Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,933   Posts: 1,585,543   Online: 854
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    263
    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.

  2. #22
    mhcfires's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    El Cajon, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer View Post
    Years ago I used an M60, it would blow any of the others mentioned away.

    Walk softly and carry lots of ammo.
    I have a Leica M2. The Browning M2 was a really cool one, too.
    Michael Cienfuegos


    If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.

  3. #23
    msbarnes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    382
    Images
    7
    I don't find anything arrogant about the naming.

    The only possible argument for arrogance, to me, is the price.
    Last edited by msbarnes; 03-13-2012 at 01:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #24
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Someonenameddavid View Post
    M3 has 3 frames for different lenses, M2, two.
    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

  5. #25
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    M4 has 3: 35, 50, 90
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,091
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    Arrogance? - It is their camera and they can call it what they like
    Don't remember saying they couldn't.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,091
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianL View Post
    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.

    It's difficult for me to explain but I thought it was really strange to me that of all the companies it would be Leica who wouldn't change the numbering scheme for digital. Most companies seemed to change their numbering scheme for digital even on lines of compact cameras that most people wouldn't care about, If I'd have been asked to guess what company was least likely to do that I probably would have said Leica.

    M8 to me seemed to suggest that it was just as much a replacement for the M7 as the M7 was for the M6 rather than a fundamentally different sort of camera and with a die hard traditionalist clientele it seemed a bit weird. The reason I brought this up now is I'd said that the numbers would start to go up quick maybe once every 5 years, but no they're going up much quicker than that. I hope that even if you disagree with me you can see what I'm getting at.

    As for your second point, There's a difference between creating a ridiculously confusing naming scheme and changing it for a different kind of camera, I'm not sure what your argument is.

  8. #28
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by ajuk View Post
    It's difficult for me to explain but I thought it was really strange to me that of all the companies it would be Leica who wouldn't change the numbering scheme for digital. Most companies seemed to change their numbering scheme for digital even on lines of compact cameras that most people wouldn't care about, If I'd have been asked to guess what company was least likely to do that I probably would have said Leica.

    M8 to me seemed to suggest that it was just as much a replacement for the M7 as the M7 was for the M6 rather than a fundamentally different sort of camera and with a die hard traditionalist clientele it seemed a bit weird. The reason I brought this up now is I'd said that the numbers would start to go up quick maybe once every 5 years, but no they're going up much quicker than that. I hope that even if you disagree with me you can see what I'm getting at.

    As for your second point, There's a difference between creating a ridiculously confusing naming scheme and changing it for a different kind of camera, I'm not sure what your argument is.
    I think your main misunderstanding is when you said that the M7 was a "replacement" for the M6 and the M8 a "replacement" for the M7. Even if the M6 (and 7?) is now out of production, the M7 was intended to be an AE M instead of a metered M, certainly not something which would make the M6 in any way obsolete (that is Canon logic). Along the same lines, the M8 & 9 are simply digital versions of the M cameras.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  9. #29
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Same thing with the M3 and the M2. Chronology and numbers do not match up there either.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Same thing with the M3 and the M2. Chronology and numbers do not match up there either.
    That's the point i wanted to make. I'm no Leica fanboy (as in i know very little about them) but it seems to me that Leica have been playing fast and loose with their naming for a long time. I can't see why they (and apologies if I have this wrong) decided to release a 'budget' M3 and call it the M2 or why they changed the metering on the M6 and called it an M7.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin