M9: Thom Hogan on Luminous landscape.

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

Bill, +1

but some say they are too old to focus in low light, therefore there is an issue there.

If Leica manages to keep its legacy in a new design M, but at the same time

improve the RF accuracy and add a confirmation signal, then this can only be considered a good thing.

And with that confirmation tone, I would love to have the option of auto-triggering as well.

Opens many possibilities when one tries to shoot moving targets

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rosuna]

I agree with Andy, but...

 

1) I think the current viewfinder/rangefinder needs a redesign aimed at better focus precision. Digital files are inspected at 100% on screens, and high resolution sensors put even more pressure on the focus precision of the rangefinder. Small errors become very evident. Typical print sizes are very large today. The viewfinder may be pushed to the extreme corner now, because there isn't rewind knobs there. So the physical base of the rangefinder may be and should be increased. Other minor improvements may be incorporated as well.

 

2) Leica may and should provide different cameras with M mount. I want a classical M for myself (like Andy), and I accept small changes and improvements (live view + accessory EVFs is the best evolution line for the classical cameras). However, Leica may offer a different camera for a different public, and I will not feel insulted for that. An EVF-only camera with M mount may be smaller, cheaper and more convenient for young photographers, reporters, etc. I don't know if I would buy one or not, but it is fine with me if it makes sense (business sense) for Leica. Anyway, Leica has to do something, because that "Veblen goods" tale is an error: there are not Veblen goods in the electronics industry. Innovation, evolution, features and prices goes too fast for Veblen goods there. Film Leica Ms were Veblen goods, but digital Leica Ms cannot be that. This is a problem for Leica, a serious problem, but they have to find a solution.

[adan]

The personal criticisms I have about the viewing system have not been denied, and do not go away.

 

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. But that does not make it fact, just your personal opinion.

 

...which does not have the antiquated detractions and limitations that the stuck design has?

 

It is you opinion that the M viewfinder is "antiquated". You are NOT entitled to claim it as fact. I do not think the M rangefinder is antiquated, so unless you can persuade me (and more importantly, persuade Leica) that it is (not just that you think it is), we won't really move very far.

 

If I say "the sun rises in the west", it really does not matter how tight and logical my following argument is, or what suggestions I have for correcting the rotation of the earth - unless you also agree as a basic principle that the sun does, indeed, rise in the west.

 

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.

 

Again, your opinion. I disagree, therefore I don't find your opinion a useful premise for moving forward. If you have some hard numbers to back up your opinion - say, 8,000 people who would only buy a revised "M" to counter the 8,000 who have ordered/preordered the M9 "as is" - then we'd have something to talk about.

 

...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 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."

 

That is Glenn-Beckish hyperbole and frankly a dishonest representation of those who disagree with you. Or to be even blunter - a lie. It's beneath you (I hope).

[Nicoleica]

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.

.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I think that you may have misunderstood my comment a little. I was only intending to suggest that some alterations were not necessarily excluded by the need to remain backwards compatible. My suggestion regarding use of the existing switches to control electronic framelines was for those switches alone to provide default pairs of framelines for lenses that were not 6 bit coded, in the same way as the mechanical levers provide at present. This would mean that an older, or uncoded lens would show the same frames as and M8 or M9 do at present. Future coded (Or whatever mechanism is used by then.) lenses could take full advantage of the new technology and set a single specific frame. Additionally, and that the key word, a menu option could be provided if you wished to set a specific frameline manually. These ideas would provide 100% compatibility, without limiting future options.

[redbaron]

Rosuna; If you have 'problems' with particular cameras that does not mean the manufacturer has also has a problem. As everyone else that wants to change the M to suit themselves, YOU have the problem, not Leica.

[haroldp]

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

 

Bill:

 

I think very few, if any (certainly not me ) on this thread is proposing an alternative. There are enough DSLR's and will be enough EVIL cameras to satisfy that demand. Most of the suggestions in this thread would not compromise a single one of your points,(which I agree with ) but would enhance them. The real objections seem to be that they would be prohibitively hard or expensive to do.

 

If that is the case, then it is a self correcting problem because Leica, being intelligent and rational business people and engineers will simply not do them.

 

Features like scalable finders and lines, that left current lenses no worse then they are now, and new lenses operating on old bodies just like the old lenses are not an 'alternative' , but an enhancement. If this can be done, which of your points is compromised ?.

 

Nicole outlined a clever way that this might work.

 

If sensor based IS can be fit into an 'M' scale body, which of your points is compromised ?.

 

There were many other well meaning ideas that would provide usability in a wider range of circumstances, without compromising the strengths we agree on.

 

In thechnolog, wht is impossible or expensive today becomes easier and cheaper tomorrow.

 

We are colleagues here on this forum exchanging ideas.

 

Regards ...Harold

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If sensor based IS can be fit into an 'M' scale body, which of your points is compromised ?

 

Given the tolerances involved, and the shallow depth of focus of a very fast lens, can this work in practice without compromising the resulting image?

[haroldp]

Given the tolerances involved, and the shallow depth of focus of a very fast lens, can this work in practice without compromising the resulting image?

 

I do not know for sure, but it works very well on the Olympus E-3, and Olympus lenses ( like Leica ) are very sharp, even wide open. I have never used an Olympus lens faster than F2, but the F2 50mm works very well on the E-3.

 

I believe that the motion of the sensor is front-back, side-seide, and circular but the plane of focus does not change.

 

I also believe that sensor based IS is most effective with smaller sensors and shorter lenses. The 4/3 sensor is approx. 1/4 the size of an FF sensor like the m9.

 

Regards ... H

[giordano]

I like the current range/viewfinder because:

 

<snip reasons 1 to 11>

 

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

 

That's not the point. I don't think there's anyone here who wants to lose any one of those 11 benefits let alone see the M replaced with something fundamentally different. But that doesn't mean the M's range/viewfinding system couldn't be even more precise, more convenient and more versatile.

 

It won't be easy, of course, on account of the quality of the existing RVF, the laws of physics and design decisions made 60 or 80 years ago. At the time the M was being designed, the Nikon designers clearly thought that Contax had the better lens mount and rangefinder while Leica had the better shutter: I wonder if Leica engineers sometimes feel the same way.

[jaapv]

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.

You're quite right - so you can draw your conclusions about my prediction of the projected sales of this committee-designed camera that is being proposed....

[nryn]

Even more annoying than the Design-by-committee Committee's accusations that those of us who don't want these "features" on the M is the notion that all of us are somehow anti-progress.

 

Firstly, progress is subjective.

 

Secondly, you can't take the existing lens or body design and "add autofocus". You'd have to change the body and the lenses. You'd have to stick a motor somewhere and add some way for the body to communicate with the lenses. You'd have to rethink the rangefinder. Electronic, optical, doesn't matter. It would need an overhaul.

 

I have no objections to Leica or anyone else making this camera. Who knows, I might even buy it (doubtful, but I'll keep an open mind). The point is that with overhauled everything, it wouldn't be an M and would (likely) only bear some vague tie to rangefinders as a species. So what's the point? Call it an N, an O, or a P. Why shove all this stuff into the M lineage?

 

Anyway, I keep telling myself I won't contribute to these silly threads, and here I am again.

[adan]

At the time the M was being designed, the Nikon designers clearly thought that Contax had the better lens mount and rangefinder while Leica had the better shutter.

 

..and Canon clearly thought Leica had the better lens mount and rangefinder - and shutter

[ChrisC]

Andy - I always read your posts with interest and have already stated in this thread that I am informed by them. It will be pedantic of me to reply to other aspects of your post 83, but not this:

 

That is Glenn-Beckish hyperbole and frankly a dishonest representation of those who disagree with you. Or to be even blunter - a lie. It's beneath you (I hope).

 

The first reference I don't get, but I don't need to because the second is bluntly obvious as you say. I had posts in mind when I wrote my own post. To publicly suggest I might be a liar is an offensive personal insult which gets my attention. I would have thought that suggesting another forum member to be a liar was beneath you Andy.

 

My opinions are not welcome; I shall read more and post less.

 

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

[jonoslack]

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.

 

HI Andy - and Nicole

Without speaking of the benefits or otherwise, it seems to me that you could bring up a single frameline for cameras which were coded, you could then bring up double framelines for those that aren't (relating to their trinary logic). This would seem to get over the problem.

 

Thinking more about this aspect, it seems to me that it would be possible to have, for example, half a dozen 'custom' presets - where the user could choose a lens correction and a frameline, and have half a dozen unused 6 bit codes allocated to these custom presets.

 

I would think this could probably be implemented in the current camera with a firmware update with respect to the lens correction (not the framelines of course).

[AlanJW]

Andy - I always read your posts with interest and have already stated in this thread that I am informed by them. It will be pedantic of me to reply to other aspects of your post 83, but not this:

 

 

 

The first reference I don't get, but I don't need to because the second is bluntly obvious as you say. I had posts in mind when I wrote my own post. To publicly suggest I might be a liar is an offensive personal insult which gets my attention. I would have thought that suggesting another forum member to be a liar was beneath you Andy.

 

My opinions are not welcome; I shall read more and post less.

 

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

Perhaps we could have more reasoned discourse if people refrained from the use of "pathetic" or "liar" in describing someone else or their posts. If you really don't like someone or the way they post, there is the "ignore" function to use.

[adan]

Chris: Read what people have actually posted. Read how you characterized those posts in the section I quoted. Compare the two. Did some other member of the forum actually use the words "virgin thighs of first cousin relatives", etc. - or did you make it up?

 

FWIW, Glenn Beck is a commentator on Fox News in the US. Known for exaggerating the positions of those he opposes to the point of idiocy (so that he can then claim they are idiotic). A rhetorical technique I find fundamentally dishonest regardless of who uses it, where, in defence of what.

 

As I said, I thought that particular post was beneath your normal standards.

[FrankA]

The way I read it, and I think a lot of people are not seeing, is that in order for leica to be around in 30 years after most of the baby boomers are too old or too dead to take photos, they need to change. The current rangefinder may not be "antiquated" as some argue, and it is not today, but I don't see a lot of the under 50 crowd clamoring to get the M8 or M9. There are some. And to argue that the rangefinder is fine for you today and needs no change is a very narrow view and ignores that it may not be relevant tomorrow. If I am not mistaken, Leica is the only company making rangefinders, film or digital. How many companies made them 20 or 30 years ago? Obviously, a lot of people may think the rangefinder is not relevant now. Leica needs a new market attraction to continue to be viable. If they redid the rangefinder and added focus confirmation, etc, then they might attract more and younger consumers. And those of us who are baby boomers will still be able to use the rangefinder when we are 80. Just a point of view. Thom is mostly provocative. Agree with him or not, Leica needs to see the light of the future and make some changes to attract new buyers, and not rely upon an ever shrinking group of retreads. If that continues the 28 elmarit will be 10 grand in a few years to just get one out the door. Leica m lenses are the best out there by a long shot. They need a camera that attracts the younger crowd to survive.

[stunsworth]

I don't see a lot of the under 50 crowd clamoring to get the M8 or M9

 

I would speculate that people "of a certain age" have been the main buyers and users of Leicas for several decades. When I was younger I used an auto everything AF SLR, now I use a Leica, I'd guess I'm not unique in that regard.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

They need a camera that attracts the younger crowd to survive.

Absolutely! At last some sanity:D. The REAL people (as opposed to older internet 'gurus' or even forum wish listers) that need listening to regarding the future evolution of the M series are those young photographers who have been brought up on digital and have never shot film. What they don't have is the historical M baggage associated with most of us and, I assume, will, as a result, see the M system in a rather different light than most viewers of/poster in this thread.

 

They may, or may not, require features which are being argued over here, or others. They may actually go for the 'retro' M series in a not dis-similar form than it is today. But THEY are Leica's future and they will determine whether the M system survives much as it is or evolves into something more applicable to their requirements.

 

Personally I am more than satisfied with the M system as it is now, however I am just over half a century old and I DO have the M baggage behind me:rolleyes:. I am probably representative of Leica's short term future but certainly not its long term existence - and I suspect that the same is true of many of the people posting here.

[FrankA]

I would speculate that people "of a certain age" have been the main buyers and users of Leicas for several decades. When I was younger I used an auto everything AF SLR, now I use a Leica, I'd guess I'm not unique in that regard.

 

Except for those whose parents used leica's in the 20's, 30, and 40's and passed them on to their children. Quite a lot of those around.