Telegraph's M9 Review

[JHAG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!!

 

Love it.

 

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

 

Holy Mackrel, forgot to lubricate mine.

 

You guys made my night.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jamie Roberts]

Alan, "less is more" is a design principle, however, and as I tried to point out, Leica is guided by that principal while Nikon, Canon, Sony and most others are not.

 

It's not about whether something "does" more or not. It is about what it takes to accomplish a goal. It also does not give way to the reductio ad absurdem of film or a pinhole camera, wet plates or some other such debating trick nonsense.

 

It *does* mean that every user mechanism is weighed against its use and purpose. I'm sorry, but that's not the design point of a Canon 1 series or Nikon D3* body. Their design point is to cram as much function as possible into a given space / button / body.

 

One design point or the other won''t necessarily produce better results, and your adding junk into the mix like whether or not a still camera can shoot video bears no relation whatsoever to the design argument.

 

So if a 5d2 lets you shoot video the "less is more" arguments for its design would start to ask "and since I'm shooting video with this new physically shaped camera, how do I simply roll manual focus with this AF camera?" But Canon doesn't answer those questions because that's NOT their design philosophy. There design philosophy is simply to add more function and more multi-purpose buttons, jacks and user interfaces.

 

Whether or not Leica gets their design point "perfect" all the time is also not really the point of debate; Zlatko might prefer the M8 style of indicator for shots and battery but I actually prefer the M9's, which I can read in the dark. Nevertheless, no-one would make the point that the "simple, effective" design principle isn't in place on both cameras in almost every area (and perhaps the best design point for readout is the S2's OLED).

 

So Leica doesn't get it perfect, but they get it mostly right, according to their goals. Those people who like Leicas generally prefer that style of simple, and elegant, design. Is it suited for all purposes? No: it's properly suited for its intended purpose.

 

That's not, by the way, circular logic. Try manually focusing a G10 or a Canon 85 1,2L and tell me it's easier, for that purpose, than a 50 1.4 M.

So is that an apple and oranges comparison? Well, not quite: simplicity has its benefits. It has its drawbacks too, but in the review case the reviewer was making the claim for simplicity of purpose--and that's it.

 

Some of us are drawn to things that are designed with this elegance, speed and effective use in mind. Some people aren't. That's a subjective thing, for sure. Some people can't wrap their heads around manually focusing, but for that purpose the rangefinder is superb. The same goes, by the way, for the simplicity of the S2. Within 1 minute of handling that thing, I knew how to work with it pretty confidently. I just can't say the same for my D3... as much as I love it now that I have it configured the way I want it.

 

But it bears saying that when all is said and done, there is a qualitative link between elegance of design, speed of learning, feedback and high-quality execution. In other words, a well-designed something is something I fight less with the interface and get more done.

 

You can choose to believe that or not, or even to believe that Leica succeeds or not in their design goals. But simple, effective and direct use is the hallmark of pretty much everything M, R or S Leica has ever made. In that, they succeed--and they succeed by being different, by design, from Canon, Nikon and the lot. And that's all the reviewer was really trying to say, I think.

[JHAG]

Nicely put, Jamie, as usual.

Putting in my (other) words, I noticed a odd reaction everytime I meet people with M7 or my M8 in hand, seeing me focus manually. They ask me : you're a photographer. It never occurs to me when I'm carrying my Nikon gear. Because a Nikon gear tells you may be a tourist or a photographer — and the use the same anyway.

They instantly recognize a Leica as an epitome of photography, which only a photographer could use (which is not true, as we all know ).

The fact that the form/factor of the M9 is roughly the same as an M3's, which is basically related to an M1, which is itself link to the Ur-Leica means that form factor should still be around in a century from now — which proves its exceptional cohesion and durability.

 

PS : I don't have any pleasure shooting with a Nikon D3. It's like driving a BMW. Impressive efficient dull machine. Shooting with an M is like shooting with a Purdey (shooters will see what I mean).

[farnz]

Very well put, Jamie.

 

Pete.

[farnz]

Always the comic, farnz.

Thank you, Johan. I try not to take things too seriously.

 

Pete.

[bill]

Some of us are drawn to things that are designed with this elegance, speed and effective use in mind. Some people aren't.

 

True.

 

...it bears saying that when all is said and done, there is a qualitative link between elegance of design, speed of learning, feedback and high-quality execution. In other words, a well-designed something is something I fight less with the interface and get more done.

 

Same here.

 

I don't have any pleasure shooting with a Nikon D3. It's like driving a BMW. Impressive efficient dull machine. Shooting with an M is like shooting with a Purdey (shooters will see what I mean).

 

Spot on.

 

This comes back to my point, made before, about left brain and right brain thinking. The technophiles are very left brain in their approach. The simplifiers are very right brain. The problem is that when either one writes, all the other reads is "blablablablabla blablaLeicablablablablablablablablabla" - there is that little in common and that is why this sort of thread will go on ad nauseam.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

There are very small differences between the two but we should realize that Leica only just entered the digital market, and the M system can be developed even further.

 

Jamie I don't disagree with what you and several others have written. But I can't see what it has to do wiht my post. You are going on about design philosophies and why you like the camera. We all are well aware of that and I have no qualms about it. Everyone should use the camera he/she likes. And I never commented on the Telegraph review. Leicas are fine cameras just as many other cameras are fine camera. And there are various pros and cons for many cameras.

 

There appear to be occassional posts that try to explain or justify why one should own an M9. It almost seems like some people need re-assurances from reviewers and others that it is the "best." If so, why so? I think if the M9 sold for a lot less than it does there wouldn't be much debate about it.

 

I was commenting on the logic and assumptions of the above statement and nothing more and couldn't resist pointing out that it is just an opinion, not some kind of "principle."

 

So if you were to take this statement and turn it around 180 degrees from the intent, you could also say, that since Leica is still early on in developing digital cameras, other brands may be a bit more advanced, offer similar, equal, or perhaps superior results, but may not be as simple or small or light. If you don't mind the added complexity of design and numerous additional features and capabilities that you may or may not use, and can live with the added size, and weight, of the Japanese DSLR cameras, you may be able to get just as good images with them.

 

Why would people here agree with and defend this statement either way?

[Jamie Roberts]

Alan, sorry, you really can't wriggle out that easily In post #65 you wrote, in part:

 

"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."

.... which totally misinterprets the design "philosophy" or "technology" (because it is a technology for making things a certain way) implicit in the "less is more" statement. "Less is more" is also never applied to "photography, either" only to functions within a technology (a camera), in this case.

 

The rest of your quote goes on to say minimal design is more or less subjective, which I think is--much more than less--incorrect There are principles of simplicity there that are not merely opinion.

[ho_co]

... The wrong spider picture is just sloppy editing because although the Katipo is only found in NZ there are plenty of pictures of it in Google images (although all 8-legged ones ) so the paper could easily have checked....

Pete, that's my point. 95,400 results via Google. A wrong one must have been selected for a reason.

 

 

Come on, you Aussies or Zealots or whatever you call yourselves.

 

The story is full of holes and could be exploded by a single prick.

 

Call it a "Leica Day at the Beach" and inquire and poke around. When a thousand Leica-toting 'tourists' appear at Dargaville asking about "that day," they'll know the game is up.

 

Rise up, hoist your repertorial instincts, get down and out that chick!

 

It's an international story of a cover-up, waiting to be exposed.

[diogenis]

Jamie I don't disagree with what you and several others have written. But I can't see what it has to do wiht my post. You are going on about design philosophies and why you like the camera. We all are well aware of that and I have no qualms about it. Everyone should use the camera he/she likes. And I never commented on the Telegraph review. Leicas are fine cameras just as many other cameras are fine camera. And there are various pros and cons for many cameras.

 

There appear to be occassional posts that try to explain or justify why one should own an M9. It almost seems like some people need re-assurances from reviewers and others that it is the "best." If so, why so? I think if the M9 sold for a lot less than it does there wouldn't be much debate about it.

 

I was commenting on the logic and assumptions of the above statement and nothing more and couldn't resist pointing out that it is just an opinion, not some kind of "principle."

 

So if you were to take this statement and turn it around 180 degrees from the intent, you could also say, that since Leica is still early on in developing digital cameras, other brands may be a bit more advanced, offer similar, equal, or perhaps superior results, but may not be as simple or small or light. If you don't mind the added complexity of design and numerous additional features and capabilities that you may or may not use, and can live with the added size, and weight, of the Japanese DSLR cameras, you may be able to get just as good images with them.

 

Why would people here agree with and defend this statement either way?

 

Yes but Alan, that is exactly the reason why Leica sells exactly as many M9s it can built and still, even after some 8-9 months queuing lists don't/won't settle.

As for your argument regarding Leica's tech it's simply mistaken Alan and you have to accept it sooner or later. It would be true if M9 or M8 were taking bad pictures, but when you snap a pic and some claim that it is almost as if it's taken with a MF camera, or at least it is comparable with the best of the best of dSLRs, then why do you want to settle with something bulkier and heavier?

Besides, Leica's current selling record proves it and that's about it. Regardless of it's price the camera sells like candy.

 

As for people needing reassurance yes, that is a problem. But some are not technicians, don't know a lot about tech stuff, only what they hear from some marketing dept. It is very simple to impress these people Alan. I would easily add you in that category. You hear about 25 fps and think: wow that's amazing, but you don't ask yourself if you really need this feature. Instead you believe that because it has it, it is good. Remember the wars about megapixels? -less is more...

[diogenis]

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.

 

As someone already said, your ignorance is driven to the max and in a way, that indeed that sedan for you is far better than the Yugo. You wouldn't know how to drive it. It has stick shift

[adan]

Alan, I looked over your listing of "why would anyone ever want" features...and while I know you were being ironic, the reality is that I actually do not need or want the majority of them.

 

For the most part, they are crutches for wannabees lacking basic photographic skills - like being able to hold a camera steady, or focus for themselves, or capture THE moment without machine-gunning and hoping the shutter opens at the right moment. Or too lazy (to clean a sensor?!)

 

Nikon, Canon et al may want to take such camera users seriously - they are a nice fat market. But I don't have to.

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the movie "Caddy Shack". Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) carried a feature-filled golfbag with all kinds of fancy clubs and other gizmos (even the proverbial 'phone). Now - suppose Al and Phil Mickelson shot a round together, and Phil shot a lovely 64 with his "simple" (but high-tech-supported) crooked sticks, and Al used his gizmos to shoot 18 - a hole in one every time.

 

Al wins, right? But which is the better golfer? Which one should be taken seriously? Who will history remember? Which one - counts?

__________________________

 

"....professional support and quick repairs, and a lower price?" - OK - I'll admit those are gotchas

 

But they aren't inherent to the rangefinder (or simpler, or minimalist) camera concept. I don't think Nikon's NPS service would go into the toilet if they started making an M-like rangefinder - and I don't know that Leica's service and support would necessarily improve if they started making a video/IS/Live-view/AF feature-laden camera. Completely unrelated.

[pop]

Oh well.

 

Two simple observations:

 

Many of the people who argue in this thread in favor of elegant design sporting the least number of features are, in fact, technology savvy such as engineers and so on.

 

It is not true that the capabilities of a device with many doodads, bells and whistles is a superset of those of a sophisticated specialized device. Hence, the top of the line maximum featured dSLR will not be suited as well to some tasks as will a top of the line digital RF. In other words, there are pictures and situations where a photographer with an RF will succeed while one with a dSLR might not.

[giordano]

As someone already said, your ignorance is driven to the max and in a way, that indeed that sedan for you is far better than the Yugo. You wouldn't know how to drive it. It has stick shift

 

Let me at least refute the charge of ignorance. I bought my first Leica (a IIc) in 1969 and have had about ten of them since then, delighting in all except the Digilux 2 (i.e. the one that wasn't a RF camera). Within their sphere, they are a joy to use; the results are at least as good as from my Nikon gear, the simplicity concentrates the mind, and they're a great deal easier to carry round.

 

As for stick shifts - I have a "heavy vehicle" licence that entitles me to drive almost anything with more than three wheels except road trains and semi-trailers. My first driving lessons were with a crash gearbox, and I've driven ten of thousands of miles in trucks with two or three gear levers and 8, 10 or 16 gears.

 

But comparing the M9 with a DSLR is like comparing Anne Sophie Mutter with a symphony orchestra. She is smaller, lighter, simpler, nicer-looking and delivers better results when playing solo violin music - but she can't perform the 1812 overture for toffee.

[diogenis]

Let me at least refute the charge of ignorance. I bought my first Leica (a IIc) in 1969 and have had about ten of them since then, delighting in all except the Digilux 2 (i.e. the one that wasn't a RF camera). Within their sphere, they are a joy to use; the results are at least as good as from my Nikon gear, the simplicity concentrates the mind, and they're a great deal easier to carry round.

 

That's exactly what I and many, many more are saying already. So why argue?

however,

But comparing the M9 with a DSLR is like comparing Anne Sophie Mutter with a symphony orchestra. She is smaller, lighter, simpler, nicer-looking and delivers better results when playing solo violin music - but she can't perform the 1812 overture for toffee.

contradicts what you've said above already. So for you, which of the two is true?

[bill]

contradicts what you've said above already. So for you, which of the two is true?

 

I confess to being a little confused myself, but then I never could tell talk from Mutter...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[JHAG]

Thank you, Johan. I try not to take things too seriously.

 

Pete.

 

Bring'em on… :cool:

 

For the most part, they are crutches for wannabees lacking basic photographic skills - like being able to hold a camera steady, or focus for themselves, or capture THE moment without machine-gunning and hoping the shutter opens at the right moment. Or too lazy (to clean a sensor?!)

 

Nikon, Canon et al may want to take such camera users seriously - they are a nice fat market. But I don't have to.

 

To sum it up : an RF makes you use your brain, senses and taste. A DSLR gets your brain lazy. Hence Alzheimer exponential growth since DSLR stormed the market.

[delander †]

When I go out with my DSLR kit I usually make a point of taking the user manual with me (just in case ), of course when I take the M9 its just the camera.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[JHAG]

When I go out with my DSLR kit I usually make a point of taking the user manual with me (just in case ), of course when I take the M9 its just the camera.

 

Jeff

 

When I go out with my DSLR, I first go out with the manual, studying it carefully, then I go out a second time with both and try to shoot by the book.

[michali]

To sum it up : an RF makes you use your brain, senses and taste. A DSLR gets your brain lazy. Hence Alzheimer exponential growth since DSLR stormed the market.

 

You've summed it up perfectly!

 

As for me, I've now had enough of some of the crap I've read in this thread!

 

I'm outta here, going out to shoot some pics..........definitely not with a DSLR, my back couldn't cope with it and my brain would go even number than it already is.