
Leica M Camera Timeline - aaronbrethorst
http://www.ishootfilm.org/timelines/leica-m
======
jseliger
I find the way that Fuji in particular and Sony to a lesser extent have
usurped Leica's target market fascinating.

For decades Leica made expensive but advanced cameras suitable for use by pros
in the field. By now, however, people who want small, light, and fine-grained
control in a package similar to the early Leicas look at the Fuji X100S or
X100T
([http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x100s/](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x100s/))
or to a lesser extent something like a Sony RX1:
[http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-
rx1](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1).

Even a Micro Four-Thirds camera like an Olympus EM5
([http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5))
is in some ways more a successor to the great Leica film cameras than the
current Leica digital cameras. As DPR says: "The E-M5 is simply an awful lot
of camera in a compact and attractive body. It's a nice camera to use and the
images it takes are just as enjoyable. Without any reservations whatsoever, it
deserves our Gold Award."

\------------------

 _Edit_ : pesto88 links to his Flickr account in a daughter comment; here is
some of my SFW work:
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/91262622@N02](https://www.flickr.com/photos/91262622@N02).
I'm an amateur and it shows, but I like to think I'm learning. I also mostly
shoot with an EM5 and primes, but the surfeit of great cameras at low prices
makes a lot of discussion around the choices into pointless dissections and
narcissisms of small differences
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences)).

~~~
mattgrice
I don't really think they usurped Leica's market. Leica's market changed a
while back.

Sometime, a decade or more past, Leica became the equivalent of Louis Vuitton
or Rolex. It's a luxury item. Like a LV bag, is still a really well-made tool,
but functionality is only secondary. The actual capabilities are less
important than the ideas of craftsmanship and exclusivity.

~~~
mc32
But it's mot than a luxury item. It's a camera revered by pro and semi pro
photographers because of its history in the hands of some of the preeminent
photographers of the 20th century.

From Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander, Nachtwey, etc.
Lots of up and coming photographers want to imitate the masters of the past
and present and see they use Leicas --so even though photography has changed
to them the manufacturer of choice remains Leica, if they can afford it. So
it's a bit of traditionalism.

~~~
coldtea
> _But it 's mot than a luxury item. It's a camera revered by pro and semi pro
> photographers because of its history in the hands of some of the preeminent
> photographers of the 20th century._

Actually only the _history_ of the camera and the company is revered by pros.
The camera not so much, and hasn't been for at least 2-3 decades.

And the people you describe were mostly "art photographers" and high-end story
photographers for LIFE magazine, NG and such, not the typical (99.99%) of
photojournalists and photographers in the field.

------
jrapdx3
Thanks for pointing this out. I've owned several Leicas, including pre-M
models, IIIc and IIIf. Among M Leica cameras I once had an M-3, and have owned
an M-6 since the 1980's ("Classic" according to the article).

Like many photographers, digital has been the medium for over a decade and
haven't touched film over the last 10 years. When I see reminders like this
article, I'm enticed to get the Leica out of storage. One of these days, I
might even take some pictures with it. I do enjoy using the Leica lenses with
my Olympus EM cameras in manual mode, it's great fun.

I agree with the comments that digital and film are distinct image-making
methods. And because each has its unique esthetics, they really can't be
compared. It's rather like oil vs. acrylic painting, one's not better than the
other, just different, its own thing.

A store in town sells _only_ film equipment, mostly used. I've visited the
place often. One time I asked the owner about his customers thinking they were
of more "mature" vintage like me. However he says most of the interest is
among people under thirty who regard digital as "old hat".

Interesting. It makes sense though, artists still use oil paint (about ~700
year old technology), and egg tempera (>1000 years old), among many processes.
On that basis it's safe to predict film will never die.

Though I'll likely never use it again, I'm glad film is still an option. With
any luck, some day my M6 will again come alive, no doubt held by a
photographer about as old as the camera itself.

~~~
equoid
The difference between film and paint is that with a little skill it is
possible to make your own paints. Film? Not so easy.

Film sales have been in decline for over 10 years. Before that, prices were
subsidised by huge numbers of people who developed one film a year: christmas
trees at each end of the roll, beach balls in the middle. There may be a
vinyl-like resurgence driven by the nostalgic but I tend to doubt it. At some
point film will simply be too expensive to produce. If you want to shoot film
I would suggest you buy what you can and keep it in the fridge against the day
when it is no longer available.

------
devindotcom
Nice!! It's amazing how little the design has changed, really. I like the M4
with its protruding rangefinder. I wrote a thing the other day about the
others that have been adopting the old aesthetic and why it's not just for
looks.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/gadgets/dialing-it-back-
camera-m...](http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/gadgets/dialing-it-back-camera-
makers-prize-retro-35mm-look-n209236)

Also Aaron the inertial scrolling in the timeline feels good.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Thanks, but I can't take any credit for that :) I'm using Timeline.js:
[http://timeline.knightlab.com](http://timeline.knightlab.com)

------
d13
Digital photography is not a replacement for film. It's a different
technology, and a significant number of photographers prefer film for these
reasons: [http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-
film.htm](http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm). The best film
camera Leica ever made was probably the M3, which it produced for 12 years. If
you buy a second-hand M3 today, it will be the best camera you've ever owned
and will last for decades. Leica has had a blinding infatuation with digital
photography, like the rest of us, but has just released its first film camera
in 10 years, the M-A: [http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-
M-A/Det...](http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-A/Details).
It's purely mechanical - no battery, no light meter. They've probably noticed
the glaring gap in the market: the only option for photographers who want good
quality film cameras is to buy them on Ebay. I wonder if this is the first
sign that photography is going to start shifting back to its analogue roots?

~~~
threeseed
I have recently gone back to film. You can get pocketable cameras e.g. Ricoh
GR1s which destroy almost every DSLR made today in the quality of the final
result. Sure the top handful of cameras are better but they are also unwieldy
for say street photography.

I think film will only truly serve no purpose in about 10 or so years once a
few more technologies like Sony's curved sensor come into fruition.

~~~
hnriot
"destroy almost every DSLR made today in the quality of the final result" why
would you say this? The GR1 has a decent enough lens if you are happy with
just one, but 28mm doesn't suit everybody, and f/2.8 is not always very
useful, it does guarantee the lens performs reasonably well wide open though
(it's not a very ambitious lens), but most (full frame) DSLRs have higher
resolution that that camera. You need to use medium format to beat a D810 or
Sony A7r today. I am not saying film isn't great, I shoot film, but it's just
plain wrong to go through life, or try to convince others that your little GR1
can beat a Nikon D810 at anything. You need to use a lot of scanning
technology to eek out much resolution from the 35mm negs, even dynamic range
is better in the FF digital cameras now, and as for ISO performance, film
cannot even dream about keeping up. The A7s can shoot in the dark, by
starlight!!

A hasselblad 500c/m with its 6x6cm negative will have more tonality and even
on a flatbed scanner will have slightly higher resolution that a D810, you'll
need an imacon scanner to really get the full resolution of film.

The biggest challenge with film, besides the poor ISO performance compared to
digital is the cost.

------
tlrobinson
Heh... "[Leica M Edition 60] is also the best example of how Leica has lost
touch with photography, even more so than the M9-P Hermes Edition."

~~~
aaronbrethorst
The M6 Green Bay Packers and Hello Kitty Special Editions were also pretty
heinous:
[http://www.kpraslowicz.com/2009/03/10/special-m6s/](http://www.kpraslowicz.com/2009/03/10/special-m6s/)

~~~
micampe
The post is tagged "satire".

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Ah so it is. Still, M6 special editions like this "Sultan of Brunei" model
definitely exist and are definitely eyesores:
[http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Leica/Leica-M...](http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Leica/Leica-M6/LEICAM6_GoldSultanBrunei/index.htm)

~~~
micampe
While I agree that Leica went off their rails, I don't think that's a good
example, the Sultan of Brunei had a gold plated Mercedes made for him, I think
a few cameras are easier to obtain :)

 _> There are many rich and famous people in the world, but not everyone knows
the art to splurge it. _ [http://www.nairaland.com/1896187/meet-
man-7000-luxurious-car...](http://www.nairaland.com/1896187/meet-
man-7000-luxurious-cars)

He also own 7000 of the most expensive cars and three full size airliners as
private jets. (Posting this just because I found it hilarious. I knew about
the gold plated car and I found this list when looking for a source)

------
kitsune_
What I find interesting about Leica is that there are now multiple independent
companies that share the same name. Leica Camera, Leica Biosystems (rather
new), Leica Geosystems and Leica Microsystems. They have a 'brand-sharing'
agreement.

During the 80's Wild Heerbrugg acquired Leitz (which owned Leica) to form the
Wild Leitz AG (and later part of Leica Holding B.V). For a couple of years,
this was probably one of the global market leaders when it came to optical
instruments. In 1996 Leica Camera AG was sold as far as I can remember. Leica
Geosystems (which is basically a continuation of Wild Heerbrugg) is now part
of Hexagon AB.

------
Schweigi
Interesting to see how many products they release every year. In the beginning
they had a new model once every couple of years but after 2011 up to multiple
each year. I'm wondering if this is just because of the improvements in the
technology or because its expected by press/analysts to release sth at every
major photo trade show and how this effects quality.

------
Tyrant505
It's a shame they seem to be so far behind now digitally..

------
lancewiggs
What Leica are continuing to do well is binoculars. They cost a huge amount
more, but the difference between their products and others is usually gasp-
inducing.

