I keep seeing negative remarks about Leica's weird bottom loading design. What's going on here? I have used Leica M cameras for only about 5 years now- I own an M3 and an M6- and I have no problems with this quirk. Frankly, I really like this way of doing things- I find the M6 actually easier to load than some swing back designs. Ok, so it's a slow process with the M3 with it's removable spool- but done with just a little care, I have never had a misload. I don't pull out tons of leader- I get 38 frames on most rolls. I do check the tension, and watch the rewind crank move to make sure it's properly advancing, but I find it's a good idea to do this with all manual loading cameras. It's the same routine I go through with my Nikon FM2 and FE2.

I have read that Leica keeps this system partly because they are afraid to mess with the design of the M body (a good choice, in my opinion), but also because it means the body can be more rigid and impact resistant.

So how do you folks feel about this? Does everyone hate this loading system, or are there others out there who like or even love this way of doing things? Why?

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002

Answers

If Leica's m system of filmloading is such a blessing why does no other manufacturer use it? Why is even the Leica's R system not using it? The R8 even has a plastic back, talking of impact resistance.

To me, it is an outdated method with no advantages at all!

Frank

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

Apart from getting strange looks from people when I load my camera, I dont have any problems with this! Its a very wise decision that Leica have stuck with this method as it gives the M its distinctive seamless look and of course like you mention, the solid rigid feel.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 30, 2002.

Drew

Point one: even if you are accustomed to this system it is a real pain in the ass if you have to load fast.

Point two: (much more important IMHO) the separate bottom plate is a real liability when you take pictures into the action (which after all is one of the points which seems to be one of the real advantage of the SFRF cameras). Have you ever been taking pictures of a demonstration when the police charges ?...

Point Three (pending confirmation) it seems with the M7 this loading procedure may preclude a correct reading of some DX code without paying a special (and undue) attention to the film container position.

As for the rigidity and impact resistance of a camera, I owned a Nikon F2 and I had once to use it to defend myself (Nikon wone by KO and was still fully operational and even not dented). Nikon F2's have a standard interchangeable backdoor so the argument is void.

The truth is probaly Leica doesn't want to alter a body which has in fact remained almost unchanged since the M4. It is soooo profitable to use amortized tools without decreasing the price! ...

A last shortcoming of this system is it precludes any interchangeable back be it a not so useful data one or an eventual conversion to digital.

Finally I owned FM and FE 2 and I ever considered them much faster and easier to load than the Leica M's I had.

Friendly

François

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 30, 2002.

i really like it. it is part of the classic design. i get 38, sometimes even 39 pictures of a roll of film. if the police charges up, i rather run than load another film. todays digital slrs allow hundreds of pics without changing anything. i don't need that.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

The M6 is a vintage camera with a light meter. The bottom loading is part of its character, its charm, something I have grown to enjoy. As a practical matter the decision to leave the house with the M6 or the Eos 3 does not hinge on how I like to load film that day. By the way I even like loading the IIIf; its gives me a sense of accomplishment for the day.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 30, 2002.

....It is soooo profitable to use amortized tools without decreasing the price! ...

The INITIAL cost of tooling is of course covered. The MAINTENANCE of that tooling, is an ongoing expense. Industrial automation experience tells me that low volume, high precision manufacturing, the cost of maintenance is about 25 to 35 percent of the initial tooling costs, paid annually. Holding precision in tooling is really a never ending battle.....

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 30, 2002.

I kind of like the way the Leica M is loaded. I haven't has a single misload in 12 years of Leica M use. Just do it as it is printed in the manual. Works fine for me.

I'd hate to see Leica come up with a 'solution' for something that isn't a problem for lots of users. If you want to load film like an SLR go buy an SLR.

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), May 30, 2002.

<<< Point Three (pending confirmation) it seems with the M7 this loading procedure may preclude a correct reading of some DX code without paying a special (and undue) attention to the film container position. >>

Loading an M7 doesn't require any sort of different methodology than any other M camera. The film cannister only goes in one way, and the spring-loaded contacts read the DX spots. It can be a bit harder to extract the film in an M7 than earlier cameras, as the spring-loaded contacts tend to grip the cannister a bit. But this is just something that one learns to deal with.

Personally, I find the M cameras not much more difficult to load than most swing-back cameras that require threading of the film leader into those damn little slots on the take-up spool. The autoload cameras like the Hexar RF are a bit easier thought, as they absolutely won't allow a misload.

Skip

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), May 30, 2002.

With 30 years of use I never had a problem loading, and then on the internet I discovered it was a problem. Isn't the internet wonderful? People hate things which are different, and they love to complain-- that's got to be the one thing that separates us from animals, since it's the one thing that keeps us fighting wars all the time. I'll bet you that if all cameras loaded from the bottom and only Leica loaded from the back, everyone would still complain about it.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

" Does everyone hate this loading system, or are there others out there who like or even love this way of doing things? Why? "

I like this bottom loading system, it is the Leica Way, and the Minox Way

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 30, 2002.

I'm happy with the film loading procedure and so far haven't been unfortunate enough to misload a film. However the Leica way means that you cannot add and remove winders at will, in the same vein that you can with SLR's etc..

-- KC (kevintcable@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

Gentlemen,

I was not talking about misloadings but DARN SLOW LOADING and the fact the M is the one and only contemporary 35mm camera to have something which must be entirely separated from the body...

Specially for Mr. Bert Keuken, he seems to be the archetype of the Leica fundamentalist: "it's the Leica way so it must be the best"...

For his information, there was and there is today many a rangefinder camera which had or has a classical backdoor... So this doesn't and didn't pertain to SLR's only...

Even Mr. Erwin Puts (hardly an "anti-Leica" biased gentleman) admits the Hexar and even the Bessa way of loading are superior to the M way...

To Charles: If Leica at least decided to go forward again and produce a really revised camera on modern robotized lines, it won't be very difficult for them to change things again and again through some modifications of data in a computer and a few other tool heads. By the way, I don't consider a casting process and some stamping work for the coverplates to be jobs of any high precision... I guess they are manually cleaned and retouched like they were 50 years ago... So maintainance of the dispositive (knowing the few units produced each year) doesn't probably reach the % you indicate...

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 30, 2002.

So why would the M series preclude a digital back? Serious question. I own a brace of old M3's and honestly do not know how the removable hinged pressure plate back differs from subsequent model to subsequent model, surely the base for any digital.

Other than that, over 20 years never stuffed up loading or really resented it. Ruined an important roll for the first time 3 months ago in a train, excuse; lots of noise, Meniere's disease etc., by operating the rewind backwards, but I could have done that with many cameras could I not??

-- James Elwing (elgur@acay.com.au), May 30, 2002.

I've had a few misloads, but then I see people using the standard swingback cameras also have them. Not a major problem, I think, percentage wise.

It is quirky and wierd, sure enough, but it doen't seem to work in practice any worse than other systems.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 30, 2002.

the bottom loading is really cumbersome, i wouldn't say i "like" it now--it's just that i got used to it. and i wouldn't exactly agree that it's the "rangefinder way" of loading film (if this is the case, then why is the hexar and bess have a swing-back design?).

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

APS is also a bottom loading system. Leica bottom loading some time may cause misload. Minox bottom loading is more convenient then even APS; with Minox, loading consist of pull open the camera bottom back, drop in cassette done in 2 secs, and when it is done, there is no need to rewind the film. (110 cassette has this advantage, but all are back loading )

APS cassette drop in can be done in 2 sec, but followed by a long delay of film positioning before picture can be taken.

The most tedious film loading system I used was a 4x6" camera I had to load sheet film in darkroom, one sheet per steel film back, going out with bag full of heavy film backs; to take picture, load one film back, pull out steel blind, take picture, put back steel blind, unload film back, just for one shot...

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 30, 2002.

When I was using Leicas and Olympi side by side I had misloads with the Olys, but never with the Leicas. . . . Until (instead of blaming the camera) I figured out what *I* was doing wrong, and corrected it. It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

François and others, don't tell me you like having to try and thread the end of the film leader onto the receiving spool in any non-automatic 35 mm camera, while trying not to damage the shutter, make sure the perforations align with the teeth of the wheel, holding everything in place and taught while cranking a couple of times, etc... etc... Come on! Sorry, people, I LOVE the M bottom loading. In terms of ease, it's second only to all-automatic electronic loading where you just pull the leader to the red mark and shut the back plate. I've had one misload so far, when I didn't properly put the bottom plate over the edge of the back plate, shut the thing and went away shooting, only to have the bottom plate drop to the ground just before getting back in my car. But that was stupid me, not the camera. Yes, you can shoot a M with the bottom plate not properly put back in place. I learned it the hard way. But then again, how many times have I had to reload my F3 (greast camera as it is) or FM2 because the film leader just pulled out of the receiving spool. The M has a few irritating quirks, maybe, but bottom loading isn't one of them.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 30, 2002.

Mike I believe the rule you are quoting is "90% operator 10% machine".:-) Personaly I've got an have both back loading flexes and bottom loading rf's m3, IIIc's. I've misloaded each at least once. I tried to learn from my mistakes and have figured out what to watch for. I guess I just accept it as another old German machinist's rule " Ve haf been doing it like dis for years vhy do you vant to change it now?"

-- andy wagner (yxandy@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

The M load is accurate and reliable, but definitely not fast and this is a disadvantage. I also feel that as the whole camera cannot be opened, dust and crud is more likely to accumulate in it than in a conventional backed camera. But I do usually get 38 frames from the camera, which is nice. Still my heart does rather sink when I am at frame 33 and I know that some fast stuff is coming up. I would be happy if Leica were to update this feature.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

Stupid bottom loading, manual focus, antiquated AE in the brand new body, slow top shutter speeds, slow flash synch, stupid designations for lenses of differing apertures, huge expense even for used gear, low-power flash, slow motor drive, battery pig, only one simple metering pattern. The list goes on and on... Why do we even bother with this out-moded, difficult to use camera when the top-end autoeverything Nikon or Canon can be had with a bevy of lenses for significantly less money???

I really don't know...

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 30, 2002.

Neither do I Jack ;-) Sorry, I just don't get these postings. So what if Leica isn't like every other camera in the world. Wouldn't it be a nice place to live in if their was only one car, one camera, one watch, etc? Boy I sure wouldn't want to live there. If you love your FE, FM, Hexar so much, then buy them.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

What Jack means is: DON'T TOUCH THE HOLY LEICA, DON'T HAVE COMMENTS ON THE HOLY LEICA.

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail. com), May 30, 2002.

Olivier,

I never had any problem keeping my fingers off the shutter of a classical backdoor camera but this may be is a question of practice, like to drop the film into an M camera (though it is - at least for me - a much slower process). Bsides when you open the hinged door of a M, the shutter curtain is as expose as with a backdoor: the film is hardly a protection for an eventual "finger intrusion".

By far the main shortcoming of the Leica M in this respect is the fully detachable bottom plate. Even if the drop in procedure was kept, there should have been a way to hinge this plate to the camera.

James,

The hinged door can be unassembled if needed for replacement but it has nothing in common with an interchangeable back...

Just imagine you can withraw the silver based film back (as you can do with many cmeras to replace it by a data back) and replace it with a digital sensor, while using the empty cannister emplacement for information stocking and additional battery... Both silver film or digital as required... Somenthing far easier with a fully detachable hinged back.

If the drop in procedure (which might be logical with a self contained film reception device) was so good with 135 films, why Leica is the only manufacturer to retain this way to load a 35 mm camera ?

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 30, 2002.

Francois, you're final question has been asked by me a couple of times today. So far, no answers however!

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

As a fairly recent Leica convert, I have to say that I still despise the film loading. And with the M7, it's even more difficult because the canister doesn't slide out easily (it was easier on my M6TTL) -- unless you have really tiny fingers, it can take a lot of work and patience to get the canister out. It's easier to leave the leader slightly out when rewinding and use the leader to pull the canister down, but then you run the risk of poking the shutter curtain.

-- William Carter (wmc@po.cwru.edu), May 30, 2002.

Baloney Jack,

Kathy, in that pose, would look good taken with any camera. Except I could't have got that shot. Would have been shaking too much!!!!

To answer the original question, I hated the loading enough to get rid of the M6. I'm more interested in the pictures I get than the process of fiddling with the camera. Leica M's are fun to fiddle with, there's a lot of adjustments you can make, but when the pressure was on and the opportunity of lot's of fast and furious shooting presented itsself, I screwed up the film loading enough to warrant firing the camera body.

I really like the DX recognition, the film identification window, the autoloading and error code notification, the hinge back, of the Hexar RF. When I misload with it, I immediately know it. Not after all the guests have gone home.

-- David S Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), May 30, 2002.

Weird bottom loading is just part of its charms :-) So far I don't have any problems with this loading mechanism.

-- Phillip (pp12302@no_spamyahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

Part of the charm of leicas M and S system are its idiosyncrasities.Like the bottom load. Yep I don't really like it either, and it is a pain when reloading in the field, but for me, using a classic camera is like driving a classic car (no I don't drive a classic car) - you do it because there is something about it you love. A classic 1950's Jaguar say(or 'vette ir whatever)can not compare to this year's Honda in terms of efficency or features. I would not choose a classic car to commute to work, I would choose the Honda, but for fun, I would choose the classic. Thats how I work with my camera's. If I am going out to shoot lots of rolls of film I will take my Nikon gear. If I am going out for a slow day of careful photography I will choose the Leica. For me the leica system and its loading is old fashioned, but who cares, it is part of the experience.

-- Peter (peterm1@ozemail.com.au), May 30, 2002.

How slow can you get loading a M3, seriously? There is nothing to shoot while you are loading.

-- Lux (leica@sumicron.com), May 30, 2002.

What Jack means is: DON'T TOUCH THE HOLY LEICA, DON'T HAVE COMMENTS ON THE HOLY LEICA.

NOT! Anybody that is a regular reader on this forum knows that I do not sing this particular mantra -- in fact, I often do the opposite! I also generally overlook individual idiosyncrasies in favor of the final result...

...but for me, using a classic camera is like driving a classic car (no I don't drive a classic car) - you do it because there is something about it you love.

BINGO! And if it is something you love, you will make excuses to use it often. And if you use it often, you will get comfortable with it. And if you are comfortable with it, it becomes an extension of you. And if it becomes an extension of you, it will not get in the way of your art but rather become a conduit through which your art is realized. Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 30, 2002.

You've stated it the best I've ever seen Jack.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

Here are my observations after using M6ttl for five months: 1. The loading system is at least as good as Nikon FM2, F3, and other manual load cameras with swinging back doors. 2. The detachable bottom is a pain; even worse with the grip. I suspect the motor M is not any easier to stash away. 3. The camera can be loaded as quickly as the above Nikon examples provided the photographer is concentrated on the task. I have fewer misloads with Leica than with the above manual cameras as well as F5, and whith some autoloading point and shoot. 4. #3 is only true of photographer friendly conditions. I have never shot protesters, battles, etc so I cannot imagine reloading the camera while being stomped on or beaten by cops. It must be a rather difficult. 5. When shooting weddings I on a couple of occasions found myself in front of the altar during the processional with only few frames in my EOS 3. Not a problem; it takes about 15 seconds or so to reload. Leica M6 in the same circumstances? I would be so nervous that I would probably screw up loading, and miss the event. 6. Once loaded Leica is very fast to handle, focusing is definitely faster than any manual focus SLR, and the vewfinder is bright and contrasty, better than any SLR with a 2.8 zoom. Advancing film is fast (or slow) as any other manual advance camera. 7. The alleged marketing reason to keep bottom loading is the added body rigidity. I would believe it if I did not have EOS 3 (two of them). When EOS 3 came out about four years ago it took a ton of flack for being so plastic. Well, plastic it is, but the back door seats on the body like a rock. There is no flexing, wobbling, play; it feels like it is welded to the body. So far for the superiority of metal myth. 8. To sum it up: loading a Leica M is burdened by the need to stash the bottom plate ( or winder),and a flimsy rewind crank that likes to jump out my fingers. It can and will slow down the photographer. I would rather prefer the bottom to be attached to the body; maybe hinge it on the swinging door and or somewhere. But I am willing to put up with it because I like everything else about the camera, and its lenses, and do not use it for fast paced action. So I can live with that, at least for now.

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

I never understood this complaint either. Loading my M6 is neither slower nor more difficult than loading my FM2 or S2, in fact I think it's easier - no slot in the take up spool, no sprocket teeth to align, no advancing with the camera open.

As far as that other argument goes, let's try this one: If having the lens alignment dot on the side of the lens is better than having it on the back of the lens (where you can't see it), then why don't ALL 35mm cameras have this? Answer - damned if I know! It IS better!

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), May 30, 2002.

I have only two bits to add to this.

1. It would be nice if the bottom plate were hinged. The hinge could be a third lug for camera strap attachment, ala the M5. But I've learned to compensate by always hold the bottom plate between my middle and ring fingers while loading.

2. Loading is not all that slow. See this earlier 1. It would be nice if the bottom plate were hinged. The hinge could be a third lug for camera strap attachment, ala the M5. But I've learned to compensate by always hold the bottom plate between my middle and ring fingers while loading.

2. Loading is not all that slow. See this earlier posting

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Ofh

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 30, 2002.

What an awful mess! Sorry, folks :-(

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Ofh

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 30, 2002.

What do I think about the question? More senseless verbiage about something that works, works well, and doesn't really make a darn bit of difference.

I've always liked the Leica M4 and later film loading mechanism. I find it faster and more secure than the now more traditional flip open back, and I suspect it might hold the film flatter although that would be very difficult to prove one way or the other.

All in all, it doesn't make any difference.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), May 30, 2002.

It has not been a problem. Then, after 42 y and the III series, you adapt.

Still, I wouldn't want to do it on a hang glider. ;<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 30, 2002.

I've never had a problem with the bottom loading, either in terms of speed or misloads. Perhaps some people don't like the bottom loading because they are doing it wrong. I remember someone posting here once that he used a paperclip when loading his M6. Sheesh. I've seen people spend minutes and minutes loading their cameras, being very anal -- when in theory it should take 30 sec or less.

Andrew Nemeth gives a very good primer on how to quickly and properly load the M cameras on his website. I think if you do any more than what he outlines, then you're spending too much time on it.

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

I should add to Andrew's method, that I don't even think it's even necessary to open the back door (that also helps keep crap from getting on the shutter curtain).

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

François, I didn't mean touching the shutter with your fingers, but with the curled film leader. Can you imagine the damage done to a hypothetical CLOTH shutter in a mechanical SLR, for example, if you accidentally let go of the leader while trying to thread it, and it goes scratching the shutter, like it does every time? Plus, you have to retrieve it with your fingers, because it always sits right there, on top of the shutter. Every time. Multiply this by the number of times it actually happens. It makes me shudder just to think of it. With the M, as soon as the leader is slipped down in place it will remain there, even if you let go of it. What I think is that the M bottom loading is even better still just in that respect. Safe, safe, safe. As for speed of loading, who in his right mind would use a M, if they needed such speed that they can't stand 10 more seconds? If I did, I'd use an automatic SLR.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 30, 2002.

In the 10 years I've been using Leica M cameras, I've adapted to the bottom loading, and I appreciate the obvious benefit of rigidity and durability. As Mani points out, though, a hinge would be cool.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 30, 2002.

I find the Ms bottom loading - ONCE I got used to it and practiced at it - to be easier, and faster, than anything except full motorized (F100, Contax G, Hexar) loading.

I just did a self-test recently, because the LUGgers were also debating M loading. 10 full cycles: unload, reload, wind to first frame, rewind, repeat. It took 4 minutes - or 24 seconds per roll average. No misloads.

When I first got the Ms I had a fair number of misloads, and tried all kinds of mystical fixes: bending over the film tip to catch the prongs better; trimming 'old-style' long leaders,;fiddling with the film to make sure it was over the sprocket holes; winding with the back open to make sure it got started right. Result: more misloads.

Then I read the loading notes at http://nemeng.com/leica/. DON'T fiddle with the film. DON'T pull the leader out until the film is mostly already in the camera. Just stick it in like the bottom plate diagram shows. DON'T open the back. Just wind.

At this point I'm up to well more than 300 rolls loaded since my last misload (I quit counting months ago).

If your're a controlling, Type-A personality (as I was) who is bound and determined that YOU WILL make the Leica load right, by force- feeding it - it will bite you!

If you shut up and let the fastload system work the way it was designed - it will work as designed.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 30, 2002.

For me it is the way it is. I don't feel the item is worth the so many words written / spoken about it.

On the other hand, yes, loading my FM2-n is a lot easier . . . so what ?

Regards, Drew

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), May 30, 2002.

Olivier....the faster and safer way to load any of the old manual cameras...FM, FE, etc...is to place the film leader in the slot first, slide the film across the shutter where it will fall perfectly into the sprocket teeth 98 times out of 100, and then place the film cannister in its slot. There is no chance of touching the shutter because the film is now over it.

With a little practice it can be done with one hand in about 10 seconds.

Just a suggestion.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 30, 2002.

François,

Me a Leica fundamentalist? Hmmm could be. I do know that lots of other RF camera's have the more conventional method of loading film.

What I'd hate to see is Leica making an M camera with a side hinged door. I think that's wishfull thinking on my part. IMO Leica departed the 'right path' by adding 2mm of topcover height to the M6TTL and in doing so paved the way for the M7 and future models. The fact that Leica no longer makes an M camera within the classic M body measurements is sad. Similar story about the R8, IMO they shouldn't have dumped the R4/5/6/7 body design in favour of a design that looks to have been drawn in 1970 as a vision of the camera in the year 2000. Some people call that progress, I call it bad taste.

I don't say the M6TTL, M7 and R8 are lousy products, I just don't like their designs.

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), May 30, 2002.

What is wrong with the Leica M film loading system?
After reading other postings and my very limited experience, the Leica M film loading can be problematic, may be above average comparing to other manual film loading system like Nikon F3, if you are not following some rules correctly.
What is the correct way to load film into a Leica M? The film loading method in the Leica manual and Mr. Nemeth's seem to be the same. What is the potential problem is that the angle of the film leader may be somehow to be jammed in the film path because the film travels in a screwed way. My suggestion is that, before you close the film pressure plate and wind, please make sure the film is placed in a straight way . Nothing hurt right? Admittedly I am more controlling of the film loading. I do not see any thing wrong with that since I am getting 100% success rate of my film loading. I even wind it twice and make sure the film leader angle is past thru the film pressure plate and film hole is aligned in the teeth (probably not important since the main driving force is from take-up spool axis and just served as a check point).

-- kenny chiu (gokudo31@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

The easiest loading camera in the world was Kodak's INSTAMATIC... How long did 126 film last? Get over it!

-- Tim (_franceschini_@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

My my ! I was curious to hear what you folks had to say, and I have to add that I am quite entertained by the passionate argument this simple question stirs up. Ah Leica.

Thanks for your input, everyone- good thoughts and it's interesting to me to see what you all think about this.

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

The trick for Leica is to continually enhance the capabilities of the M system without significantly changing its basic character, handling, and appearance. The RF-VF system, film advance, film rewind, cloth focal plane shutter, and loading system basically date back to the M4, with minor modifications.

As far as the loading system, it may be "quirky", but it works, and I have rarely if ever had any problems. I think the adage "don't fix it if it isn't broken" applies here. I am interested in seeing what they can do to further enhance the M7s capabilities within the constraints described above. My guess is that the M7 is not the ultimate evolution of the M Leica, and they can do more.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 30, 2002.

i found if i load per the diagram with the back door closed, once opening the back door, the film is not engaged on to the teeth of the gears. i, everytime, have to nudge the film onto the gear and wind until both gears are engaged. the take-up mechanism is just such, a take-up mechanism. the gears move the film. but, since there are no left side gears for the film, the film would seem slack.

in my opinion, leica should think about a spring tensioning system in the rewind assembly for film flatness.

-- steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

I follow Andrew Nemeth's instructions at http://nemeng.com/leica/ but I also check, while the back door is open, that the film is hard up aginst the top guide-rail. If necessary, I push it into place. I believe it's necessary to do that with the M6TTL because of the lack of chamfering of the guide rail (mentioned in Andrew's notes).

I find it a nuisance to hold the motor while film loading. I also have once left the back open when replacing the motor/base plate - it's easy to do and is one more thing to check.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

The very first roll of film I put into my M6 didn't load properly. The rewind spool did not turn so I started over. I followed the instruction manual and only inserted the very end of the film between the forks. From then on I have always put the film leader completely through the fork so it extends a bit on the other side and have had no problems at all. I don't like the loose baseplate, but otherwise it works fine for me.

I have regular misloadings with the fully motorised loading on XPan, maybe once in 10 rolls. You are supposed to pull the leader up to a mark and close the cover. Sometimes it seems like a millimeter too long or too short won't load properly.

-- Ilkka (ikuu65@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.

What, change the sacred bottom-loading? Never!

I like it. Why? Well, I also have a tiny Olympus 35RC and if you look up other rangefinder forums (not that they are as entertaining as this one of course) you will notice quite a few threads going on about light seals wearing out. Now, you have absolutely no problem at all with this if you have a bottom-loading camera, even if it is as old as my 1935 leica IIIa.

Hence, a great design. Leica: please don't change it! I have never had a hassle loading a film. Sure, it may take three minutes not three seconds, but I don't mind. I have seen pros changing films on their Nikon F5s in under three seconds. So I might find it different if I was a pro. But then again, one pro I spoke to always looks back nostalgically on his M3 as the bst camera he ever used, so perhaps the need for speed is somewhat over-hyped?

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), May 31, 2002.

Hi Bert:

Sorry to have been perhaps a bit rude in the way I treated you in the preceding message.

However, as a user I can’t think of the M system like driving a “classic car”… I like very much to drive a classic car (though I’ve not yet succeeded getting one myself) but it is a leisure time occupation.

I have been a professional photo-journalist long enough in my life to consider – even nowadays photography is no more for me a way to earn my living – any camera a tool (though there is no reason why you should be forbidden to like your tool on the contrary). So, on the contrary to the way you judge a camera with a seemingly great attention to aesthetic of the body, I’m entirely devoted to practical efficiency.

From my personal experience, I found SFRF camera the best way to 35 mm photography, just because, if you excepts the auto-all AF SlR’s of today when it goes to action photography with big tele-lenses (something I never practiced, nor I’m very much interested in), the compactness and silence of a SFRF and the precision of its focusing when using fast lenses wide open cannot be equalled by any SLR camera. For me, it is the only way to maximize the advantages of the 35 mm format.

A format I don’t consider the best by far when it goes to a more elaborated way of photography. I see no interest to use such a small negative when you have ample time to take pictures, when weight, noise and volume are not liabilities. The reason why I use in parallel a medium format SLR…

In the M body range, whatever a good camera they were (I owned once an M4-P), I consider any model without TTL metering a museum piece (so no more a user’s camera). So the M5 is for me the older M camera which I consider a valuable asset for a user.

Having set the pattern of use I intend for a SFRF camera, I consider my numerous criticisms to the present M models as fully justified. I can (once again) elaborate about practical situations the outmoded features (or lack of) still embodied in the M bodies produced today can be a liability. I think you are experienced enough to imagine them yourself.

The treasured part of the M system is for me its exceptional lenses.

Fortuitously (after my M demise), I found one year ago I can have a camera which can handle these treasured lenses and which though not devoid of shortcomings, can do the work equally well in most situations and sometimes even better.

Point in case: it costs less than half the retail price of a new M body, it is called Hexar RF. At his time, the M7 has not surfaced yet and when it appears it was for me a bitter disappointment…

I would have liked to see an entirely revised body which, if it goes electronic, would have embodied everything an electronic camera could do within the original rangefinder concept (I don’t want an AF): fast shutter, fast sync. speed with TTL flash all the way, manual + spot metering and AE + matrix metering combo, variable magnification finder useable for a glass wearer, fast loading procedure (I thought of something like the QL system once used on Canon cameras) though manual advance and optional motor to keep a really silent mode, interchangeable back door to allow for a future use with a high definition full format digital use to preserve the investment in time. Something in fact which can justify saving a large amount of money equivalent to what is to be paid for a modern SLR. In short a 21st century SFRF aimed to the user.

So my point of view is IMHO totally incompatible with yours.

You write:

>> What I'd hate to see is Leica making an M camera with a side hinged door. I think that's wishful thinking on my part. IMO Leica departed the 'right path' by adding 2mm of topcover height to the M6TTL and in doing so paved the way for the M7 and future models. The fact that Leica no longer makes an M camera within the classic M body measurements is sad. <<

So, your rationale is entirely based on aesthetic considerations ? So why don’t you buy a classic M3 or an LTM in mint conditions ? Why do you need Leica produce something new (or even something) at all ?

>> Similar story about the R8, IMO they shouldn't have dumped the R4/5/6/7 body design in favour of a design that looks to have been drawn in 1970 as a vision of the camera in the year 2000. Some people call that progress, I call it bad taste. <<

Did you ever take an R8 body in your hands? Sorry to say that but it is by far the most ergonomic 35mm SLR camera I ever handled… It is just sad it has no AF for long tele-lenses (and ONLY for them). It would have been the best tool for a 35 mm SLR user ever! … Again there is an ample stock of mint second hand Leica SLR’s available on the market to satisfy you (and other brands too) with strictly traditional design. You can even get a fair taste of 1970’s SLR buying a Nikon FM3A new.

What really bothers me in your opinion is it is conducive to stagnation and regression. Just imagine someone in the 1920’s having the same rationale and we would have still the Leica 0 as the standard Leica camera (I suppose by the way there would not be anymore Leicas today).

>> I don't say the M6TTL, M7 and R8 are lousy products, I just don't like their designs. <<

Well design might be important, but I think these days it has taken too much importance. Here its me who is a traditionalist, I still stay with Mr. Raymond Loewy’s theory: “a good design is first a functional one”. Besides, if the design of the R8 is specific (a case of “like it or not”) I sincerely doubt you will readily recognize the difference in height of a M6 TTL or M7 from a classic M6 within a few feets (it amounts to 2 to 3 mm).

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 31, 2002.

" Leica departed the 'right path' by adding 2mm of topcover height to the M6TTL and in doing so paved the way for the M7 and future models. The fact that Leica no longer makes an M camera within the classic M body measurements is sad."

Leica users must have the most sensitive hands in history - 2 mm!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 31, 2002.

I guess it finally boils down this (as it always does in these theads). Francois you have some valid issues with the M as it pertains to your style of shooting. Others have expressed differing opinions based on there shooting. Unfortunately Leica can't be everything for everybody, and in fact, though no where near approaching the sales of Nikon, Canon etc, the M is selling better than ever. If you want your points addressed where does it stop. Some genuinely feel the M should have A/F to compete with Contax. Others would like a built in drive. Their wishes are just as valid as your Francois, and unless you expect Leica to come up with an M63 (and all the preceding variants) it probably isn't going to happen. What I really don't understand are your statements that Leica is just a tool, then naming the other cameras (tools) you use that have better features. If this really is the case, why don't you just use those other tools. It seems there has been a lot of space used here with your putting down of everyone elses reasons why they like the M as it is. You know, you could just start your own company and build your own camera.........

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 31, 2002.

DON'T CHANGE BOTTOM LOADING!!!!.

It has taken me almost 40 years to train my wife to only buy me shirts (including t-shirts) that have a pocket to hold the bottom cover.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerry Pfile (Jerry Pfile@MSN.com), May 31, 2002.

Hi Bob,

You write:

>>… Francois you have some valid issues with the M as it pertains to your style of shooting. Others have expressed differing opinions based on there shooting. <<

Bob, I don’t think any of the devices I whish to be incorporated in a new M will precludes other users with different requirements (unless it goes to a fully mechanical camera) to operate this camera exactly the same way they operate the present models (or even older ones)… Any of the new features I think valuable can be instantly switched off if not required.

>> Unfortunately Leica can't be everything for everybody, and in fact, though no where near approaching the sales of Nikon, Canon etc, the M is selling better than ever. If you want your points addressed where does it stop. Some genuinely feel the M should have A/F to compete with Contax. <<

AF as it was implemented both in SLR’s and Contax G was never actually fully optional. As you surely know, DOF scales are no more engraved on these lenses (or reduced to a minimum) and the mechanical necessities of a fast AF mean a free rotating focusing ring and a short angular move between minimum distance and infinity. If the AF was as easy to fully neutralize as matrix metering, I would have nothing against the use of an AF.

>> Others would like a built in drive.<<

I have an integrated motor drive in my Hexar RF. It doesn’t bother me too much usually but I consider in some situation it is a liability (because of its noise)… To have a manual advance lever and an optional motor drive permit to satisfy BOTH requirements. When you need a motor drive, you can add it… When you don’t need it, just remove it. Again adding this capability in a modular way is fully reversible.

>> Their wishes are just as valid as your Francois, and unless you expect Leica to come up with an M63 (and all the preceding variants) it probably isn't going to happen. <<

I’m sorry Bob, but I think you’ve missed an important point in my rationale: Embodying what I suggest for a future M body will not preclude its use the “traditional way”. Embodying an AF and a motor drive will, as it does not permit a full reversibility. For me, automatic devices should never override the will of the photographer, even partially. In the present state of the art, AF device precludes the photographer to operate properly in DOF scale focusing and an integrated motor drive does not permit him to have a silent operation if required… Hence both should be avoided. On the contrary, matrix metering in AE mode won’t preclude the use of spot metering in manual position (or even guesstimate exposure)…

>> What I really don't understand are your statements that Leica is just a tool, then naming the other cameras (tools) you use that have better features. If this really is the case, why don't you just use those other tools. <<

I’m again sorry here Bob, but you don’t seem to understand what I said. A MF SLR is not a tool for the same purpose a SFRF is designed for. They are complementary tools. When I compare things I try to stay within things relevant to compare. You are entirely entitled to disagree with me, but I consider the Hexar RF, which is directly comparable to a M7, both being 35 mm SFRF and able to use the same lenses, a better value for money than an M7, despite it has some shortcomings of its own. Had both camera been priced at the same level, the sign “equal” would have probably been the right conclusion (this one being better on such points and that one on others). The problem is the M7 is priced two times more… And this IMHO tells all the story.

>> It seems there has been a lot of space used here with your putting down of everyone elses reasons why they like the M as it is. You know, you could just start your own company and build your own camera......... <<

I give the ideas, you give the money and we start it tomorrow morning… Do you agree ?

All jokes set apart, I think the space I used is far less than the one used by those who want to push Leica to revive an M3 they can buy second hand at the nearest shop is very small. Don’t you think so ?

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 04, 2002.