Telegraph's M9 Review

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan, you're right on. There is a strange logic that says "Leica is superior" and then sets the criteria for "superior" to match precisely what Leica offers just at this moment. Using such logic, one can conclusively "prove" that a cozy chair is superior to a fast sports car.

 

For example, if Leica offers a 7-shot memory buffer and a 2-fps frame rate, then anything better is disparaged and proclaimed to be solely for machine-gunners who should choose a DSLR anyway. Never mind that Leica offered a faster frame rate in the film era, and never mind that some famous Leica users were prolific machine-gunners. By this strange and tortured logic, even very sensible and self-evident suggestions (faster repairs? better high ISO?) get denigrated, and those who propose them get ridiculed for not understanding the Leica ethos.

[diogenis]

Alan & Zlatkob, you guys simply can't/don't want to accept the fact that some of us DO believe that less is better. You are driven by maximalism, us by minimalism. I cannot judge which is better for the rest but I can very well choose for myself.

Alan, I cannot understand your reluctance to accept the fact that we do like those cameras. Both its results as a compact and light photographic instrument -and precise- and while using it, the feeling of a great mechanical tool.

Seriously this is getting boring...

[zlatkob]

It's not about maximalism vs. minimalism. I love that M cameras & lenses are small. But I don't accept this idea that less is always better just because Leica offers less at the moment.

 

Sometimes more is better. Having a frame counter & battery status window on top (as on the M8) is better than not having them (as on the M9). That's an example of less being less.

 

Having a greater high ISO range is better too. Someday, when a future M offers improved high ISO, this will be among its chief selling points and people will accept it as a self-evident and important improvement. But until that happens, some strange logic or brand loyalty drives people to make claims like "great lenses make high ISO unnecessary."

 

Besides, If someone truly believes that less is better, then they will avoid digital photography altogether.

[stunsworth]

Sometimes more is better.

 

Indeed it is. And sometimes it isn't.

 

A similar analogy might be done with food. People want burgers, look at the number of people who at at McDonalds. A meal in a proper restaurant lacks some of the features of a Big Mac - there's no bun, no plastic cheese, and even worse you have to wait for it to be cooked. The sooner all restaurants start selling burgers the better. It's obvious.

[AlanG]

Indeed it is. And sometimes it isn't.

 

A similar analogy might be done with food. People want burgers, look at the number of people who at at McDonalds. A meal in a proper restaurant lacks some of the features of a Big Mac - there's no bun, no plastic cheese, and even worse you have to wait for it to be cooked. The sooner all restaurants start selling burgers the better. It's obvious.

 

Do you actually think you can form a logical conclusion by posting further examples of fractured logic? What is your hypothesis above and how are you supporting it? This is the same problem with the other conclusion. It is just like what Louis Black said about Glen Beck's logic, "Mother Teresa had a mustache, Hitler had a mustache, Mother Teresa=Hitler." The expression "jumping to a conclusion" exists because it is what people do so often.

 

 

In the original comparison, the OP confirmed that his criteria came down to size and weight for a given amount of quality would offset a lack of what he considered to be unnecessary features. Not that those features were universally bad, just that one shouldn't have to pay a price in size and weight for them. I don't know what this has to do with an overall desire for minimalism. If the smaller lighter M camera also had more features than a DSLR, it would be superior both in size and in range of functions.

 

There is no way one can universally claim "less is more" or "less is better" should be applied to photography as this inevitably leads to using pinhole cameras and working within the limitations of that technology. So each person seems to determine, how much "less" is right for them. The M hits this mark perfectly for some until it doesn't and then they have to use a different camera for a specific application. In which case starting with "less" may become two or more camera systems constituting "definitive proof" that "less is more."

 

You simply have to define your terms. Some might argue that using a wide to tele zoom lens is more minimalistic, lighter, and smaller, than carrying at least three primes. (And simpler to use.) Or that live view is more minimalistic than a coupled rangefinder/viewfinder. I can make any argument I want if I am merely trying to justify my conclusion and I don't bother to establish concrete criteria and apply critical thinking to test it.

 

There is no right or wrong. There are choices and there are always trade-offs. It generally boils down to personal opinion.

[pop]

Do you actually (...) choices and there are always trade-offs.

 

Let's just say that you are right on all points, please.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let's just say that you are right on all points, please.

 

Thanks, I knew that long ago! My overall view is that people use Leicas because they like to use Leicas. Trying to find a universal truth for this will be impossible.

[SJP]

Thanks, I knew that long ago! My overall view is that people use Leicas because they like to use Leicas. Trying to find a universal truth for this will be impossible.

Wow - such an uncluttered ego is rare.

[pop]

(...) people use Leicas because they like to use Leicas. Trying to find a universal truth for this will be impossible.

 

Truths won't get much more universal than that. You could consider "people use Leicas because they own Leicas" or "people use Leicas because they use Leicas". That's about universal as it can get.

[giordano]

The real truth is that:

When you have 2 devices that perform the same tasks and results the same with little or no difference in their results, and one is : mechanically simpler, smaller, lighter and simpler to use then this is the superior device.

This is exactly the case with current Leica M9 and -any- dSLR made from Japan.

 

One sees a lot of fanboy bollocks here but this is top class. To see why, substitute "old Yugo" and "executive sedan from Germany. The Yugo is mechanically simpler, smaller, lighter, and much simpler to use (traditional controls, minimal automation, no menus, no custom settings, no unwanted features), and gets you to your destination almost every time - apart from the occasional breakdown followed by a 3-month wait for repairs (just like the M9). The Yugo is clearly the superior device.

[AlanG]

Wow - such an uncluttered ego is rare.

 

I guess sarcasm isn't your strong suit.

[stunsworth]

One sees a lot of fanboy bollocks here but this is top class. To see why, substitute "old Yugo" and "executive sedan from Germany.

 

Like all analogies it fall apart if stretched too far. If for example you'd chosen Lotus as the simpler car rather than a Yugo, you'd have had more difficulty making your point.

 

The inference you made - that Leica is some kind of Yugo in the photographic world - merely indicates your ignorance.

[AlanG]

Truths won't get much more universal than that. You could consider "people use Leicas because they own Leicas" or "people use Leicas because they use Leicas". That's about universal as it can get.

 

Yes, you got it!

[jaapv]

[..] So each person seems to determine, how much "less" is right for them. The M hits this mark perfectly for some until it doesn't and then they have to use a different camera for a specific application. In which case starting with "less" may become two or more camera systems[...]

I fail to see what is wrong with this scenario. Quoting from a Leica book from the early seventies: " The M system is conceived for the photographer who has the capability to assess the differences between rangefinder and reflex systems and use them appropriately" Nothing has changed really. I wonder which percentage of members on this forum own and use more than one camera system, but I would guess that it is a very high number.

[stunsworth]

I wonder which percentage of members on this forum own and use more than one camera system, but I would guess that it is a very high number.

 

I can only speak for myself, but apart from an old Pentax ME-Super that I haven't used in a couple of decades, I have two. Leica M with lenses 15-75mm and a Panasonic GF-1 with a 20mm lens.

 

I realise that I'm probably not typical, but it push came to shove I'd be happy to spend the rest of my photographic days with an M8 with a 28mm lens or an M9 and 35mm lens.

[AlanG]

I fail to see what is wrong with this scenario. Quoting from a Leica book from the early seventies: " The M system is conceived for the photographer who has the capability to assess the differences between rangefinder and reflex systems and use them appropriately" Nothing has changed really. I wonder which percentage of members on this forum own and use more than one camera system, but I would guess that it is a very high number.

 

 

An ideal way to approach the technology needed for photography. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach unless you are a proponent of minimalism. At which point it becomes hypocritical.

[JHAG]

I've stayed briefly in Dargaville and it's so remote that you just wouldn't want that happening to you there! (In Dargaville I mean. )

Pete.

 

Always the comic, farnz.

[earleygallery]

Might be 'fun' to hang around at the Morgan forum and bleat on to Morgan enthusiasts about how the Morgan doesn't have 4 doors and a hatchback, isn't a family car like a Ford Mondeo and can't go off road like a Land Rover, and isn't it about time they brought it up to date, I mean even the hood is manually operated FFS!!

[jaapv]

An ideal way to approach the technology needed for photography. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach unless you are a proponent of minimalism. At which point it becomes hypocritical.

Maybe - but still I want my main camera to be as minimalist in operation as possible - hence an M9. And other cameras to be as minimalist in their speciality as well - read manual SLR - DMR/R8. Call it a modular approach.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Might be 'fun' to hang around at the Morgan forum and bleat on to Morgan enthusiasts about how the Morgan doesn't have 4 doors and a hatchback, isn't a family car like a Ford Mondeo and can't go off road like a Land Rover, and isn't it about time they brought it up to date, I mean even the hood is manually operated FFS!!

Not to mention the oil button you have to press every 400 miles to lubricate the front suspension...