M9: Thom Hogan on Luminous landscape.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

So the customer base dies out at the top and gets replenished at the bottom.

[stunsworth]

So the customer base dies out at the top and gets replenished at the bottom.

 

Yes, it works the same way for classical music concerts <grin>.

 

I'd also add that in the future I would predict that many young people will abandon the idea of having a seperate camera at all and rely on the one built into the mobile phone.

[Mark Pope]

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).

 

My understanding of how the framelines work is that there is an opaque mask with slots cut to allow light through for each frameline. Could this be replicated using LCD technology? IF it could, then in principle, it would be possible to bring up the correct framelines (personally, having frameline pairs come up doesn't bother me on bit) AND maybe do something to improve framing accuracy - the size of the frames could change as the lens is focused, thereby compensating for the change in field of view as well as parallax.

 

This could be and probably is complete and utter pie in the sky, but no more so than the myriad other threads about "improving" the digital M. I agree with Jono - the concept is fine as it is, but IF some incremental improvements could be made which fixed the colour issues and addressed the framing "problems", then that would be a huge step forward.

 

Personally, I like the flexibility of being able to choose whether to render an image as colour, monochrome or if the fancy takes me, a bit of both. An M9M would be a dead end, though I still have all of my B&W filters in 39mm and 46mm sizes should I change my mind

 

Finally, I can't see what's wrong with having a camera that doesn't have goodness knows how many modes for focusing, scenes, movies etc. I've just ordered a GF1. I looked at the manual on-line today. It's 196 pages long. Most of it is utterly superfluous as the thing will be set to shoot in raw and I'll either use manual or aperture priority exposure mode. A camera without bells, whistles and complicatotrons suits me down to the ground!

 

All IMHO of course

 

 

Is it time for a gin and tonic yet?

[FrankA]

So the customer base dies out at the top and gets replenished at the bottom.

 

True for the past 50 years or longer. Maybe not so true going forward with technological change on pace that far outstrips change 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago.

[stunsworth]

My understanding of how the framelines work is that there is an opaque mask with slots cut to allow light through for each frameline. Could this be replicated using LCD technology? IF it could, then in principle, it would be possible to bring up the correct framelines (personally, having frameline pairs come up doesn't bother me on bit) AND maybe do something to improve framing accuracy - the size of the frames could change as the lens is focused, thereby compensating for the change in field of view as well as parallax.

 

This was discussed at length prior to the launch of the M8 when we were speculating about the camera's specifications. I'm not mentioning this as one of those "search the forum" posts, but just as an indication that it's been thought of already - and I'm certain if _we've_ thought of it so have Leica.

[marknorton]

Bill points out the key attributes of the Leica M range/viewfinder but omits to mention the drawbacks which make it less than ideal.

 

It has a sweet spot around 35 - 50mm; going wider requires a variety of auxiliary finders which effectively abandon the standard finder as a framing device. Going longer requires (or at least recommends) the use of focus magnifiers to achieve the required accuracy. Meanwhile, screw-in dioptres are required to correct eye-sight and the small eye-piece diameter makes the thing more difficult to use for eye glass wearers than a decent DSLR.

 

The interaction between the finder and the camera is in just three areas - the frame selector lever, the focussing distance and the in-finder LCD display. Nothing else. There would be nothing to stop Leica offering an M camera with a traditional finder and a newly developed no-compromise finder as a (build-time) option for those willing to pay for it and accept (say) the compromise of a larger camera or at least one which looked somewhat different from the traditional M.

 

That's why I would like Leica to develop a no-compromise finder which includes variable magnification, built-in diopters, improved eye-comfort and electronic framelines. Sadly, they have never put the development investment into this USP of the M and instead serve up the same dreary old vintage year after year.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm happy they do...

[Mark Pope]

This was discussed at length prior to the launch of the M8 when we were speculating about the camera's specifications. I'm not mentioning this as one of those "search the forum" posts, but just as an indication that it's been thought of already - and I'm certain if _we've_ thought of it so have Leica.

 

Fair enough. My participation in the LUF post-dates the M8 by quite a bit I think, so I wouldn't have been party to the discussions. I'm sure you're right that Leica would have thought about this. But technology moves on, so what wasn't viewed as being feasible in 2007 (I think), could well be a viable proposition now.

 

Cheers

 

Mark

[giordano]

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

 

Certainly they didn't need nearly as much special tooling, which must have been a very big factor in 1940s Japan.

 

Where the Contax system scores is that the rangefinder is coupled to the lens via a c.300 degree rotation rather than a c.3mm linear movement. This means that all the really high-precision bits of the Contax rangefinding/focusing system are safely tucked away inside the body and stay the same no matter what lens you fit - while on a Leica they are partly in the body and partly in the lens mount and therefore are disturbed and interchanged every time you change lens.

[Mike Rawcs]

I started this thread, so I'll weigh in here with my thoughts on the subject.

 

I say again, I can't remember the release of another camera that has been greeted with as many "I hope the next model has ..." as has the Leica M9. To be fair to Leica, the opportunity to comment did not exist until recently! The curse of digital.

 

I remember the release of the Olympus OM system. Although I never owned an Olympus, I owe a debt to the company, as the release of the system forced all other camera manufacturers to respond. before the OM system cameras were BIG, cameras were HEAVY! The manufacturers had lost their way, they had forgotten what a revolution 35mm photography had made to the lives of photographers. Small, light, unobtrusive: suddenly the world was opened up as subject matter: real-life: captured in real-time.

 

Leica was at the pinnacle of this 35mm freedom. Small, lightweight and ultra-reliable (photographers covered the Second World War with one Leica and a couple of lenses). Then along came digital. I’m still unsure about how I view digital.

 

When it first arrived, digital was like a version of The Emperors New Clothes - it offered instant feedback, quick download to a computer, home adjustment and printing etc. etc. - but the reality was that the quality produced was no equal to film. We, the photographers, felt smug.

 

Of course the public, who don’t really care about the craft of photography and only care that the print of Aunt Polly looked vaguely sharp just loved digital! They could see a image of Aunt Polly on the tiny LCD (yes! an LCD!) and show Aunt Polly the result of their efforts.

 

The trouble, for us, is that we rely on the public to buy film / digital products in order to support our habit. The public has embraced digital; in-part because that is what the camera manufacturers have offered them.

 

So why do camera manufacturers produce high-end products? Certainly because they want to manufacture the best camera of a generation; but also because such a camera will garner a following among up-and-coming photographers.

 

The future. Digital is the future. The future. Camera manufacturers should stop, take a deep breath, and give us, the public and the photographer, a camera worthy of the digital age: small, light. unencumbered by the past but recognizing the strengths of the 35mm revolution. Forget producing digital versions of film cameras: be bold; and reap the rewards.

 

Mike.

[redbaron]

When did we earn the right to tell a privately owned company what it "should" do?

[diogenis]

Well we are their customers..

If what Mark says is true, they should immediately start pumping cash to develop a better viewfinder. Innovations don't just come within the hour. Apple was trying for what? 10 years to develop that tablet of theirs?

Now that almost everyone has accepted the fact that they need a new model at least every now and then...

[jaapv]

When did we earn the right to tell a privately owned company what it "should" do?

It is not privately owned. It is an Aktiengesellschaft.

[redbaron]

Do you speak on behalf of Leica's entire customer base, have they asked for your input and do you think Steve Jobs designs his products around forum chatter?

[redbaron]

It is not privately owned. It is an Aktiengesellschaft.

 

Thanks for that clarification, Jaap. I actually meant private as opposed to government run, in which case tax payers do have a say in how things should be done. But you raise an interesting point; who among us are actually share holders?

[giordano]

Apple was trying for what? 10 years to develop that tablet of theirs?

 

For the large majority of that time they weren't so much trying to develop a tablet as waiting for the various technologies to advance to the point where the Apple (or Jobs) vision of a tablet became practical. In effect, waiting on the efforts of other organisations. (I don't mean to denigrate Apple by saying this: their strengths are in areas like product design and systems integration and they know how to play to them.)

 

Then, within maybe a year of the time when the technology (and manufacturing capability) reached the necessary point, they launched their product.

 

A firm making M-like range-viewfinders is in a quite different position. There's no massive component industry which sooner or later will start selling all the vital components for a better M-like range/viewfinder. There's no mass of low-wage factories competing for the work of assembling them. Leica have to do it all for themselves.

[adan]

Mark P., Nicole, and Jono - OK, I see how your plan for getting "legacy" framelines from uncoded lenses would work. I still prefer the straight mechanical/optical system as it stands, for the other reasons I mentioned.

 

Mark Norton finds the curent finder "dreary." I find it to be the nicest viewing system currently available, for my work. Which was reinforced today when I shot a rugby practice with my Panny GH-1. A nice EVF as EVFs go, and I did get some good action shooting the 135 f/4 as a "270mm" - but that's what I would call a "dreary" experience.

 

I think it very likely Leica is going to offer an EVF camera eventually (and probably soon) that uses M and/or R lenses. Not something I'll buy, but I guess it will be a good test of the market. Alongside the M9/10/11 it may be a smart move. If it replaces the M9, well, then, I guess the M9 will be the last new Leica I buy.

 

BTW, Leica is a public-traded company, but Dr. Kaufmann owns over 95% of the shares through his ACM holding company, so it is effectively a private company in the sense that he can pretty much do whatever he wants without consulting other shareholders' opinions (whether they are also Leica camera owners or not).

[diogenis]

Do you speak on behalf of Leica's entire customer base, have they asked for your input and do you think Steve Jobs designs his products around forum chatter?

 

Of course they do!!!

Every company wants feedback for free, or paid what were you thinking?

I am speaking as one of their customers, thank you for asking

[stunsworth]

Of course they want feedback, I'm just not sure they want it on the basis of listening to whoever shouts loudest - which is what a lot of forums (not just here) provide. The mistake is to think that the opinions expressed here are representative of Leica owners as a whole, and that what is being proposed are changes that are good for Leica - as opposed to what an individual would like to see on _his/her_ camera.

 

If they'd taken on board some of the feedback they received from this forum after the M9 was launched they'd probably have concluded that they were only capable of selling fatally flawed products and should do the decent thing and close down. Of course this feedback was coming largely from people who hadn't held the camera, never mind used it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

Mark P., Nicole, and Jono - OK, I see how your plan for getting "legacy" framelines from uncoded lenses would work. I still prefer the straight mechanical/optical system as it stands, for the other reasons I mentioned.

 

Oh! I quite agree. I'm right up for all this innovation, but please can we have it in an N1 or whatever, I'd like to see an M10 (in a couple of years at the soonest) which had firmware developed in house, with a cut down version of the newer Kodak S2 sensor (which would be have 24mp due to the slightly smaller pixel size). Slightly thinner, and otherwise tweaks which could, honestly, mostly be achieved in the M9 with some firmware updates.

 

I do think the idea of some custom lens settings linked to vacant 6 bit codes would be useful so that one didn't have to remember to go into the lens setting menu when using older lenses. . . . but that could probably be achieved in the M9 too.

 

The sales of the M9 clearly indicate that people do want it (young people as well) If it ain't broke. But making something quite different AS WELL, which would take M and R lenses, sounds great.