Puts' view on the M9...and M's past and future

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Blog

 

While the wording is awkward, the philosophy espoused is similiar to my own. Hear, hear for simplicity...and purpose.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Hear-hear here too. Erwin makes a point that has been made in this forum time and time again - yet I fear it may fall on deaf ears with the feature fans.

[andybarton]

Would be a hell of a lot easier to read if he learned how to separate his blog into paragraphs...

[rob_x2004]

You saw there was only one paragraph Andy? You got further than me.

So I guess all you guys still run Agfapan and havent progressed to the new fangled Agfachromes in your Loikas. Good for you.

[joshtpa]

Goodness my eyes are sore. If one is to create a blog, this is the perfect way not to do it.

[tdtaylor]

Hard to read, but I like the thoughts. Jaap, don't despair. I am a new convert, having taken 50k-60k per year on my DSLRs. That number is less than half now, and I now relish is the more thoughtful, methodical approach of the Leica. As an Architect, I think I can finally say less is more.

 

And correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that there are many like me in the forum now who rarely pick up their DSLRs and even less frequently check the affiliated blogs. I recognize many, I mean many, user names that are the same people that were on the DSLR blog websites.

 

While I still use a DSLR for sports and wildlife, my landscape and portrait work has easily moved to the Leica- and been far more satisfying. I had inserted manual screen, etc. to use my DSLRs in manual, but it is not the same. What is great is my daughter is in a three year course, leading to a AP Photography course, where she only uses manual focus, B & W film cameras. She is learning to see through the lens before "snapping" a picture.

 

There may be hope for the future (besides, I am getting impatient with the bells, whistles and idiotic menus of the DSLRs). The only thing I can't stand is the bottom plate- looking at Luigi's bottom plate.

[cidereye]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No one seems to want to state this obvious claim: I failed to take the picture I want with the M9 because of this specific shortcoming of the camera. I have said it before and I cannot repeat it too aften, I am afraid to note, that there is a dearth of information from actual users of the digital CRF camera who have encountered the limits of the CRF type of photography when operating the M8/9 camera. We all know that the CRF type of camera has its inherent limits and this observation is nothing new since the Nikon F arrived on the scene and comparisons with the M3 were possible.

 

&

 

From this perspective, the Leica M9 will not be obsolete even in ten years, just as the M3 can still deliver excellent images that can even surpass technically and vision-wise the results that are possible with most digital cameras now available. From the gadget perspective, the M9 was already obsolete from the beginning. But then every Leica M model was antiquated from the start, compared to the slr competition. At least as far as features are concerned: the engineering on the other hand has always been first class and often the envy of the competition.

 

Great piece from Erwin, and explains why even wise sages like Thom Hogan or whoever maybe still do not understand the basics of the Leica M concept - They want & expect far too much. Far too many people expect the camera to do all the work in this digital age of AF, multiple menus, multi point focusing and "face" recognition. With the Leica M *you* have to take the photograph and do all the work.

 

Almost everything he said can again apply to the earlier M8 too and why that camera also will not be obsolete in 10 years time either. But...

"Dear Mr Puts, please use paragraphs next time you write ..."

[lars_bergquist]

Excellent, Mijnheer Puts! The Leica M reminds me of one of my idols, William of Occam. He was the man who said: Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. This is the famous Razor: Don't put in things that are not necessary. Since the fourteenth century, science has thrived on this precept. The photographic industry would do well to take it to its heart.

 

I do also note that the Canon EOS Mk 5 D II still does not brew you a decent cup of espresso. Therefore, it is obviously obsolete.

 

The old man from the Age of Reason(ableness)

 

P.S. I agree about the lack of period stops. Text that is completely unstructured risks becoming a rant-in-print. This is NOT a rant, but it does look like one.

[cbretteville]

Yes, one of the best pieces ha has written in a while. Very enjoyable.

Carl

[chris_tribble]

Yes, one of the best pieces ha has written in a while. Very enjoyable.

Carl

Seconded. You buy an M because you need the image quality and ease of use for a limited set of focal lengths and from a small light, portable, discreet camera. You buy and M9 because you want these features with digital capture. You buy a DSLR because you want digital capture + speed of operation, longer lenses, zooms, flash and a host of other features. One camera doesn't preclude the other.

[pelagia]

&

"Dear Mr Puts, please use paragraphs next time you write ..."

 

Ha, but this is the M9 concept: simplicity and user's full control. You want the paragraph marks, you put them. YOU are the one who reads the article, not Mr Puts the widget.

 

Tom

[rosuna]

I read many mistakes in Erwin's valuation.

 

We all know that the CRF type of camera has its inherent limits and this observation is nothing new since the Nikon F arrived on the scene and comparisons with the M3 were possible.

 

The M9 is very similar to the M3, but the digital reflex cameras hasn't much to do with the original Nikon F. The differences are greater now. Current reflexes have live view, AF, video capabilities, microadjustments of the focusing mechanism, etc, etc.

 

On the other hand, the digital medium of capture and the computer as a tool for processing and inspection have introduced new problems or have made more obvious previous limitations (focus accuracy, etc.). The M9 does nothing for correcting all those old and new problems.

 

From this perspective, the Leica M9 will not be obsolete even in ten years, just as the M3 can still deliver excellent images that can even surpass technically and vision-wise the results that are possible with most digital cameras now available.

 

False. The M3 would be totally obsolete now if it would admit only the emulsions available in 1954. That is what will happen to the M9. It is a camera glued to the capture medium. It will be obsolete in two years, in the following sense: the image quality will be good for keeping them in use (if the camera holds...), but Leica will be unable to keep this camera in production at any positive price. Even more, the resale value will be very low.

 

At least as far as features are concerned: the engineering on the other hand has always been first class and often the envy of the competition.

 

The competition doesn't care. The M9 doesn't appear in the radar of Canon, Nikon or Sony. Leica hasn't the resources or the determination to transform or develop a new concept camera from the M ground.

 

In my opinion, the M9 should not evolve into a more complex design, but an even simpler design.

 

I agree, but what is "simple" today is a debatable concept. Imagine you want to use the WATE, and a 24mm lens, and the Macro-Elmar 90mm lens... You have to buy several accesory viewfinders, the "googles" for the macro lens, etc. Is that simple? Obviously no. The M system becomes very complex and expensive (tolerances when several components have to work together) when you need to work out of the narrow limits of the built-in viewfinder.

 

The rangefinder should become more accurate, especially for the focal lengths from 75mm to 135mm, the optical designs of the lenses should incorporate new concepts about aberration control and focus constancy and the software in the camera should allow the direct transfer of the image quality of the captured file to the printing stage without loss of performance. Mine is a very conservative and limited set of proposals, and one that might preserve the spirit of the M line from M3 to M9.

 

I agree again, but what are the consequences of those needs? Even a larger rangefinder base and higher magnifications have limits to the achievable improvements in accuracy. And you cannot have a "direct" transfer of the image to the printer, because people wants to process the images freely. The alternative is some kind of "in camera" processing, and none wants that.

[pgk]

Current reflexes have live view, AF, video capabilities, microadjustments of the focusing mechanism, etc, etc.

You aren't kidding. I just downloaded the latest firmware update for my Canon 5D2 and uploaded it. I also downloaded the revised manual. I forget where I read it but I have seen such manuals described as 'daunting documents' and it is a very apt description.

 

I've waded through once and have realised that its going to take a fair bit of rereading and a great deal more assimilation. (I already fail to understand why the video mode now has some form of face recognition built in given that it can't autofocus very well in video mode). I also note that an obscure problem has already surfaced (although the comments about it that I've read so far seem to indicate that it will require effort to achieve the problem;).

 

Why am I commenting about this, well because the level of understanding required to make such a machine work to its full extent is IMHO immense. It is a very far cry from the equipment with which I started photography on. Both the M8 and 9 are undoubtedly capable of very fine image production. Surely though, one of their biggest assets is that an M3 user would require very little instruction in order to be able to access and use their image creating abilities. One of Puts better pieces of writing IMO:).

[AlanG]

You aren't kidding. I just downloaded the latest firmware update for my Canon 5D2 and uploaded it. I also downloaded the revised manual. I forget where I read it but I have seen such manuals described as 'daunting documents' and it is a very apt description...

 

 

What else can you expect? You are adding all kinds of capabilites (even including some that were previously only available on high end video cameras.) So of course it won't be simple to understand how to best use all of the features. You get out what you invest in it.

 

If you want any Canon or Nikon to be "easy" to understand just set everything to "manual," ignore the meter, and it will be as simple as using an M3.

 

Knowing how your camera works is just a small part of learning how to be a good photographer. So if you are interested in pushing the boudaries of what the equipment and your own abilities can achieve, you may have to work at it.

[rosuna]

 

If you want any Canon or Nikon to be "easy" to understand just set everything to "manual," ignore the meter, and it will be as simple as using an M3.

 

That is the point.

 

... and the same machine can be used for shooting a complete movie ! But you have to be an experienced filmmaker... reading the manual isn't enough.

[pgk]

I have shot an hour program for tv on the 5D2! Its a very capable stills/video camera but IMHO remains overly complex. Its often a matter of working backwards - I know what I want it to do. now how do I tell it to do what I want! I wonder if manufacturers ever actually try to discover what we as photographers actually want in our cameras. And it seems an anathema to me that such a sophisticated camera, marketed as a 'pro' or 'semi-pro' camera, needs to have face recognition built in - what on earth is its aim audience?

 

As for boundary pushing, well exactly what boundaries are there to be pushed? Does a modern dSLR really, genuinely produce better images with all its sophistication? At the end of the day they still have aperture, shutter speed, focus and ISO setting - most other 'functions' remain peripheral and of occasional use only. Perhaps I am a real traditionalist but I rarely see an image which makes me think that technology is being utilised in a really creative and boundary pushing way.

 

Simplicity is an oft overlooked solution to complex problems. FWIW I shoot underwater with my 5D2 - set to manual with the exception of focus, and using manual flash control. I've yet to lose shots because of this and I don't miss ettl flash control which I used to use.

[digitalfx]

That is the point.

 

... and the same machine can be used for shooting a complete movie ! But you have to be an experienced filmmaker... reading the manual isn't enough.

 

come on now...my 12 year old son makes movie with mine (and edits them on a mac) and he hasnt read a single manual. No doubt the camera is more complex, but it does alot more.

[AlanG]

 

...As for boundary pushing, well exactly what boundaries are there to be pushed? Does a modern dSLR really, genuinely produce better images with all its sophistication? At the end of the day they still have aperture, shutter speed, focus and ISO setting - most other 'functions' remain peripheral and of occasional use only. Perhaps I am a real traditionalist but I rarely see an image which makes me think that technology is being utilised in a really creative and boundary pushing way...

 

 

The entire history of photography has been one of increasing technology that allowed a photographer more options for self expression. Whether a given photographer makes use of those options is up to him/her.

 

Well some pictures will work best with a pinhole camera I suppose. If a camera is capable of tracking a fast moving athlete running toward you while you are shooting with a 400mm f2.8 then that will be the way to go for some subjects. If you want face recognition- you've got it. If you don't want it, don't use it. (I've never used it but it could be useful for a quick working paparazzi or a wedding shooter I suspect.)

 

As for how good a job manufacturers do in making all of these features easier to use and more understandable... that is probably part of the educational learning curve for photographers and manufacturers.

[rosuna]

I am not saying the Ms has to be more complex, but many functions are supported by electronics and are offered as mere options in a menu. Those electronic features allow the replacement of expensive and complex opto-mechanical accessories, and this makes the whole system simpler, less expensive and more accurate/reliable. It was impossible in the film days. So my position is to benefit from the possibilities of the new medium, to counteract the disadvantages and keep and protect the core values. Electronics aren't a menace. Just the contrary, they provide new ways for improving the system.

 

Anyway, returning to Erwin's comments, I agree with the core values of the Ms, but things have changed, and comparisons with the past are mostly wrong.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

... the "googles" for the macro lens, ...

Typo for "goggles," of course, but watch out for Google's copyright lawyers!