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

odd jim said:
http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/meet-the-new-screenless-leica-m-d

Have I missed something? This seems ridiculous... A (big) feature(s) missing, costing more?
Click to expand...

Never mind that, it doesn't even have a Red Dot, how's the owner going to feel self-satisfied without the world being able to see how much money they have?

edit: and my Olympus and even my old Canon Powershot 620 PAS have the ability to fold the screen away should you wish so I can chose when to live back to the future.
 
Last edited:
Dunno but I rather like the idea. I focus pretty much exclusively through the VF, anyways, so wouldn't make a huge difference to me. As for the price, I haven't seen the features it does offer but it's a Leica so it was never going to be much less than that. You'll need a lot more than that for the lenses, too. My old M6TTL cost a fortune compared to a Nikon system.
 
WingTsun said:
Dunno but I rather like the idea. I focus pretty much exclusively through the VF, anyways, so wouldn't make a huge difference to me. As for the price, I haven't seen the features it does offer but it's a Leica so it was never going to be much less than that. You'll need a lot more than that for the lenses, too. My old M6TTL cost a fortune compared to a Nikon system.
Click to expand...
It's not about live view, I think the idea is more that you can't view the taken image after you've shot it (or any images at all) harking back to film days (and I always use the VF and only focus with the rear screen when using my MF UWA as you need to zoom into the focused area to get it right as its so wide, but I digress). You'd be better off just buying a film camera?

If you don't want to see the image after you've taken it you can deactivate the rear screen anyway, so I'm not sure paying an extra 1k for that "feature" is a great idea?!
 
Last edited:
stupid. Leica fanboys will be queuing up though, muttering how it will benefit their approach to street photography. ugh. put it in the bin.
 
From their blurb ...
It’s the first of the M-Series without an LCD screen. The company is calling the camera “a step back to the future” and with the tag line ‘the joy of anticipation’, the Leica M-D will force photographers to focus on the essentials of photography.
Click to expand...
errrmmmm ... or you could always shoot film :)
 
PaulButler said:
From their blurb ...

errrmmmm ... or you could always shoot film :)
Click to expand...
Indeed, and in their arrogance are they also suggesting you can't "focus on the essentials of photography" with a 'normal' camera? [emoji3][emoji3]
 
I'm gonna make a leica shooter's special edition 2" square piece of black gaffer tape to cover up your screen. Only £1800.
 
odd jim said:
It's not about live view, I think the idea is more that you can't view the taken image after you've shot it (or any images at all) harking back to film days (and I always use the VF and only focus with the rear screen when using my MF UWA as you need to zoom into the focused area to get it right as its so wide, but I digress). You'd be better off just buying a film camera?

If you don't want to see the image after you've taken it you can deactivate the rear screen anyway, so I'm not sure paying an extra 1k for that "feature" is a great idea?!
Click to expand...

Hehe. It's typical Leica. I'll have a proper look later on the computer. Are the rest of the features the same as its predecessor or does it pack more punch elsewhere?
 
WingTsun said:
Hehe. It's typical Leica. I'll have a proper look later on the computer. Are the rest of the features the same as its predecessor or does it pack more punch elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Looks the same feature wise (other than the obvious) as the last M camera.
 
odd jim said:
Looks the same feature wise (other than the obvious) as the last M camera.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're trying lure more old school film shooters into the digital ranks. It will appeal to some, for sure. It kind of tickles my fancy but unless it's a significant upgrade in other areas then I can't see why it should be priced $1k over the more feature rich body. Doesn't seem to be a limited edition, either..
 
Last edited:
I can sort of understand the appeal and the mindset.

One thing that I used to like doing but haven't done for a while was using my Panasonic G1 with old manual lenses and the screen turned to the body, it gave a very film like experience but (IMO) better results than I got from film, and that combination can be had for the princely sum of about £100 :D
 
Apart from the Leica price premium, the concept kind of appeals to me.

I nearly always use the viewfinder, and I (superstitiously!) very rarely review my shots until after I get home and upload them, so the lack of an LCD screen wouldn't bother me too much.
 
Contax said:
Apart from the Leica price premium, the concept kind of appeals to me.

I nearly always use the viewfinder, and I (superstitiously!) very rarely review my shots until after I get home and upload them, so the lack of an LCD screen wouldn't bother me too much.
Click to expand...

Yup. If you want a film like digital experience with an RF and manual lenses how many choices are there? Especially if you add a requirement to be FF.

I'd always choose a CSC, an A7 if FF is a requirement and forego the RF as I did that years ago and quickly tired of the tiny little patch and lining things up experience.

I'm sure Leica will sell all they can make though.
 
You either "get" Leica, or you don't.
I don't, but there are a lot of Red spot fanboys who will laugh at me because " I just wouldn't understand".
 
woof woof said:
Yup. If you want a film like digital experience with an RF and manual lenses how many choices are there? Especially if you add a requirement to be FF.

I'd always choose a CSC, an A7 if FF is a requirement and forego the RF as I did that years ago and quickly tired of the tiny little patch and lining things up experience.

I'm sure Leica will sell all they can make though.
Click to expand...
Loads, just turn the rear screen off a FF DSLR and use MF lenses :)
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of no screen and only an OVF/EVF. It serves its purpose for the nostalgia itch for many filmies out there who perhaps dont have the time, facility or patience to run film through a camera.

I would absolutely love to take out some of my old film cameras but I simply do not trust my ability to know exactly what I am doing.

Having no screen means no preview so your more likely to get mistakes but 20 mistakes and 4 decent images on digital is hardly a bad thing compared to film where your paying for the developement costs.

Yes this is hugely expensive for what you get when compared to other brands but for some the money wont matter just because of the value the experience of using it will bring.

I absolutely love my xpro1.. Its an OK camera all said and done and my a6000, EM5 and 7D are probably far better cameras over all but given the choice of what I will leave the house with it'll 90% be the Fuji, 8% for the Canon and then a toss up between the Olympus and Sony after that for the remaining 2%.

I would love one. Once the body is purchased its purchased. my issue is then the cost of the glass thats all. #deep pockets!
 
odd jim said:
Loads, just turn the rear screen off and use MF!
Click to expand...

I think being FF and RF limits the choice quite a bit and MF with todays lenses isn't quite the same experience it is with old time MF lenses. So, once you add everything up what other option is there other than Leica? There's the Sony A7. It's FF and you can use (real) manual lenses but it's not RF.

Modern CSC that are oft referred to as RF style or even as RF's by some reviewers aren't.
 
Last edited:
crofter said:
The next model will be 8 grand and have no sensor for the posers that can't think of anything to take pictures of anyway.
Click to expand...

I've got a few ........ but I'm still trying to find out how to put the film in on my M8 - I cut the leader to shape and size, got the bottom plate off but still no joy
 
GHP said:
You either "get" Leica, or you don't.
I don't, but there are a lot of Red spot fanboys who will laugh at me because " I just wouldn't understand".
Click to expand...

If we're talking real users then the images that Leica produce are quite stunning and they do it slightly differently to any other brand of camera and lens I've ever owned. It's a little like the Fuji X100. It too produces images that are just a bit special in their tone and rendition and many love them. I think if you've used a Leica and fallen in love with the look that Leica images seem to have then you "get" it. I'm not a fanboy and don't currently own one but I certainly will again. My Nikons and Fujis produce great images but they won't give the same look and feel as a Leica M will. It's just "different". The main reason I don't currently own one is that 90% of my images are either close-up, macro or ultra-macro and a Leica M is not made for macro. :D
 
Last edited:
Ken Rockwell says...

"As I explained years ago in one of my LEICA reviews, LEICA shooters never look at an LCD, except to make basic settings. LEICA LCDs are for text, never for images.

LEICAs always take perfect images, and LEICA shooters are used to seeing their images on billboards and on museum and gallery walls, never electronic screens. Thus no LCD is good enough to display LEICA images.

I explained in my reviews years ago that we could ignore the crummy little LCDs on cameras like the M9 and M240, and that many LEICA digital shooters simply put duct tape or a TRI-X film box end over the LCD to keep from distracting themselves while shooting.

Taking my advice, LEICA again announced a digital camera with no distracting LCD, the LEICA M-D typ 262, which is a LEICA typ 262 without the LCD. it has a quieter shutter, and heavier brass top and bottom plates than the 262.

The only settings are focus, aperture, shuter speed and ISO. It shoots in DNG, there are no menus, and nothing but shooting. Bravo!

For the LEICA shooter this is perfect; LEICA MEN know people who look at their LCDs after each shot have no idea what they're doing.

No, the M-D typ 262 isn't for casual amateur shooting, online know-it-alls or bloggers; it's for the man who knows what he's doing."

Just my opinion, but God that man spouts drivel.
 
woof woof said:
Ken Rockwell says...

"As I explained years ago in one of my LEICA reviews, LEICA shooters never look at an LCD, except to make basic settings. LEICA LCDs are for text, never for images.

LEICAs always take perfect images, and LEICA shooters are used to seeing their images on billboards and on museum and gallery walls, never electronic screens. Thus no LCD is good enough to display LEICA images.

I explained in my reviews years ago that we could ignore the crummy little LCDs on cameras like the M9 and M240, and that many LEICA digital shooters simply put duct tape or a TRI-X film box end over the LCD to keep from distracting themselves while shooting.

Taking my advice, LEICA again announced a digital camera with no distracting LCD, the LEICA M-D typ 262, which is a LEICA typ 262 without the LCD. it has a quieter shutter, and heavier brass top and bottom plates than the 262.

The only settings are focus, aperture, shuter speed and ISO. It shoots in DNG, there are no menus, and nothing but shooting. Bravo!

For the LEICA shooter this is perfect; LEICA MEN know people who look at their LCDs after each shot have no idea what they're doing.

No, the M-D typ 262 isn't for casual amateur shooting, online know-it-alls or bloggers; it's for the man who knows what he's doing."

Just my opinion, but God that man spouts drivel.
Click to expand...
Unless he was being sarcastic, in which case it's quite funny! But knowing KR he was probably being serious :/
 
Every so often, the idea of a sex tax appears. When you pay your tax, you get a plaque on the side of your house recording how much tax you handed over, the amount being, of course, related to your (claimed) virility. It's touted as the only tax that most men will queue up to pay.

I can't help feeling that the Leica brand shows considerable similarity.
 
woof woof said:
Ken Rockwell says...

"As I explained years ago in one of my LEICA reviews, LEICA shooters never look at an LCD, except to make basic settings. LEICA LCDs are for text, never for images.

LEICAs always take perfect images, and LEICA shooters are used to seeing their images on billboards and on museum and gallery walls, never electronic screens. Thus no LCD is good enough to display LEICA images.

I explained in my reviews years ago that we could ignore the crummy little LCDs on cameras like the M9 and M240, and that many LEICA digital shooters simply put duct tape or a TRI-X film box end over the LCD to keep from distracting themselves while shooting.

Taking my advice, LEICA again announced a digital camera with no distracting LCD, the LEICA M-D typ 262, which is a LEICA typ 262 without the LCD. it has a quieter shutter, and heavier brass top and bottom plates than the 262.

The only settings are focus, aperture, shuter speed and ISO. It shoots in DNG, there are no menus, and nothing but shooting. Bravo!

For the LEICA shooter this is perfect; LEICA MEN know people who look at their LCDs after each shot have no idea what they're doing.

No, the M-D typ 262 isn't for casual amateur shooting, online know-it-alls or bloggers; it's for the man who knows what he's doing."

Just my opinion, but God that man spouts drivel.
Click to expand...


Ha ha, that's brill. Very dry sense of humour.
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
Every so often, the idea of a sex tax appears. When you pay your tax, you get a plaque on the side of your house recording how much tax you handed over, the amount being, of course, related to your (claimed) virility. It's touted as the only tax that most men will queue up to pay.

I can't help feeling that the Leica brand shows considerable similarity.
Click to expand...

I don't think so - if you want an RF camera and you want to use MF glass, Leica glass, especially at very low shutter speeds hand held with say only one lens to record a certain type of shot then there is no other choice and Leica are great for that. Build quality is great, OK it has many "omissions" that we now take for granted even on a £150 compact but it's simple to use, allows you to focus on the composition without worrying about this and that adjustment, (because Leica don't have them).

Leica will refurb your camera, (OK at a cost), they go on forever

I say if you have the money go for it, they are good and interesting cameras to use, they feel great in your hand but you cannot compare them with many other brands and there is no point in doing so.

This thread has at least made me want to use my M8 ........ cannot remember what it cost as I have had it a few years ... but at least it is worth something and the two Leica lens that I have are probably worth near what I paid for them
 
Last edited:
It's a big wedge of cash and personally I won't be queuing up to order one. Red Dot have them on pre-order at £4650 so at least it's not a copy of the $ price in £'s I guess haha

I do get it however. I like the idea. The screen on my M8 is always set to being off so I rarely review images - not to mention that the quality isn't that great anyway.
I love shooting with it though and I can certainly see the appeal for people who shoot with the M system. I never really saw a point in digital M's until I shot with one.
 
Just thinking about the way I generally use my M8

walking around the local market or city type shots

My default setting is f8, EV + 1/3 and infinity - usually ISO 160 or ISO 320, depending on the light - (over ISO 320 it is crap anyway - unless you want loads of noise) - always return it to default

generally never bother about the shutter speed and guess the distance, (I wear glasses so it is easiest this way)

while shooting change all the settings thru the VF whilst it is up to my eye

never look at shots on the LCD, (mine has a big "coffee stain" and as I said it's crap anyway) - and if I do all I am interested in is the histogram

sharpness is never really a worry with normal type shots - obviously OOF can be but after a while you get used to estimating the distance and in any case f8 and infinity - (you can only then go one way with distance adjustments), will serve you well

who needs an LCD

It is hopeless for "bird shots"
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Just thinking about the way I generally use my M8

walking around the local market or city type shots

My default setting is f8, EV + 1/3 and infinity - usually ISO 160 or ISO 320, depending on the light - (over ISO 320 it is crap anyway - unless you want loads of noise) - always return it to default

generally never bother about the shutter speed and guess the distance, (I wear glasses so it is easiest this way)

while shooting change all the settings thru the VF whilst it is up to my eye

never look at shots on the LCD, (mine has a big "coffee stain" and as I said it's crap anyway) - and if I do all I am interested in is the histogram

sharpness is never really a worry with normal type shots - obviously OOF can be but after a while you get used to estimating the distance and in any case f8 and infinity - (you can only then go one way with distance adjustments), will serve you well

who needs an LCD

It is hopeless for "bird shots"
Click to expand...

I haven't found 640 ISO to be too bad with some smoothing in Lightroom, but ideally I never go over 320.

The M8 has made me crave an M9... It's the sensor corrosion that concerns me.
 
BillN_33 said:
I don't think so
Click to expand...

I won't argue that Leicas can't be fun: I've owned a IIIc, M2 and M3, myself. My reason for comparing them to a sex tax is that they are massively over-rated against other cameras and lenses. My own experience is that the Canon P with a 35mm f1.8 is every bit as nice as a M2 with a Summicron 35mm and a fraction of the price. The Cosina Voigtlanders have finders just as nice as that on the M3 and even a Zorki 4 is at least as nice to use as a IIIc.

That's my opinion. Others are available
 
Last edited:
Sejanus Aelianus said:
I won't argue that Leicas can't be fun: I've owned a IIIc, M2 and M3, myself. My reason for comparing them to a sex tax is that they are massively over-rated against other cameras and lenses. My own experience is that the Canon P with a 35mm f1.8 is every bit as nice as a M2 with a Summicron 35mm and a fraction of the price. The Cosina Voigtlanders have finders just as nice as that on the M3 and even a Zorki 4 is at least as nice to use as a IIIc.

That's my opinion. Others are available
Click to expand...

The Canon P was an expensive body as were Canon RF lens
 
I don't really get it, I don't see the point of actually getting rid of the screen unless theres some other benefits to it i.e. smaller/lighter, better battery, etc. I don't use the screen on cameras very often, usually to check settings or indeed change them. In fact, one of the main things I love about Fujis is the fact the aperture and shutter speed can be set without even turning the camera on, you can bring it up to your eye, turn it on and just shoot. I certainly wouldn't get rid of the screen and pay a few extra £k for the benefit of.
 
Thrash said:
I don't really get it, I don't see the point of actually getting rid of the screen unless theres some other benefits to it i.e. smaller/lighter, better battery, etc. I don't use the screen on cameras very often, usually to check settings or indeed change them. In fact, one of the main things I love about Fujis is the fact the aperture and shutter speed can be set without even turning the camera on, you can bring it up to your eye, turn it on and just shoot. I certainly wouldn't get rid of the screen and pay a few extra £k for the benefit of.
Click to expand...

The only real "benefit" I can see is that the whole camera body becomes more robust and it looks and feels like the older film Leicas. For some, the extra robustness, the styling and the fact you haven't got a screen rubbing against your zip or buttons when you're carrying it will certainly appeal. This camera won't appeal to those who began their photography in the digital age but to those who began in the film days where screens didn't exist.
 
WingTsun said:
The only real "benefit" I can see is that the whole camera body becomes more robust and it looks and feels like the older film Leicas. For some, the extra robustness, the styling and the fact you haven't got a screen rubbing against your zip or buttons when you're carrying it will certainly appeal. This camera won't appeal to those who began their photography in the digital age but to those who began in the film days where screens didn't exist.
Click to expand...

you also save money, £5 to £10, in not having to but a screen protector, (I never use them but most do)

anyway unless you plan to buy one it is irrelevant!!
 
WingTsun said:
The only real "benefit" I can see is that the whole camera body becomes more robust and it looks and feels like the older film Leicas. For some, the extra robustness, the styling and the fact you haven't got a screen rubbing against your zip or buttons when you're carrying it will certainly appeal. This camera won't appeal to those who began their photography in the digital age but to those who began in the film days where screens didn't exist.
Click to expand...
I don't agree - I grew up shooting film and loved the old film cameras, so guess what, I kept one of my old film cameras :)

Making a digital camera without a rear screen is like buying a new car, then removing the ABS, air bags and power steering (after paying a premium to do so) because you loved the British Leyland cars of the 70's, lol!

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Love old film cameras and the anticipation of shooting film, buy an old film body, it's a *lot* cheaper too.
 
you can probably sell the box in Ebay for £250 if you are hard up after buying one

and a Passport is like "gold"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top