Open Letter to Leica — 10 Ways To Improve the M9 Rangefinder

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pixel peeping obsession again rears it's head.... thank god the M9 isn't 24 or 36 or some ridiculously large amount of megapixels (whilst still complaining about wanting super hi-iso on a CCD sensor - uhh, do the physics Loyd). Then one would have to spend ridiculous amounts of time and money as he does on your Mac performance, trying to eek out that extra 10% speed....

 

The M9 isn't a landscape camera - it can certainly take landscapes, but it's more geared to reportage and lifestyle. I don't complain that a Linhof 6X12 is difficult to shoot candid street photography with or can't shoot at 25,000 iso.

 

Anyway, the only true fix I wish for and hoped would change from the 8 to 9 is instant wake up in standby mode. Might need to switch to an electronic shutter release for that though.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Perhaps, but some of his suggestions would cause another huge rush to upgrade, as we saw with the M9. Think about it ... greater resolution, greater speed, greater dynamic range, better high ISO, better LCD ... what's not to like with those? You don't think they are coming?

 

Actually as far as greater resolution, faster buffer, more DR, a stop or two more ISO, and a better LCD goes, well,

 

--> all of us have been saying that since the M9 debuted, pretty much.

 

Hence the yawn over the post.

 

And honestly, Zlatko, while a lot of us defended the M8 as it is / was, I don't think many of us said "it was all we'll ever need" from a digital M. Those of us who used the M8 a lot were keenly aware of its flaws, but were still swayed by its promise and what it could deliver.

[zlatkob]

... and what is it that makes an M, an M?

 

This is a very interesting question, a philosophical question -- certainly worthy of discussion. Answering it can involve looking back in history and looking forward into the future. I don't think it is a question that received its definitive answer in the past, otherwise there would be no digital M today. Rather it is an open question revisited with each generation of the camera, with reference to the technology and marketplace of the time. It may be a question considered within Leica from time to time, as they decide what the next M will be.

[Jamie Roberts]

An aspect I would never want to take away from the camera. However, ways to improve focus accuracy with fast glass would be more than welcome.

 

Dave--do you have an M9?

 

I mean, my focus accuracy with the M9 and, oh, a 90mm Summicron is just about the same or better than I get with my Nikkor 85 1.4 AF D on my D3.

 

I understand that's not the fastest AF there is, but I just thought I'd point it out. Since I have to use that focal length, and I want at least f2 for other reasons, I don't have a heck of a lot of choices, and the M9 stacks up against all of them very, very well.

 

The 75 Lux is a little trickier due to quirks of that lens when stopping down, but it's also just about as good.

 

The Noctilux, being a 50mm lens, is actually a wee bit easier to focus than the Nikkor, to tell you the truth.

 

The 50 Lux ASPH or cron? Well, let's just say they focus very, very quickly indeed and are exceedingly sharp.

 

Having said that, any improvements that Leica can make are welcome ones, but I'm still not sure where your facts are coming from on this...

 

I mean, what do *you* think a valid hit rate is for critical focus wide open on tricky subjects? Even with auto focus it probably approaches 1 in 2 or 1 in 3...

[ErikP]

I fail to understand why people always seem to feel that the M9 needs improving. Every other thread is about "the next new camera" or, "open letter to Leica" or in this case, "ten ways..."

 

Am I the only one that really likes my M9? The way it is? Some days, it seems that way!

 

Okay, it's not perfect. But nothing has stopped me from enjoying my M9 and taking great pictures with it! Even these so-called "unusable lenses" work just fine with the help of CornerFix.

 

Maybe I'm just a freak, because I like my M8, too.

 

Carry on.

 

There is nothing wrong with the M8... little unstable w.balance indoors compared to D700. Less even picture performance than D700. Not full frame ... But actually what an amazing files we get from these little beuitiful creation and mabe most importantly - I bring the M8 all the time. My D700 and lovely 80-200/2.8 is heavie to carry....As soon as I have saved money there Will be an M9 in my bag........

[zlatkob]

Actually as far as greater resolution, faster buffer, more DR, a stop or two more ISO, and a better LCD goes, well,

 

--> all of us have been saying that since the M9 debuted, pretty much.

 

Not really "all of us". There is a fair amount of negativity toward those rather obvious improvements. If you list them as desirable improvements, there is a chorus saying they are not needed and you should really buy a DSLR to get them. At least until they appear in the M10, when they will become key selling points.

 

And honestly, Zlatko, while a lot of us defended the M8 as it is / was, I don't think many of us said "it was all we'll ever need" from a digital M. Those of us who used the M8 a lot were keenly aware of its flaws, but were still swayed by its promise and what it could deliver.

 

Agreed the M8 showed a lot of promise. But it's critics were rather harshly treated, even when they were right on target. And then the M9 appeared and directly addressed some of the criticisms, which of course made it even more desirable.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh, and there's this stuff from Lloyd's post:

 

7) Sensor noise and dynamic range— Sure, the CCD looks good at ISO 80 and 160, and that’s about it. By ISO 320, the noise is inferior to a $500 DSLR.

There's very little noise in the M9 up to ISO 1600, certainly nothing you're going to see in a print.

 

Then there's this:

And pictures into the sun just don’t work with weird brightness spikes characteristic of CCDs. Look into CMOS. And by the way, a $7K camera ought to have better dynamic range than a $500 DSLR— it ought to be true 14-bit, and it ought to offer lossless RAW compression too.

Now, I feel *exactly* the opposite about the flary low-contrast crap I see with my Nikon (and with my Canons). Mostly that's the lens, but it's also the CMOS behaving like a sensor and less like film IMO.

 

Shooting into the sun / against the light is something the Leica glass / M9 excels at...and you can control the effects you get with lens choice. When the lenses do flare (and it's not easy to push a lot of them) they do it very controlled or spectacularly beautiful ways. The ASPH lenses are extremely tightly controlled; the Mandler era ones are expressive (the Nocti pushed hard in daylight is an absolute joy--if very special purpose )

 

And I believe the M9 does have lossless compression, 14bpp RAW files.As Lloyd as an M9 user should know.

 

8) High ISO.... The M9 sensor is a hope and a prayer by ISO 640.

 

Ok, like the above, totally factually inaccurate. I mean, how many ISO 2000 shots have to be posted to prove something to a guy like this? (oh, and my M9 is 1/3 of a stop more sensitive than my D3, which means--you guessed it--I shoot ISO 1600 on the Leica when I need ISO 2200 or more on the D3

[Dabow]

 

Dave--do you have an M9?

 

Having said that, any improvements that Leica can make are welcome ones, but I'm still not sure where your facts are coming from on this...

 

I mean, what do *you* think a valid hit rate is for critical focus wide open on tricky subjects? Even with auto focus it probably approaches 1 in 2 or 1 in 3...

 

Yes, I do. I wouldn't feel qualified to comment on it if I didn't.

 

The short answer is higher than I'm getting. I've already debated in another thread here what some people regard as critical focus isn't always the case - my experience. I can achieve a higher rate of success with an 85mm f/1.2 lens using AF and a single focus point. I have to use glasses with my M9 which compounds the problem - one of the reasons I'd like to see the M9 with LV.

 

Anyway, there's usually a lot of back and forth with this kind of debate which I'd prefer to avoid, especially given that invariably it turns into a 'I say, you say' waste of time.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Agreed the M8 showed a lot of promise. But it's critics were rather harshly treated, even when they were right on target. And then the M9 appeared and directly addressed some of the criticisms, which of course made it even more desirable.

 

Oh I dunno, Zlatko; I honestly think it was the other way 'round. Once the IR trouble hit there was not much but jeers and catcalls to any people using the M8 (oh, it had a cool design, and was great for nostalgia, but if you were serious you had to use something else)

 

There were popular blogs calling people using the M8 losers and idiots; there were those saying you had to be an antiquated collector with too much money to want use a rangefinder; there were plenty of people saying it couldn't be used at all for any kind of pro work.

 

I remember going to WPPI and hearing Joe Buissink, who I admire a lot, trot out the trademark line about how stone-age it would be to have to shoot a rangefinder. All the while, Riccis was doing (along with lots of other people too).

 

But the perception was squarely against the M8.

 

I suppose that made some of us dig in a bit, and some of the "critics" might have been more harshly treated here. To me that was only a balance of being thought a total weirdo in other places

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped} I have to use glasses with my M9 which compounds the problem - one of the reasons I'd like to see the M9 with LV.

{Snipped}.

 

I can totally understand and respect that, and I'm sorry to hear it. I don't need glasses yet, thankfully. You should easily be able to exceed your critical focus hit-rate from an 85 1.2L (which I shot for years) with an M9 and a modern 70 or 90; unfortunately they're not quite as fast in aperture. But they should be far quicker to focus.

 

The old 75 Lux is wonderful, but tricky to set up in my experience, and it focus shifts as you stop down, so it's not so good.

 

One thing I'll helpfully recommend to you to get a much higher hit-rate with longer glass on the M9 is a magnifier if you don't already have one.

 

My M6 is a .85 and it's fine; the M9 is a little less magnified than that and so the 1.25x magnifier works wonders for me. Seriously, it's a godsend.

 

I'm not against focus confirmation either, as long as it would be subtle. You certainly wouldn't have to have live view on an M for that though.

[AlanG]

Pixel peeping obsession again rears it's head.... thank god the M9 isn't 24 or 36 or some ridiculously large amount of megapixels (whilst still complaining about wanting super hi-iso on a CCD sensor - uhh, do the physics Loyd). Then one would have to spend ridiculous amounts of time and money as he does on your Mac performance, trying to eek out that extra 10% speed....

 

The M9 isn't a landscape camera - it can certainly take landscapes, but it's more geared to reportage and lifestyle. I don't complain that a Linhof 6X12 is difficult to shoot candid street photography with or can't shoot at 25,000 iso.

 

Anyway, the only true fix I wish for and hoped would change from the 8 to 9 is instant wake up in standby mode. Might need to switch to an electronic shutter release for that though.

 

I don't totally disagree with you but I will say that a lot of what was formerly MF and LF work is being done with digital 35mm gear now. So often people are doing pixel peeping for a good reason because they have demanding application for the images. If you only think of an M9 as a camera for street photography and reportage it is already way beyond what was typically needed by many applications for those types of photos. There wouldn't be much reason to improve it a whole lot if that is how you plan to use it. (Although it wouldn't be the choice of very many paparazzi either.)

 

Now you can do street photography and reportage even with lowly p&s cameras that are more inconspicuous, fairly versatile, and produce images that surpass the technical quality of many "famous" photos of the past. So spending $10,000 or so on a camera and just one lens solely for that purpose would perhaps be overkill for many people. Thus they look for additional uses for the camera to justify buying it. And why buy such expensive lenses if you are not fanatical about sharpness?

[pop]

Any technology must be continuously improved or it wouldn't be technology - rather an antique.

 

This is simply not so.

 

Take a sewing machine, for instance.

 

Only a few decades ago a sewing machine was a mature product with a reasonable life time and reasonable provisions for its care and maintenance. Today it is exceedingly difficult to find a sewing machine with a reasonable feature set and life expectancy. The bloody things are flimsy and can't even be oiled. Clearly, that would be an unusual meaning of the term "improved technology".

[Robmoores1]

Wow; I just got around to actually reading that tripe. I resisted, because I've heard it all before - and I was right. Seriously?

 

1) Go buy a MF camera and quit your whining. (36MP? Have you SEEN the price of MF cameras with such sensors?)

2) Any focus error is MY fault. I shoot both an f/1.1 lens and a 135mm on the M9 with no problems!

3) Maybe don't frame so tightly? I've yet to chop off a head.

4) Okay, maybe. But I use the LCD for the histogram and battery level. Not previewing images and peeping pixels - that's what a computer is for.

5) See #4.

6) See #4.

7) Noise? Learn exposure and how to post-process. DR? The M8/M9 have some of the best DR I've ever seen. I can recover highlights and bump shadows very easily.

8) I shoot at ISO 2500 and do not use NR in post except in rare cases. If I wanted mushy, plastic images I'd shoot a DSLR at 12,500. See #7.

9) Ever heard of Bulb mode?

9) Then don't buy one - stick to your X100

 

Wow. And that's all I'm going to say on this matter. Sounds like Mr. Lloyd needs to stick to P&S.

 

Totally agree with the above.

 

Also in response to some of the other commentators why invest so much money on a camera that is, in your eyes, so fundamentally flawed?

 

Strange.

[mwilliamsphotography]

If Leica adopts just a few of the items on Diglloyd's list, then those who are MOST critical of him now will also be the FIRST to buy the new model and talk about it on this forum. In particular, greater resolution, speed, dynamic range and high ISO will be seen as absolutely worth the upgrade. Let's recall how we vigorously defended the M8 as "all I'll ever need" and criticized those who suggested any improvements, but then rushed to order the M9 as quickly as humanly possible.

 

Who vigorously defended the M8 as "all I'll ever need?" A few people are not the collective "WE".

 

What "WE" liked was any Leica M digital at all, after Leica kept saying that it would not be possible for so long.

 

Upgrading to a M9 was not an endorsement of endless wholesale upgrades as you imply. The M8 was flawed in many people's eyes even if they bought one ... and the M9 fixed most of it, which then appealed to both M8 users able to upgrade, and those who vowed to wait for a better M digital.

 

I do agree that some will see greater resolution, DR, speed, and high ISO as worth the upgrade ... but not necessarily everyone. Fact is, it BETTER appeal to someone or Leica will be in a heap of trouble should they spend time and treasure bringing forth such a M camera.

 

What is not taken into account is the penalty to be paid for all that greater resolution, DR, speed, and high ISO, and how those penalties will effect the rangefinder shooting experience. Some of these are dichotomies ... where for example, high resolution and high ISO currently do not coexist: The recent D3s has the speed, and high ISO, but is 12 meg. Anyone who has jumped from a 12 meg FF camera to a 25 meg FF knows there is a penalty for that jump in resolution. Tiny pixels have their charms and their demonic traits. Penalties will be paid for a switch from CCD to CMOS, and each of us will have to weigh those penalties against any gains, etc. etc.

 

It may be that 18 meg, FF CCD is there for many folks considering the way they use a rangefinder. That would be nice, since dropping another $8,000. on yet another M camera body isn't everyone's pipe dream.

 

-Marc

[Double Negative]

I'm not entirely sure where this is heading, other than the obvious which we've both already stated.

 

Meh. Me either. I think I'm just burnt out on this thread and others like it. I'm done.

[jmkays]

Dave--do you have an M9?

Whatever he's using is serving him well. Impressive photos on Dabow's website.

 

The irony presented by this thread is that regardless of the critique's merits or demerits, the 5+ pages here of discussion on our high profile Leica site will drive more traffic and authority/ranking to the Digiloyd blog than Chambers could have hoped for otherwise.

 

I'm happy with my M9 but do not regard it as a religious artifact immune from scrutiny. Even bad constructive criticism gets the dialogue going and that benefits all photogs. Even the Leica fetishist.

[zlatkob]

What is not taken into account is the penalty to be paid for all that greater resolution, DR, speed, and high ISO, and how those penalties will effect the rangefinder shooting experience.

 

Does this mean you'll be against an M10 that has any of those improvements, refusing to buy it? Or will you perhaps just buy it anyway and suffer the penalties, bad as they are?

[wildlightphoto]

Does this mean you'll be against an M10 that has any of those improvements, refusing to buy it?

 

I'd wait until the camera was available and its merits & deficiencies known before committing or refusing to buy.

[diogenis]

This is a very interesting question, a philosophical question -- certainly worthy of discussion. Answering it can involve looking back in history and looking forward into the future. I don't think it is a question that received its definitive answer in the past, otherwise there would be no digital M today. Rather it is an open question revisited with each generation of the camera, with reference to the technology and marketplace of the time. It may be a question considered within Leica from time to time, as they decide what the next M will be.

 

It's not that philosophical at all. It is simply a very well thought out product that manages to withstand the passing of time. It's not that difficult to understand what is it that makes an M: Besides the obvious quality which comes at a cost, small size, low weight, portability, and speed are it's core values. Coupled with the best lenses in the market makes this also an envy product. Those that can afford it are really happy owing it.

 

Obviously when one makes something for like 5 decades, all this legacy is yet another benefit for the camera, and the proof is in the sales.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[diogenis]

On the other side of the river bank you have bulky dSLR cameras, loaded with "features" covered in plastic, cheaper alternatives but what if you really don't need them features? Do we really need to shoot at 15fps? Those that do need that, well they can't buy an M.

If you really buy the idea of seeing what the lens sees, then you do need a dSLR. Personally I don't buy that.