Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

  • Total voters
    610
I regularly shoot with a camera made in 1957 (canon VI-L) - it produces images as good as the day it was made. Will any digital M even be working in 63 years?
 
The depreciation and inevitable obsolescence make digital Ms unattractive if you do not shoot professionally. And $6,000 buy a lot of film.
 
I'm not an early adopter of all the technology stuff being sold today, I like to see how it stands up to real world usage before jumping in. Plus there is the matter of as soon as I can afford a certain model, the next one will hit the market with improvements that would have been nice to have on the previous model.

I'm also trying to determine whether to go full frame, or APS-C. If the latter, then a CL would be nice, but there is the matter of getting new lenses for it. I could just stick with Nikon and get a Z50 to use my current DX lenses, and still be able to mount M and LTM lenses.

If I do full frame, do I just get the least expensive M out there, or like Bingley go with a new M-E 240? Lots to ponder, as I'm at that age where I'm looking at settling on the last camera I'll ever buy, and I don't want to screw it up.

PF
 
KM-25 said:
Too thick, too buggy, uber slow turn around on maintenance, battery dependent, no .85 option and I can't load Tmax 400 into it...:)
Click to expand...

And, as someone who depends on working cameras for bill paying, Way too many repair issues with digital Leicas.

When using Nikon gear (NPS), I get a loaner while my cams go in for any work. Leica would laugh at me if I requested a loaner..if they even bothered to respond to my request.
 
other reason ... [explain]

Initial cost, eventual technological obsolescence (to me, not worth the cash outlay), image quality or image aesthetics - they just look too glassy/polished/flat to me (although I'm sure there are photographers out there that get/apply a gritty look to their images), plus I have 2x IIIf's, M2, M6, and lenses so I have enough to keep me happy.
 
Considering the places and events I like to photograph, I might just as well wear a hat with a flashing strobe as carry a digital Leica and lens. As it is, I wear one of my Barnacks over my shoulder and under my coat. The world is getting more desperate with every day that passes.
 
Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

I want to, but I'm afraid that I will lose the joy of photography.

PS. this thread is great. Strange but needed :)
 
raydm6 said:
other reason ... [explain]

Initial cost, eventual technological obsolescence (to me, not worth the cash outlay), image quality or image aesthetics - they just look too glassy/polished/flat to me (although I'm sure there are photographers out there that get/apply a gritty look to their images), plus I have 2x IIIf's, M2, M6, and lenses so I have enough to keep me happy.
Click to expand...

I will admit though, lately, images I am seeing here and on he 'net has me wanting to try an M8 but I am hesitant given the cameras' age and lack of support. But of all the Digital-M's, I would like to try an M8 as I am impressed with both color and B&W imagery.
 
One can only decide not to buy something if they had considered it in the first place.

I was reading an article somewhere about the M8 and the sensor problem. The M8 was the same price as a reasonable used car and had such a basic fault. so considering buying one didn't even enter my head.
 
Planned obsolescence. It electronics, every new model, more gismos, and higher cost. My six Leica's, 4 M's and 2 R's, are old and working fine. My newest is my M7 bought when they first came out. My oldest is my M2-KS-15, circa 1966, with an M4-P and M6 in between. My R's are an R3 MOT, and R7.
 
heh. My Olympus E-1 was first fired in October of 2003. It still works perfectly, still makes beautiful 5 Mpixel photographs. Not sure whether "planned obsolescence" is really an issue. :)
 
Whilst I still use my three film M`s I saw nothing in the M experience (for me) which would cause me to continue with it into the digital age .
That together with the fact that I now tend to shoot action stuff makes an RF kind of redundant for my day to day use .
I now use an SL2s and CL .
I can , and do, use my M lenses on both and much prefer focusing them through the EVF either using peak or just off the screen.
Interesting that Godfrey is happy with his 5mp output .
I use my CL primes on my full frame SL2s ,which gives me "only" 10 /12 mp and I`m happy too .
 
Too expensive or too old...or both. I'd love one and can afford one, but I just cannot do it again...yet.
 
old film leicas feel like long-lived things, if you maintain them. digital cameras are consumer electronics that depend on software and interfaces that will become obsolete. for digital cameras I prefer utilitarian equipment that isn't priced for collectors, even though the digital Ms are very nice.
 
Michael Markey said:
Whilst I still use my three film M`s I saw nothing in the M experience (for me) which would cause me to continue with it into the digital age .
That together with the fact that I now tend to shoot action stuff makes an RF kind of redundant for my day to day use .
I now use an SL2s and CL .
I can , and do, use my M lenses on both and much prefer focusing them through the EVF either using peak or just off the screen.
Interesting that Godfrey is happy with his 5mp output .
I use my CL primes on my full frame SL2s ,which gives me "only" 10 /12 mp and I`m happy too .
Click to expand...

LOL! Yes, I'm quite happy with the 5Mpixel output of my E-1 ... It has produced photographs that I've printed to 20x24 inch for exhibition that I've won recognition with. Of course, I'm even happier with the 24Mpixel quality of my Leica CL, and 40Mpixel quality of my Leica M10 Monochrom, never mind the 50Mpixel quality of my Hasselblad 907x. They're all superior performers to the ancient E-1, which does not diminish the quality of the E-1 by one bit.

If you bought the E-1 with it's 5Mpixel image quality and found that sufficiently high resolution, and the sensitivity, imaging qualities, and lenses work for your shooting needs even today, nearly 20 years later, the notion of "planned obsolescence" of the E-1 is irrelevant. And the same goes for any other digital camera: if what you bought worked well for the needs you had, and those needs haven't changed, just keep using what you have and save yourself a boatload of money.

I've owned M9, M-P 240, M-D 262, and M10-M digital Leica M cameras, and probably a dozen or so film Ms over the years. (Never mind all the other cameras I've owned and used over the many years I've been doing Photography...) They're all stunningly good cameras, do the job I wanted when I bought them, and any of them (with the exception of the M9) would have lasted as long as I cared to keep shooting with it, churning out brilliant photos all the time. None of them have required even a single service. The M9 was the one exception because of the sensor problem which showed up 3.5 years after I bought it, and I chose not to update the sensor but to move on to the M-P 240 instead. My interests and needs changed along the way, that's all, and that has nothing to do with the lifespan or durability of the cameras. I have no reason to think that my new M10-M will be any less durable or last any shorter time than my E-1. I can only hope that I last as long, because I'm no longer as young as I was when I bought the E-1...

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top