Two Leica digital cameras with legacies that defied initial criticism

While it’s not a matter of life and death, there are cameras that were not commercial successes and condemned in their time. Despite this, they have not been forgotten. They provided a legacy that lives on in the successes of today’s models.

Buckminster Fuller, an architect, systems theorist, inventor, and futurist once said, “There is no such thing as a failed experiment, only experiments with unexpected outcomes.” One can apply this idea to the way Leica handled less than successful products.

I have picked out two from Leica’s past catalogue that somehow never quite managed to create a strong enough spark to sustain the flame of awareness, approval, or sales.

Were they failures? Or did Leica pick up the attributes they thought had been successful and incorporated them into future generations of cameras like the M-D, SL and Q. I’m sure there are several other cameras that would fit this category. I’m also sure the learned among the Macfilos flock could offer other examples from the Leica back-catalogue. 

Maybe, in this Centennial year it would be good to recall some of the cameras that could have been Greats. But for some reason they were underappreciated at that time, and never quite managing to rise to the heights of commercial success. But what they did do was give birth to ideas that were developed further.

The Leica M (Type 262)

The M262 was launched in 2015 with a 24 MP full frame sensor. It followed the launches of the M240 and the Leica M-E (220) in 2012. In turn, the M-E (240) superseded the M262 in 2019. You might consider that to be a hostile sandwich of in-house rivals fighting for attention. So why did the M262 not succeed? Was it underappreciated? What was the brief for this model?

Minimalist, stripped, or just unfairly condemned?

Somewhere in the mix, Leica remembered das Wesentliche, the essentials, and chose to remove features from the M240 (just as they did last year with the D-Lux 8). Features such as live view, dedicated video, and the option of mounting an EVF. They even saddled it with a lower ISO performance.

Where the M 262 fits in the M timeline

The M262 superseded the Leica M-E (Type 220). It was essentially an M (240) on a weight-saving diet. That ran counter to the market expectations that every new model had to offer more of whatever you wanted — more megapixels, more features, and so on. It appealed to those who primarily eschewed live view, video, the need for an EVF, and who valued increased battery life. In addition, the usual brass top plate had been replaced by one of aluminium, for a reduction in weight. 

The Leica M (262) had a CMOS full-frame sensor with a 24 Megapixel resolution, and ISO of up to 6400 as a carry-over from the M 240. The shutter mechanism was also much quieter than the earlier M240. It had a much simpler menu structure (see below) and one-button access to white balance settings. In turn, the M (262) was superseded by the M-E (240) in 2019.

A focus on the essentials

Did Leica market this the right way? Did the M262 aim at minimalists who preferred simplicity to a bulging feature set?

Or did it appeal to those who wanted to reduce the amount they spent? Those are two different mindsets – just ask Porsche.

Whatever the intention, it appears not to have been clear to potential buyers of the M262.

Intentions and miscommunications

The camera was underappreciated by many but, more accurately, was misunderstood. It’s the type of specification that appeals to someone who truly believes in “less is more.” Leica obviously learned from this experience and realized that “stripped” was not part of their vocabulary, but “minimalism” or “Das Wesentliche” was.

They then focused the spotlight on an even more minimalist statement with the Leica M-D, which had no rear screen at all. Strangely enough, that supreme exercise in minimalism has proved successful and, as they say, “a steady earner” now into its third generation.

The Leica M262 continues to appeal to those in-the-know buyers who want that minimalist approach and see no need to have menus filled with features, or go beyond 24MP. You can still find them for sale if you look. And they appeal to someone like me who prefers cameras with the minimum of clutter.

Leica T (Type 701) condemned to be misunderstood

You can argue that the Leica T launch in April 2014 was the start of a revolution that fizzled out. But what a revolution it could have been! Shortly after the launch, I walked into Dan Tamarkin’s eponymous camera store in Chicago to have a closer look.

The T was cool looking and cool to touch. The beautifully printed brochure explained how Leica had used Audi’s design group to create something new and very different in the camera world. The case was milled from a solid billet of aluminium for lightness and rigidity (just like the new Sigma BF). In fact, it could have been the first camera to have been constructed in this way.

Forget what you already know

Everything seemed different. The rear touch screen with a GUI inspired by the pioneering work of Xerox PARC was an absolute revelation. It could also have been a first for a camera. Additionally, there was a new lens mount and a new line of autofocus lenses to match the APS-C sensor. “Soft” controls were all on the top plate and were configurable to the user’s preferences. What was not to like? Yet, it was still condemned.

Leica believed a new generation of phone users would find it easier to migrate to photography if the camera behaved more like their phone. It was this premise that was both the start of the revolution but also the end of it.

A clash of philosophies and users

Most phone users who found the Leica T appealing couldn’t afford it. And those who were able to afford it wanted something more traditional.

By falling between two stools, the Leica T was condemned by both traditional camera buyers and by the new phone-centric buyers.

The camera was praised for its innovation, but damned in the same sentence as being unusable. Traditionalists wanted an EVF rather than just using the rear screen to frame and focus.

They wanted “hard” controls with aperture rings, shutter speed and ISO dials. Leica offered an add-on EVF, but it never looked or felt like it was integrated into the way you wish to use the camera.

Condemned by the power of Influencers

Early internet “influencers” also seemed to have little understanding of how to get the most out of the camera. And that was before the too-high price for younger phone-centric buyers came into focus.

While bashing the T, the lenses also came in for criticism from traditionalists for “not made here”, meaning Wetzlar. No real explanation or justification from Leica seemed to penetrate this thick fog of snobbery and ignorance. Despite all that, the useful M-L adaptor enabled the camera to use just about any existing M lens. But however you looked at it, the T was still underappreciated.

A scramble to the finish line

Leica must have fairly quickly recognized that the T was not fully market-ready. They followed it with the TL barely two years later in 2016.

Not much had changed in reality, beyond increasing the internal memory from 16GB to 32GB. And twelve months later, the TL2 was launched.

The sensor had increased from 16MP to 24MP which helped performance. The touch screen had improved sensitivity. You were now able to shoot RAW alone, instead of a mandatory RAW + JPG. The pop-up flash had been deleted from the spec. But there was still no built-in EVF, and the line of APS-C lenses appeared to have stalled at seven. 

The writing seemed to be on the wall with the arrival of the CL in 2018 and thus it proved.

What saddens me most is that the camera was enjoyable to use and involved the minimum of fuss. It was particularly convenient with the TL 18mm pancake lens and could be slipped into a jacket pocket if you wished. If you can find one today, you can have a perfectly usable and portable camera which is relatively low-cost and produces excellent image quality.

Ironically, the DNA of the original T line continues throughout Leica. If you put a Q or SL or even an M next to any of the T Series family, you can see in the GUI and controls how much of that original DNA has been passed on. 

Lost in transition

The nagging questions remain, not about the T line of cameras per se, but how they were presented to influencers and potential users. You can’t assume that something as radical in concept is completely self-explanatory in use. 

It’s not, as companies such as BMW found when they introduced iDrive to buyers who had little spare time to learn a new control system, and were offering too little help to make it work. It took two generations of development and refinement before buyers began to embrace it. They kept refining it, not condemning it.

Great expectations

Maybe Leica could have done a better job of setting expectations about how the camera functioned, and defining the target buyer. The second flaw was affordability? Who would pay for it, and what did they want from a compact APS-C camera? Did they want revolution? Or did they want evolution? The cancellation of the third and final TL2 series probably provides us with the answers. 

Conclusion

While the successor Leica CL did seem to press all the right buttons, it was summarily dismissed before a CL2 could be released. Many Leica fans will never get over that betrayal.

It’s sad to think these cameras were never quite perceived to have commercially hit the mark and so were condemned to extinction when they were on sale. But they were not forgotten. In different ways they provided next steps in expressing “das Wesentliche” for a new generation of cameras. That DNA and legacy are alive and well in Leica cameras that are on sale today.

---

Links to the stories about the Leica M (262) and Leica T (701)

The underappreciated Leica M (262)

The end of the Leica M262

The story of the underappreciated Leica T (701)

More on the Leica T (701)

---

A cup of coffee works wonders in supporting Macfilos

Did you know that Macfilos is run by a dedicated team of volunteers? We rely on donations to help pay our running costs. And even the cost of a cup of coffee will do wonders for our energy levels.

---