I declare my self a fanatic of my M bodies, but why?, I must say I have abandoned my SLR gear, so much that now it has become odd for me the use of SLRīs, but why?, do you have clear reasons for your preferance of Leica M cameras?, and why would you change it for other system?

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001

Answers

Actually, I've never much cared for the M Leicas. They are too heavy and bulky to slip into a pocket, too large to fit my hands comfortably, too expensive, and the viewfinders show such a small portion of what is actually on the negative that they are virtually useless for careful composition. Give me a good old IIIF any day.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), April 27, 2001.

To list a few...

1)The outstanding quality of M lenses that fit on it. 2)Its quality of construction. 3)Its compact size and light weight. 4)The stealth factor. 5)Its ability to allow me to focus in poor light. 6)Its simplicity -- It will still work without a battery. 7)Its very short shutter lag-time -- I can actually capture what I saw when I pressed the shutter, not something that occured a significant fraction of a second later. 8)The cachet -- Hey, at least I admit it! 9)People (subjects) are not intimidated by it and act more naturally around it than they do around a big SLR. 10)Did I mention lens quality?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 28, 2001.

For me, the size and weight of the cameras plus the accuracy and certainty of rangefinder focussing. However, I find some aspects of the design frustrating - mostly viewfinder issues. And I like the lenses.

Having used the rapidwinder/grip setup for over a year, I'm now rediscovering the convenience of the bare body. I wish I could make up my mind about these things!

Nowadays I might have gone for the Hexar rather than the M, but in the end I have the M, get good results with it and that's what counts.

Rob.

-- rob appleby (rob@robertappleby.com), April 28, 2001.

Bill:

I can agree with you in every thing, except in the finder concept, unless you use an external finder in the IIIF, I find the Mīs great but donīt know what kind of carefull composition you talk about, if arquitectural than Iīm with you in 28 and 35 frames, other wise the rest of finders seems good for me, and if you are talking people in movement in 1-2 mts. range, Mīs are king.IMVOO.

Jack; I feel much the same, and about the cachet is good you mention it, but I better try to forget about it specialy when in the street and $3,000. hanging of my neck.Is nice Mīs look cheap at far.

Yes Robert results are what counts, I have seen some of your work in your page and see how important is a fast finder for you, I also do street and documental photography, and I canīt think living without those Mīs finders, would like to read your complains on the design of them.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.

I have to agree that the finder is the M's biggest weakness. You have to learn how much progressively more will end up on film than the framelines show at various distances from the near-focus on out to infinity, and keep it in mind. Like precise metering, DOF control and consistent film-loading, careful composition with the M is entirely possible, it just requires a little experience and practice. The short eye-relief in the finder is another point, for those who wear glasses. Leica's solution (3 different cameras with different finder magnifications) seems like it was made by their marketing department alone. Why not an internal, or even external "converter" (like the old goggles, but body-mounted) that would vary the finder magnification?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 28, 2001.

Hmmmm.

You can fit an M body in a pocket. Just use the body cap. As I write this, I have an M3 in a front pants pocket, a Noctilux in a large shirt pocket, and to the casual observer I'm not carrying a camera at all. I'm going to a poorly lit indoor gathering of old friends. If it was outdoors, I'd have the collapsible 50 f/1.9 Canon and my shirt pocket would be empty.

I agree 100% with what Jack said, and would only add that rangefinders allow you to see the moment of exposure, not an SLR mirror blackout.

Just my c¢.

-- Tom bryant (boffin@gis.net), April 29, 2001.

I shot with Nikon SLRs and Leica RFs for 30 some years. Now I have sold all the Nikon gear and have just the Leica Ms. Why?

• Super precise framing is not required for the kind of photography I'm doing
• I like the feel of the Leica M bodies more: robust, simple, mechanical
• A 50mm has become a telephoto, a 24mm normal
• quiet operation
• easy to hand hold due to low vibration\
• the lenses are to die for.

I do still do a lot of shooting with compacts and subminis ... the three cameras I carry the most nowadays are a Contax Tix, a Minox EC and the Leicas ... for when I don't need the lens interchangability or want some exposure or focus automation.

The key, of course, is that I feel like I'm getting pictures that satisfy me with this equipment. That is the bottom line ... I'm not one to be constantly looking for more and better features. The M6TTL would be perfect if it had less flare in the rangefinder, like the M4-P. But that's a nit rather than a problem.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 29, 2001.

Greetings to all;

I've pondered this question for several months now since purchasing my M-6. Like many of you, I too have gone through several SLR outfits, the last being a Nikon F3 kit. I have found the simplicity of my M allows me to concentrate on composition more. It may be a contradiction in terms, but the fact that there aren't a great many "accessories" available as well as the relative lack of sophistication kind of takes you out of the gear accumulation race. The design is static. Some may consider this a bad thing, I don't. I can only speak for myself, but, I tend to get easily distracted from my art and become trapped in collecting shiny things. The lenses! What can I say that hasn't already been said? There is a perceptable difference in the images I've taken with my M and any other camera system I've owned. The only camera that comes close is my 28 year old Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar. I don't know if I could recognize Bokah if it bit me in the ass, butt (pun intended), there is a difference with the Leica images. Anyway, this is how I feel. I'm glad I bought my Leica outfit. Your mileage may vary.

Regards,

Jim

-- lexx-1 (james.kuhn-1@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov), April 30, 2001.

I love the Leica M series! I've used them on and off for over 16 years and after each 'sabbatical' from using the M, I return with greater appreciation. At this point, I don't feel much desire to use anything else...

I love the small camera size, beautiful build quality, exquisite shutter and gorgeous quality of the lenses! As much as I love my Leica equipment, it also embodies the essence of the 'minimalist' photographer's gear. So, I have a highly limited selection of equipment, freeing me to spend more time focused on the subject and less time on the gear.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2001.

What other cameras? I use my M's more and more.Only use SLR for auto focus,rapid one hand use for wedding and event photography.Main camera is M3 or M6. Hate SLR mirror up-not-see-if-flash-went-off! Carry M6 and collapsible 50mm Summicron under jacket or in pocket of denim jacket,inside.Sometimes even carry one additional lens,the 135mm Tele-Elmar.I see more pictures.... SLR finders are not accurate except for original Nikon F. My Nikkormat was the worst,finder about 85%....! No sore back,shoulders,neck or eye strain. Viva M !

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), July 19, 2001.

When I press the button it takes a picture.

Think about it.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), July 20, 2001.

There are many reasons I prefer the Leica M system. I switched over from the R system mainly because I like the uncluttered controls on the body,the mechanical precision and durability. The lenses are another reason. They are excellent and small and very easy to handle.They have a certain intangable quality. Sharpness, contrast, tonality, in my view are unsurpassed with Leica lenses. One bad thing, though, they are addictive!

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), August 06, 2001.

Like crack, Leicas are addictive. Once you've felt one you will always want to have one, regardless of the fact that, in the year 2001, they are simply not practical cameras. I own an M3 as a fourth camera--after an Oly E-10 digital, Canon Elan 7 and Pentax 645--to give me a special retro look with an old Summitar lens. I'm currently debating if the Summitar is sharp enough at f/2 (the only stop I use) for my liking. But if I trade it for a Summicron, well, what have I gained over a 50mm f/1.4 USM? And the Canon automation will bring home the goods every time, whereas with the M3 there are always failures. What to do?

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 06, 2001.

I'll disagree that in this day and age Leica is not "practical". I've gotten rid of all my SLR's and more "modern" gear. If need be, I can get my M4P out of it's bag, and get a shot off in 10 seconds or less. I usually have the camera pre-set to a basic outdoor light setting (based on the sunny 16 rules) and use a hyperfocal setting and I can grab whatever I need. Plus, for my own photo criteria, the Leica lenses just can't be beat. Oh, and it's a whole lot easier to throw my Leica setup in the backpack I carry to work than to tote around an SLR.

-- Eric Platt (ericplatt@aol.com), August 06, 2001.