Does anybody think Leica were rather arogant in not changing the naming sceme for Ms?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by ajuk, Mar 10, 2012.

  1. ajuk

    ajuk Member

    Messages:
    1,108
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Forget the issue of whether or not they should have started a new naming scheme, do you think Leica were rather arrogant to think they could never or need to improve on the M7?
     
  2. ruilourosa

    ruilourosa Member

    Messages:
    324
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Portugal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    they could never or needed to improve M3...
     
  3. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,627
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Or the M2.
     
  4. OddE

    OddE Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Location:
    Aalesund, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Seeing as Leica has manufactured both analog and digital cameras under the M prefix, I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to keep mixing the two - if there ever is another analog M, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to call it the, say, M13 or something like that. Or am I completely missing your point?
     
  5. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,837
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    With the release of the M8/M9, Leica has only gotten more arrogant.

    It tends to go with the territory that those cameras attract.

    Me personally, I'm cool with my M4 and pre-ASPH Summicron 35.
     
  6. tony lockerbie

    tony lockerbie Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,364
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Location:
    Merimbula NSW Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Don't care what they call them....shows how good the M2/3 were in their day....and still..
     
  7. fstop

    fstop Member

    Messages:
    752
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    In the grand scheme of things I'm sure Leica not only knows or can justify how they decide to name their product line. I don't think its up to people who can't be as detailed oriented as Leica.
     
  8. BobD

    BobD Member

    Messages:
    444
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Location:
    California,
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I don't know what Leica thinks.
     
  9. semi-ambivalent

    semi-ambivalent Subscriber

    Messages:
    700
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    If they waited a couple revs they could do another of their endless special editions. It could be, oh I don't know, black maybe. Call it the MI5.

    s-a
     
  10. John Koehrer

    John Koehrer Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,263
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Montgomery,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Years ago I used an M60, it would blow any of the others mentioned away. :smile:

    Walk softly and carry lots of ammo.
     
  11. Rol_Lei Nut

    Rol_Lei Nut Member

    Messages:
    1,118
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If they'd called their models something like "MOS Terminator XXX Super 5 Plus", placed labels such as "digitally activated GO Button" next to the shutter release and given them a plastic lens mount ("Technocomposite advanced mount" of course), they would have sold lots more... :wink:
     
  12. John Austin

    John Austin Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Location:
    Southern For
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Arrogance? - It is their camera and they can call it what they like, even Gerald - Hmmm, I like the idea of a Leitz digicam called Gerald
     
  13. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,934
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Is it arrogant to keep their model numbers simple ? Other manufacturers make it to confusing often having different names in the US to the rest of the world.

    At least with an M series Leica you know lenses are compatible with all models, they have the same basic layout of functions.

    Ian
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Mackinaw

    Mackinaw Member

    Messages:
    386
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Location:
    One hour sou
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    How about the Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6?

    Jim B.
     
  16. NB23

    NB23 Member

    Messages:
    1,073
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Now that's downright insulting!!
     
  17. zsas

    zsas Member

    Messages:
    1,962
    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I don't understand the question, the M line is a line differentiated by the M (as in mount) and number/letter. Did Leica say the M7 is the last film camera? Didn't they re-introduce the MP in 2003? I think their simplicity of naming is elegant
     
  18. BrianL

    BrianL Member

    Messages:
    547
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto ON C
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I am confused what the question is asking. M stands for the lens mount and the # for the camera in the series. Mixing analog and digital in the numbering series is okay with me and less confusing then say the numbering series of Canon and Nikon or even Olympus dslrs.

    Most companies numbering system is at best confusing. Changing a model for the sake of change makes no sense. Imagine if in 1963, they change the Corvetter to Mako Shark as was bounced around; only a couple of years later the name and design would not mesh so, possibly forcing GM to rename the car, maybe Chevette or Vega and then a few years later something else. A total loss of the continuity of history.
     
  19. EASmithV

    EASmithV Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Arrogant? Leica? Naturally.


    At least Nikon was sensible enough to create a D series for digital and leave the F series for film. You don't need to worry about the prefix determining lens mount as they all take the same.

    :D:D:D:D:D



    Careful, you're going to offend some Canon guy
     
  20. Dinesh

    Dinesh Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,672
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Get a grip!
     
  21. fotch

    fotch Member

    Messages:
    4,824
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Location:
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The D is for dumb! Just kidding. I own a D and a bunch of F, and Leica M's, it gets worse with the budget models in both brands.
     
  22. Someonenameddavid

    Someonenameddavid Member

    Messages:
    278
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    M stands for "mess sucher" or "messucher" which translates to split image rangefinder. M3 has 3 frames for different lenses, M2, two. The M4 originally four (I think) then it gets messy.
     
  23. mhcfires

    mhcfires Subscriber

    Messages:
    589
    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    El Cajon, CA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have a Leica M2. The Browning M2 was a really cool one, too. :smile:
     
  24. msbarnes

    msbarnes Member

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I don't find anything arrogant about the naming.

    The only possible argument for arrogance, to me, is the price.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2012
  25. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    M3 has 3 framelines, 50, 90, 135.
    M2 also has 3 framelines, 35, 50, 90.
    M2 was introduced after the M3, with simpler construction in some aspects.

    Lee
     
  26. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,837
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    M4 has 3: 35, 50, 90