EVF for M9

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

not really... it's just a choice. Studio could mean a 4000 sq.ft. space on a million dollar shoot with 40 staff. Or it could be a small room in your home with controlled lighting. I've never done the former for still shots, so I have no need to invest in a larger format stills camera. I like the portability and usability of my Leica, hence why I'm sticking with it. I love the simplicity of it. [...]

 

Well said. Thank you. Nonetheless, I think you might appreciate a larger format camera, possibly even a classic medium-format. I have been very fortunate over the many years to find two excellent rangefinders - Super Ikonta 6x9 and 645 in museum condition. The rendering of these cameras is unique and wonderful (in my opinion).

 

For the big stuff - another rangefinder - Linhof Super Technika 5x4. I don't have a rangefinder 8x10. In fact, I think there was only one made for a very brief period.

 

But really, if you like rangefinders, I hope you have the opportunity to use a clean Super Ikonta.

[pico]

I used to travel to my assignments with a 4x5 system (two cameras and 12 lenses plus roll film backs.) I'd also generally bring a 6x6 system and 6 lenses along with 35mm gear. Sometimes I brought along other specialized cameras. Now I am doing all of my work with one 35mm system and with less lighting gear and accessories too. I never expected 35mm systems to be this good and this versatile, but it happened. This is progress for me. I don't have any masculine issues to prove to anyone.

 

With respect, Alan, has 35mm become better or have client expectations become less? In my opinion, expectations are exceptionally low in this Internet paradigm compared to twenty years ago.

[aymoon]

With respect, Alan, has 35mm become better or have client expectations become less? In my opinion, expectations are exceptionally low in this Internet paradigm compared to twenty years ago.

 

I'd say both. You have to admit that 35mm has come a long way in the last twenty years, even if you were to ignore the 'digital' debate. Certainly, with motion picture stock, what's available now is leaps and bounds ahead of what was available 20 years ago. New technology affects film as well as digital. This is not to deny the obvious benefits of larger formats, but the cons of using such systems are too much for the vast majority of casual and many professional photographers.

 

In an ideal world, I'd have every format available and at my disposal. In reality, I have to choose very carefully. For now, the M9 is my go-to in every situation. Two years from now, it may not be.

 

If I was shooting for National Geographic or Vanity Fair etc., then I'd go medium/large. Unfortunately, I'm not that good.

[pico]

I'd say both. You have to admit that 35mm has come a long way in the last twenty years, even if you were to ignore the 'digital' debate. Certainly, with motion picture stock, what's available now is leaps and bounds ahead of what was available 20 years ago. New technology affects film as well as digital. This is not to deny the obvious benefits of larger formats, but the cons of using such systems are too much for the vast majority of casual and many professional photographers.

 

In an ideal world, I'd have every format available and at my disposal. In reality, I have to choose very carefully. For now, the M9 is my go-to in every situation. Two years from now, it may not be.

 

If I was shooting for National Geographic or Vanity Fair etc., then I'd go medium/large. Unfortunately, I'm not that good.

 

I'm a bit embarrassed that I note no significant advance in motion-picture technology in the past twenty years other than digital enhancement, but I am definitely not a motion-picture film expert. Megosh, what have I missed since I studied mopix forty years ago?

 

Regarding the cons for casual users, I submit that if one can afford a Leica M9, then he can afford a medium-format film camera as well. For some people, the use of a MF film camera entirely changed their expectations. *sigh*, in Dreamland I imagine what might have been if Leica made an MF rangefinder, however Zeiss did and it is good for the amateur even today.

 

Look to the later tiny 6x4.5 Super Ikonta, if you can find one in good condition. It is truly a pocket camera.

[AlanG]

With respect, Alan, has 35mm become better or have client expectations become less? In my opinion, expectations are exceptionally low in this Internet paradigm compared to twenty years ago.

 

Some clients have low end needs while others have higher end needs. There is nothing new about this. When I first started out I shot all my architectural jobs on 4x5. One client ran b/w ads in the Washington Post. They never ordered prints but simply worked directly from the 4x5 contact images.

 

It would be difficult to make a comprehensive answer to this question, but as a long time commercial photographer (30+ years,) I can only say that I am happy to use one digital system in place of all the other film cameras that I used to use. I feel I am doing better work now than ever. I could afford to go to high end MF digital backs but don't see the need to do so.

 

Many of my professional friends are finding advantages to shooting with 35mm despite the fact that they have high end MF systems. Highest image quality is the only advantage of MF digital systems but there are numerous compromises and disadvantages that come with using them when compared to the top 35mm DSLR systems. Shooting LF and MF film is not a viable option for me today and I don't want to shoot film anyway.

By the way, I have owned and shot with an Ikonta Super B (6x6) and all kinds of other cameras from 9.5mm to 8x10.

 

The Leica M started out as a fairly versatile system but in recent years, it has become more and more limited due to the discontinuation of accessories and lenses. Meanwhile, DSLRs have greatly increased their capabilities, even extending into the professional film-making world. Adding live view via a clip-on EVF (or a separate body) would restore this versatility and then some. It would also allow Leica to broaden the range of lenses that can be used on the system. I have no idea if Leica wishes to make the system more versatile or feels it is best to keep it as a niche product.

[adan]

If you want Leica-class glass and also live-view/EVF - why not go to the makers of live-view/EVF cameras and bitch to them about why their lenses are so bad?

 

If, in addition, you want a small light camera - why not go to the SLR makers and bitch to them about their bloated machines? If Leica can build a FF digital M within 5% of the dimensions of a film M, why can't Nikon and Canon build FF SLRs within 5% of the dimensions of a Nikon F?

 

Bottom line - "enough" photographers find the M viewfinder works well for them, as is. If you are not among those - why not just move on and buy something else?

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you want Leica-class glass and also live-view/EVF - why not go to the makers of live-view/EVF cameras and bitch to them about why their lenses are so bad?

 

If, in addition, you want a small light camera - why not go to the SLR makers and bitch to them about their bloated machines? If Leica can build a FF digital M within 5% of the dimensions of a film M, why can't Nikon and Canon build FF SLRs within 5% of the dimensions of a Nikon F?

 

Bottom line - "enough" photographers find the M viewfinder works well for them, as is. If you are not among those - why not just move on and buy something else?

 

I don't know if you are addressing me or someone else. But my remarks about the usefulness of live view are not restricted to one brand or type of camera. If Leica doesn't see enough potential return to add features, more lenses choices (including TS lenses,) and more versatility to the M, that is their decision. But at one time, the M system was more versatile than it is today and I think the lack of versatility negatively impacts the desire of many pros to own the system.

 

By contrast, I do find it interesting that Leica is making adapters for the S2 that allow other brands of lenses to be used on it in order to expand its usefulness.

[Digitom]

I posted that elsewhere but here again, maybe it is interesting for someone who wants to use the good Leica lenses with a "budget" camera and -of course- an EVF:

 

The compromize is, to accept the cropfactor to µFT which is 2, but I think one can live with that.

[aymoon]

The compromize is, to accept the cropfactor to µFT which is 2, but I think one can live with that.

 

I can't. sorry. That's my whole problem with the 4/3 concept. Otherwise, (apart from build quality etc. which doesn't come close to Leica) it would be perfect.

[adan]

Hi, Alan - No, my comment was not directed at you especially. More those who seem to want a Leica M only so long as it is no longer a Leica M (= Messsucher = range/viewfinder).

 

I'm always fascinated by those people who would - in analogy - go to Mazda and say "I really want to drive a Miata - except it need 6 seats and a pickup bed."

[AlanG]

Hi, Alan - No, my comment was not directed at you especially. More those who seem to want a Leica M only so long as it is no longer a Leica M (= Messsucher = range/viewfinder).

 

I'm always fascinated by those people who would - in analogy - go to Mazda and say "I really want to drive a Miata - except it need 6 seats and a pickup bed."

 

That is why Porsche made the Cayenne SUV and Pamamera sedan... customer demand. There also is the Maserati Quattroporte. Ferrari has made 4 passenger cars and specialty models to please its customers:

 

------------------- from Wikipedia

Rare body styles

 

While the 456 fastback coupé was the only version to hit showrooms, four other rare body styles exist:

 

* The rarest is the Ferrari 456 GT Sedan. Two 4-door sedans (saloons) were built by Pininfarina especially for Nafsas Al Khaddaja of Belgium. They are the only known Ferrari 456 sedans in existence.

 

* A wagon (estate) called the Ferrari 456 GT Venice was also built. Only a small handful were made by Pininfarina. Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei ordered seven to be built. After Pininfarina designed and built them, the prince only purchased six.

-----------------------------------------------

 

The Leica M design is not carved in stone and will have to evolve in some ways in the future. Leica has to consider if the company would be better off by making the M into a more versatile system and not just maintaining it as a niche product. By "consider" I must acknowledge that Leica may have already decided that they can do OK by not changing the M much and keeping it as a niche product solely for those who don't want to see new features or capabilities added. That's fine by me, but the benefits to adding live view and a clip on EVF seem very substantial and won't change the M from a Miata to an CX-9. Perhaps they will just pretty much lock in the M9 design and all future development will be in a new system. Who knows?

[redbaron]

There is a slight difference between Porsche, or any other company, deciding to make something because they think it will sell and the suggestion that customers demanded they make it. It's just a slight difference.

[AlanG]

There is a slight difference between Porsche, or any other company, deciding to make something because they think it will sell and the suggestion that customers demanded they make it. It's just a slight difference.

 

I figure most companies do some market research and decide what is the best product mix for them. The same is true of Leica as market demand for a digital M pushed them into the M8. Market demand for a full frame digital pushed them into developing the M9. And if demand arises for a clip on EVF, I bet Leica will try to find a way to meet that demand. (They may not have access to the technology for this.) There was a demand in the market for AF SLRs and by not meeting that demand, the R system did not evolve and eventually failed in the marketplace. Apparently the demand for a manual focus Leica SLR system was not enough to be viable against the competition. The M is now a niche product, not a mainstream photographic system, so Leica's current market demand might be to not change the M9 much at all. But I doubt this could hold up as a plan for the long term once the M9 has been on the market for a long time and demand tapers off.

[NZDavid]

...Leica has to consider if the company would be better off by making the M into a more versatile system and not just maintaining it as a niche product...

 

Why is it people always assume a company has to keep expanding ad infinitum by producing more and more and taking over the world? What is wrong with a niche product? The business simply has to be sustainable.

 

By the way, the Porsche Museum in Stuttgart is a brilliant place to visit, but it doesn't devote too much space to either the Cayenne or the Panamera. Funny that.

[earleygallery]

That is why Porsche made the Cayenne SUV and Pamamera sedan... customer demand. I dont' think 'demand' is the word, rather they have tried to take a share of the high end Utility and sport saloon markets for people with more money than taste.

 

 

While the 456 fastback coupé was the only version to hit showrooms, four other rare body styles exist:

 

* The rarest is the Ferrari 456 GT Sedan. Two 4-door sedans (saloons) were built by Pininfarina especially for Nafsas Al Khaddaja of Belgium. They are the only known Ferrari 456 sedans in existence.

 

* A wagon (estate) called the Ferrari 456 GT Venice was also built. Only a small handful were made by Pininfarina. Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei ordered seven to be built. After Pininfarina designed and built them, the prince only purchased six.

 

So why didn't Ferrari make those models available to the wider public, surely they could see that there was 'customer demand' for such cars?

 

The examples you quote are more like the M9 Tit, reworking/remodelling of an existing model not a complete redesign. I'm sure if you paid them well enough Leica would make you your own M9 special, perhaps from solid gold with rainbow framelines and real puppy skin covering.

 

Now, I'm not saying that an EVIL FF M mount body wouldn't be interesting, especially if it could also take R lenses, but I don't think that there's 'customer demand' to move away from the traditional M design. Maybe there will be an additional body along those lines, it's been hinted at enough times.

[algrove]

And if demand arises for a clip on EVF, I bet Leica will try to find a way to meet that demand. (They may not have access to the technology for this.)

 

Leica DOES have access to current EVF technology with their having Panasonic make the D-LUX 5 which uses the same EVF the Panasonic GF1 and the Panasonic DMC-LX5, plus other Panasonic cameras I do not own.

 

I bought a Panasonic LX5 versus the Leica D-LUX 5 for my wife simply due to the huge price difference for the same product except for the badging and a finger bulge on the Panasonic which precluded me from having to buy a grip which would be required for the Leica model. I could not find out if the firmware was significantly different at the time of purchase.

 

The sad thing was that both items appear to be identical. Today, the Leica is $800 and the Panasonic around $400. My Panasonic EVF cost $132 whereas the Leica badged EVF is $385 as of today at B&H. All items identical, except for the badging!

 

This price comparison now makes me wonder how much of a premium am I willing to pay for any Leica product in the future, technologically advanced by Leica or not?

 

Sure I love my M9 RF, but if Leica could or would make a $1500 (or priced where ever) EVF for it would I bite? After using GF1's with my Leica lenses (body alone is $420 today), thanks to a $200 adapter for M lenses, it seems I will spring for used Leica gear in the future since I now have an idea what the Leica name alone costs based on the above comparison for identical product.

 

Is this analogy wrong?

[earleygallery]

Is this analogy wrong?

 

Absolutely.

 

There are already plenty of threads explaining the difference in price between the Panansonic and Leica cameras, so I won't repeat it, but you can use the search function if you're interested.

[AlanG]

Leica DOES have access to current EVF technology with their having Panasonic make the D-LUX 5 which uses the same EVF the Panasonic GF1 and the Panasonic DMC-LX5, plus other Panasonic cameras I do not own.

 

 

That isn't the same as being able to make a full frame live view camera that can use M lenses. As for the niche market... it is fine with me if Leica feels that they can succeed by staying small. But even a niche camera system will have to evolve in some way.

[adan]

That is why Porsche made the Cayenne SUV and Pamamera sedan... customer demand. There also is the Maserati Quattroporte.

 

I know - TopGear reviewed the Panamera and was underwhelmed. An OK sedan with a really expensive price and less-than-Porsche handling. The Quattroporte got a rating of 13 out of 20. "If you have to have a saloon, you might as well have a saloon with a Ferrari heart. We'd rather it had a BMW mind, though."

 

And in any case those cars were not replacements for the basic 2-seat sports cars. Had Porsche said "The 911 and Carrera will now have 4 seats and 4 doors," the numbskull who made that decision would have been out the door within a month - due to "customer demand".

 

Leica already builds a live-view camera - the X1. They no doubt will eventually build an interchangeable-lens live-view camera, probably with an accesory EVF. It won't be an M9/10/11/12, but it may take M lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

They no doubt will eventually build an interchangeable-lens live-view camera, probably with an accesory EVF. It won't be an M9/10/11/12, but it may take M lenses.

 

Yes I think this will happen too. For numerous reasons, live view capability is where all digital cameras are going. Separate new camera or new system aside, I don't see any logical reason why they would then leave out this feature in any future M unless they just can't get suitable sensors or it is too difficult or expensive for them to do it. That does not mean that every single Leica M lover will have to like it or even approve of it. Having both a rangefinder/viewfinder and live view in one system seems pretty compelling to me.