M9: Thom Hogan on Luminous landscape.

[redbaron]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't want to replace the viewfinder/rangefinder with a EVF, but an accessory EVF + Live view would expand the possibilities of the M camera, and "classical" users like Andy may ignore it. I think it is a natural evolution of the camera, and it will happen.

 

No it won't.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaques]

what I don't understand is Thom says one of the main limitations of the Leica systems in focal lengths.... he proposes a camera that would sort that issue out- at the cost of limiting the camera to B&W - which seems a far greater limitation than focal lengths...

[thompsonkirk]

To jump very far into this discussion, you'd have to agree with Thom Hogan that

 

"The M9 compared to say a D700 or 1DIII has that higher acuity look that more pixels and no AA give you. But the side-to-side (and center to corner) integrity of the data seems slightly compromised."

 

This one sentence is the center of his article. It's a vague pronouncement without evidence or explanation, & I see no reason to agree with it in the first place. What slight compromises in IQ does he see? I look at large numbers of prints in galleries & by my colleagues, & I can't agree that Leica "data seems slightly compromised." Looks the other way around to me.

Kirk

[jonoslack]

To jump very far into this discussion, you'd have to agree with Thom Hogan that

 

"The M9 compared to say a D700 or 1DIII has that higher acuity look that more pixels and no AA give you. But the side-to-side (and center to corner) integrity of the data seems slightly compromised."

 

This one sentence is the center of his article. It's a vague pronouncement without evidence or explanation, & I see no reason to agree with it in the first place. What slight compromises in IQ does he see? I look at large numbers of prints in galleries & by my colleagues, & I can't agree that Leica "data seems slightly compromised." Looks the other way around to me.

Kirk

 

HI Kirk

I quite agree - perhaps he's referring to the colour shift issue? This has been discussed to death (I'm very familiar with testing it). It certainly exists, but only in very few shots with very few lenses in very few situations.

One could actually say exactly the same thing about D700 shots using Nikon lenses if one were talking about resolution . . . . except that the obvious softness in the corners of most Nikon wide angles show up in most shots and most situations.

 

Having understood Andy's argument about the monochrome sensor (I already knew it wasn't feasible on a cost basis), it seems to me that all the LL articles are by people who don't want a digital M and are trying to turn it into something they do want. This would be reasonable if Leica couldn't sell the M9 . . .

[delander †]

I have not read Thom Hogan's views on the LL website although I did read MR piece.

 

I'm sure it is all the same old stuff. Hogan is terribly 'wordy'. Hopefully Leica's next set of financials will indicate that they do not need saving.

 

I dont understand why Leica attracts so much of this advice, wouldn't it be better if MR and Thom Hogan spent far more time advising Pentax and Olympus to improve their game in their own market which is currently dominated by Nikon and Canon and the upcoming Sony?

 

Or have a go at Zeiss with no digital cameras?

 

Jeff

[ChrisC]

... I still haven't seen is a reason to change the unique selling proposition of the Leica M - the coupled manual range/viewfinder - and turn it into an "also-ran" EVF/LCD/EVIL clone.

 

As far as I can tell, this whole thing is basically an attempt by people - who have no love for the rangefinder concept, but do like Leica lenses and the fact that it is the "smallest 24 x 36 sensor" camera - to hijack the M9.

 

You want M-lenses and/or an M9-sized full-frame body? The viewfinder/rangefinder is part of the package. If you can't live with that, well, here's your tuchus, there's the door - don't let the two collide on your way out. No loss to Leica whatever..

 

Andy - OK, a lot of ideas have been thrown around by the two Reichmann/Hogan articles, and some of the resulting discussion has been interesting for those of us who do not equate Leica's 'classic' design to being a masterpiece of design. I have great liking for the direct view/rangefinder focusing concept [not love, I've never felt cameras to be well enough designed to merit love], and I'm not calling for swivelling screens, EVIL, or a built in coffee maker [which really would be useful]. But are you saying that the 'package' as is cannot be improved, expecting better from the viewfinder/rangefinder is a no hoper, and that hopeful discussion for improvement is pointless? Please correct me if I misread your post, I'm not having a pop at you.

 

I'm critical of the dioptre/magnifier bolt-on bodge, the distraction of twinned framelines, hopelessly inaccurate framelines, and broken-up outlines of the frames in the M viewfinder. I think that it is such a poor design result for today that I'm actually amazed anyone thinks it's a great design solution for today. Clearly I can live with the 'viewfinder/rangefinder package' as is, but only because it's the price I have to pay to have the design advantage of rangefinder lenses, and the size advantage of a rangefinder camera. However, in living that trade-off I feel the intrusion of the framing system every time I make a photograph, and when I make a good photograph it is in spite of the viewfinder framing not because of it. I have no doubts that it can be improved, and has long needed improvement.

 

Thanks for the invitation, but I don't think I will be leaving through your ass-kicking door, I'll stay instead, and with the reserved right of a Leica customer to appreciate and commend what's good, and to criticise what isn't.

 

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

[noah_addis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI Kirk

I quite agree - perhaps he's referring to the colour shift issue? This has been discussed to death (I'm very familiar with testing it). It certainly exists, but only in very few shots with very few lenses in very few situations. ...

 

I get the red edge on every single photo I make with my Coded 21 Elmarit ASPH. Additionally, I've noticed that with a handful of frames, maybe a dozen out of a day's shoot, the lens recognition has failed and I end up with photos with blue edges. I always leave the lens recognition on auto and it only happens one frame at a time, the ones before and after are fine and show the lens used. All of my lenses were coded by Leica and the coding is clear and intact.

 

Sure these flawed photos could be fixed, but it's a major inconvenience when I'm trying to send a large number of photos to my agency.

 

I'm not agreeing with Hogan that we should change the M system or have a monochrome version. Both are ridiculous ideas in my opinion. But I do think he's right that the compromised center-corner/edge integrity of the M9 files is a real problem and it absolutely needs to be fixed in the next firmware update, and it needs to be fixed very soon.

[adan]

Hi, Chris. A thoughtful response, and no, I don't take it as a pop at me.

 

First, let's differentiate between those who really don't like the rangefinder concept at all and want it to go away - and those of us who do like it, but may have suggestions for improvements. My "door" invitation was directed at the first.

 

Leica has been in the viewfinder business for 80 years and does, in fact, know a little about designing them. They have made quite a few changes over the years. They also have certain constraints to work within in making future changes. Whatever they do has to:

 

• fit in an M-sized/shaped body

• be backwards-compatible with 56 years of M lenses

• retain the general look and feel of the M viewfinder ("size" of the finder area (perhaps bigger, certainly not smaller), crisp-edged bright lines.

 

Those are self-imposed constraints, of course. It is certainly possible to design a bigger RF/VF or one that limits the backwards compatibility in order to achieve other goals. But unless someone can show them compelling reasons to do so (and I haven't seen any yet), I think Leica sees those constraints as core values, not to be discarded lightly.

 

The paired lines are required to maintain backwards compatability. Leica originally planned for the finder to handle no more than 3 lenses: 50/90/135 for the M3, 35/50/90 for the M2. This three-possibilities approach is hard-wired into not only the framelines mechanism, but also the lens mounts that key the finders. So from the M4 onwards, as the number of frames in one camera grew to 4 and then 6, pairing was unavoidable.

 

Could Leica use lens coding to drive discrete electronic, or electronically-selected lines for each focal length? Yes. Would that be backwards-compatable with the uncodable pre-1980 lenses (or even a 1996 Summilux pre-ASPH)? No.

 

The discontinuous lines are partly due to the mechanism used to slide them. Again, electronic lines could solve that - at a cost to compatability.

 

Same for the variable accuracy at some distances. BTW, I think "hopelessly inaccurate" is gross overstatement (I get the pictures I frame for all the time). Do you have a definition of "hopelessly" you'd care to share?

 

Take a hard look at cameras with built-in diopter adjustment, and you will see that they always have deeper eyepieces than an identical finder without the diopter settings. Usually around one cm. Leica would either have to put a lump on the back of the camera to hold the optics and adjustment mechanism (see Contax-G: http://www.kenrockwell.com/contax/images/g2/DSC_0799-1200.jpg), or make the whole body that much deeper.

 

Screw-in diopter lenses are less convenient, but a heck of a lot smaller. And optional, rather than forced upon all users whether they want them or not.

 

As I said, - assume for a moment that Leica, with 80 years experience, does know something about VF design. If there is something that looks like an obvious improvement, and they haven't done it - stop and give some thought to the possible reasons why not. They usually aren't hard to find. But keep the whole system in mind - the RF/VF doesn't exist in a vaccum.

 

Noah - red-edge fix - agree. For me, the only real problem with the M9 as it stands.

[Nicoleica]

Hi Andy,

 

I've just read your post, and one thought occurs to me. If an electronic (,or other,) method of selecting individual frame-lines were to be designed into future cameras, this doesn't necessarily mean that backward compatibility is ruled out. 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. Anyway, it was just a thought.

[charlesphoto99]

Really all I would want extra besides increased speed/performance is a mechanical iso selector and full time shutter speed display in the VF (user selectable on/off would be ideal).

 

As it is I see the M9 lasting me a long long time.

 

I think what it comes down to is there are many many people (including "famous" reviewers) who covet the M yet aren't very sufficient in handling it and therefore want Leica to make it with EVF's, autofocus, etc etc in order to shoehorn a dslr into an M body. Stick with your DSLRS and 4/3rds - you'll be happy and make better pics.

[delander †]

I find it amazing that these same old threads keep popping up. The subject has been done to death many many many times over.

 

Leica clearly states in its literature what the camera is and how it works. It seems that people then buy it, are surprised when it does not do this that and the other and start yet another thread on how it should be changed to make it the same as every other camera out there.

 

Or are these threads simply started by those who dont have the camera and are just a bit bored?

 

I luv my gear as much as the next man/woman but hey why dont we all go and take some photos and make some fine prints or whatever.

 

Jeff

[tom0511]

To jump very far into this discussion, you'd have to agree with Thom Hogan that

 

"The M9 compared to say a D700 or 1DIII has that higher acuity look that more pixels and no AA give you. But the side-to-side (and center to corner) integrity of the data seems slightly compromised."

 

This one sentence is the center of his article. It's a vague pronouncement without evidence or explanation, & I see no reason to agree with it in the first place. What slight compromises in IQ does he see? I look at large numbers of prints in galleries & by my colleagues, & I can't agree that Leica "data seems slightly compromised." Looks the other way around to me.

Kirk

 

Yes, I also wondered. It sounds like Tom thinks Leica should add an AA filter.

I can not confirm his critics regarding the M9 and I think it is more like a theory than something one actually can see.

[haroldp]

First, let's differentiate between those who really don't like the rangefinder concept at all and want it to go away - and those of us who do like it, but may have suggestions for improvements.

 

Whatever they do has to:

 

• fit in an M-sized/shaped body

• be backwards-compatible with 56 years of M lenses

• retain the general look and feel of the M viewfinder ("size" of the finder area (perhaps bigger, certainly not smaller), crisp-edged bright lines.

 

 

Andy:

 

I have followed many of your posts, and they have been knowledgeable and constructive, therefore I will interpret them in that context.

 

I also accept the basic points you outlined above as core to the 'M' concept. I would add, the ability to see 'outside' the framelines to know what is not in, or is about to enter the frame.

 

I bought my first Leica (an M2) in 1965, it has hundreds of thousands of frames ( a tribute to it's cloth shutter and it's winding mechanism ), and I still use it occasionally. I added an M6 ttl in 1998, and now have 2 M8's, and an M9 ( I am a packrat and never sell anything ). I am clearly both invested in, and like the optical Rangefinder concept, and Leica's. I also am invested in Leica's health as a company and brand.

 

Nonetheless, I believe that there are functional improvements that would extend it's usefulness without getting in the way ( as features ) of those who don't value them.

 

Nicoles suggestion above is a good example of how this might work for frame lines.

 

The same also applies functionally to features like Image Stabilization, Anti-Dust, or Scalable Viewfinder.

 

Camera and Optical design is not my branch of engineering, and I am not speculating on the degree of difficulty, or cost of implementation within the constraints that we agree on. Nor am I asserting that such a camera could ( or could not ) be economically built today.

 

The trend in technology is that electronic technologies get smaller and lighter (and better and cheaper) over time. What is possible expands.

 

Five years ago we were assured that a digital 'M' was not possible, the angle of incidence of deep rear element lenses was not compatible with digital sensors. Then Leica and Kodak developed offset microlenses, and the M8.

 

As little as 10 moths ago, we were assured by some on this forum that a Full Frame digital 'M' was not possible, the angle of incidence of deep rear element lenses was simply to great.

 

Believing that improvements are possible within the constraints of the 'core' of the format, is not disrespect, but on the contrary is a sign of great respect for the robustness and basic 'rightness' of what is essentially the M3 design.

 

I am not a fan of EVF or live view, but don't care as long as I can turn them off, don't pay more, and still have my integral optical view/range finder.

Disadvantages of EVF / Live View are:

- Degrade IQ by heating the sensor

- Extended open shutter leaves more opportunity for sensor glass gathering dust.

 

I also believe that EVIL cameras are the natural evolution of DSLR's, and that it would be a mistake for Leica to compete with Nikon and Canon in their home court.

 

Having run successful technology (software) companies, I know that our users were our most important source of info as to what features they :

- liked and used

- got in their way

- wanted in the future

- would get them to buy more.

 

We would determine what was technologically and economically feasible and in what order, but the user data were our lane markers.

 

I assume that Leica has folks who peruse these forums for similar info.

 

Regards .... Harold

[ChrisC]

Andy - For now, many thanks for your reply. I really don't have time for more than a skim read of your, and other's responses, so I'll look back in when I can. Wanted to say thanks in case the thread moves on a lot.

 

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

[KM-25]

But it doesn't do it in a linear fashion. Different black and white films are more sensitive to some colours than others.

 

Yep, and I think a better way to approach a B&W digital camera would be third party software installs of your favorite film's profiles in the camera it self. That way, if you want to chimp, you can see it in Tri-X, Kodachrome, Orthochromatic and even Techpan. I think this would be pretty easy to implement down the road and be kind of fun too.

[innerimager]

cool idea KM-25. As processor power increases, why not have silver effex or some such software program embedded in firmware? .....Peter

[charlesphoto99]

Maybe first we can just get b&w thumbnails when shooting DNG. Start simple.

[redbaron]

Leica has just announced that they are making a docking cradle to mount the iPad on top of the M9!

 

That should solve everyone's problems!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[markowich]

Andy - OK, a lot of ideas have been thrown around by the two Reichmann/Hogan articles, and some of the resulting discussion has been interesting for those of us who do not equate Leica's 'classic' design to being a masterpiece of design. I have great liking for the direct view/rangefinder focusing concept [not love, I've never felt cameras to be well enough designed to merit love], and I'm not calling for swivelling screens, EVIL, or a built in coffee maker [which really would be useful]. But are you saying that the 'package' as is cannot be improved, expecting better from the viewfinder/rangefinder is a no hoper, and that hopeful discussion for improvement is pointless? Please correct me if I misread your post, I'm not having a pop at you.

 

I'm critical of the dioptre/magnifier bolt-on bodge, the distraction of twinned framelines, hopelessly inaccurate framelines, and broken-up outlines of the frames in the M viewfinder. I think that it is such a poor design result for today that I'm actually amazed anyone thinks it's a great design solution for today. Clearly I can live with the 'viewfinder/rangefinder package' as is, but only because it's the price I have to pay to have the design advantage of rangefinder lenses, and the size advantage of a rangefinder camera. However, in living that trade-off I feel the intrusion of the framing system every time I make a photograph, and when I make a good photograph it is in spite of the viewfinder framing not because of it. I have no doubts that it can be improved, and has long needed improvement.

 

Thanks for the invitation, but I don't think I will be leaving through your ass-kicking door, I'll stay instead, and with the reserved right of a Leica customer to appreciate and commend what's good, and to criticise what isn't.

 

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

 

+1

peter

[giordano]

It seems a waste to ask for a "B&W" digital camera with a non-Bayer sensor and then to have filter on the sensor to give it the spectral response of a generic pan film.

 

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. And a whole new line of business for B+W or someone to make the filters, e.g.

Tri-X unfiltered

Tri-X with UV filter

Tri-X with skylight filter

Tri-X with Wratten 2A

Tri-X with Wratten 2B

Tri-X with Wratten 2E

Tri-X with Wratten

8

Tri-X with Wratten

11

Tri-X with Wratten

12

Tri-X with Wratten

15

Tri-X with Wratten

16

and that's just the "yellow" ones.