Re: Bruckner Edition M6

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

Warning--very long post!--Charlie

At 11:19 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>As far as collector's editions of the M cameras go, I am left unfazed. As
>the poster says if they can wrap an off the shelf camera in fancy leather
>and sell it for a premium then, indeed, all power to them.
>        Where I disagree wholeheartedly, is with the cries for a new and
>improved Leica M. I couldn't care less if others see my Leicas as
>anachronisms or out of date. My Leicas vary in age between 10 and 40 years
>and do what I need them to do.

- ----
The point wasn't just that the M6 is seen by others (whose opinion we don't
respect, since they are not Leica users :-)) as an anachronism.  The point
was that from a third-party perspective it is an anachronism--not because it
cannot take wonderful photographs (it can, of course), but because there are
many obvious changes that would be genuine improvements, and Leica refuses
to make them, letting the camera soldier on, and leaving it open to
legitimate complaints.

Let me mention a few.  The viewfinder needs more eye relief for those who
wear glasses--most of us, I bet, since the hobbyists who use Leica are
relatively old (mostly because of the huge investment required).  It's a
joke, in these days of high eyepoint SLR viewfinders,  to have a 28 mm.
frameline that cannot be seen by a significant percentage of the users, and
a 35 mm. frameline that requires people to move their eyes around the finder
to see the edges.  The Contax G1 finder is none too good, but it doesn't
have this problem.  I am sure there are simple solutions to this problem
while keeping the traditional frameline design (e.g., a magnification change
in the finder with changing lens length), and there is no excuse for not
solving it.

Then there's the film loading system.  I know, I know, Leica legend has it
that they believed that the camera wouldn't be rigid enough with a rear
loading system.  But they finally compromised by adding the door to the back
of the M's, and you don't hear stories of M's, let alone SLR's, deforming
because of lack of rigidity.  The film loading is slow, almost requires you
to sit down, and causes lots of mistakes, even with practice.  In addition,
if you are using the camera on a tripod, you have to take it off to
reload--even if you are in the middle of bracketing that great shot.  Ever
load a recent R camera?  Not autoload, thank heavens, but a piece of cake!

Another issue is metering.  The M6 meter is very accurate.  But remember
this is supposed to be a quick-handling, quick-shooting camera.  If you are
shooting slide film in a difficult situation, the M6 meter covers too large
an area for a quick and correct exposure readout--you have to waste time
moving closer for a reading, etc.   We are past the days when everyone used
wide-latitude BW film.  Also, I have done some theater work, for which the M
is perfect because it's so quiet,  and the meter's angle is too wide to
meter someone standing in a spotlight surrounded by darkness.  When every
$300 plastic SLR has a spot meter along with averaging, why not the M6?
(It's my understanding that this was discussed and rejected at the time of
the M6's design).

Now we come to the real bugaboo, autoexposure.  I cannot see a reason why
there couldn't be two M cameras, one, a manual descendent of the M6 with the
problems above addressed, and another with aperture preferred automation.
Why?  It's simple to see, if you have ever used the elegant interface on the
R4, 5, and 7 cameras.  If you need to shoot quickly, know what you are
doing, and want accurate exposures, you can put it in aperture preferred
automation (controlling DOF), switch quickly between averaging and spot
metering (perhaps making a quick spot reading off the gray rock in the sun
that lets you follow the slide film rule "expose for the highlights"), hold
down the shutter release button to lock the exposure, recompose, and make
the picture.  Does this take away control?  Is it some kind of  "idiot's
delight?"  Of course not--you have to know exactly as much as you do to make
a proper exposure with an M6.  But this is much quicker, and at least as
accurate.

I should add that aperture preferred automation would require no changes in
the lenses, since you shoot at working aperture with a RF camera--see the
Minolta CLE.

- ----
>        I do not, in any way, see the Contax G1/G2  type cameras as a
>threat to the M series 

- ----
Well, you had better.  I know several very large dealers, and there is a
definite move toward the Contax--lots of Leica users have changed over, they
tell me.  Just for the record, I don't like the Contax at all--it's a
point-and-shoot, noisy, slow to focus, has a long delay before the shutter
fires, and so on--but the lenses are without a doubt in the Leica M's
league, and it's attractive and luxurious.  It is an excellent travel
camera, hitting one of the M's big markets.  In addition, the rumor mill has
at least one other RF system coming on line, so Leica is not alone any more,
and can no longer coast.

- ----
>and am always left a tad flummoxed when people start
>rattling off wish lists of improvements to be implemented on the "next"
>version of the M body. If only a fraction of these improvements were added,
we'd have a battery dependant shoebox with features that would leave a Nikon
F5 electro-brick thirsty; at which point, IMHO, we would have run out of
reasons for buying a Leica in the first place. Let's not forget that
>Leica M cameras sell very well at their ludicrous prices, so they must be
>doing something right.

- ----
Let's not get carried away.  The automatic camera I mentioned above could
easily be built in a body much like the current M body.  The manual one
could too, of course.  And, again just for the record, I am not in favor of
autofocus--there's really no need, and its noise and shutter delay are not
really compatible with the M's nature (though it would be a simple matter to
build in a focus confirmation light, I think).  

As for batteries--well.  Carry a spare!  Sorry to say this, but in normal
temperatures, electronic cameras are more accurate than manual ones--check
the tests of shutter accuracy if you doubt me.  Electronic cameras are also
more reliable and consistent.  The parallel with cars is quite exact; the
arrival of the computer has made cars incredibly more reliable and has made
their performance much more consistent in varying conditions.  The only
place manual cameras have an edge is in extreme cold, and even there
external battery packs help the electronic ones a lot--there's a reason why
so many pros use Canon EOS-1's and Nikon F4's.

- ----
>        I use them [Leica M's]  because they are built like panzer tanks
with some very fine optics and I know that they will work in any conditions
that I accept to expose myself to. The same cannot be said for the "cutting
edge" wonder bricks.

- ----
It can all be said of the top of the line wonder bricks!  For more on this,
see  Ross' "J'Accuse Leica."

- ----
>        The only "improvement that I would care to see implemented would be
an increase in the flash sync speed. 

- ----
How about TTL flash?  Anyway, to do what you want would require an all-new
shutter, and an electronic one would work better to get the synch speed up
to real-world standards (1/250 or so).

- ----
>Other than that, leave it alone.
>J.Redfern

- ----
I eagerly await the M7 :-) !--Charlie

Charles E. Love, Jr.
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU