Okay, so Leica is known to be the holy grail of cameras and the significance of their
M bodies cannot be denied by anyone, even those who don't really like it. Now, I've been shooting X-Pro3
for a while now and although the desire is quite strong, I'm still doubting getting a digital Leica M.
And before we go into conversation about it, I must point out that we're not talking
today specifically about the price or performance: just keep in mind that by default I'm okay with
M10 as it is and I realize what rangefinder and manual focusing is, so it's not another video
about how someone doesn't get why Leica doesn't shoot 4K and has only one card slot... Not that sh**.
Yo what up guys, it's Aperture Value with yet another episode, and today we're talking
about king of them all, Stan Lee among cameras, the beautiful and mostly unaffordable to mortals Leica.
I referenced Leica in many of episodes and in my video about X-Pro3 I said that M10 is ultimately
better camera considering my needs. Although X-Pro3 is well made, it's definitely far from Leica's
quality and materials. It is much more simplistic and sleek, and, well, it does look better than Fuji.
The viewfinder is much more clear and bigger as well. Leica system does come with a bit of
a weight trade-off compared to X-Pro3, but not by much. M10 with three primes will easily fit in my
bag instead of Fuji and I'm pretty sure my back won't feel difference as well. Things like fast
glass being expensive or close focusing not that great don't bother me much, considering the type
of photography I do. Even though Leica does give you a bigger sensor and more flexible DNG files,
I don't care much since X-Pro files are already good enough for me. Leica glass is also a great
advantage and, of course, I wouldn't dare saying that it's better than Fujinons. Unfortunately, the
privilege of getting most of Leica's lenses goes specifically to Leica camera owners since adapting
to other cameras gives you color shifts and things alike. Many people say they can achieve that Leica
look only by using both Leica glass and cameras together, otherwise the charm doesn't work. But who
am I to talk about it? Instead, let's talk about what I know and guess what - Fuji X-Pro3 checks
all the points for me: it is a light, beautiful and a well-performing camera with a nice selection of
native glass, which is great optically and price wise as well, hybrid viewfinder is absolutely
amazing and the idea of a hidden screen does bring back the joy of the shooting process. I really love
where Fujifilm is heading with its X-Pro3 line and I can't wait to see another generation hopefully
coming soon. So why would I think of Leica then? With all the mentioned things about Leica I
definitely see getting Leica M10 as a natural progression, just a level up camera. But contrary to
Fujifilm, I'm skeptical about where Leica is going with their digital M cameras, and that is what
stops me from getting it, at least for now. I'll explain what I mean. So we've already established
that we won't focus on price or performance: let's leave it to "us vs them" kind of fights in the
abyss of photo forums. Let's take Leica for what it is, and I couldn't go wrong starting with the
viewfinder. I still don't know how come they didn't integrate the electronic finder like Fuji did with
X-Pro3. Leica said they don't do it because it "doesn't look good enough". I say that's bullsh**, but
whatever. We're talking about traditional optical viewfinder. If you insist on having optical
viewfinder, why in the world you don't develop it? Although it's big and bright, the magnification
is always fixed, and I have no slightest idea why they couldn't incorporate variable
magnifications; that would make so many lenses more usable and viewfinder area much cleaner
without this confusing double frame lines. Contax did a great zooming viewfinder decades ago,
why not make it better and put that sh** in a digital Leica? Being classy and simplistic is one thing,
but that's just making it dumb and primitive. Your selling point is OVF, so make it stand out; make it
adjustable to available focal lengths and make it distance correctable, finally, so photographers can
get precise framing. After all, people are paying a big buck for it. To me, who uses multiple focal
lengths, and hates 35mm by the way, Leica's viewfinder does bring up some major concerns
and that is probably the most important reason why I'm not sure about getting Leica. Yes,
X-Pro3 also has a fixed magnification, but it does show the exact frame lines for each lens
and if it's too wide or too long, I can always switch to EVF. In Leica you have what was done by
brilliant engineers decades ago and what today's marketing guys, who replaced them, try to sell as a
unique and old-school feature. Not to mention that viewfinder LED system from last century, c'mon.
I agree that some concepts were ought to become tradition, but most were just
the result of technological limitations of the time: it is not reason to keep it that way and
call it tradition. Things like colors, form factor and lens mount can be kept the same
and called traditional, but not technology: it is camera after all, not a paperweight... Moving on to
another issue and that is electronics and hardware. Leica decided to step into digital and with M8
being one of the first mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and M9 being the first full frame one,
they had all chances to make history, once again. But, as we know, they f***ed up big time and honestly,
M10 is the first digital Leica done well. And it's just this inability, or unwillingness, to make the
electronics work good throughout the digital Leica history. And remember, we're not talking
some innovative or first of its kind technology: digital Leicas are really unimpressive spec wise;
they take a well-known, established and stable technology and working their way around M body
should be easy-peasy, considering the fact that AF is not something to worry about. Still, M8 and M9
had problems with sensor itself and had no live view, Typ 240 was chunky, overly complicated and
reportedly gave bad DNGs to work with, add all of that to an overall electronics sh***y reliability
and here you have another major concern. Now as I've said, M10s are a different story. In
fact, I think for a brand like Leica, M10 had to be their first digital camera. Still, I don't get some
things, even though I'm fine with them, like, for instance, the UHS-I only SD card compatibility.
Especially with M10R introduction, that's just showing a dumb ignorance, seriously. Adding UHS-II
wouldn't hurt the price nor the classic and minimalistic brand image. And as I've stated at
the beginning, I'm not bragging about performance here at all: I don't want Leica to be an ultimate
performance machine, but what I expect is at least adequate tech that works well and makes sense.
So summing up all the things said, you see now what I mean by not being fully confident in digital Leica.
Sure, even given that same M10P or M10R would be a nice upgrade for me, even though the price bites
and the performance wise you don't get thaaat much of a benefit. I guess what I'm trying to say is
that probably there are many photographers like me, who have some doubts about getting
a Leica and I really hope that will change for better in the future. Soon Leica M11 will
be announced and I wait for it with big hopes. And maybe, just maybe, it will change my mind. Meanwhile,
I'll be shooting my badass titanium X-Pro3 and get more piggy banks, if you know what I mean...