I posted Erwin's opus directly on my website forum at www.stevehoffman.tv

Just click on this below link for full article, with pictures!

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19648#post19648

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), February 24, 2002

Answers

Arggh. No, paste this in for the article:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1993

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), February 24, 2002.

Or click here.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), February 24, 2002.

Hi Steve, Thanks for that great article. Do you think we should still wait for kinks to be ironed out before we take the M7 plunge?

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

Well, I hate to be a fence sitter, but some folks argue yes, and some say no.

I will reserve judgement until I can play with one for a little while. I don't really need AP, so for me it's not crucial.

I would wait for a little while to get some actual user reviews.

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), February 24, 2002.

Well, Erwin certainly knows his stuff! A very comprehensive account indeed, I must agree with Putt's comments on the top speed of 1/1000 - this really is fast enough for any camera. Regarding battery dependancy - this shows IMO that Leica MUST continue with the truly mechanical M6 line.

I would take issue with the "spontaneous and carefree" line, those of us with meterless M2/3/4/-2/P's have been working this way for years!

Now we have the real spec. - at last again I feel Leica must be congratulated - they have incorporated AE and the required additional features seamlessly and perfectly into the classic M body (and a good old brass top plate too!) as Putts says without any other silly features as demanded by various people being included.

Well done Leica.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 24, 2002.

From the article:

The Bessa, while delivering the goods for a surprisingly low price, lacks character.

This is the real summary of a well written press release as apposed to an evaluation.

How much is character worth to you? ;o)))

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), February 24, 2002.

Art, I havent't read the article yet. However, to answer your question, I'll just say that for some of us "character" is priceless!

-- Ken Prager (pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), February 24, 2002.

So, does anyone know when is the M7 will be out for sale? How much $$$? Thanks!

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), February 24, 2002.

Ken:

Let me make one thing perfectly clear [who said that?]. I have a bit of Leica equipment. I have been using their equipment since 1960. I love their lenses.

I was talking about the article. Read in a certain way it could be considered satire. Whoa; why you don't need a shutter speed over 1/1000.

I just think that the article was not only poor but silly.

nuff said. ;o)))

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), February 24, 2002.

Someone on my www.stevehoffman.tv site who read Erwin's report has a question:

"This all made sense (I used to sell Leicas in the 70s) except for the High Speed Synchronization capability. How does the strobe provide constant illumination during the entire 1/48 second when the shutter curtains are traveling across the file plane?"

Thanks!

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), February 24, 2002.

Erwin's opus is very impressive and will undoubtedly sway me towards an early purchase.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), February 24, 2002.

> How does the strobe provide constant illumination during the entire 1/48 second when the shutter curtains are traveling across the file plane?"

Several flash during travel, like in Canon, Olympus, Nikon systems.

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 24, 2002.

Start quote: "The new Leica M7: one step closer to perfection.

By Erwin Puts" End quote

I don't think so! Now I really believe Erwin is on the payroll. I sent him an email the other day for some advise. He replied in 5 words. No matter how busy he is or what the question was, I think that five words is an insult and I would have been happier if he hadn't replied. ......well at least he did?!??

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

> How does the strobe provide constant illumination during the entire 1/48 second when the shutter curtains are traveling across the file plane?"

Obviously 1/48th (or 1/50th if you prefer) is the fastest speed when the entire frame area is uncovered during the passage of the curtains. Accept no other answer!

For the high speed sync, the strobe answer given above is correct.

BTW, with the welcome return of a brass top plate does this mean that black paint will also return? Let us hope so.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), February 24, 2002.

What are Leica doing with their money? If they don't release any new decent lenses i'll be dissapointed. With today's technology advancing at such an alarming rate it seems that leica is truly living in the 80's. I think that if Leica can't do it properly, don't do it at all.

All Erwin's article details are excuses for Leica's inability to fulfill the wishes of the Leica market. Sure it took Nikon a few years to make the FM3a, but they did it. And I am sure that if they couldn't work it out they wouldn't have released a half-dud camera like the M7. I personally had enough of hoping for a decent update to the M6. This has actually made me feel more appreciative now. If the M7 is priced higher than the M6, it will be a joke. If Leica discontinues the M6, it will be a marketing descision regretted for the little time that Leica will have left.

They should have just badged a Hexar and called it their own.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

Kristian,

What do you know about the the wishes of the Leica market ?

Speek for yourself, please.

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 24, 2002.

"If they don't release any new decent lenses i'll be dissapointed."

?? Kristian, where have you been for the past 10 years. Here is the list of new lenses (M only) Leica has released, not even including the new R lenses. I'm only including lenses w/ new optical formulas. 35/1.4 Aspherical 35/1.4 ASPH (slightly different design) 50/2.8 collapsible 35/2.0 ASPH 24/2.8 ASPH 21/2.8 ASPH 135/3.4 Apo-Telyt 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar ASPH 90/2.0 Apo-ASPH [you can also count the 50/3.5 Anastigmat with the 0-series]

This is a pretty good record from a small company with limited R & D resources. If you need more new lenses, you'll have to go to Nikon or Canon. But give credit where credit is due. Your comment doesn't make sense to me.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 24, 2002.

it wasn't clear how exposure compensation is implemented. it sounded as if the film speed dial also serves as a compensation control of +/- 2 stops in 1/3 increments? it seems a slow implementation without some form of indication in the viewfinder. this is the beauty of Canon's thumbwheel on the back. wondering?

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 24, 2002.

I left out two other new lenses in the last 10 years: 28/2.8 Elmarit and 28/2.0 Summicron-ASPH. Kristian you do NOT speak for me and I suspect most other users of this forum with your comments.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 24, 2002.

Kristian "If they don't release any new decent lenses i'll be dissapointed." This makes you sound like Leica don't make any decent lenses for the M. What on earth do you think we need that would help Leica catch up with other manufacturers?

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), February 24, 2002.

Here.

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 24, 2002.

"If the M7 is priced higher than the M6, it will be a joke."

Dealers are taking orders for about $2400 US.

"They should have just badged a Hexar and called it their own."

Got that right.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

> it wasn't clear how exposure compensation is implemented. it sounded as if the film speed dial also serves as a compensation control of +/- 2 stops in 1/3 increments?

> it seems a slow implementation without some form of indication in the viewfinder.

There is a reminder in the finder.

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 24, 2002.

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 24, 2002.

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 24, 2002.

"What do you know about the the wishes of the Leica market ?"

Well, this is certainly an antagonistic remark, especially since most of the speculation, wishful thinking and rumor mongering that goes on here and on other Leica lists is not much better than some kind of Leica Executives Rotisserie League.

I must, however, agree with the subtext of this nasty crack. Since many people here are jumping for joy over the trivial "improvements" of the M7 and, apparently, dealers are heavily subscribed with advance orders for the new camera, Leica certainly must realize that its core user base will be satisfied with very litttle.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

thank you Lucien. mystery solved.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 24, 2002.

I think the lack of shutter delay (on a par with m6) seperates the m7 entirely from the konica (and indeed the G2) and is absolutely crucial to the type of photography that the m is best suited for. I hope Leica can get this quite subtle point accross in marketing. The article seems to say that the m7 will go for more than the m6 and from what I've read elsewhere the m6ttl production will continue for at least a time (this may be false rumouring). To anyone who rates the fm3a highly - have you used one? Plasticky and very noisy were what I thought. I'd rather have an fm2. My only real worry was about the shutter being built to last til 2101 comment in the article - can't help wondering how easy it'll be to get hold of tri-x by then...

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), February 24, 2002.

Lucien - couldn't you make that picture a bit bigger!!!

:)

Some of the comments by others (esp. Kristian) are ridiculous.

We love the Leica M because of the way it is made and works - Leica have to walk an extremely careful path in upgrading it. Many of these comments have been made with zero understanding of Leitz's history and evolution. The M7 is a HUGE step forward in the M line, arguably the biggest step since the move from the IIIG to the M3 in the 1950's.

If you are not satisfied with the choice between the M6 and M7 then the M line is not for you - go follow the sheep and buy into another camera system.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 24, 2002.

Well. Here it is. Thanks to to all.

I read Erwin's article and was impressed. There is an M7 in my future. It's exactly the Leica that I wanted. Yes, 1/4000 or 1/2000 or even 1/1500 would have been a nice bonus, but there are two things that are far more important to me as a street photographer: that the M7 is very quiet and very fast with minimal time lag. I am also happy that it has a reasonable OFF switch.

The M7 is a minimalist automatic rangefinder camera. Finally the CLE has been surpassed. Quick response shutter release, quiet shutter, an M finder and motor/Rapidwinder capabilities. Rangefinder photography is minimalist photography and the M7 is the finest camera ever made for it.

Do the Bessas lack character? No. They approach minimalism from a different angle. The Leica M camera is a Rolls-Royce. The Bessa camera is a Yugo. The shutter release, while not as smooth as Leica's, is plenty fast. The Bessa L is a true minimalist camera and ought to be upgraded to at least accept the Triggerwinder. It still remains my favorite of the lot. I love my Bessa T but after less than a year it is going to have to go to Cosina for service--I'm getting at least two frames getting rammed together per roll--what my old M6 did before it froze. My main complaint about the Bessa series is the LOUUUUD shutter.

If Leica came out with a Bessa L style camera I would be mighty pleased. If you can love the O you can certainly love a finderless Leica M with a meter.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 24, 2002.

I use a Hexar RF, but before buying it also tried out the M6 int the store.

I'm not sure why people harp on the shutter delay issue. As far as I can tell, the shutter delay on a Hexar RF is for all practical purposes just not there. You hit the button, the camera fires.

As for the M7, it's nice to see that Leica can put out a camra that would be old fashioned if released in 1980 and still convince the faithful that they are innovating.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

Leica should maybe apologize because they didn't came with a Konica, Cosina or Contax.

;-)

Sorry folks, it's only a real Leica.

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 24, 2002.

This feels like the transition between the (N****) F2 and F3. Funny, even the exp. compensation is similiar between the M7 and F3! I wish that I could do 1/60th and 1/125th without batteries. As for the FM3a, how would you like it if Leica stuffed a vertically- traveling shutter into a taller(out of necessity) and more "budget" oriented body? Not too appealing, I'd think. Companies like this and Ferrari are like children- they GROW. I think kid Leica is doing great.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), February 24, 2002.

"As for the M7, it's nice to see that Leica can put out a camra that would be old fashioned if released in 1980 and still convince the faithful that they are innovating."

Please see my earlier post. Don't you understand? - the reason people buy and enjoy Leica's is bacause of what they are and the way they are made and function.

A Leica like a Rolls Royce is DIFFERENT - sure it is 'old fashioned' to have a cloth shutter and mechanical components, just like hand stitched leather seats, a walnut dash and a 100 man-hour brazed radiator is old fashioned - but these things are appreciated by many of us.

Again as I say above if you are not happy with the M6 or M7 there are plenty of perfectly ordinary and satisfactory alternative cameras on the market.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 24, 2002.

Erwin Puts sets forth the holy grail in LeicaLand. I am impressed. I can't wait to hear this shutter. It is a true Leica M and I will buy one, eventually.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 24, 2002.

"Please see my earlier post. Don't you understand? - the reason people buy and enjoy Leica's is bacause of what they are and the way they are made and function."

To paraphrase another local cheerleader, what do you know of the reasons why people buy and enjoy Leicas.

Speak for yourself. Your reasons don't sound *at all* like mine, yet I too am not fond of the RF alternatives.

To my Leica-using eyes, the M7 is no big deal. I'm sure you'll love yours.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

Good news about Leica M7 is that it offers Leica users an alternative with different finder choices and a set of new features. Still I think Konica RF offers better total solution. I am more confident to use a Konica RF to be ready for next shot concerning about the easy of film loading with built-in motor driver in a semi dark area. I cannot tell the shutter lag difference between my M6 and a Konina RF.

-- kenny chiu (gokudo31@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

One of the interesting things Erwin said in his M7 write-up perhaps explains why Leica has been reluctant to make more changes in the M- line. That is their experience with the M5 (1971-1975), which was a major shift in terms of the body style and features (with built-in spotmeter and shutter speed indicator in the VF) when it was introduced in 1971. This camera was technologically au current, but was a commercial failure.

Apparently, this experience has remained with the Leica execs. They are reluctant to make major changes in either the camera size or essentially operating features that might make the M7 seem "foreign" to estalished Leica M users. Undoubtedly, the addition of a lot of new features would necessitate a taller or thicker body, which would give some users pause.

For me, the soft shutter, all metal construction, and high quality lenses are the reason I use Leica. Their M cameras may not be state- of-the-art, but in terms of optical quality, their M lenses certainly are. I could be just as critical as Nikon, Canon et al. for "wasting" most of their much more considerable R & D resources on extending the range of zoom lenses (now 24-85 or 90 is becoming the norm and 100-400 may replace 100-300) that don't interest me.

Lucien. Thanks for the pictures. Now we know for sure that the M7 has exposure compensation.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 24, 2002.

Kristian- I am sorry that you were put off by Erwin's "five word response" to your question. How silly!! Did you ever think that your initial question merited more than five words??? I can tell you now that tonight's diatribe doesn't even merit one word in response.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), February 24, 2002.

"Companies like this and Ferrari are like children- they GROW. I think kid Leica is doing great.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), February 24, 2002."

"A Leica like a Rolls Royce is DIFFERENT - sure it is 'old fashioned' to have a cloth shutter and mechanical components, just like hand stitched leather seats, a walnut dash and a 100 man-hour brazed radiator is old fashioned - but these things are appreciated by many of us.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 24, 2002."

Ahh. Rolls Royce and Ferrari. Two storied marques, just like Leica. Two marques that have had great tradition, and great traditional craftsmanship, just like Leica. Two marques who failed to adapt to the times and ended up gobbled up by major conglomerates who had more of a clue as to making money. I see a pattern... Nick

-- Nick Ragovis (sellaturcica2002@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

For those who are worried about the demise of the all mechnaical shutter Leica, I'd say that by now the issue is moot. They may well stop producing the M6TTL in the near future, but there are enough M6s and M6TTLs made that you can always buy a used one.

One of the things about Leicas is that despite some lapses in quality control, these cameras rarely die and can nearly always be brought back to specs with a CLA. This is probably more true of M Leicas than any other camera brand: witness how many M2-M3-M4s are still in use. Anyone who wants a mechanical Leica will always be able to get one; and there are quite a few competent repair facilities outside of the factory itself.

I don't think any other manufacturer can match Leica's record in this regard.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 24, 2002.

Steve: Thanks for posting the article on your website. It's much appreciated!

Art: Thanks for the clarification, I understand your viewpoint now. I've readan awful lot of "Leica bashing" on this site lately and I suppose I jumped to conclusions.

Kristian: If you don't like the M7, you obviously don't need to buy one. However, for many other photographers the addition of AE is an improvement they've long waited for. Therefore, I congratulate Leica for introducing this new model, regardless if I ever buy one for myself or not.

Kristian and Robert: If you're happier with the Hexar RF that's great! I looked at one myself and gave it serious consideration, but bought an M6TTL instead. The Leica's shutter, viewfinder and build quality were worth the difference in cost to me. I suppose it's the notion that "there's no substitute for quality" and the Leica's got the quality!

-- Ken Prager (pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), February 24, 2002.

Lucien: I forgot to thank you for your informative contributions to this post!

-- (pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), February 24, 2002.

Some things are not clear from Puts' report.

Is the shutter actually quieter at all speeds? Or is it just that the clockwork whirring and clicking at slow speeds is now absent?

How does AE work, in practice, in combination with the large spot metering pattern? All of us instinctively adjust the metering area we want when we set exposure manually in the M6. Obviously, this procedure would defeat the purpose of the AE ,which is speed, and there appears to be no simple 1-press-of-the-button AE lock.

I am wondering if the AE actually leads to less consistent exposures on a roll of shots. One would expect that it would...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 24, 2002.

Mani. The M7 does contain an AE lock feature that allows you to meter and then recompose.

I also noted in Lucien's photo the DX coding setting on the ISO wheel that also allows manual override and setting of any ISO. This is a nice feature since you can just leave it set on DX most of the time. I'm probably not the only person who has used an all manual Leica with the wrong ISO setting for the lightmeter (eg., 400 instead of 100). Only to later discover I grossly mal-exposed an entire role of film.

That coupled with the 1/3 step exposure compensation and the nearly stepless shutter speeds available in AE should allow, if anything, more accurate exposures, provided you exercise care in what you aim the meter at.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 25, 2002.

Dealers are taking orders for about $2400 US

Wow. I pay 2.79 CDN for a roll of Agfa APX 400. That's approximately 1.90 USD per roll. So 2400/1.90 = 1263 rolls of film or 45473 frames.

Hmmm...

...nope, I don't see a M7 in my immediate future.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

Alright I'll admit it.......I was a bit harsh. Just a little dissapointed. True, Leica doesn't really need any new lenses, except for the convenience of a zoom if that is possible. I should be the last to complain as I love my leica and should just shut up and shoot. Who knows i'll probably end up with an M7 one day. It's just that i don't have the money for an M7 now, or I'd probably be putting my order in now. Just call me "Mr.Contradiction".

Bagging the new M7 just makes me feel better, realising I couldn't buy one even if I convinced myself it was good anyway. Good luck to those early adopters who take the plunge. Sorry to those who may have felt insulted by my remarks. But I still think Leica could've done better. Why will remain a mystery.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

Kristian.

Not really a mystery, you just have to take the time to understand them a bit. A look back would help.

For the subject under discussion, their latest 35mm RF camera, other than having the first commercially successful 35mm camera to enter series production, they have not been innovative by any stretch of the imagination. That was not true almost 80 years ago, and its not true today.

They appear to have striven however, to produce the finest RF bodies and lenses possible and remain economically viable. I'm not privy to their mission statement in that regard, but I suspect that relative to cameras, it contains words to that effect.

Examples of what it doesn't appear to contain are the wish to make more production than anyone else, and to be on the leading edge of innovation in the field. If you would use no other objective metric than the current number of Leica bulletin boards devoted to this product, coupled with the subjective amount of passion you'll witness therein, it may go a long way in convincing most folk they have been successful.

Having that drive to remain the best at what they do in this area, carries with it some penalties. Among them are that they will never be a large camera company. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc., will continue to produce more cameras before lunch on any production day than Leica makes all year.

That means that their direct production costs, along with R&D, marketing, and other indirect expenses will yield an expensive product that ends with a limited market due to unit cost. No different than any expensive tool made with the degree of precision they strive for.

It also means that any new models must be carefully thought out and be evolutionary in nature. That they have survived along with accumulating a rather devoted following, would seem to indicate some measure of success in that regard, using that as a guiding principle.

Therefore it appears that they have taken the next logical step in the M7 model, providing an AE and DX capability (neither of which by the way it appears one has to use if they don't want to), along with the greater accuracy of an electronic shutter with expanded speeds. Even for Leica, thats a pretty big step, albeit one with proven (20+ year old) technology.

By striving to make the best they can, they have been rewarded with a loyal and faithful following throughout the world. They in turn, with each evolution have rewarded those users with a type of loyalty not often seen. I could take the first RF coupled LTM lens if I had it, and mount it on new M7. The same goes for many of the accessories they have made along the way. What other manufacturers of items almost 50 years old that consist of moving parts, have service and parts in house for the user? It must be a small list indeed.

I read the commentary that says "....its not enough", "I want a manual camera", etc. To the first I would comment that it would be even more prohibitively expensive than they are now, they don't possess the R&D to accomplish it, and its not what their core market wants. All these would combine to be an unacceptable risk to their survival. And survival is what they and their customers want.

To the second I would reply with a series of questions. Why does AE bother you? Simply switch it off. Is it the battery dependence that bothers you? Why, do you leave the batteries out of your M6 when you shoot? Don't you carry an extra set? With a $2,000+ body are batteries too expensive? When is the last time your meter failed for other than batteries? If you're a pro whose livilyhood depends on getting the shot when on assignment, don't you carry a second body? After all, the vast majority of pros shoot with cameras that are battery dependent.

If this troubles you then don't buy one. I would submit that there are about one and a half million M bodies out there that will remain servicable for a few decades and come to the market regularly.

All that said I have some concerns with the new M7. Primarily the downstream availability of electronic circuit boards both the M6 and M7 require. Electronics fail now and then. I suspect these pieces are subcontracted as tooling to mass produce them is expensive to the degree that Leica probably hasn't the means to invest in them. That casts a potential cloud down the road.

I probably won't buy one, at least not right away. I simply can't rationalize the gain to me right now, other than those occasions where the speed afforded by AE would come in handy. Someday though, when the itch and the bonus check cross paths, I may scratch it.

When that time comes, I'll be comforted with knowing that a goodly portion of the cost will be taken up by selling one of my older Ms. A much larger percentage than I could expect than if I owned the body made by another 35mm manufacturer.

I have to thank Leitz/Leica for making that possible. I hope that tradition continues.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 25, 2002.

Robert - "To paraphrase another local cheerleader, what do you know of the reasons why people buy and enjoy Leicas."

"Speak for yourself. Your reasons don't sound *at all* like mine, yet I too am not fond of the RF alternatives."

Why do you use a Leica if not for the way it is made and functions? - ie, mechanical, manual, high accuracy RF, quality feel, ergonomics (and obviously access to Leica 'glass') etc, etc. Are your reasons *really* not *at all* some of these?

"Ahh. Rolls Royce and Ferrari. Two storied marques, just like Leica. Two marques that have had great tradition, and great traditional craftsmanship, just like Leica. Two marques who failed to adapt to the times and ended up gobbled up by major conglomerates who had more of a clue as to making money. I see a pattern... Nick"

Leica was until the 80's a family owned firm, like Rolls Royce, Ferrari etc it too is now owned by a large parent company. BUT all these 'old fashioned' makers STILL make cars (or Leica's) in the traditional (less automated) way regardless of who owns them.

Rolls Royces are not Toyota Corrolla's.

Leica's are not Canon Sureshot's.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 25, 2002.

> All that said I have some concerns with the new M7. Primarily the downstream availability of electronic circuit boards both the M6 and M7 require. <>. >I suspect these pieces are subcontracted as tooling to mass produce them is expensive to the degree that Leica probably hasn't the means to invest in them.

Leica is making himself the complete electronic circuit boards for both the M6TTL and M7. Then their are all controlled electronically and visually.

Lucien

-- Lucien (Lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 25, 2002.

My answer an insult?? THis isn what Kristian asked.

> Hi Erwin, you have helped me once before and I now need your help once more. > I am about to purchase a Lux 35 and would like to know the actual weight of > the black version. Is it 250g or 310? And is there a noticeable weight > difference between the black and chrome in the field? Thanks in advance > > Kristian > > Here is my answer; more than 5 words, and I believe I could not add more to it. *** 250 grams. Yes it is, the chrome one feels and is much hevier.

Erwin

-- Erwin Puts (imxputs@ision.nl), February 25, 2002.

Giles: the IIIg was introduced in 1957, a charming anachronism three years after the M3, so the big jump was from the IIIf...............

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), February 25, 2002.

Here is Erwin's report with all the pictures.

-- Lucien (Lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 25, 2002.

Here's a bizarre piece of ErwinSpeak:

" While there certainly is sometimes the need for speeds faster than 1/1000, we should note that with ISO100 film and a blazing sun, we need 1/1000 and f/5.6 for a correct exposure. That will do for most situations and subjects. If you wish to use a narrow depth of field that you get when using f/2.8 or f/2.0, even 1/4000 will not be of much help."

I think 1/1000 at f5.6 and 1/4000 at f2.8 give the same exposure value. Can someone clarify how 1/4000 would not be of much help? It seems to me that it would be quite useful if (as I often do) you want to narrow depth of field under bright conditions.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), February 25, 2002.

David, my apologies - you are absolutely correct.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 25, 2002.

Erwin,

I am glad you are on this forum, because I'd like you to know that was one of the worst product reviews I have ever read. Pompous, inaccurate, irrelevant and condescending. It is a shame as you are obviously knowledgeable and have reseached the article thoroughly (like most of your life :). For me it kind of captured all that is bad about the mythos Leica. It's a tool, not a religion!

A more objective review would would have done your effort and Leica's more justice.

"M3 cameras from 1954 are still functioning perfectly after more than 50 years of use."

- Duhh..LMAO...getting a bit ahead of ourselves here Erwin!!

"...the silent, slow moving, vibration free horizontally running cloth shutter."

- Since when was the Leica shutter silent? It sounds cool, but my M2 is much noisier than my Rolleflex. About the same as my EOS 50 just to me a nicer sound.

"This speed must be forced to zero and compares to the force of a car crashing into a wall with 70km/hour."

-Except the mass is a little less, so actually ..no.

"Presumably the engineers had no idea how difficult this simple decision would be in the real world of engineering mechanics and electronics. The M7 was targeted for Photokina 2000, but marketing wishes have no precedence over sound engineering requirements."

- I didn't realize Leica had an engineering staff large enough to completely separate design engineers from production engineers. Both of your statements sound seriously detached from reality, and an insult to Leica's excellent engineers.

"we should note that with ISO100 film and a blazing sun, we need 1/1000 and f/5.6 for a correct exposure. That will do for most situations and subjects. If you wish to use a narrow depth of field that you get when using f/2.8 or f/2.0, even 1/4000 will not be of much help."

- Duhh...1/1000@f5.6 = 1/4000@f2.8

"Take pictures with an M6 and then switch to Konica Hexar RF or Contax G2. You will have a long period of adjustment and a steep learning curve to change your way of picture taking."

- Not crediting your readers with much intelligence are we? Hands up how many Leica owners also have an AF SLR, maybe some MF cameras.

"The Hexar RF......The lineup of lenses is small...)"

- Yep, exactly the same size as the pool of lenses which fit the M7. Big advantage for the M7?

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), February 25, 2002.

Giles wrote: "Why do you use a Leica if not for the way it is made and functions? - ie, mechanical, manual, high accuracy RF, quality feel, ergonomics (and obviously access to Leica 'glass') etc, etc. Are your reasons *really* not *at all* some of these?"

Well, you changed the terms a bit. Initially you said "the reason people buy and enjoy Leica's is bacause of what they are and the way they are made and function."

I don't want to be tossed into that stew because I don't particularly care about the historic "what they are" silliness and my only concern about the way they are made is that for the financial outlay involved they should be made better than most other cameras. From my experience this has been true, though I do wonder why my Leicas have been serviced more than any other cameras I've ever owned. In the past you have expressed great appreciation for brass top plates, script engraving, nubbly vulcanite, self timers. I could not care less about that nonsense. I would honestly like my M6's better if they were entirely black, unmarked, rubberized lumps.

So, the common ground becomes function. I use Leica M's because of the way they work -- bright, accurate rangefinder; relatively quiet shutter; small, inconspicuous, unintimidating size and (once blacked out) appearance.

Since I don't get all misty eyed over these photographic tools, I wish Leica had figured out a way to put a little more into their electronic M. I'm certainly in line with those who say 1/4000 top shutter speed would be more than a trivial improvement. I don't shoot ISO 100 film as a general rule. I shoot ISO 400 black & white film, at either EI 400 or 800, as my default. In bright sun I could shoot at EI 800 at 1/4000 at f/5.6 as opposed to something like 1/1000 at f/11 or 1/500 at f/16 -- stopped down more than I desire. To be able to move effortlessly from a normally lit interior to bright daylight with fast film would be a plus for me and, I suspect, for other photographers doing handheld candid work with their Leicas.

Nobody has commented that it looks like Leica returned to a solid metal, engraved shutter speed dial on the M7. Ah, tradition. Maybe that alone is worth the higher price. . . .

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

Wow! Looks impressive, even if I don't care for built in meters, automatic or otherwise. The ability to do daylight fill flash at above 1/50th is enticing. Provided, of course, that the flash can easily be used off camera!

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), February 25, 2002.

Robert, without the benefit of a direct conversation our words are open to interpretation. You have interperated them differently to the way they were meant.

"..historic "what they are" silliness.." By 'what they are' I meant the way they work - you will acknowledge that they do not work the same way as many other cameras, I was not referring to the historical aspect of what Leitz stand for.

I said -"..what they are and the way they are made and function"

You said - "I use Leica M's because of the way they work -- bright, accurate rangefinder; relatively quiet shutter; small, inconspicuous, unintimidating size and (once blacked out) appearance."

Robert, what you have said above is EXACTLY what I meant - the way they are made and function!!! Sorry it should offend you that I suggested we all use Leica's for these reasons but you seem to have accepted that you do too (just like the rest of us mere mortals).

You seem to have a remarkable memory for my previous postings but you also seem have a remarkable ability to contradict yourself.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 25, 2002.

Plus: Metered manual, brass cover, shutter improved mechanically

Minus: Continuous metering, battery dependent (no mechanical back-up)

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), February 25, 2002.

Denise [Atrium #8], 2/25/02

I sincerely hope the M7 isn't the demise of Leica. Why not an M6 AE, and an all-electronic wonder--an F100--w/M mount? The further Leica gets behind technologically, the more people will just sigh deeply and go somewhere else. I love my R8 for the Summicrons and their gorgeous bokeh, but I’m not so sure I couldn't do just as well with a couple of older, classic, MF Nikkors on my F100.

I recently wanted to add a 135mm lens to my outfit. I had the choice of a 135 Elmarit-R used for $550 or a 135mm f/3.5 AI-S Nikkor in 10- condition for $125. I went with the latter. The Elmarit would have only been about $200 less than a used 135mm f/2D DC AF Nikkor. The AI-S is a classic, very sharp, not overcorrected, with beautiful bokeh. And CHEAP. And the F100 is a superb camera, probably the best Nikon I've owned in 40 years of shooting Nikons.

I don't know. I really am shaking my head here. As much as I love the old Leicas, they are really becoming an item for dilettantes, collectors and anti-technology die-hards.

And I’m not talking just theory here. I actually shoot with my cameras, nearly every day. I did a shoot with my wife yesterday, for example, in the lobby/atrium of a local hotel. F100, 3 lenses (18, 35, 135), Aperture Priority, Portra 800 film. First, the whole outfit cost about $2300, less than an M7 body. Second, two of the lenses were autofocus so I could do follow- focus shots. Third, I had an 1/8000 second speed to handle the ISO 800 film in brighter light. Fourth, I could select Matrix or spot metering to suit the condition. Fifth, I had a motor. Sixth, the camera was fast, responsive, handled like a dream. Seventh, a similar array of lenses for an M would have cost (very ballpark) about $4500 used, making it about $7000 for the entire 3-lens outfit, or about 3 times the cost of the Nikon outfit. Eighth, I had focus confirmation in the VF for the MF lens. Ninth, the 35mm lens focused to under 1 foot, so I could do a few dramatic close-ups. Tenth, I could frame with absolute accuracy, with a big, bright VF, thus assuring perfect juxtaposition of background and foreground elements.

Eleventh, the negs came out perfect.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 25, 2002.

I think it would be nice to see more postings by Erwin, undoubtedly one of the top authorities (in the world) on Leica optics and cameras. I mean, it would seem to make perfect sense; this being a Leica forum. But from reading a couple responses above, however, I kind of doubt we will ever see him again. Whatever happened to a seemingly little-known concept around here called "graciousness"? It seems to have flown right out the door!

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), February 25, 2002.

Tony is absolutely correct. This thread seems to have attracted flamers with nothing constructive to add. Several posts devoted exclusively to bashing Erwin, including posts by people I have never seen here before. It doesn't take much courage to lay in wait and then pounce on someone whose views you don't like. Or maybe some of these people are just trying to discourage others like Erwin from contributing.

i personally found Erwin's review of the M7 to be very useful. And it cost me nothing to read. There is no other single source that provides as much information on this model. If you don't like it you can comment graciously.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 25, 2002.

According to my calculations, the curtain speed is about 6m/s, not 72km/s.

-- Robin Barnsley (rb@jet.uk), February 25, 2002.

According to my calculations, the curtain speed is about 6m/s, not 72km/s.

-- Robin Barnsley (rb@jet.uk), February 25, 2002.

Even after (accidentally) posting twice as usual, I mistyped. Curtain speed is 6km/hour not ~70km/kr as claimed by Erwin

-- Robin Barnsley (Oxford, England) (rb@jet.uk), February 25, 2002.

Well if I was paid by and looked after by Leica I too would be one of the great know it all's. Another email I asked Erwin if i could get a copy of his book and he never replied. Erwin is just a public figure for Leica who potnetial consumers can relate too in order to persuade purchases. I'll decide for myself and listen to other noon-paid users before i seek advice from Erwin again. And he'd be pleased with that too.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

Just kidding. I've been moody lately and on a role. I actually think that Erwin is a great ambassdor for Leica and I always find his information useful, though sometimes a little difficult to understand. I guess he was just busy when i emailed him, and what more could he really say to such a simple and silly question. No hard feelings Erwin. Keep up the good work.

-- kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

Why not bash a man who spouts a lot of numbers but can't even do simple math correctly?

"The speed of the shutter curtains then is 2 meter/second or 72 km/hour."

2 meters per second times 3600 (the number of seconds in an hour) equals 7200 meters, or 7.2 kilometers per hour. Erwin is off by a factor of ten. His remarks about high shutter speeds, where he couldn't figure out that 1/1000 at f5.6 equals 1/4000 at f2.8 have been noted. These are simply the things that we can see are wrong because we can do the math. Who knows how much other bullshit he has thrown in when talking about mechanical tolerances, CNC machines, shutter release lag, etc. How many other decimal places have been moved around? How many other numbers have been fudged or ignored? It's not a personal attack or a flame. I don't really care if his tone is arrogant or not. He has his facts wrong, at least the ones that we can check, so why believe anything he has to say about the stuff you can't check? Think of him not as a world-renowned Leica guru but as a journalist, and you realize what he has written is trash. It isn't credible.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), February 26, 2002.

"He has his facts wrong, at least the ones that we can check, so why believe anything he has to say about the stuff you can't check? Think of him not as a world-renowned Leica guru but as a journalist, and you realize what he has written is trash. It isn't credible" -- Masatoshi Yamamoto

A perfect summary of what motivated me to write me previous post.

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), February 26, 2002.

You are correct about the shutter curtain speed; it is 7.2 km/hour, not 72 km/hour. I do acknowledge it and can only say that my calculator said 7,200,00000 and I overlooked one decimal. My fault. This quite obvious error gives some people the excuse they need to discredit my report.

-- Erwin Puts (imxputs@ision.nl), February 26, 2002.

I have but one thing to say to Masatoshi Yamamoto and Mark Wrathall: Just stop. You're making fools of yourselves.

Welcome to our list, Erwin. This thread is not typical (yet) of the normally mature and tactful way in which we talk to one another.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), February 26, 2002.

Yes, Erwin. We hope you will post more frequently here. I for one happen to think your reviews are very well thought out and, for the most part, agree with my own experience. I suspect most people who contribute regularly and are thinking of buying a particular Leica or CV lens will read your review first and incorporate it into their decision-making process. Unfortunately, it is the flamers who tend to be most visible on websites. They don't speak for me; and I suspect they don't speak for most of us.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 26, 2002.

Erwin, sorry you had to get flamed during a rare episode of ill- temper on this forum. We usually disagree a bit more agreeably :-)

Hope you find reasons to drop by again!

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 26, 2002.

There is something so deliciously pompous about Erwin and so astonshingly thin-skinned that it's really difficult to stop oneself from posting something just to needle him. Makes me feel like I'm in school again, annoying a grumpy, puffed-up, utterly humourless, know-it-all teacher! Ah, happy days.

By the way, has anyone ever seen any of Erwin's photos? Those on which all this exhaustive scientific research is based?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), February 26, 2002.

Tony, I agree with your comments completely! All the bashing is uncalled for and it's also lacking in basic human dignity.

Erwin, I hope you'll visit this forum again! I enjoyed reading your report on the M7, as I have numerous other reports you've written in the past. I admire your dedication to the world of Leica!

-- Ken Prager (pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), February 26, 2002.

Mr. Goodwin, here's the problem. You're continuing an attack on a person who is respected in this field. I've made the point here that it is unacceptable on this forum. You're blantantly breaking the rule, in effect saying, "Screw you, Tony!" You're also grandstanding, which only makes you look like a coward who hides behind a keyboard. What is it that you hope to accomplish besides making me lose valuable contributions to my forum? Don't be a jerk. If you disagree with Erwin's report, tell us where you disagree with it and maybe why. If not, fine. But stop the nonsense, OK?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), February 27, 2002.

Bravo Tony.

-- Ronald Wills (youngdeer@earthlink.net), February 27, 2002.

Tony, well said!!

Fair critique and challenge are great in any forum, but casual vituperation is not. Erwins points may well be open to challenge and contradiction, but he is not fair game for personal abuse and slander.

Besides, I don't see that any one of these self appointed Erwin bashers has produced Leica Pages and review material even remotely as comprehensive as what Erwin has. Easy to criticise when the only work you do is to dash off a few abusive lines on LUSENET.

Tony, why not delete these angry and unhappy posts, quickly, before they poison the atmosphere? Leaving them around for a week or so surely changes the mood and character of this forum. This used to be a pretty civil and happy place...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 27, 2002.

Tony, you are correct to take a position against the sarcastic tone of my first post. I should have considered my arguments and presented them maturely the first time. The Forum shouldn’t descend into flame wars.

Are we still allowed to strongly disagree?

Erwin, I felt I was reading an infomercial. I sincerely felt this review does you no credit. I recognized your efforts and knowledge in my first post.

You have a well founded reputation as being a authority on Leica's, but such blind devotion to Leica as this essay showed risks your credibility. You can't be both an independent reviewer and the marketing department at the same time. I would like to suggest Phil Askey’s reviews on DPreview as an example of objective journalism.

If the M7 is a worthy product, it must stand on it's own strengths. The Leica M is a design which heavily compromises many area’s of functionality, to optimize a few others. Anyone who uses one accepts this trade off. To sell it’s limitations as features benefits no one, but is the source of the Leica Religion.

To me the piece that did the most damage to your credibility was the paragraph justifying the M7's 1/1000 top shutter speed. You had already given a thorough technical justification for it. It is clearly a compromise driven by technical decisions, to then justify that by indicating that 1/4000 is really needed, denies one of the true strengths of Leica, fast lenses, sharp wide open, with excellent Bokeh.

Another example was the statement devaluing the Hexar RF for it’s small line-up of lenses, when the M mount is the reason for it’s existence.

The incorrect facts I jumped on, (more than 50 years use of a 1954 camera, the shutter curtain velocity, the relationship of 1/1000@5.6 to 1/4000@2.8), were easy targets, which you should have caught during your proof reading.

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), February 27, 2002.

Good points, Mark!

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 27, 2002.

I am actually looking forward to Erwin reviewing the 21-35/3.5-4 Vario-Elmar, the bigger news for me as an R user. The M7 isn't even out yet and folks are jumping on Erwin who actually used it for liking it too much!?! I will buy an M7 a year from now when the bugs are gone and prices level off because Leica has fullfilled my wish list for a standard brass top, separate on/off switch, more accurate shutter and coated finder window. This is my dream M6 and it is here.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), February 27, 2002.

By the way, has anyone ever seen any of Erwin's photos? Those on which all this exhaustive scientific research is based?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), February 27, 2002.

I don't think photographic talent is a prerequisite to hardware critique.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), February 27, 2002.

He has removed his portfolio from his Leica site, but I recall from my browsing some time back that Erwin Puts is a very capable commercial fashion and glamour photographer in the Netherlands.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 27, 2002.

Here's an oldie (not sure if it's a goodie)... a while ago I too looked at all of his stuff and remembered always seeing his last notes in a text of lens discussion, like for example:

All test pictures made on Kodachrome 25 and 64!!
Copyright (C) 1997-1998, Photosite All rights reserved.
Author: Erwin Puts email: <imxputs@knoware.nl>
Last Updated: Tuesday, September 12, 2000

Seeing as how none of those pictures (indeed mentioned there) were ever actually shown, and no links were apparent, I asked him where it was all at. Never got a reply from him.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 27, 2002.

Ray. It is not a question of Erwin's photographic talent. God forbid that he should be a great photographer as well! That would be altogether too much to bear.

It is simply a matter of being provided with some kind of objective evaluation of the basis on which his exhaustive and rigorously defended scientific - or even non-scientific for that matter - test results are determined.

Here is a direct quote about Erwin's lens testing evaluations from the great man himself, on his web site.

"These reports are capsule versions of more lengthy studies of leica lenses. Every report is based on field tests with slide and BW film from ISO25 to 3200 of common subjects like cats, artifacts, landscapes and a very skewed selection of some representatives of the human population. Field tests are controlled and reproduceable sequences of pictures in order to compare and evaluate results. In addition to these results, an optical bench, consisting of a projection test pattern has been used to study a number of optical properties. And MTF graphs are used to put all of these data into perspective. " Erwin Puts

That represents an extraordinary battery of tests. Magnificent. But has anyone actually seen any of these "controlled and reproduceable sequences of pictures"? And exactly how, for instance, does he use the MTF graphs - have we seen those either? - to "put all this date into perspective?" I have absolutely no idea, and while of course I believe him and am completely prepared to accept them as the gospel truth, and indeed may use them for my own meagre Leica purchases, I sometimes find myself wondering if I am a complete idiot. Am I?

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), February 27, 2002.

I am confused by the phrase "an optical bench consisting of a projection test pattern". Is that all an optical bench is?.........

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), February 27, 2002.

I am really sorry and I offer my personal apology to Erwin Puts for the rude behavior of two contributors here.

Erwin has contributed so much to enrich the Leica world, and has done so with no financial contribution from the likes of me. I enjoy his papers, his web site, and now his occassional posting to this forum. I pray that they continue.

These 'critics' offer nothing of the kind.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 27, 2002.

Mr Goodwin,

In the scientific world when assertions are made by someone, the rest of the world seeks verification. Verification is the key to scientific discovery and thought. Without it, you have nothing. Just an anectdotal result. My be absolutely true, may not be.

So do some tests yourself. Rather than carp about Mr. Puts personality, you can test the issues you raise yourself. If your results differ, post them for verification. Have them stand the scrutiny of the public.

This has been done in science for eon's.

I disagree with some of the editorial perspectives Mr. Puts has. I use the Hexar RF with Leica lenses. I am completely satisifed. I get fantastic pictures (when lucky) and don't care a whit about anyone else's view of "compatibility."

But my views aren't science, just opinion. And my views take nothing from the views, statements, assertions, and findings of Erwin Puts. If I were to challenge him on any technical issues, I'd better have data, pictures, and findings. None of my findings would include words like pompous, ego, love with, or other emotion laced statements.

Yes, I concede his M7 report is laced with subjective statements. And he had his math incorrect when developing an analogy about shutter speed. And it is not off limits to point out these issues. Heated argument and debate is great. Personal attack, unilateral personal attack, is uncalled for. I do not see Erwin Puts returning any derogatory attacks to those that have been less than courteous.

Therefore, right or wrong, correct or in error, he's the gentleman.

-- David S Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 27, 2002.

I would like to apologise to Erwin and other members of the forum for my rude and childish posts. Erwin's research has always been extremely useful for me and other Leica users and I hope very much will continue to be in the future.

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), February 27, 2002.

I think this post should stop here. There is an old saying we should all remember and maybe consider- including myself. "If you haven't anything nie to sy, don't say it at all".........or at least express your opinion with more respect than what is shown here. Isn't it so funny how we all are so heated up over a camera/company- "Leica".

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.

Christopher, I think it is truly nice/correct that you offer your apologies, maybe even somewhat overdone that you mention rudeness and childishness.

Kristian, I think this post should not stop here. The old saying "If you haven't anything nice to say, don't say it at all" is of course okay, but... in my opinion, although Erwin's writings are always interesting and useful for some of us, they still are, at the same time, often somewhat subjective, mistaken, and hard to understand.

"Subjective, mistaken, and hard to understand" things all in themselves are however not the end of the world, but... again in my own opinion, no bad reason to say we don't love this that or the other judgement posted, especially when it comes to our decision of buying something brand new and totally new on the market. And that is what it's all about here.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 27, 2002.

"I do not see Erwin Puts returning any derogatory attacks to those that have been less than courteous. "

You don't? Then I guess you don't subscribe to his newsletter.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), February 27, 2002.