[Leica] Why M?

["Johnny Deadman" <deadman@jukebox.demon.co.uk>]

I think someone asked this, and as I just bought back into the M-series 
after nearly 10 years away, I thought I'd set out my reason...

Zen.


No, really. That's it.

Every other camera I have ever owned since my original M3 has been more
'sophisticated' and less intuitive. All the automation has got in the way.
Auto-exposure isn't reliable enough for me, so I always second guess the
reading. Every auto camera I have ever owned has ended up permanently set on
manual. Ditto auto focus. Auto wind is noisy and rewinds at the most
inopportune moments. My camera bag swelled. I looked like a 'photographer'
when I least wanted to. I couldn't afford fast enough lenses. Plus the
lenses I could afford were clinical.

I realised that about 80-90% of the pictures I wanted to take could and
should be taken with an M body and a 35/1.4 lens. The only exception are
real close shots with a 24mm or wider which I leave to the T90. I'm looking
for a fast 85/90 for both bodies... we'll see which wins.

The M4-P, a lens and the sekonic is the ultimate portable picture making
machine. It's as near to a point and shoot as I ever want to get. It's
pocketable. And the irony of it is -- this is where the Zen comes in -- is
that this manual, auto-nothing camera, just DISAPPEARS when you use it. Your
brain operates again. Your eyes become light meters. You go back to
hyperfocal technique.

Wow.

I feel like I came home.


- --
Johnny Deadman

"In writing novels and plays, the cardinal rule is to treat one's characters
as if they were chessmen, and not to try to win the game by altering the
rules - for example, by moving the knight as if he were a pawn" - G C
Lichtenberg