I've used a Leica M6 as my primary camera for the past 2+years (SLRs for the previous 30) though I've only been visiting this site for about a month. I have to admit I'm totally mystified ref much of the response about the M7.

It seems as though the Leica faithful raved about the totally manual capability of the Leica and why it is (was) superior to other cameras BECAUSE it had NO AUTOMATION. NOW the Leica M7 is being heralded as the 2nd coming because it provides, Ta Da... (minimal) AUTOMATION!

Now I have no personal problem with automation but I can't understand the sudden mind change. Is everybody drinking the same Leica-supplied kool-aid that Mr. Puts imbibes in obviously huge quantities or is it mass hypnosis of some kind? How can everybody be chanting the mantra, "Manual, Good;Automation Bad!" and then, a split second later, be manically chanting, "Manual good; Automation BETTER!"?

Just seems strange to me - other cameras sucked because they were automated. Now Leica's are automated and it's a great step. Does this not seem odd to anyone else? Or is it like the Harley thing, "If you have to ask, you don't understand"? Maybe I'll understand one of these days.

Too Weird...

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 25, 2002

Answers

i'm not one of those people you are referring to. the only thing i like about M7 is the separate on/off switch and the multicoating on the rangefinder window...the rest of the "improvement" i certainly can do without...especially the electronically-controlled shutter...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

I've noticed the same thing. But still, anything new with the Leica logo is going to engender a certain amount of interest simply because Leica is rather slow at introducing new items.

-- Richard Fulco (calcinc@mn.rr.com), February 25, 2002.

MikeP

You are quite right. Leica world is a strange one indeed. The M-world is the strangest of the lot! To me, the main thing about Leica is the precision and the quality of the lenses; but you are absolutely right that the M cameras virtues were always pushed as being a manual camera where the "photographers could concentrate on essentials". You can see them squirming in their M7 pdf -- actually they have saying this stuff with their reflexes or years. Manual when you want it for "full creative control" (whatever that means) or auto when you "want to free the mind of tiresome externalities etc. etc." Mind you, you ought to read a Nikon or Canon brochuire for the complete guide to marketing guff full of inexplicable electronic gee-whizzery and hyped nonsense (with a grain of truth).

I do agree with you though: manual is one of the things the M camera is/was meant to be about. No longer. Having said all this, I like the look of the M7 actually and if it proves to be as reliable as an M6 then I might even get one one day.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

Strange people own Leicas Mike. Since the Hexar came out this site has been bombarded with people saying "pleeeease Leica - give us a camera with semi auto like the Hexar". Leica did and now it seems many are saying "why didn't you pleeeease give us more". I chalk it up to a lot of people spending way more than they should on a Leica and thinking that somehow the camera should take their exact design criteria into consideration. Of course not possible. Thankfully (I think) Leica realizes that for every person that carps about the camera there are ten who are happily shooting away, and that's who they cater to......

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

Personally, I'm not totally adverse to the cheerleading and bally-hootin' over the new M7. I'm sure that the bulk of the marketing is directed towards collectors and gear groupies. Users like Ralph Gibson will undoubtedly recieve a new M7 (at no cost to them) from Leica so that the hybrid gear groupies/ masters groupies will also be covered. I think an interesting experiment to try in 1 year would be to set up a website marketing the sound of the 1/30th on the M6.

Titled: If Heaven sang... it would sing the sound of the M 1/30th.

Make up a big bilge argument over how the disappearance of gear sounds in the shutter is a harbinger to the disappearance of old world craftsmanship at Leica Camera AG. Then see what that does to the second hand M7 market.

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

It's not all the same people speaking out of both sides of their brains... it's different people. As I see it, people use the M cmaeras for several reasons:

1) it's the pinacle of mechanical/manual 35mm photography. These are the people who've been singing the virtues of mechanical shutter timing.

2) it's a rangefinder with awesome lenses; shutter timing and metering are of lesser importance. These folks are using their camera (s) instead of arguing about mechanical vs. electronic.

3) it's a rangefinder with awesome lenses and there are few alternativess with automation. These are the misguided souls ;-) for whom the M7 represents a welcome change.

My opinion? The on/off switch is something Leica should have had on the M6. I don't care whether my shutters are electronic or mechanical as long as I can use my 400 telyt and set intermediate speeds in manual mode. I like both the SL and the R8.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), February 25, 2002.

I yawned when the M6 TTL was released, and I yawn now with the M7. My 1980's M6 classic keeps clicking away, oblivious that it has been "supplanted" by a shutterspeed dial that goes the other way.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 25, 2002.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Dexter said. I don't think AE is very useful at all when not combined with evaluative metering - with completely certer weighted metering like the M7 you still have to think about where to meter, thus requiring the same amount of thought as if you were to use manual exposure. With evaluative metering you do get the freedom to not think about exposure unless you are in obviously meter fooling situations like snow, but on the M7 i don't think the metering is very useful. Having more in between shutter speeds is nice, but certainly not a worth a switch from the M6 and towards battery dependence in my mind.

I was wondering, would it be possible to "install" similar anti reflective coatings on a M6?

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

I was wondering, would it be possible to "install" similar anti reflective coatings on a M6?

Probably. You can get Gerry Smith or someone else to disassemble the element groups in the rangefinder then send them all into a spectacle dispenser to have them coated by Seiko, Nikon, or Essilor. I'm sure that if you threw enough $$$$ at it you could get it done.

But what is the advantage vs the cost? That's the real question.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

I agree with Douglas Herr that, for the most part, the "traditionalists" and the "modernists" are different groups of people. Even when the M7 was still a rumor, there were a number of active threads about the features people wanted to see, and both camps made there preferences known then.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 25, 2002.

One thing to consider about the M7 being auto exposure if you want it vs the M6 being manual exposure.

If Joe shooter takes his M6 and points at scene/person "X" and manually sets the exposure to say 1/250th at 5.6, and then picked up an M7 and set it to 5.6 guess what, the camera will set 1/250th of a second exposure.

Same scene same amount of light reflected and the same values set by the auto meter. So what's so different or "bad" about auto exposure? For those who shoot right on what the meter says it is the same damn thing. Know what I mean?

For those who really understand reflected light meters and how they really see the world in 18% middle grey any light reading whether taken from a starting point determined by matching diodes of from what a camera on auto says is just a starting point and may not be the right exposure anyway. I can have a camera on auto, see the cameras settings chosen and bias a compensation dial so that the white church will in fact have enough density to be white, not grey. Camera is still on auto. The same thing could be done with an M6. Or knowing that you are shooting a bright subject just change the film speed and be mtering correctly anyway.

Two years ago I was shooting at the Bonneville Salt Flats Speed Week.. Talk about bright white. I metered off the salt, added 2 stops to get good density but keep detail (coulda' gone 3 stops over) and that was it. I had my exposure all day for everything I shot. Or you could cheat and use an incident meter, or meter off your hand.

Auto exposure is me. I can walk outside and know the exposure for tri-X by looking. I know that nearly every corporate office with a drop ceiling and flourescent lights has the same exposure and I'm not fooled by black suits or white dresses as a camera meter would be.

Auto exposure is a calculator while a manual exposure is an abicus. 2+2 is 4 either way. It really doesn't matter how you arrive at it.

The M7 is a tool with another feature and it ain't a bad one. The high speed flash sync is a good one.

-- Neil Swanson (neilsphoto@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

To be fair, Mike, not "everyone" embraces the fully manual mentality, and not "everyone" embraces the automation either. While there is probably some crossover, you're probably reading contributions from two different camps. Then again, there are probably some people placed squarely in the middle who see value in both approaches. C'est la vie.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 25, 2002.

MikeP, Try this....

It is understandable for you to think things odd especilly as you are new to the forum. If you are going to be a happy (enlightened?) contributor, it will help to percieve things in a new and subtle light. Those who don't are instantly recognisable and roundly ignored for the most part. Others who don't (and who often suffer from youthful impetuosity) but have potential are tolerated graciously for a while albeit with the occasional slap on the wrist.

Mike, you have been clicking for over 30 years so you will be expected to "percieve things" early on.

What perceptions?...Just as a good story teller does'nt let the literal truth get in the way of a good story, so Leica devotees don't let occasional technical changes (whether you like them of not) compromise a love affair with Leica. An analogy: If my wife starts to eat peas off her knife, then because I love her as the one who sets rather than follows trends, I would write Erwin length epistles extolling the merits of eating peas off a knife, even if I never intend eating peas off a knife myself and secretly wish she would'nt either.

Now all families have squables and sometimes they occur in this forum. The bigger picture is however that Leica, inspite of being gradual (note I did not say slow) and making the odd "discussion provoking" move, always was and still is the leader in providing the most superb tools for 35mm rangefinder photographic artists (I have intentionally excluded Leica R for the purposes of this particular discussion). So fine are they that the tools themselve are works of art. Other forms of art and other photographic brands have their own validity but we are concerned with Leica M here. Of course not all of us count ourselves as artists but we can at least be part of the artistry in using Leica M equipment. Some will try to prove they are the real artists by "pooh-poohing" the equipment and saying it's only the image that matters. This of course is crude and transparent behaviour and certainly not your point I hasten to add.

So Mike ultimately we are not debating whether yesterday we liked no automation and today we accept a little of it(very little actually). We are instead having a discussion on the tools and technique of art where the tools themselves are in some sense art themselves! Erwin claims the move to the M7 is seemless for the M user. He is probably right, but right or wrong he is discussing the right things.

Some will be unconvinced at first, others will adapt quickly and time will tell whether the M7 becomes a favourite or not. Either way it will ultimately become a much loved family member complementing and influencing the whole M tradition. In so doing it will make clear in time that which seems strange to you and others now.

One other thing: You may consider as I do that "many a true word is spoken in jest".

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), February 25, 2002.

Is it possible that everyone is missing the real point of the M7? In an age when "old-world craftsmanship" is harder and harder to come by, especially at anything resembling a reasonable price, wouldn't an electronically timed shutter be simpler, cheaper and more reliable/accurate than an all-mechanical mechanism?

think about how much more accurate $50 Swatch watches are compared to $1000 Rolexes. And wouldn't it be a boon to Leica's sagging bottom line to be able to sell a cheaper camera for 16 percent more?

This might be a good question for someone like Sherry Krauter. Though that raises another question: Will Sherry be willing to work on the M7? She doesn't touch R cameras, so I wonder. . . .

Again, I'm wondering; I'm not stating any of this as fact because I don't know.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

I drink no Kool Aid.... I just have a broad range of things that I like in cameras. ;-)

The Leica M fits my hands well, the controls don't get in my way, the lenses are excellent. I find a camera with simple aperture/ shutter/focus controls easier to manage than most of the automated whizzy things out there.

But I have nothing against AP-AE or electronically timed shutters ... They ap-AE proves to be eminently useful and electronically timed shutters are more accurate than mechanically timed ones. I'd have bought a Konica Hexar RF but I don't like the controls as much as the Leica M6TTL. The M7 is very appealing to me, mostly for the improved shutter accuracy, clean on-off switch and improved viewfinder optics ... ap-AE is a nice extra feature too. I'd use it a lot.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), February 25, 2002.

Robert brings up a good point. Just as the ASPH lenses are cheaper to produce and therefor yield a higher margin. Perhaps owners like Hermes are demanding better ROI or they turn Leica into a subcontractor?! Who knows?

-- Patrick (svenburg@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

Ralph Gibson will undoubtedly recieve a new M7

I'm sure he always has several in his possession. Did you see his quote in the PDF file available on the Leica website? Jesus, talk about intellectual masturbation. From his quote, you'd think the M7 were the second coming or something...

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

Please excuse me, Robert, I understood that the original subject matter has to deal with Auto vs. Manual more than with Mechanical vs. Electronic.

If that were the case, in the Auto vs. Manual option I can understand that those of us who shoot at plain metered exposure value think that the Auto (semi ..?) capability is a much sought after help. The rest of us just don't have much of a use for it.

In the Mechanical vs. Electronic option, yes I agree that having a wider range of exposure values is a very desirable feature, specially if a more consistent shutter speed control comes along with it. But I still prefer to be sure that my batteries will never fail just when I need them alive.

Those are the reasons why I own my M3s rangefinders and my FM2 SLR, on the other hand. The same reasons why I don't plan to change to any degree of automation and why I shoot my R4 only in Manual (nice spot meter ! ).

I'm afraid that it all comes down to personal preferences once more. Very hard to issue any universally valid conclusion, I guess . . .

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 25, 2002.

The ONLY reason I bought a Leica M6 is because it is fully mechanical. I have enough of the battery dependent machines that occasionally call it quits for lack of battery juice or for some electric short circuit. I wanted a camera that works all the time, hopefully even better than my OM-1 which has been clicking for 20 years now.

I don't mind Leica adding auto exposure as long as they don't discontinue the all mechanical model. IMO, if you must rely on battery and electronics, then you can just as well go all the way and have a Hexar, XPan or Contax type of camera, with winding, rewinding, self timer, maybe even autofocus.

I think the proper off switch is a good improvement, just as the 'right turning' speed dial was in M6TTL.

Ilkka

-- Ilkka Kuusisto (ikuu65@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

The M7 represents the best of both worlds in my opinion. You can use it full manual if you want, and if you desire to use it with the aperature priority AE, you can also do so. You are not forced either way.

Personally, I find it not fast enough to have to adjust both the shutter speed and the f-stop and focus for every shot with my M6TTL. I believe it will be much easier to just adjust the f-stop and focus, and have the shutter speed follow automatically. To each his own. I'm not saying that my preference is the right preference, it is just mine.

Combine this with the super quiet cloth shutter and great M body ergonomics, and the other features, I think the M7 is a winner.

They seemed to have added just the right amount of new auto features that I want without taking away the minimalist ergonomics.

-- tim (emulsion71@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

Interesting stuff...as the original questioner here I should have made it clear that I use the Leica M camera because I prefer it for what I like in a camera. So I'm not bad-mouthing Leica cameras at all. I switched primary cameras from a Nikon F100 (and backpack, to my (classic) M6 which I purchased used. I should have realized, as has been pointed out, there are many different types of Leica people represented on this board. They fall naturally into several groups that may have a slightly (or substantial) different view of what Leica is/should be.

I enjoy shooting with the Leica, I prefer the way it feels in the hand and its small size and obviously, it's quality. I recently purchased an M2 from a friend so now I have 2 Leicas that I thoroughly enjoy. AND, there's a pretty good chance I'll buy an M7 at some point - though if I do, I'd probably sell the M6. The M2 is with me for the duration (well, MY duration). And I eagerly await the M8...you know, the Leica 7MB digital that is the same size/shape as the M7 and takes all the M lenses. :)

Thanks for all the insights!

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 25, 2002.

Mike, the Leica customer/user is changing. It used to be the traditionalist. Now the market is changing as more consumers are becomming interested in seeking an upgrade in quality. These consumers are more technology minede as apossed to traditionally minded. Leica has to adapt to the market in order to survive. So what now "A classic with no automation- NOW WITH APERTURE PRIORITY!" Canon, here we come!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

My M6TTL Finder usually has a Multi-coating on it, right after I've had a slice of pizza or buttered popcorn. ;0) Scott

-- Scott Evans (scottevans@attbi.com), February 25, 2002.

Hypocrisy.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 25, 2002.

I heard the red dot appears black while the M7 is in auto mode...

-- donald-d (ileica@m6.com), February 26, 2002.

Erwin Puts stated in an e-mail to me that the electro-mechanical shutter in the M7 is in no way cheaper to produce than the all-mechanical M6 shutter. He said, partly, "The cost advantage of the gears that are not needed are offset by the chips, the additional circuitry, the different assembly and the adjustments and testing."

This sounds reasonable at point of introduction for the M7, but surely the cost of the electronics will decline as production continues. So I suspect that over a not-so-long period of time the actually cost of the M7 shutter will be less than that of the M6 mechanism. And wasn't the all-mechanical shutter rated at far more than 100,000 cycles?

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), February 26, 2002.

Robert,

I think you're right. Most of the M7 costs Erwin mentioned would be one-off development and changeover/retooling costs. Once the M7 is in regular production, one would suppose that it should be less expensive on parts and assembly costs than the M6TTL per unit. However, those one-off costs still have to be recovered somehow.

Also, as you say, M shutters are intended to perform reliably for more than 100,000 cycles. I seem to remember reading that the M6 shutter should be good for 400,000 cycles.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), February 26, 2002.

I think Neil made the most astute observation in the above posts. The metering system appears unchanged from the TTL. As such the actual exposure value when either using the M6 TTL vs the M7 while in AE should be close to the same. Only the accuracy of the electronic shutter in the M7 will improve that exposure somewhat somewhat.

The other advantages are to those who wish daylight fill flash at higher shutter speeds, and those who want quick "capture the moment" type exposures, particularly several in quick succession.

For those of us who recognize that incident light metering is often the best in many situations, we can always switch off the AE and go handheld.

Perhaps the M8 will be equipped for reception from a transmitting incident meter strapped to the back of ones head. There's an idea that is spoken not entirely in jest.

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 26, 2002.