shoot . When you shoot enough a natural rhythm develops and my hand eye coordination is often sufficient to hold the camera either high or low and frame with decent accuracy . I use a preshot routine much like a golfer when I move into a new situation and then I try to concentrate on the subject and the moment . The results are better when I can use the viewfinder but this is mostly because I can accurately see the edges .

The Fuji X100 has a lot going for it with the hybrid RF and I could learn to use it but its not quite a Leica .

 

[jonoslack]

I'd be happy with only one change to the M: changing the field of view in the viewfinder to match the mounted lens...maybe leave a little bit in the periphery to see outside the frame

Hi There . . . . .
and that one change would stop me using one immediately and forever - Marc's excellent 'treatise' is where it's at - the point is that the rangefinder is always the same.

Contax did this with the G2 - and all they got was a poor excuse for an SLR - if you want to see what the lens sees, that's fine (I often do). That's the time to use an SLR!

Accurate framelines . . . .now that's something different!

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Hey I'm all for sitting in a pub and chatting about photography!

Obviously the best answer - but it can get expensive and take it's toll the next day!

To me, and I stress - to me. The fundamental question is what works for the individual. In your case, you have given your reasons why the Leica experience is worthwhile for you, and they are no less valuable than the letter writers - just different. This is my point. each person will have their own particular reasons, but in the end its about the realization of what works for the individual and not about the gear per say.

. . . . well, okay, hard to disagree - but that certainly isn't what you said before - I quote it again - you were pretty categorical:

You give up many conveniences, speed, AF etc... Why, you ask, well its is because of the image quality that you gain. Does this come at a price, yes it does, you have to use the M body which is if the truth is told, well past its due date.

Doesn't pay much lip service to individual requirements I don't think!

The reasons why we shoot what we shoot, are more important than the gear itself. We have all seen stunning images from just about every type of camera/lens combo imaginable, this is the essence of it, the image is the raison d'etre.

Now you're being categorical again - there are many reasons for taking photographs, the image may be the raison d'être - but I can think of several different reasons, one of which might be testing out gear!

In the forums these days, I see a singular obsession with gear... The general level of photography has split into two camps, gear testing and a small amount of really, really, good photography. I am guilty of this as well, it is fun to debate the merits of a lens, and it can often open doors to a new experience.

You don't need to feel guilty about it, after all, it's largely what the forum is for.
But you're being categorical again - Why isn't it possible to both be obsessed with gear on the one hand and taking really really good photographs on the other? Look around here a little more, it clearly IS possible - look at photographers like Ashwin and Matt, Woody . . . oh - many others (sorry I missed you) - all terrible gear heads - all splendid photographers.

But how often do we see a post your stunner thread vs a ZM/Leica/Canon/whatever thread. The best photographers, that I know, pick gear that works and concentrate on making great images. In fact, there are a couple that would come back with stunning images from just about any camera.

Andrew

Well, the stunner threads go on and on - there's plenty of them - one or two in each forum. . . . . And you're being categorical AGAIN. The best photographers I know are all different - some don't even know the make of camera they use (honestly, an excellent lady photographer specialising in wildlife - I asked her and she couldn't remember). Others are completely obsessed by gear.

Some Like using Ms for valid reasons - some don't get it . . . one thing which seems to be fairly universal though is that those that don't get it seem to think there's nothing to get!

All the best

 

[fotografz]

Marc

Very nice summary of what makes a RF unique . Next year will make it 50 years of shooting a Leica M . When I earned my first pay check from a real job ...I jumped in my car and drove 6 hours to Chicago (Altman s) and bought a black paint M4 ....gave my Dad back his beat up M2 and borrowed his 35 summicron (which I thought was butt ugly because it was chrome).

I ve always had a SLR of some brand and even MF most of the time ..but RF photography works the best for the type of street,travel and family stuff I enjoy the most .

I view a scene generally without looking thru the viewfinder ..when I raise the camera to my eye there is no adjustment ,,just a quick focus bump and i shoot . When you shoot enough a natural rhythm develops and my hand eye coordination is often sufficient to hold the camera either high or low and frame with decent accuracy . I use a preshot routine much like a golfer when I move into a new situation and then I try to concentrate on the subject and the moment . The results are better when I can use the viewfinder but this is mostly because I can accurately see the edges .

The Fuji X100 has a lot going for it with the hybrid RF and I could learn to use it but its not quite a Leica .

Thanks for your great personal example. It's funny how when you have to write and illustrate a tutorial, scattered impressions or experiences fall into order, and how ones own history reminds you how instrumental the M has been to your photographic view of the world around you.

I vividly recall how every time I was struck by an image, photo essay, or some photographer's vision I noted that it usually had been shot with a Leica rangefinder ... so I saved and saved to get one for myself. I remember exactly my thoughts as I took it out of the box ... this simple camera, no frills, not even a light meter at a time when every other camera had one ... "No more excuses Marc."

Like you there was usually a SLR of some sort, and often a Medium Format camera lurking in the background ... which holds true to this day. Sometimes, the M was the only camera I owned, and it went everywhere with me.

Oddly, perhaps because of my initial impressions from those rangefinder photographers that had first infected me, I rarely used the M in any other way than with deadly serious intent. When I picked it up, it was to hunt for a defining moment, or to extract a character study instead of shooting a "portrait," or to say something beyond just making a pretty picture. The M can do each of those things, and some very good photographers effectively use it in that manner, but I just never particularly thought of it that way.

-Marc

 

[Double Negative]

It's easy to pick nits with any camera out there - it's always been this way, and always will be (until they develop "the perfect camera" anyway). As for the M system, sure, there are both pros and cons and not even necessarily a Leica thing (RFs as a whole).

Personally, I like the small size, high quality of the images, solid construction and ridiculous simplicity of it all. For what I shoot most of the time, this is all I need or want. There's something about the complete lack of frills that I like. It puts the onus on me and removes distractions.

Of course the M system is but a tool and one of many. If I want to shoot telephoto with blazing AF and frame rates, fine - I'll use my DSLR. If I need to shoot macro or studio, I'll switch to the Hassy/CFV. Horses for courses as they say.

It's easy to say, "I wish ____ did ____." It's human nature and as photographers, we all want the aforementioned "perfect camera." Face it, ain't gonna happen. Use whatever suits the job at hand, tickles your fancy or fits the budget. It's all good.

 

[Andrew Gough]

Obviously the best answer - but it can get expensive and take it's toll the next day!

. . . . well, okay, hard to disagree - but that certainly isn't what you said before - I quote it again - you were pretty categorical:


Doesn't pay much lip service to individual requirements I don't think!


Now you're being categorical again - there are many reasons for taking photographs, the image may be the raison d'être - but I can think of several different reasons, one of which might be testing out gear!



You don't need to feel guilty about it, after all, it's largely what the forum is for.
But you're being categorical again - Why isn't it possible to both be obsessed with gear on the one hand and taking really really good photographs on the other? Look around here a little more, it clearly IS possible - look at photographers like Ashwin and Matt, Woody . . . oh - many others (sorry I missed you) - all terrible gear heads - all splendid photographers.


Well, the stunner threads go on and on - there's plenty of them - one or two in each forum. . . . . And you're being categorical AGAIN. The best photographers I know are all different - some don't even know the make of camera they use (honestly, an excellent lady photographer specialising in wildlife - I asked her and she couldn't remember). Others are completely obsessed by gear.

Some Like using Ms for valid reasons - some don't get it . . . one thing which seems to be fairly universal though is that those that don't get it seem to think there's nothing to get!

All the best

You know, I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I stand by my statement regarding the body. Personally, I spent quite a bit of time with a friends M8, and while I do understand the allure, the body was just too slow. It has nothing to do with anticipating the moment, and it has nothing to do with "practice" as I have shot with MF glass for decades.

Believe me, I really wanted it to work, as I am tired of carrying a fast SLR kit. So, I tried and I tried. However, in the end it just did not work for me, and like the writer of the letter, I moved on. Simply a personal choice.

I feel that Micheal Richmann kind spelled it out with his open letter to Leica.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-open-letter.shtml

I am not alone in my observations, in fact quite a few people on this thread have mentioned that they feel the same way. This can't be good for Leica in the long run, they have to face the fact's that MikeM pointed out. As jklotz pointed out, it is no longer a tool for professional use (with a few exceptions), but its primary use today is for a purist personal use.

My point was: that just because it doesn't work for some of us, it doesn't mean that it will not work for others. I am glad that it does because it keeps the system available.

Today, Leica is doing well. I hope that it continues, and that they can fund the development of the next M and so on. I believe that camera's should evolve including the M, I also feel that the hybrid viewfinder/focus peaking is probably Leica's next step, and if they do I will have a look. In the end, Leica almost disappeared because it stopped evolving in the film days, one has to wonder if if doesn't evolve, is that scenario possible again...

IMHO

Andrew