Thickness of M9 a problem?

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LOL! This cracks me up no end.

...

All that said ... my dream digital rangefinder would be a nickel chrome knock-off of the IIIg I once owned and shot with for many years ... of course, I wouldn't want to give up anything we now have to get one.

 

-Marc

 

... with AF (almost as fast as in the early generations of big bricks like 1DMk2 or 2D) and a solid state, totally silent shutter? With fab specs as high ISO, dynamic range and pixel resolution at excellent speeds of all parameters, too?

 

No SciFi, just the 2012-14 product line. A stuttering world economy hugely motivates to R&D leaps.

A marknorton Anatomy Vol. II edition 2009 would show the presently high-end achievement to fit a chip almost twice the size into the (2mm thicker ) M's PERFECT DIMENSIONS.

But nothing stands still and the thread in the M8 forum about the newest products from the inventors of the walkman is just the beginning of tomorrow.

 

(Against this trend I'll stick to my two M8 for a long time. Though I regret the zeal of buying two of them out of not analysed film habits, when even a one lens shooter had to have two bodies. Having them updated 6 months before the M9 came out is fine, because it is a nice old fashioned Leica extravaganza, never offered again by any a brand. Bought and sold some 2nd hand glas with good luck and timing, essentially to keep excellent copies, unintentionally making up a bit of the M8 devaluation, since bitterness is unpleasant.)

[jonoslack]

'...not easy to grip' doesn't sound good to me & echoes my first impression. In fact, in the showroom, as there was no strap attached to the body, I was fearful of dropping it, which I never felt with my M4-P, strap attached or not. It felt heavier, too.

 

I'd say that any change would feel bad in comparison with something you've been using for years. As Jaap says, it's only the width that's different. Certainly, the fear of dropping it goes away (did with me anyway).

I don't think the thicker body looks as nice - but I suspect that when you get used to it then it probably actually feels better.

At any rate, making a snap judgement about it after a few minutes in a showroom doesn't seem wise!

[erl]

I'm wondering how some of the inflexible attitudes towards objects and their dimensions are affected by changing from 'business shoes' to 'runners/sneakers/joggers'.

[jaapv]

I doubt we will be rid of those 2 mm anytime soon. Until something happens like Philips getting its "Digital Paper" working and at photographic quality we will be stuck with the dimensions of the LCD.

[Peter Lea]

I agree with one of the other posters. I noticed the added thickness when I first used an M8, but very quickly got used to it. Now I don't notice it. Best Peter

[diogenis]

Oldness does not guarantee ergonomic design. The Volkswagen Beetle was in production for some 65 years, from 1938 until 2003. That time span does not prove that its design was perfect, or that cars built today should look like an old Beetle. I wouldn't want my desktop computer to be shaped like the most perfect typewriter from 1954.

 

Ergonomics, by definition, is about obtaining optimum comfort and efficiency. The M3 camera shape of 1954 was related to the transport and exposure of 35mm film. With no film to transport, the wind and rewind cranks have been removed. To perform digital functions, a large LCD and numerous buttons have been added. While the M9 does some important things the same as the 1954 model, the camera uses a new technology at its core and introduces many new functions.

 

Is the removable baseplate from 1954 the perfect way to reload a memory card or battery in 2010? Is the viewfinder perfect for Leica lenses between 16 and 24mm? And what happened to that perfect little frame counter on top? Now you have to push a button just to see the frame count. While the M9 is beautiful in its way, let's not imagine that it is a perfect 50+ year old design. It's a new camera that superficially looks like an old one.

 

The only ergonomic problem I can accept, is the focusing lever and that when you have to focus real close subjects.

If ergonomics by your definition "is about obtaining optimum comfort and efficiency" then, Leica wins the competition hands down only from the size/weight factors.

Leica wanted as their philosophy to maintain their legacy and keep with their simple and nice designs, who are we to judge them? Minimalism is again back in fashion and is obviously very apparent in the M series.

The volkswagen example is not like what we discuss here. Even if VW revamped the beetle into a new and very nice model, with moder technology and design that is real close to the original, much more than the new mini.

M8/9 are both cameras that are full of ergonomy, simple, accurate and efficient.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When Nikon or Canon come out with a FF digital SLR body that is only 2mm bigger than a plain-prism Nikon F - then I will worry about whether the M8/9 are 2mm bigger than film rangefinders.

[zlatkob]

I agree that Leica has done great with the size & weight. This is truly one of the selling points of the camera. 2mm (or 4mm?) really doesn't bother me. Changing the thickness of the M shows that, however "perfect" the M3 was in 1954, the body must change to accommodate new technology in 2010. Even the M8 and M9 have different top plates, showing the design can evolve.

 

I don't agree with the question, "Who are we to judge them?" Every time we purchase something, we judge it worthy of the exchange. One of the things that makes Amazon.com so useful is that it offers thousands of judgments (i.e. Customer Reviews) about books & products. Every positive comment about Leica is a form of judging; so if we can judge positively, we can also judge with intelligent criticism.

 

Which leads to the comment about minimalism. Minimalism is about reducing the subject to its essential elements and giving the impression of extreme simplicity. But there is a point at which an enforced minimalism can interfere with function, or make operation needlessly complex. I've given some examples (no frame counter, removing the baseplate). The third party add-ons that many people use (Thumbs Up, M-Mate, etc.) defeat the minimalist design but also suggest ways to improve it.

[diogenis]

And why is it minimalistic the bare essentials needed to take a photo? After all we all know that in order to take a pic, you only need to adjust for f/stops, speed, focusing and click: voila, shot is taken! If people could do it 50 years ago, there is hardly a reason we can't do it either! We call this minimal, because usually people compare to a camera usually a DSLR, that follows a completely different approach. One that tries to simulate human with whatever electronic brains/programs they make.

 

As for judging them: we have already done this. Long ago since 30-40 years back when they begun with the M3. If their cameras were lemons, they would simply not existed anymore. Just as the zune is not anywhere to be seen, while the ipod/ still sells.

[zlatkob]

No one is suggesting the cameras are lemons. The cameras have changed a good deal over the years, including a major change forced by the digital revolution, so judgments of the classic M3 don't necessarily carry over to the M9. I think it's fair to evaluate the M9 as a new digital camera. Lauding it as ergonomically "perfect" just because of its similarity to a classic seems a bit excessive.

 

And it's not really a minimalist camera. The manual still has nearly 90 pages, and the menu has numerous settings. It is simpler than a DSLR whose manual may be 200 pages. But despite some important similarities, the M9 seems quite a bit more complex than the M3. The Brownie and the Instamatic are probably true minimalist cameras, but they're not nearly as good.

[tom in mpls]

Which leads to the comment about minimalism. Minimalism is about reducing the subject to its essential elements and giving the impression of extreme simplicity. But there is a point at which an enforced minimalism can interfere with function, or make operation needlessly complex.

 

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

-Albert Einstein

[zlatkob]

Tom, that's a great quote! Great minds think alike. ;)

[diogenis]

Zlatkob, I think we argue for the sake of argument here. If you cant admit that the camera has just the bare essentials.

For the digital Ms to work, you don't really need the lcd screen which is the item that separates them from the film Ms. The screen is there as a validation tool for what you have just shot, something that is not possible with film since you still need to develop.

You can easily envision the M9 as a M3 which evolved by technology -obviously- and that it uses a ccd electronic sensor instead of film.

The body, the dials, the lenses, shutter, viewfinder all remain.

Sensor with accompanied screen is what is new.

[NZDavid]

Bob Schwalberg outlines Leica inventor Oskar Barnack's approach to shape and size in an article entitled "Leica's First 50 Years", published in The Best of Popular Photography (Ziff-Davis, 1979).

 

"There are two basically different approaches to technical instrument design. One starts by deciding all of the necessary functions, and then determines the size and shape required. The other begins by fixing a set of maximum dimensions, and then decides how many desirable functions can be obtained. And this was Barnacks' way.

 

"The rangefinder was valuable, but the camera's comfortable shape was vital. Nothing must destroy that indefinable 'feel' that was the classic Leica's most famous, and most universally admired feature. Calling his team of engineers together, Barnack laid a metal rule across the flat tops of the winding and rewinding knobs at either end of the Leica I, and told his team: 'Gentlemen, if we are going to have a built-in rangefinder, it must fit within this space."

 

I assume the current Leica designers would have dearly loved to have kept the dimensions of the classic M3-7 intact for the M8 and M9, but this proved simply to be technically impossible. I doubt the thickness will be a major issue.

 

I do agree the digital add-ons (LCD, control wheel, other push buttons, all of which are the same size) could get in the way. This seems to be the case with many digital cameras -- it is very easy to nudge the myriad of buttons by mistake. I believe there was a reason film cameras kept their back-plates relatively clear. Fortunately, Leica has kept the add-on buttons mercifully sparse on the back-plate, at least in comparison with many other digicams and DSLRs.

 

Ergonomics is a crucal issue for any technical product, especially a camera, especially a Leica.

[jaapv]

I love the Barnack story- But the rangefinder on my IIIf is 1.5 mm higher than the wind knob on my Leica Standard. (Wich is the same as both knobs on a Leica I)

[NZDavid]

IIIa height is even across the full width. Barnack's last design, in the mid thirties, the Leica IV, never got built, but dimensions look very similar to the M3.

[jaapv]

The IIIf too, it is the Leica Standard that got the higher rewind knob. That is the main distinguishing mark from the Leica I, where the wind and rewind knob are the same height.

Interesting you mention the Leica IV. What always strikes me on that camera is that the ocular is echoed by the Digilux 2 and 3. One might say that it got built in the end, after all, as it is clearly an M3 prototype.