Leica M-D - the $6k camera with no screen...

ianp5a said:
Not having a screen on the back is nothing new. You just clip your smartphone on it, activate the wifi and the app and away you go. A clever way to save the cost of a screen as most carry one around in their pocket anyway.
Click to expand...
But you've not saved any cost with the M-D, quite the opposite as you're paying £1k more than the normal M!

This is why I can't get agree with the way the concept is executed here. I can see the niche appeal but then Leica add their own elitist dickishness and charge more for an already overpriced camera.

If jt cost less, and it should, then fair play.
 
Last edited:
Yes but people will see the smartphone attached and know that you are the frugal type. But if you've never owned one, you'll have never experienced that subtle nod people give you when they spot you've saved the cost of a screen.
 
Last edited:
WingTsun said:
Jon, I loathe fanboyism and elitism but I also loathe those who sneer at others through ignorant, blinkered and inexperienced eyes. Once again you've placed yourself on some self-righteous and frankly, pompous pedestal and told Leica users they are just paying over the odds for a brand and you do this having never used a Leica.

15 years ago in 2001 I started MUG (Leica M User Group) on Yahoo groups. I did so to get away from the attitude you exemplify, whether that attitude be pro or anti Leica or anything else. The group is now over 2000 members strong who rarely discuss equipment but instead choose to discuss technique and the images they produce. No-one on that group paid over the odds for a brand; they paid what they were prepared and able to pay for a camera system that produced, in the right hands, the kind of images they wanted.

There are many things that cause problems in our world today and one of the biggest culprits is ignorance.
Click to expand...


Ok this is tongue in cheek so please, no one be offended - but the acronym MUG for a Leica group might be seen as quite appropriate. [emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]

I'll get my coat...
 
Last edited:
LUG works as well, both as a description of the weight of the things and a sly reference to Marjorie Allingham's character in the Campion stories. (yes I know - two 'L's)

:D
 
ianp5a said:
Self righteous, pompous, ignorant, blinkered, sneering? He only said people pay over the odds for a brand.

You are taking the tone of this thread to another level. It looks to me like you are very sensitive about this. Some may think that is a fanboy reaction.
Click to expand...

Hey, I call it as I see it and if you read his other posts in this thread it's been much of the same. No, I'm not a fanboy of anything and no longer shoot a Leica system.
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
LUG works as well, both as a description of the weight of the things and a sly reference to Marjorie Allingham's character in the Campion stories. (yes I know - two 'L's)

:D
Click to expand...

:D There is a LUG, too. It was that message board that we broke away from 15 years ago. Not sure what it's like there now.
 
They are for serious photographers you know

but this is not an M - it is a cheapO version

vic.jpg
 
Has she watched too many reruns of Crocodile Dundee?

Neville Bell: You can't take my photograph, missus.
Sue Charlton: Oh, I'm sorry, you believe it will take your spirit away.
Neville Bell: No, you've got your lens-cap on. ​
 
WingTsun said:
15 years ago in 2001 I started MUG (Leica M User Group) on Yahoo groups. I did so to get away from the attitude you exemplify, whether that attitude be pro or anti Leica or anything else. The group is now over 2000 members strong who rarely discuss equipment but instead choose to discuss technique and the images they produce..
Click to expand...

So if they don't discuss equipment why do they have to have a special place to talk technique? Is it because elsewhere they wouldn't be able to abstain from brandishing their red dots? :LOL:

A lot of the photographs that got me interested in photography were shot with Leicas (Cartier-Bresson, Ian Berry) but I can't tell that by looking at them. They're black and white photos shot on 35mm film that could have been made with any brand of camera. Just like digital files today.
 
Ed Sutton said:
So if they don't discuss equipment why do they have to have a special place to talk technique? Is it because elsewhere they wouldn't be able to abstain from brandishing their red dots? :LOL:

A lot of the photographs that got me interested in photography were shot with Leicas (Cartier-Bresson, Ian Berry) but I can't tell that by looking at them. They're black and white photos shot on 35mm film that could have been made with any brand of camera. Just like digital files today.
Click to expand...

Not for me. Generally speaking, I can mostly see when an image is shot with a Leica. Not every time but most, I think. The closest "brand" to the Leica rendition is for me Fuji. The X100 files were amazingly similar.
 
Wonder how many people are going to put duct tape over their screens now pmsl
 
owenb said:
Wonder how many people are going to put duct tape over their screens now pmsl
Click to expand...
I'm going to buy an old DSLR then rip the rear screen off with a screwdriver, easiest £1k made ever [emoji28]
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I'm going to buy an old DSLR the rip the rear screen off with a screwdriver, easiest £1k made ever [emoji28]
Click to expand...

LOL. I think the original point about charging more for a camera missing many features is a valid one. However, I guess that's how little Leica keep themselves afloat. And I'd rather them do this and stay afloat than vanish.
 
WingTsun said:
Jon, I loathe fanboyism and elitism but I also loathe those who sneer at others through ignorant, blinkered and inexperienced eyes. Once again you've placed yourself on some self-righteous and frankly, pompous pedestal and told Leica users they are just paying over the odds for a brand and you do this having never used a Leica.

15 years ago in 2001 I started MUG (Leica M User Group) on Yahoo groups. I did so to get away from the attitude you exemplify, whether that attitude be pro or anti Leica or anything else. The group is now over 2000 members strong who rarely discuss equipment but instead choose to discuss technique and the images they produce. No-one on that group paid over the odds for a brand; they paid what they were prepared and able to pay for a camera system that produced, in the right hands, the kind of images they wanted.

There are many things that cause problems in our world today and one of the biggest culprits is ignorance.
Click to expand...

I am not placing myself on any pedestal merely expressing an opinion. And expressing an opinion contrary to yours (or contrary to your incorrect interpretation of my opinion) does not mean I am sneering. Grow up.

A good friend of mine shoots Leica and always has. The camera suits his type of photography and I can totally see that. He makes more than enough money to keep him in cameras and is in fact a brand ambassador. I also have a colleague who bought a Leica purely because he wanted a camera with a red dot on it, and it has turned out to be totally unsuited to his type of photography.

My point is that what you need or want a camera for should take precedence, if what you want to do is take pictures with it.

My other point was that it seems a bit of a con to remove a major component from a camera, which must reduce production costs, and then put a premium on the lack of screen by calling it a "feature".


I don't appreciate your frankly obnoxious attitude.
 
Last edited:
aliengrove said:
My other point was that it seems a bit of a con to remove a major component from a camera, which must reduce production costs, and then put a premium on the lack of screen by calling it a "feature".
Click to expand...

Maybe removing the back screen just makes the camera more desirable (you/we don't have to understand how or why :D ) and if so Leica would be mad to charge the usual price for it :D
 
There are people I know that shoot Leica, who have been after something like this.
For them it's all about the photography and not the brand. It suits their photography. I never found there to be any snobbery. Most are of the opinion that you shoot what suits you.

I appreciate you can turn a screen off. I do with the M8, however it doesn't not still make it a distraction.
I do get it. I'm not so sure on the price but they have a market I'm sure.
 
odd jim said:
No as its still 1k more than the normal M.
Click to expand...


I thought the M 240 was more expensive than this - £400 or so, though the 'normal' M 262 is cheaper by £500 (which perhaps does seem strange).

I like it though, and if I was looking for a digital M would really consider it. It's all about whatever floats your boat.

Shane :)
 
aliengrove said:
I am not placing myself on any pedestal merely expressing an opinion. And expressing an opinion contrary to yours (or contrary to your incorrect interpretation of my opinion) does not mean I am sneering. Grow up.

A good friend of mine shoots Leica and always has. The camera suits his type of photography and I can totally see that. He makes more than enough money to keep him in cameras and is in fact a brand ambassador. I also have a colleague who bought a Leica purely because he wanted a camera with a red dot on it, and it has turned out to be totally unsuited to his type of photography.

My point is that what you need or want a camera for should take precedence, if what you want to do is take pictures with it.

My other point was that it seems a bit of a con to remove a major component from a camera, which must reduce production costs, and then put a premium on the lack of screen by calling it a "feature".


I don't appreciate your frankly obnoxious attitude.
Click to expand...

You wrote and I quote:

"There is no denying that Leica make very good cameras. If people want to pay over the odds for a brand, it's their money and their choice.

Personally, I have (and have had since childhood) a deep-rooted aversion to the power of brands over modern society. I think it plays a major part in a lot of the world's problems. It fosters elitism, contributes massively to the incredible wastage caused by people wanting the latest whatever (though admittedly this is not really relevant regarding Leica or Swiss watches) and leads to envy and one-upmanship.

If I ever bought a Leica the first thing I would do is remove the red dot."

That wasn't just expressing an opinion contrary to mine, it was labelling a whole group of people with a nonsensical statement. It was that obnoxious paragraph that got my goat in the first place so I guess you reaped what you sewed.
 
Did you read the bit in brackets regarding Leica and Swiss watches? And who was I "labelling"? I was merely expressing a view on consumerism.

Rather than "reaping what I have sewed (sic)" you have merely shown yourself to be a contrary boor.
 
aliengrove said:
Did you read the bit in brackets regarding Leica and Swiss watches? And who was I "labelling"? I was merely expressing a view on consumerism.

Rather than "reaping what I have sewed (sic)" you have merely shown yourself to be a contrary boor.
Click to expand...

OK. I'll step out of this one now in the interests of forum harmony. Have a great Bank Holiday Monday.
 
Another device that looks to be about 6x too expensive for the sake of creating a niche.
 
frod said:
Another device that looks to be about 6x too expensive for the sake of creating a niche.
Click to expand...

As I understand it in the past Leica have had troubles commercially surviving .. they tried many things, the Panasonic link, moving to cheaper none RF and none M cameras to improve their market share and profitability.

- I would think that the selling price of the M cameras reflects the high costs of low production runs and the the high element of specialist labour included in their costs versus the mass market and large product range of say Nikon or Canon who produce many of their products in low labour costs countries.

Leica produce very good specialised kit which will never appeal to many even if they sold their M series at a quarter of the current selling price. They produce a camera that very few want.

All this "too expensive" argument is really irrelevant - the price is just a fact and a factor of production/marketing costs and if you want one you have to pay that price.

If Leica did not also appeal to the status conscious jewellery market they would sell less of their products and the price would then be even high for the enthusiasts that want such a camera.

Let the rich buy them, we should applaud them for doing so ....... they subsidise and support the true enthusiast that wants to own and use a Leica M.
 
Last edited:
My God man! Your talking sense! Remember where you are. This is the internet! Pull yourself together and start making outlandish generalisations and insulting people!

:D
 
woof woof said:
My God man! Your talking sense! Remember where you are. This is the internet! Pull yourself together and start making outlandish generalisations and insulting people!

:D
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I will probably get an RTM and "banned" for my post
 
BillN_33 said:
As I understand it in the past Leica have had troubles commercially surviving .. they tried many things, the Panasonic link, moving to cheaper none RF and none M cameras to improve their market share and profitability.

- I would think that the selling price of the M cameras reflects the high costs of low production runs and the the high element of specialist labour included in their costs versus the mass market and large product range of say Nikon or Canon who produce many of their products in low labour costs countries.

Leica produce very good specialised kit which will never appeal to many even if they sold their M series at a quarter of the current selling price. They produce a camera that very few want.

All this "too expensive" argument is really irrelevant - the price is just a fact and a factor of production/marketing costs and if you want one you have to pay that price.

If Leica did not also appeal to the status conscious jewellery market they would sell less of their products and the price would then be even high for the enthusiasts that want such a camera.

Let the rich buy them, we should applaud them for doing so ....... they subsidise and support the true enthusiast that wants to own and use a Leica M.
Click to expand...

I'd like to disagree with this one but.. :wideyed:
 
frod said:
Another device that looks to be about 6x too expensive for the sake of creating a niche.
Click to expand...

Kev, just as an aside you may find it interesting to read the history of Leica, they introduced the compact 36 x 24 format to still photography .. and other achievements - I have an LTM lens that was made in 1933 that still works beautifully .. it is very small and so simple to use

here it is in action although it was never intended for a colour image, particularly a digital one

Cheers


Leica_wine_2.jpg


Lumix.jpg



This thread is making me want one - even without looking at what it is, with no screen!!!

just looked - the Leica M-D - it does look great
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Kev, just as an aside you may find it interesting to read the history of Leica, they introduced the compact 36 x 24 format to still photography
Click to expand...


That's a common misconception.

The American made Simplex was marketed from 1914 and, nearly 50 years before Konica re-introduced the idea, could expose both 24 x 18 and 36 x 24 on the same strip of 35mm stock. Frenchmen could purchase the Furet camera from 1923, which was a 36 x 24 model that apparently had the appearance we think of as normal for the 35mm camera. Although Oskar Barnack made a prototype "Ur Leica" in 1914, production cameras only became available from 1925.
 
Well I would love one! Have had a couple of M2s and now have an M6. I like the feel and would love something like this. Yes, using my X100 or D750 is easier and versatile and gives 'better images' but its fun. I love the basic elements of taking a pic, and yes you can do it for cheaper but I find Leica to be a classic.

What I would love to see is Fuji do similar model. The X100 is a classic, but what about something like an X100 but with just aperture, shutter and iso dial on the back. Nothing else, no buttons etc... would be great!
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
That's a common misconception.

The American made Simplex was marketed from 1914 and, nearly 50 years before Konica re-introduced the idea, could expose both 24 x 18 and 36 x 24 on the same strip of 35mm stock. Frenchmen could purchase the Furet camera from 1923, which was a 36 x 24 model that apparently had the appearance we think of as normal for the 35mm camera. Although Oskar Barnack made a prototype "Ur Leica" in 1914, production cameras only became available from 1925.
Click to expand...

I thought Leitz built the first in 1913 - but that was a short lived other manufacturer, not Simplex, that used the format a few years before - I still stick to what I said in that Leitz, (Leica) introduced the format to still photography
 
BillN_33 said:
I would think that the selling price of the M cameras reflects the high costs of low production runs and the the high element of specialist labour included in their costs versus the mass market and large product range of say Nikon or Canon who produce many of their products in low labour costs countries.
Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree... Leica cameras are a textbook Veblen good. They had sales of €365 million last year, what possible maths supports them being such a low volume producer with a sales figure like that?

Regardless of whether they're bought as jewelry or by enthusiasts, they're still status symbols; their sensors don't outperform the market leaders and their lenses are not physics-defying miracles. There is no functional ability of these cameras that can't be done elsewhere at much lower prices. There is no practical reason to buy a (modern) Leica camera.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with wanting one or buying one, but let's not pretend that the prices make any sense objectively, any moreso than a Land Rover does for the school run or a Rolex does for telling the time.
 
Kev,, I bet the top of the range Canon 1 series blah blah and a Canon 35mm F1.4 is less than a grand cheaper than this Leica and the equivalent lens. Why would I need the auto focus, video and frames per second of the overpriced bloated Canon when I want a full frame RF camera for street photography, that's the bit you and many others cant understand. A Leica camera and lens that's so simple to use, discrete and overall more suited to the style it designed for. If another brand, Fuji, Sony or others release a FF RF style monochrome camera thats simple to use, discrete I will buy it.
 
No, I'm sure Leica would move another goalpost for you to provide as a reason for choosing them instead. I'm not going to argue with what your definition of 'discrete' is or why you think you need full frame for street photography, these are all just justifications in your head.
 
Kev, I don't need to justify anything especially to a fool like you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top