I the days of film photography, I owned a Nikon FM2, but I longed for a Leica M, which I could not afford. Why? Because, you see, I tried the Leica M. And there were two or three things I loved about it: the transparency of the viewfinder, being able to see outside the frame, the velvetiness (does this word exist in english?) of all comands, camera and lenses included, the weight and touch, the silence, the elegance of design. Compared to the Leica M, a unctuous Rolls, my faithful Nikon FM2 was a sort of rude Ford. Yes, they both take you to the same place, perhaps in the same time - the Rolls with much pleasure, the Ford with much economy. I think it is the photographer who makes the picture, but the tool matters. I can write the same thing with a BIC ballpoint or a very expensive fountain pen. But if the fountain pen has a very smooth writing, and is good to hold, I shall probably use it more often, take longer to get tired of writing. I now have a Panasonic LX7, which I love more than any camera I had, and just got the GX1. I still cannot afford the Leica M, and I still would love to have one.
The Leica M was born to be much smaller than the existing cameras, and use cinema film. The quality of the pictures was not better than the ones then coming from bigger formats. I can still remember the quality and crispness of several nineteenth-century pictures that were hanged on the walls of the baracks where I did my military service. I still have to see better than that. When 35 mm became the norm, the Leica M gave you a quality which was second to none, and a different operation. Is this "mini-M" just a foolishness for the wealthy? I do not think it suits me, because I often take pictures in the evening, but it can suit others. Let them have and enjoy it.
