M9: Thom Hogan on Luminous landscape.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I REALLY think that its time that the Leica Forum had a 'Conjectural' Forum somewhere especially for discussions of what might be, by dis-satisfied M8/9 users/ would-be-users/try-outers so that discussions of 'improvements' and 'irritations' could find a suitable home and be discussed to death. This would free up the existing forums so that 'real world' queries about existent equipment could be discussed in a appropriate and civilised manner;).

 

That said, I have absolutely no idea who Thom Hogan is, but his thoughts, to be brutally blunt (I am trying to be inoffensive here), betray a complete mis-understanding of compact rangefinder concept and design, or the issues surrounding its digital requirements. As for the suggested Blck and White version, well isn't this just 'another 'software fix' which he has already denigrated? I would expect to face criticism if I suggested that a Nikon D3X was merely an F6 with a digital sensor and from then on the piece is a mish-mash of personal opinions and conjectures. I'd understand and appreciate it better had it been posted on 1/4.

 

What puzzles me is why these internet 'gurus' have so much notice taken of them.

[delander †]

I completely agree a separate forum for this stuff, where people can just propose the same old stuff time and time again, ad infinitum, forever going around in the same old circles.

 

But perhaps it should be called:

 

"The What Leica Should Have Done or Should Do Next Forum"

 

Jeff

[bill]

Well, we have Barnack's Bar, I suggest that we have "The Boardroom" for all the wannabe CEOs, CFOs, Management Consultants and "M10 designers".

 

The rest of us can then get on with life.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jsrockit]

I suggest that we have "The Boardroom" for all the wannabe CEOs, CFOs, Management Consultants and "M10 designers".

 

Seriously, I wonder why all of these people still use the M series... it seems they'd be better of with a Nikon or Canon.

[chmilar]

Much better to leave the sensor unfiltered so the camera would be suitable for IR, visible and UV, and then to control spectral sensitivity with custom filters to give exactly the effect you want.

 

This how the Phase One Achromatic Back works. It seems to be a successful idea. It's not like Leica has to even come up with any new ideas to bring out a monochrome camera, just copy what Phase One has already done.

[markowich]

it is fascinating to see how conservative leica M fans are. so protective of their loved rangefinder tech that everybody who suggest improvements automatically becomes an enemy. MR and TH have stipulated a long needed discussion, which should be appreciated by M lovers. the statements here remind me of the exit of analogue film....oh sorry i forgot that some leicaists are still into it---))). michael gorbatschow once said : those who come late will be punished by life. he turned out to be right.

peter

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This how the Phase One Achromatic Back works. It seems to be a successful idea. It's not like Leica has to even come up with any new ideas to bring out a monochrome camera, just copy what Phase One has already done.

 

So you can use it for (3-exposure) colour too!

[jaapv]

it is fascinating to see how conservative leica M fans are. so protective of their loved rangefinder tech that everybody who suggest improvements automatically becomes an enemy. MR and TH have stipulated a long needed discussion, which should be appreciated by M lovers. the statements here remind me of the exit of analogue film....oh sorry i forgot that some leicaists are still into it---))). michael gorbatschow once said : those who come late will be punished by life. he turned out to be right.

peter

Not protective - as far as I'm concerned Leica should build such a camera if they see a market for it. But I fear reality looks a bit different. Even the R10, which would probably attract at least 100 times the number of buyers, was deemed economically not feasible.

[chmilar]

So you can use it for (3-exposure) colour too!

 

This has already been done, as well (but in a slightly different way).

 

Take a look at the Hasselblad and Sinar multi-shot digital backs. They take four exposures, using a Bayer-filtered sensor, but for each exposure, the sensor is shifted by one pixel, either up, left, down, or right. So each pixel is exposed once for each color (green is done twice, and this can be used to determine if motion happened during the four exposures).

[redbaron]

it is fascinating to see how conservative leica M fans are. so protective of their loved rangefinder tech that everybody who suggest improvements automatically becomes an enemy. MR and TH have stipulated a long needed discussion, which should be appreciated by M lovers. the statements here remind me of the exit of analogue film....oh sorry i forgot that some leicaists are still into it---))). michael gorbatschow once said : those who come late will be punished by life. he turned out to be right.

peter

 

Why should it be appreciated? It's a lot of nonsense. Leica doesn't give a fat rat's what MR, or anyone here, says. They will continue to make cameras according to their criteria, as they always have.

[wattsy]

Even the R10, which would probably attract at least 100 times the number of buyers, was deemed economically not feasible.

 

Not sure why you'd think that. The R system has always been a very poor seller (outsold many times over by the M system) and an R10 was not going to make much difference to that situation.

[wattsy]

MR and TH have stipulated a long needed discussion

 

Hardly. This discussion between camera geeks/gearheads (usually those with a ridiculous sense of their own importance) and photographers has been going on since at least the time the M8 was launched. It was boring then and it is boring now.

[stunsworth]

This discussion between camera geeks/gearheads (usually those with a ridiculous sense of their own importance) and photographers has been going on since at least the time the M8 was launched.

 

Indeed, I've seen a thread on this subject many, many times. What it always seems to boil down to is "we need to add features that are present on SLRs but not on a rangefinder".

[jonoslack]

it is fascinating to see how conservative leica M fans are. so protective of their loved rangefinder tech that everybody who suggest improvements automatically becomes an enemy. MR and TH have stipulated a long needed discussion, which should be appreciated by M lovers. the statements here remind me of the exit of analogue film....oh sorry i forgot that some leicaists are still into it---))). michael gorbatschow once said : those who come late will be punished by life. he turned out to be right.

peter

 

Rubbish Peter

Nobody (I've seen) is suggesting that Leica shouldn't produce a camera with live view / focus confirmation / etc. etc. (add your favorite). I think there is probably a real market for something which will take both M and R lenses as well (I'd certainly be interested). Something like m4/3 but with a full frame sensor would be wonderful.

 

BUT

why do you have to change the M into this thing?

 

To take your film analogy - it's as if you're saying - we shall have digital, and you shall not have film.

These arguments all say - "We'll take what you really like, and we'll change it into something else that we want"

Both MR and TH have postulated changes which would mean that the Leica M would be fundamentally different - while Leica can't make enough M9's - why would they want to do that?

 

If Leica change the whole rangefinder concept for the M10 (which is the implication of these changes) there simply won't be a digital rangefinder camera anymore.

 

It's like looking at a Porsche Boxster and saying "Hmmm, let's put 4 seats in this, and we certainly need gentler suspension - get rid of that noisy soft-top, put the engine in the bonnet so as to improve the boot space . . . make it front wheel drive as it's more economical to make, and while you're about it a diesel engine will really improve fuel consumption and be great for the environment"

 

If you want a VW Golf, go ahead, buy one!

[ChrisC]

..... What it always seems to boil down to is "we need to add features that are present on SLRs but not on a rangefinder".

 

Steve - Well, no; certainly not in my case and some others too. The personal criticisms I have about the viewing system have not been denied, and do not go away. Andy generously gave his view of why the design is as it is, and I found his reply interesting and informative, but I couldn't help thinking 'the design was brilliant for it's time, has served well, but is stuck and it's time for a rethink'.

 

For some an anti-discussion/this is oh-so-boring/why don't these people go buy a DSLR and be happy mentality haunts these forums as if Leica were a cottage industry making cameras on the kitchen table and assembling lenses on the virgin thighs of first-cousin relatives and in need of protection from anyone who deigns to not show unflinching reverence for the 'M'.

 

Leica is a high-tech company; not the biggest, granted - but not a minnow either. It has chosen to expand it's capabilities ambitiously with the S2 range. It has clever-design capabilities. The discussion that I would like to witness is the the one where starting from now [as opposed to post war torn Germany] how can clever design arrive at a viewing system [preferably direct] which does not have the antiquated detractions and limitations that the stuck design has?

 

I am one of those who is hugely optimistic for the future of digital rangefinder cameras; but not if the only option is the current viewfinder/framing. Personally I think M.R. 'over-egged the pudding' somewhat in his original open letter to Leica, but at heart he is a fan of the 'M' [as am I] but is not blind to their need for improvement for many users, and more importantly; future customers. Leica is not a faith, 'M' is not a church, being urged by some [this is not directed at Steve] to effectively be quiet in church, or go away to the DSLR denomination is frankly childishly pathetic.

 

................ Chris

[haroldp]

Steve - Well, no; certainly not in my case and some others too. The personal criticisms I have about the viewing system have not been denied, and do not go away. Andy generously gave his view of why the design is as it is, and I found his reply interesting and informative, but I couldn't help thinking 'the design was brilliant for it's time, has served well, but is stuck and it's time for a rethink'.

 

For some an anti-discussion/this is oh-so-boring/why don't these people go buy a DSLR and be happy mentality haunts these forums as if Leica were a cottage industry making cameras on the kitchen table and assembling lenses on the virgin thighs of first-cousin relatives and in need of protection from anyone who deigns to not show unflinching reverence for the 'M'.

 

Leica is a high-tech company; not the biggest, granted - but not a minnow either. It has chosen to expand it's capabilities ambitiously with the S2 range. It has clever-design capabilities. The discussion that I would like to witness is the the one where starting from now [as opposed to post war torn Germany] how can clever design arrive at a viewing system [preferably direct] which does not have the antiquated detractions and limitations that the stuck design has?

 

I am one of those who is hugely optimistic for the future of digital rangefinder cameras; but not if the only option is the current viewfinder/framing. Personally I think M.R. 'over-egged the pudding' somewhat in his original open letter to Leica, but at heart he is a fan of the 'M' [as am I] but is not blind to their need for improvement for many users, and more importantly; future customers. Leica is not a faith, 'M' is not a church, being urged by some [this is not directed at Steve] to effectively be quiet in church, or go away to the DSLR denomination is frankly childishly pathetic.

 

................ Chris

 

Chris:

 

Thank you, Good for you. This needed to be said.

Most of the suggestions in this and similar threads have been for a better direct view coupled rangefinder camera.

 

Regards to all ... Harold

[bill]

Right.

 

Let's draw a line in the sand, give everyone on all sides the benefit of the doubt and start from scratch.

 

I like the current range/viewfinder because:

 

1. It provides direct vision

2. It is easy to focus, and to see when precise focus has been achieved

3. The entire field of view does not blur when out of focus

4. I can see what is going on around the framelines; this helps me to predict when to press the shutter

5. It is still clear to see in poor light

6. It does not black out when I press the shutter

7. It is compact (no mirror flip-up, no pentaprism bulge)

8. It is robust and reliable

9. Focussing is not battery dependent

10. It is silent in use

11. There is no telltale glow of a screen or display to draw attention to me in low light, or to ruin my night vision.

 

Perhaps someone would like to provide a similar statement of benefits for the alternatives?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Vip]

Yes! I would like to see all you have said AND an electronic viewfinder attachable to the hot shoe to combine the best of the world

[adan]

The present frame-line mechanism activates an electronic switch system. Surely this same switch mechanism could be used for 'default' operation when lenses that do not have the 'new' features were used? It could even be controlled by the manual lens selection that is available at present for uncoded lenses.

 

Hi, Nicole!

 

Except via the 6-bit coding, even the electrical switches cannot distinguish between a 21, 28 and 90, or between a 50 and a 75, or between a 24, 35 and 135. They have a very simple trinary logic, and that logic is built into every M lens including those on the production line today, in the form of fractionally different lengths to one of the mounting flanges.

 

Having to pause and set stuff in the menu with every lens change is a non-starter for me. The world (or at least the parts of it that are actually worth photographing) moves too fast.

_________________________________

 

Chris and others have diagnosed some things that are not perfect about the M viewfinder/rangefinder. My problem is with the prescriptions suggested so far. As the saying goes, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

 

My design brief for anyone wanting to take a stab at a redesign:

 

• Manual split/coincident-image rangefinding must be maintained.

• The viewfinder, including frameline selection, must be usable, without power drain, whether the camera is on or off

• Automated frameline selection (and compatability otherwise) with/for any lens Leica has built since at least 1980 (not "post-war") - certainly at a bare minimum any M lens Leica has built in this century.

• No significant change in the size of the RF/VF mechanism (+/- 5% of volume)

• No significant change in production cost (spend all you want on R&D, though - or at least as much as Dr. Kaufmann's deep pockets can handle )

 

My own thoughts on the "problems"

 

I actually prefer the lighter, sketchy, "incomplete" lines, for the most part. Prior to the M4-P, the 90mm lines showed corner angles as well as the sides, and I would love to see that layout return. I'm not thrilled by the cutout in the bottom side of the 35/28 lines to skip over the metering readout. The Konica Hexar RF managed to include a meter readout without "breaking" those lines.

 

I'd prefer more "consistent" framing throughout the focus range. Not "100%" - that is just not a good idea when the lens is viewing things from a point 2 inches away from where your eye is. But 95% that stays 95% at all distances.

 

Multiple lines visible at the same time. Withe 28/90 and 35/135, I just see right past the lines I'm not using. Wasn't much of a learning process. I do find tight pairs like the 50/75 or 24/35 (in the M8) a bit distracting.

 

I don't have a problem with looking for ways to fix those, so long as the solutions also stick within the design brief I outlined.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bill]

Yes! I would like to see all you have said AND an electronic viewfinder attachable to the hot shoe to combine the best of the world

 

With respect, Vip, that was not the question. I know WHAT you want, because you have said so many times, but I asked for people to

...provide a similar statement of benefits for the alternatives?

 

If we are to make sense of this, let's compare like with like. I am trying to get away from bloatware lust into commonsense here.

 

I want to avoid evolutionary compromises like this:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Regards,

 

Bill