Thinking of the relationship between M6 and M7, this is somewhat more or less the same as OM1 and OM2 of Olympus which happened almost 20 years ago. Now that Olympus gives way to digital, will Leica do the same thing 10-20 years later? If this is the case, will M7 be the last model before Leica turns to digital totally?

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), March 03, 2002

Answers

In actuality I don't think this is the same thing at all. Although Olympus did make some advertising allusions to the M cameras - small, lightweight, compact - all it was was a compact SLR, much the same as a Nikon F80, Elan 7 is today when compared to their full sized brethern. The rangefinder entails a different way of 'seeing' - the floating framelines that promote keeping the camera at the eye at all times, its low light focus ability with wideangle lenses etc., all make for a different seeing experience. Olympus has ditched thier OM series cameras not because of digital, but because they don't compete well with what is on the market. They don't have A/F or a gazillion auto exp modes, which is what you need to compete in todays SLR market, nor did they ever seriously compete with the rangefinder. Who knows if Leica will be digital in 20 years, but it will have little to do with the OM cameras.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 03, 2002.

Tom is comparing relative positioning, rather than Leica to Olympus. In that he is correct, that the automated aperture priority OM2 bore the same relationship to the manual metered OM1 as the M7 does to the M6. But there does seem to be little reason to compare the corporate or product line development of Leica to Olympus.

I do tend to agree however that in some ways the Olympus OM cameras had some of the characteristics of Leicas. Premium priced, well engineered and solidly finished, small and compact in their class, with premium glass in its time.

Too bad the market moved away from them and put a premium on automation over size. I daresay the engineers also relaxed the size weight constraints in favor of automation.

We'd all love to see EOS1Vs and Nikon F5s as small and lightweight as our Leica Ms and Olympuses (or Pentax MEs). I might even consider giving up the M body.

No, I take that back...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 03, 2002.

When I worked professionally, I had parallel M-Leica and Olympus OM-1 systems, as did a number of other people at the same time. I viewed the OM-2 with the same suspicion that I now feel for the M-7, but eventually I came over. . . but I do agree with the others that the Olympus OM system didn't fall to digital--it failed when the company abandoned developing the system a decade or more ago. Leica, however, doesn't have any real competition in the serious RF field, so they don't have anything to fail to keep up with, if you get my drift.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 03, 2002.

The Olympus warrants comparison to the Leica because of similarity in size and both have quality optics. There is even an 21mm f/2 Zuiko! However the last time I checked the OM3Ti costs as much as an M6. The similarity ends here as the Zuiko line has been stagnant for ages. I had an used OM4T and 50mm f/3.5 Macro a few years back and was quite impressed with the optics. The lever advance of OM cameras feels like sawing wood.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), March 03, 2002.

1. Olympus paved the way for the Leica M metering system as the first company to use light reflected off the shutter curtain - I remember seeing the OM2 with it's checkerboard dot pattern and thinking "Hmmm - Leica could do something like that." ABout 10 years later they did, with the Minolta CLE as an intermediary.

2. On system development and technological change - I have a vision every so often...

It's 1929, and Leica stands more or less alone in producing a 35mm camera (yeah I know there were others, some earlier - none survived more than a few years.)

By 1935, Leica is competing primarily with Contax, with a scattering of other camera-makers using Leica's format (Argus, maybe early Kodak)

Then the post-war Japanese revolution - dozens of brands copying and improving on the Leica format. The frenzy builds in the go-go 60s: faster shutters builtinmeteringTTLmeteringzoomlensesmotorsVietnamLifeLook3535CanonF1aut oexposuremulticoating68conventionsgo- gofastcolorfilmsOlympusOM1shutterpriorityaperturepriorityPROGRAMMODEseg mentedmeteringpointandshootsJonestownMinoltaMaxxumAUTOFOCUSplasticlensb arrelsEOSdarthvadercamerasfastzoomsfasterzoomsMarslanderspixeltransmiss ionsDIGITAL...digital...digital...

...and as the madding crowd disappears over the distant horizon baying in pursuit of megapixels and more megapixels - it's 2029.....and Leica stands more or less alone producing a 35mm camera.....

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 03, 2002.

Andy, that's brilliant.

ROTFL :-D

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 03, 2002.

Tom,

I suspect the time will come that Leica will produce a digital M, but in their own good time. Which is to say don't hold your breath.

I suspect you'll see a digital R first, although probably in the form of a digital back or kit to adapt to their current R or the R in production at that time. However if the R continues to stay around, I think you'll see amodel with focus confirmation first, not AF or digital.

When they get around to it with the M, it will probably be a new M that is wholly digital. That will be awhile though and I don't think it will replace a "film" M. They will probably be around as long as there is both film and Leica. But neither is forever of course. I think that's a situation that our Grand kids may have to cope with, but not us.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 04, 2002.

An interesting comparison. I had the OM2 for quite a few years and it performed admirably (better than the zoom lens in fact wich packed up). It's similar to the M7 only in that it's aperture priority autoexposure and a fairly compact package. Actually I'm not so sure about semi auto exposure. The same applies to my first shutter-priority Olympus 35RC. Yes, it makes taking pictures quicker. Exposures are often fine. But it gives you no insight at all into why you choose a certain exposure. With an M3 or IIIa you think about the aperture and shutter speed. Same, though to a lesser degree with an M6. Does this matter? I'm not sure. To paraphrase Stephen Gandy: "yes, no, perhaps and may b

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), March 04, 2002.

If Leica isn't making a digital body in 10 years, they better be making film and processing it. Though I suspect there's a cadre of Leica owners who wouldn't even notice if there were no film for it;>)

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 04, 2002.

Jay,

Ten years? I think that might be a little quick. An interesting technological comparison may be the the demand for VHS, Hi-8, and DVDs.

The latter is gaining in the market of course, but certainly not to the demise of the former. As long as there is a large population of VCRs out there, someone will fulfill the demand.

As stated, our Grand kids may well look upon film as my Grand parents looked upon tin types and air shutters, but it will take awhile.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 04, 2002.

I think you are right about the OM 1 to 2 analogy, which is why the furore over the aperture priority functionality and the electronic shutter of the M7 is puzzling. M7 and OM2 are still dinosaurs, despite the fact that they have been "souped up" a little.

Bottom line: you can still shoot in the glow of satisfaction that obtains when using a manual camera, and if your slides are slightly better metered or if a few more of your grab shots are successful, then won't you be happier in the end?

If I understand Olympus' history: the company moved farther and farther away from 35 mm photography after producing some top-flight cameras and lenses of their day. The OM 3 and 4 are comparable to Leica's R series. After you have built four quality bodies (each a slight "improvement" on the other) and your technology has been adopted by your competition (off-the-film metering) and your lens and accessory system is vast and of high quality--what else is there to do with it?

Olympus now makes scientific equipment and lenses for specialized medical applications, some consumer point & shoots, a non-system consumer SLR, and some consumer digitals. I don't think Olympus has really "gone digital," so much as declared their OM mission a success and moved on. What else to do with a manual-focus SLR line? The company claimed they could no longer get parts for the OM line, but they will service the equipment for the next ten years.

As for what happens after the M7, it will all depend on whether or not people actually want a digital rangefinder. I suspect they don't. If a few do, a different company will produce it. Don't forget that you can buy an auto-focus rangefinder from Contax. Perish the thought!

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 04, 2002.

Doesn't the new "Digilux 1" answer the digital Leica arguments, for the time being at least?

See http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux1/index_e.htm

-- Paul Hardy Carter (carterph@wanadoo.es), March 04, 2002.

I agree with Tom. So what does it mean? What are Leica trying to say? What is our interpretation, and how will we (potential market) react to our intepreattion? And finally, how will our reactiion affect sales. At the end of the day, the Sales figures of leica will determine 1. Our support for the company, thus leading to 2. The company's potential to exist and survive in the "go digital technology" future.

Only time will tell. But Tom is right. If Leica is going to continue with saying that 'less is more' this will be the final M film camera. So what do they do if this doesn't work and the product's life becomes shorter than anticipated, shorter than the comapny can stand? What if so many people convert to newer digital forms of technology, leaving Leica behind? More Leica gear on the S/H market will result in less NEW purchases, making Leica face a decision......Go with the market, OR keep traditional comapny values and continue with a niche market that is only getting smaller and smaller.. ... ....well, we the consumers will help them make that decision.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 04, 2002.

I was fascinated by a poll taken a couple of years ago by one of the Photo magazines. They asked the pros to vote on their favorite 35mm camera. The top ten included the M3, M6, a couple of Nikons, a couple of Canons, etc. The number one favorite camera was the OM-1.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), March 04, 2002.

I agree with the similarity between OM-1/OM-2 and M6/M7. The Olumpus OM cameras were designed by Maitani-san, who was inspired by Leica. He set out to produce the SLR equivalent of the Leica M and actually succeeded in at least two respects: small size and smooth operation. Whether he also succeeded in the optical field is a different issue. a few OM Zuiko lenses are undoubtedly very good but some I would class as so-so. All are very small and light, however.

Unfortunately, the later OM models didn't entirely live up to Maitani's original concept. The film advance of the earlier models, OM-1(n) and OM-2(n), is incredibly smooth and quiet, not unlike a Leica M. For some unknown reason, however, Olympus reduced the angle of operation of the advance lever in subsequent OM-2S, OM-3(Ti) and OM-4(T)(Ti) models, making it higher-geared and noticeably rougher.

Ray Tai's comment: "I had an used OM4T and 50mm f/3.5 Macro a few years back and was quite impressed with the optics. The lever advance of OM cameras feels like sawing wood" is unfortunately true of all models following the OM-2n. Furthermore, the shutter speed ring (around the lens throat) on those later cameras is thinner and stiffer, to the point of being unpleasant to operate.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 05, 2002.