needless to say, there are many people who view the current leica m cameras as mere rich boys' toys. just about everybody else (with the possible exception of a few actual leica users) view it as a luddite's nose-thumb to the IC chip-in-everything world in which we we live. but the fact is, there is still practical value for professional photogs (and amateurs for that matter) in an all-mechanical, work in any temperature, doesn't need batteries, drop it and it still works camera. that's why the leica m6 still hangs around so many PJs' necks, and a large reason why the camera has endured when rugged marvels like the F100 can be had for half the cost of an m. a mechanical camera, in general, fails soft (i.e. has some probs but still works), while an electronic camera, more often than not, goes down hard when it goes. where exactly does the m7 fit in this picture. it has all the vulnerabilities of an electronic camera, but with none of the custom settings, complex metering options, AF, auto wind, etc. etc. of the F100. at the same time it has lost the benefits of mecanical operation. if, as appears possible, leica actually REPLACES the 6 with the 7, how long will the world support a 70s era (in terms of spec), electronic camera? will pros look elsewhere (or simply to the vast supply of used leicas) for mechanical back-ups?? is the mechanical camera simply dead at last?? will the leica mystique endure if its only standard bearer is an AE camera made in portugal?? in my view, the 7 discards what is TRULY unique about the leica m system -- mechanical operation (you can pretend it's the glass, but nikon makes a few nice optics as well and has only about ten times as many focal lengths to choose from) -- and at the same time completely severs ties with the camera's heritage. regardless of which you think is a bigger risk from a marketing perspective, with both of its aces in the discard pile, i think leica might be headed for trouble. now maybe the truth is that m6 sales were stagnant, with no hope of improvement (hard to compete with the used market when your old cameras never die), and by producing a posh PandS like the m7, leica extended the m's life, and so will have the chance to introduce a few more lenses. that would be a good move for m users i suppose. if that is the thinking, however, i just hope leica made darn sure they were right about the future of mechanical cameras before casting its lot with the chip crowd. it'll be a sad day when the last mechanical camera rolls off the leica assembly line. but maybe that's happened already . . . .

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 26, 2002

Answers

Food for thought. But: 1) There seems to be greater demand for this camera than any Leica in years. 2) There are no stated plans that Leica plans to discontinue the M6. 3) Pros will probably always be able to find mechanical Leica's to use. (I still use an M3 that's 40 years old.)

Remember the M5? If the M7 shows signs of really "killing" the M as you suggest, I'm sure they'll backtrack and find the right direction.

-- Gary Voth (garyvot@vothphoto.com), April 27, 2002.

I think the M7 is a great camera for us M fans and keep the M6 as a backup. Total electronic cameras are fully here and only getting better. I enjoy my nikon D1 immensly and look forward to the D2. The M will always be a classic and in situations where the ae function improves my images I'll choose the 7. Leicas simply giving us choices. I'm nieve enough to believe the 6 will be here for a long time.

-- nep111al (drdad1111@yahoo.com), April 27, 2002.

And what if Leica had come out with basically an M version of the Nikon F100 less the AF, would people be interested in a buying a matrix metering, high speed syncing ttl flash, built in 5 fps drive, electronic M camera that took all the same lenses and had the same style finder as the current M? I bet people would forget all about the all mechanical stuff and buy it. Many folks are already hoping for a digital M body.

-- andrew schank (aschank@flash.net), April 27, 2002.

How about the moderator that killed these sorts of threads due to repetition?

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

"Remember the M5"? Yes, today it's called the R8.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 27, 2002.

I have one. I love it. I own an M2, M3, M6 and have used all of them one time or another. Its a Leica with a few more options.

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), April 27, 2002.

Good one Mitch, but wasn't a dud M5 more reliable and user friendly than the R8?

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

I agree with Andrew. For one, I would really enjoy an M with many of the features of the F100 (which I just bought), especially matrix metering and automatic bracketing. The M7 is not a manual camera and only slightly automated. It does not appeal to me very much.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), April 27, 2002.

What is it with this fear of electronic cameras and battery failure and what not? The serious pro photog will carry spare batteires and a back-up camera, and the amateur will either do the same, use the two remaining mechanical speeds on the M7 or go back home. Who is out there thinking they are about to shoot THE photograph of their life and that the M7 will fail right at that moment? Come on. Did you keep your mechanical typewriter when the first electrical one appeared? Did you keep your electrical typewriter when the first computer appeared? And tell me, honestly, how many times did your camera failed you compared to computer freeze, power failure, hard disk crash and so on? Do you dish your computer? Praise the M7, it's great. Just the right amount of automatic and manual, the choice between the two, the unmistakable feeling of Leica, fabulous glass and everything. Where is the "perfect" camera? Where is the "perfect" anybody? You know what the M7 is? It's a M7, period. A little bit better than the M6 TTL, which is a little bit better than the M6 "classic", which is a little bit better than tne M4-P which is... you get my point. I think Leica keeps moving in the right direction, albeit very slowly. They erred with the M5? Maybe. And then again maybe not. At any rate they're not about to do it again. If you can afford it, buy an M7, you'll enjoy it. If you can't but wish you could, just don't vent your frustration by criticizing something you don't know the first thing about :-)

Olivier

-- Olivier Reichenbach (olreiche@videotron.ca), April 27, 2002.

it is by no means a fear of electronic cameras -- i use several beside my leicas. it is a fear that leica has/may be on the brink of giving up its niche in a very competitive marketpkace. i want the company to stick aroundand make more lenses. my other concern involves the perception of the company -- at least to the extent that public perception will affect its longevity. for many years people have bemoaned leica's frequent special edition cameras on the ground that i made the firm seem like it was making collectibles rather than serious cameras for the serious photog. my fear is that if the m7 replaces the m6 (a very real possibility apparently), leica will have squarely placed itself in the g2, luxury hobbyist camp. i can see why a pro might want a mechanical back-up, but not why he/she would want a minimally featured electronic camera, no matter how sumptious. joke about the m5 comparison if you wish, but leica did stop production of ms for a while, and really had decided not to continue. the fact that the m4-2 ever got produced was really quite a miracle.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 27, 2002.

Hi all,

Roger writes

>> it is by no means a fear of electronic cameras -- i use several beside my leicas. it is a fear that leica has/may be on the brink of giving up its niche in a very competitive marketpkace. i want the company to stick around and make more lenses. <<

Roger, I think Leica better not discard the M6 as this all mechanical camera will have ever a certain level of popularity with some customers. If I were them, I’ll keep it almost forever (at least to the point no more silver based film will be available).

My concern joins yours however on my sheer desire Leica should stay around to make ever better lenses. And I’m more afraid the M7, after an initial period of attract won’t be conducive to maintain or widen Leica M market. When you go to electronic you’d better to give your customers good reasons to like it more than you fear it, moreover when your usual panel of customers is mostly conservative and afraid even to be dependent on a battery :)))...

I think Leica made a mistake in issuing a M7 which is not a truly 21st century camera which should the need arise and the budget be sufficient, be backed up by an M6… As we put in French it is to much something well seated between two chairs, as good a camera it should be. So it is still aimed to a limited market and this doesn’t make sense anymore as small format rangefinder cameras revival is readily apparent today. I was a M5 user and never considered this camera unreliable or a failure in anyway. Some initial problems back when the first batches where issued and – perhaps – its less attractive design were responsible for its demise. Anyone who actually used this camera will find it perhaps the more convenient mechanical rangefinder camera ever built for a modern user currently taking its shots with slide films (by the way its meter was more selective than on an M6). I’ve more than one time used the M6 which is a mighty fine camera but – sorry to say that – when compared to an M5 and older I never have the same feel of quality traditional make. Stories of rewind crank and battery cover getting loose are numerous for example… Something tolerable for a cheap plastic made amateur camera and hardly so for a camera priced as the M6 is and was. Now, Leica issues on the same basis a camera which is even more expensive with very few advantages built in. I do appreciate AE but only when I need to operate faster than in manual mode… Unfortunately the AE system built in the M7 brings you back to the late 1970’s technology so it doesn’t speed up the things appreciably when you need it… Only matrix metering (without the need to recompose, even in backlit situations) will do that with 90% chance of success and in manual mode the meter is still not a true spot meter. They may have also included an electronic regulated shutter, but it is the same darn thing dating back to the fifties in terms of performance and finally you get the same awkward loading procedure as before… If thay had issued a really high grade electronic rangefinder camera (so NO AF) it would have been easy to justify the price to pay and broaden considerably the potential of customers. I think not going to a really high end technology but introducing in the meantime electronic, Leica will not convince new customers and will frighten at the same time a significant part of its traditional customers.

>> my other concern involves the perception of the company -- at least to the extent that public perception will affect its longevity. for many years people have bemoaned leica's frequent special edition cameras on the ground that i made the firm seem like it was making collectibles rather than serious cameras for the serious photog. my fear is that if the m7 replaces the m6 (a very real possibility apparently), leica will have squarely placed itself in the g2, luxury hobbyist camp. i can see why a pro might want a mechanical back-up, but not why he/she would want a minimally featured electronic camera, no matter how sumptuous. joke about the m5 comparison if you wish, but leica did stop production of ms for a while, and really had decided not to continue. the fact that the m4- 2 ever got produced was really quite a miracle. <<

I’m much harder on Leica behavior since the demise of the M5… Up to the M5, Leica was involved in producing real photographer’s cameras with everything state of the art in terms of technology (the M5 was contemporary of the Nikon F and F2 cameras). Since then, Leica produced backward technology oriented cameras. Leica was lucky enough it stood the only game in town for small format rangefinder camera concept (served by superior lenses, something which they have managed to retain) addicts. Nowadays competitors are again acting on that film and are no more bothered by the superiority of Leica lens as M ount is in the public domain and you can actually use them on these competitor bodies. So Leica will certainly lose a lot of potential customers and even a large part its customers which are still active photogs (A Hexar RF half the price of the M7 will just to about everything the M7 can do most of the time) and not collectors or speculators and if they have the foolish idea to discard the M6, they’ll lose the mechanical camera diehards altogether. So what will be left ? Only rich people buying them toys as you aptly put… Will these customers be sufficient to maintain the brand is open to speculation…

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 27, 2002.

I have to agree with Gary. Unlike the M5, the M7 contains (by Leica's count) 350 new parts. The basic chassis is the same as the M6, so if it turns out the M7 is a "dud", Leica would not go belly-up having to retool for the resumption of the M6...nor would it cost them a fortune to produce concurrent batches of new M6's if the demand was there. Back in the days of the M5 Leica still had the mindset of being a viable competitor in the camera industry and their inability to do that is what almost spelled their demise. Now that they recognize they are a niche player and pander shamelessly to their market of zealots and collectors, there shouldn't be any great fear of the M line going under. For the rest of us, that's good news. The only thing I think can possibly kill off the M is if 35mm film becomes to difficult and expensive to obtain and process that practical photography with the M becomes impractical. We'll just have to wait and see on that one, but if it happens it won't be for a while.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 27, 2002.

jay -- you make an excellent point. by sharing all the expensive parts (body shell first and foremost), leica will have the flexibility to go back and forth as the market dictates. with the m5, and all of its requisite m5 specific retooling, they really took a big chance -- and lost (although i agree with francois, the m5 is a good user camera; the market, however, disagreed). they certainly have hedged their bets this times around. i guess my basic hope is that leica keeps making serious cameras for serious work, remembers what its niche is, and keeps churning out those wonderful lenses. i just don't think the m7 is going to be a long term means for accomplishing those goals.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 27, 2002.

If you have kept spare battereies for the lightmeter of your M6's its no different whatsoever. I cant believe how insensed people get over the most basic of electronics in the M7. I have had a CLE for years and not once have I ever been caught in the field with flat batteries. They last for ages! I simply do a battery check before i go out for the day and change the batteries before a long trip. In fact I have never had flat batteries as they get changed before ever reaching that stage and easily get a year out of a set. And the M7 has back up speeds anyways. M6's have been around for 20 years, there will be plenty out there for the rest of your life so relax, asume lotus position and relax. Let those of use that like aperture priority have our fun too. When and if M6's get discontinued buy a spare ok?

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

joel -- you are missing the point. i know, of course that batteries seldom fail, do so predictably, and that it is no harder to keep spare batteries on hand than film. the point is that the camera market is VERY competitive. the m6 occupied a distinct niche in that marketplace as the only high quality mechanical rf camera left. as such, it has been able to survive amid a camera landscape that has been radically transformed over the past decade. pros perceive an adantage in having a camera that will ALWAYS work -- in cold temps, in the wet, and when, on that rare occasion, you forget spare batteries. amateurs liked it in part for these same reasons. there was also a distinct marketing advantage in the fact that the m6 was a direct descendant of the legendary old leicas. whether an electronic leica will be able to capture customers' hears to the same degree will remain to be seen. my point is that a loss of the practical distinction between the m camera and other cameras coupled with a loss of the mystique surrounding the leica as a mechanical camera in a digital age may be a difficult marketing double whammy to survive. i AM NOT saying that the m7 will be unreliable -- far from it. i am only questioning its ability to survive in the current camera marketplace.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 27, 2002.

To David Enzel, hey David, if the M7 had « many of the features of the F100 » it would be... a F100, weight, bulk and all! Minus SLR. Not very appealing either. Again ,why criticizing something for what it's not? Some people are like movie or theater critics out there. They keep bashing for the wrong reasons. No offense :-)

Olivier

-- Olivier Reichenbach (olreiche@videotron.ca), April 27, 2002.

None of the individual posters on this thread or those (myself included) will determine the ultimate fate of the wisdom of the decision to produce the M7. The collective market for Leica products will however do so.

Any company will have multiple goals they try to acheive in the design, manufacture, and sale of their products. The mature ones realize that no matter how many of these goals they have, it will be impossible to attain any of them if they do not survive to do so. That means they must continually strive to expand their customer base with product that meets the demands of that customer base, while adding new customers. All the while paying homage to the heritage that got them there. The successful company will constuct those goals so that they will not conflict with one another.

Does anyone truly believe that the "net-net" of introducing the M7 will result in a loss of that total population of customers?

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 27, 2002.

I have serious doubts whether most people who buy Leica Ms do so primarily because they're "all mechanical." I like that my M3s don't need a battery, but I use them because they focus easily and accurately in low light, they allow me to shoot handheld at much lower speeds than an SLR, and they're fairly unobtrusive. None of those characteristics have changed with the M7.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 27, 2002.

I have serious doubts whether most people who buy Leica Ms do so primarily because they're "all mechanical."

Yes ,i agree but many of us like the idea.Less to go wrong,less dependancy on batteries...a camera which will work anywhere under any conditions,that is just a nice thought...the Leica myth maybe.I for one do not want a camera which makes me lazy by offering to do it all for me.I am lazy enought, i do not need any help in that direction.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

"Yes ,i agree but many of us like the idea."

I'm sure there are. But the question remains, "Are there enough".

There is a current FS post on this forum for a M6TTL 0.58, indicating a serial number of 2,722,xxx. The M7 debued with serial number 2,777,000.

If one discovers M6s in the future with serial numbers greater than the block allotted to the M7s than we can presume there are, at least for awhile, enough people who not only "like the idea" of a fully mechanical shutter M, but back their conviction by purchasing new ones from Leica.

We'll know soon enough the level of that conviction. That's how any company measures it.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 27, 2002.

"...by sharing all the expensive parts (body shell first and foremost)"

You mean - surely - the RANGEFINDER/VIEWFINDER first and foremost. Given it's complexity and the number of person-hours required for assembly and adjustment, the RF/VF is (I expect) a far more expensive unit than the cast-aluminum shell.

But since Leica does use the same RF (as well as the shell and top/ bottom plates, and more), your point still stands - interchangeability of the most significant parts between the M6 and M7 improves the odds that the M6 stays around - or gets revived if needed.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 28, 2002.

i could be wrong, but i beleve that the body shell components as a complete unit are the most expensive component part.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 28, 2002.