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

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Indisputably, but some are still using Barnacks and MPs, Leica need to max out their production capability to make more profit. Or their management will suffer, like your last para.

They dont need another M5.

 

the servers can take it, the M2 was cheaper, and sold real well, optimistic to think that Leica will repeat M2, M5 more likely.

 

optimistic, the M9 had a unique marketing feature it was a digtal 'real leica' i.e. full frame, like back in 1920s. The M10 needs to sell like M9, not like M5.

 

Few of my enth/semi profriends have bought a M9, many have stayed with their RD/1 or upgraded their M8 to a film M. If you look at the 2nd hand on able prices for M8 and RD/1 then they are more convergent than they 'should be', e.g. on pixel basis, rather then skipping (see yours below) people seem to be hesitating,... The dentists have gone mad, my even more affluent friends, empty my gbag and say but all these are film cameras.

 

Understand all that, tax writing of capital etc. But you have ignored that many people are using CV lenses, some cause they were not patient enough, others cause they looked at the photos and bought the most cost effective, or ergonomic for them.

 

Cosina could bring out a follow on to the RD/1 they can manufacture the same product more cheaply than Leica, they wont do this unless they see a market volume (and % penetration) sufficient for the investement. They thought the f/1.1 5cm was going to be profitable, stopped the f/1.5 5cm. Leica have stopped the R series similarly. You dont have CV or ZM lenses?

 

It is a horse race the starting gates have opened who will be a runner, is the 1st question? You seem to have ignored that, The Nikon F, buried the Contarex in '59. In 58 I was going to buy a Contarex, one look at the Nikon PR liturate in '59 was enough.

 

Ive looked at RD/1 rescently still hesitating, thought about a M9 last year, reverted to thinkng about RD/1 this year.

 

I'm not as as sanguine as you

 

Noel

 

I have enough information to be hopeful ... but it is more a hope for others and meeting their insatiable desires for constant change in ever shorter cycles of upgrades ... which describes me not long ago, so I get the attraction.

 

Me now? I'm semi-retired now, and money is a deciding factor in terms of dealing with reality as opposed to wishful thinking. So now I get really pragmatic about this stuff when the latest-greatest is announced. In past, I freely engaged in such "get it" behavior while questioning the real value regarding my photography ... but I did it anyway because I could easily afford most anything. Now reality dictates that I listen more closely to my own questionings. Amazing how that works to bring you back to your senses and alter priorities ... LOL!

 

-Marc

[Xmas]

Hi Marc

 

I'm semi retired as well, it is hard work.

 

Noel

[jrc]

If you had gotten together a carefully chosen group of people from this forum, they could have come up with exactly the same list as digilloyd. There was nothing especially amazing about it. What was amazing (to me) was the number of uber-defensive responses it generated here.

 

The M9 (and really, all Leicas) are good cameras, but in any any other than some psychological standard ("I know what I like, and I like Leicas") they could hardly be regarded as the "best" cameras, given the way that professional photographers avoid them.

 

If you like an elite, hard-to-use, slow-functioning camera that can, under certain conditions, create superb photographs, then you are a candidate for a Leica. I know some people will take exception to the previous sentence, but it's all pretty demonstrable, when a Leica is compared to a modern SDLR. Some people say "I can focus and shoot as fast with my Leica as with a DSLR," I would say, that may be true, but it's because you have a handicap of some kind. It's easy enough to demonstrate the opposite. Have two people on opposite sides of you stand ten feet and forty feet away, respectively. Then swing back and forth between them, focusing and taking ten shots, and see how long it takes. With a consumer DSLR like a Pentax K5 or a Nikon D7000, you'll do it in well under ten seconds...You won't with a Leica.

 

You say, "But I never want to do that," meaning fast reaction shots. You don't want or need accurate framing, quick and precise focusing, etc. Well, okay, then maybe you're a candidate for a Leica.

 

I really don't have anything against Leicas -- I actually enjoy them, which is the reason I still have an M7, but no longer an M8 -- but the enjoyment is not what I'd call a professional pleasure, where you have the pleasure of doing a job very well and knowing it when you're doing it. It's more of a contemplative pleasure, where you're out with the camera enjoying yourself, the photos aren't really critical, and you're willing to take the occasional unpleasant surprise as part of the overall pleasure of using the machine.

 

IMHO.

[denoir]

jrc, I agree with much of what you say, but a couple of things:

 

1) First the whole "professional photographer" thing. The vast majority of professional photographers are wedding photographers. They work with clients that want their photos to look like everyone else's photos. That means the Canon and Nikon look. Furthermore a majority of professionals have very limited budget - an M9 with a bunch of ASPH primes goes far beyond what they can afford. Choosing a cheaper DSLR that will give the clients what they want is a sensible business decision. And of course there is the AF thing - it's easier and more reliable, especially when using longer lenses and you have but one chance to grab a shot.

 

2) The M9 combined with M lenses can produce images superb quality - in many ways the best you can get today. So even if you ignore everything about the camera itslef, the output can justify getting one. It really delivers.

 

3) It's small and the lenses are tiny. Portability is of great value. A camera that you have with you will always be better than the camera you left at home.

 

4) It's great to use. For many, me included, the transition to a rangefinder camera was as big a revelation as the transition from a P&S to a DSLR. I still have a couple of DSLRs and on occasion I use them (mainly the 5DII) - especially for tripod based work. I choose the M9 some 90% of the time though. The reason is simply because I enjoy it more.

[Swanny66]

I agree with the ISO/Dynamic range argument. And I understand those are being worked on. What I don't understand is how the M9 or any rangefinder is hard to focus accurately? Maybe it is me but I think it is pretty simple, easy, and accurate. It is not for everyone. And that is how I like it anyhow.

[AlanG]

jrc, I agree with much of what you say, but a couple of things:

 

1) First the whole "professional photographer" thing. The vast majority of professional photographers are wedding photographers. They work with clients that want their photos to look like everyone else's photos. That means the Canon and Nikon look. Furthermore a majority of professionals have very limited budget - an M9 with a bunch of ASPH primes goes far beyond what they can afford. Choosing a cheaper DSLR that will give the clients what they want is a sensible business decision. And of course there is the AF thing - it's easier and more reliable, especially when using longer lenses and you have but one chance to grab a shot.

 

Yes and the vast majority of professional photographers have a spouse with a job. I think many professionals would love to own an M9 if they could afford it in addition to their other gear. But the DSLR system is often a must have and the Leica is a want to have. A lot of the highly paid photographers aspire for the MF gear. I keep thinking I can shoot all of these great images with a Leica in my spare time. But will I? At my point I look around and say, "Why do I own all of this stuff?" So being able to afford a lot more doesn't always help either. And my spare time is mostly filled with riding a bicycle - and I own 5 of them.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you had gotten together a carefully chosen group of people from this forum, they could have come up with exactly the same list as digilloyd. There was nothing especially amazing about it. What was amazing (to me) was the number of uber-defensive responses it generated here.

 

The M9 (and really, all Leicas) are good cameras, but in any any other than some psychological standard ("I know what I like, and I like Leicas") they could hardly be regarded as the "best" cameras, given the way that professional photographers avoid them.

 

If you like an elite, hard-to-use, slow-functioning camera that can, under certain conditions, create superb photographs, then you are a candidate for a Leica. I know some people will take exception to the previous sentence, but it's all pretty demonstrable, when a Leica is compared to a modern SDLR. Some people say "I can focus and shoot as fast with my Leica as with a DSLR," I would say, that may be true, but it's because you have a handicap of some kind. It's easy enough to demonstrate the opposite. Have two people on opposite sides of you stand ten feet and forty feet away, respectively. Then swing back and forth between them, focusing and taking ten shots, and see how long it takes. With a consumer DSLR like a Pentax K5 or a Nikon D7000, you'll do it in well under ten seconds...You won't with a Leica.

 

You say, "But I never want to do that," meaning fast reaction shots. You don't want or need accurate framing, quick and precise focusing, etc. Well, okay, then maybe you're a candidate for a Leica.

 

I really don't have anything against Leicas -- I actually enjoy them, which is the reason I still have an M7, but no longer an M8 -- but the enjoyment is not what I'd call a professional pleasure, where you have the pleasure of doing a job very well and knowing it when you're doing it. It's more of a contemplative pleasure, where you're out with the camera enjoying yourself, the photos aren't really critical, and you're willing to take the occasional unpleasant surprise as part of the overall pleasure of using the machine.

 

IMHO.

 

I'm a professional photographer. I think the M9 is the best camera for the type of work I do, and I have always had a M for paying work. My good friend Irakley Sandnidze is a professional photographer and almost exclusively uses a Leica M9 for his work. There are other professional photographers on this forum that also prefer the Leica M (film & digital) for their work.

 

If your point was that the M isn't for everyone, then you are right. Some of us don't feel compelled to shoot in two directions swinging back and forth hosing off 10 shots in ten seconds. That is simply a different style or application of photography ... one I don't personally engage in even with a lightening fast Pro spec AF DSLR.

 

I know my M, so for me it is a tool that is easy to use, fast and precise to focus, and its speed of operation has never once been an issue. Getting the shot in my work IS a critical issue ... and I have full confidence in my ability to do so with my M9s.

 

Not everyone is like you or like me. So there are plenty of choices to select from. Do all those choices have to be the same?

 

-Marc

[charlesphoto99]

I'm a pro who works with an M9. And honestly all the pros I know choose the gear that's best for them and their intended purpose/style and that they can afford. It has nothing to do with standing in circles and diddling with their focus and a stopwatch. Get real....

 

(and I get all the things you say I don't with the Leica. Just gotta know how to use one is all)

[mwilliamsphotography]

jrc, I agree with much of what you say, but a couple of things:

 

1) First the whole "professional photographer" thing. The vast majority of professional photographers are wedding photographers. They work with clients that want their photos to look like everyone else's photos. That means the Canon and Nikon look. Furthermore a majority of professionals have very limited budget - an M9 with a bunch of ASPH primes goes far beyond what they can afford. Choosing a cheaper DSLR that will give the clients what they want is a sensible business decision. And of course there is the AF thing - it's easier and more reliable, especially when using longer lenses and you have but one chance to grab a shot.

 

2) The M9 combined with M lenses can produce images superb quality - in many ways the best you can get today. So even if you ignore everything about the camera itslef, the output can justify getting one. It really delivers.

 

3) It's small and the lenses are tiny. Portability is of great value. A camera that you have with you will always be better than the camera you left at home.

 

4) It's great to use. For many, me included, the transition to a rangefinder camera was as big a revelation as the transition from a P&S to a DSLR. I still have a couple of DSLRs and on occasion I use them (mainly the 5DII) - especially for tripod based work. I choose the M9 some 90% of the time though. The reason is simply because I enjoy it more.

 

I shoot weddings professionally (among other things). My approach attracts clients that don't want their wedding photography to look like everyone else's. Certainly a minority, but I don't own a Canon or Nikon either.

 

Despite your assertion that you need an AF DSLR to get those one time, must have shots, M wedding shooters seem to defy that time and again, over and over. It really isn't all that hard BTW ... it just takes what I call "emotional anticipation" ... heightened awareness of what is happening around you, instead of suddenly waking up and realizing a shot is happening. Don't confuse all this with the sluggish response time of a photographer that now needs the camera to save the shot :-)

 

The price aspect of your post is very true ... if all you shoot is weddings, a M9 and ASPH lenses is a tough choice financially ... and some (not all) wedding shooters that do use a M also have some sort of a 35mm DSLR.

 

-Marc

[denoir]

Marc, I'm sure somebody proficient with a rangefinder and that has had a lot of training capturing moving subjects can do it well. However there is a steep learning curve, so it's much easier to simply use AF.

 

I've had the M9 (my first rangefinder) for nine months now and there are still situations that I find difficult to be 100% certain of perfect focus. For instance using a 90 Cron wide open for a head shot when the subject keeps moving the head. DOF is so thin that the slightest movement can cause the shot to be out of focus (focus on the eyebrows instead of the eyes for instance). Before the M9 (and M6) I almost exclusively used manual focus glass on a DSLR, so I'm not exactly unfamiliar with manual focusing.

[Xmas]

Marc, I'm sure somebody proficient with a rangefinder and that has had a lot of training capturing moving subjects can do it well. However there is a steep learning curve, so it's much easier to simply use AF.

goodie try a x100 or Contax G, or whatever DLSR & sell M9

I've had the M9 (my first rangefinder) for nine months now and there are still situations that I find difficult to be 100% certain of perfect focus. For instance using a 90 Cron wide open for a head shot when the subject keeps moving the head. DOF is so thin that the slightest movement can cause the shot to be out of focus (focus on the eyebrows instead of the eyes for instance). Before the M9 (and M6) I almost exclusively used manual focus glass on a DSLR, so I'm not exactly unfamiliar with manual focusing.

The rangefinder suggestions of OP wont help you they are aimed at the people whoes eye sight is bad, they are not actually auto focus. Perhaps you joined in the middle of the thread?

If you are focusing a manual SLR in bad light ok stay with it, or use a DSLR in manual focus mode.

It may be easier to sway when the subject is moving.

 

Leica should have already committed to a M10, and may have complete cameras in alpha testing, to allow production prototypes soon...

[tappan]

The ONLY, possible SMALL concern that I have with the M9 is the time lag after the camera has not been used for a while and then one raises the camera to shoot and it does not fire right away. BUT, I understand that this is not a fully automated DSLR and I am ok with that.

The camera is GREAT!

[jaapv]

Just hit the shutter before you raise it to your eye to wake it up

[Double Negative]

^ What Jaap said. Click it before/as you start raising it. Not that it takes very long to begin with, but this will ensure instant reaction when you hit the shutter button. Or even as you approach a scene, if you have the luxury of knowing it's coming.

[denoir]

goodie try a x100 or Contax G, or whatever DLSR & sell M9

 

No thank you. You do it.

 

The rangefinder suggestions of OP wont help you they are aimed at the people whoes eye sight is bad, they are not actually auto focus. Perhaps you joined in the middle of the thread?

If you are focusing a manual SLR in bad light ok stay with it, or use a DSLR in manual focus mode.

It may be easier to sway when the subject is moving.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped}

What on earth are you talking about?

 

Luka, since you asked, in the quote you had by Noel he is giving you the reasonable suggestion that 1) if you can focus manually with a dSLR in dodgy conditions then the M9 ought to work too (since an MF 90 is a MF 90), and 2) if it isn't working on the M you might try a "swaying" technique. Focus and then when your subject moves slightly, you do too, so you won't be caught off focus by very much if at all.

 

This is a long-held practice of rangefinder shooters. I heard Riccis V. recommend this just the other day on his blog (or FB or something). I do it too... it's second nature shooting long.

 

Now, if your 90mm lens is off-calibration, then it's going to be very tricky to do this wide open up close, but that's just as true for my 80 R lux or a Nikkor MF 85 on a dSLR as it is for a 75M Lux on the M9. And I actually find the RF patch easier to use than 99% of dSLRs plain field or split focus screens (the latter have their own contrast issues).

[charlesphoto99]

The ONLY, possible SMALL concern that I have with the M9 is the time lag after the camera has not been used for a while and then one raises the camera to shoot and it does not fire right away. BUT, I understand that this is not a fully automated DSLR and I am ok with that.

The camera is GREAT!

 

This is the one change I would like to see. I guess it would probably have to change to an electronic release. Fine by me.

[denoir]

Luka, since you asked, in the quote you had by Noel he is giving you the reasonable suggestion that 1) if you can focus manually with a dSLR in dodgy conditions then the M9 ought to work too (since an MF 90 is a MF 90), and 2) if it isn't working on the M you might try a "swaying" technique. Focus and then when your subject moves slightly, you do too, so you won't be caught off focus by very much if at all.

 

This is a long-held practice of rangefinder shooters. I heard Riccis V. recommend this just the other day on his blog (or FB or something). I do it too... it's second nature shooting long.

 

Now, if your 90mm lens is off-calibration, then it's going to be very tricky to do this wide open up close, but that's just as true for my 80 R lux or a Nikkor MF 85 on a dSLR as it is for a 75M Lux on the M9. And I actually find the RF patch easier to use than 99% of dSLRs plain field or split focus screens (the latter have their own contrast issues).

 

The big difference is that:

 

A) You get feedback from the DOF on a long lens on an SLR.

You don't have to use the center to focus

C) The 90mm framelines cover a small portion of the viewfinder on a rangefinder

 

If you want a full head shot with a 90mm (portrait orientation) you'll notice that the rangefinder patch covers the nose. By the time you have recomposed after focusing the subject may have moved already.

 

Going by feel and trying to compensate for subject movements without getting any feedback in the viewfinder is of course possible, but much more difficult. Which was my point.

 

What I said was that rangefinder focusing of long lenses in some situations had a much steeper learning curve. He made some snide remark about that I should get an X100 and then went ranting on about people with bad eyesight and DSLR focusing. So I did not understand what he was talking about.

[jaapv]

^ What Jaap said. Click it before/as you start raising it. Not that it takes very long to begin with, but this will ensure instant reaction when you hit the shutter button. Or even as you approach a scene, if you have the luxury of knowing it's coming.

Or, alternatively, shoot a DMR for a while. That will make you discover all kind of strategies to avoid start-up lag:D

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jamie Roberts]

The big difference is that:

 

A) You get feedback from the DOF on a long lens on an SLR.

You don't have to use the center to focus

C) The 90mm framelines cover a small portion of the viewfinder on a rangefinder

{snipped}.

 

Interesting...

 

A) I don't usually stop down on a dSLR. I can count on one hand the number of times I've used the DOF preview on any SLR over the last 20 years or so

 

As for the center, well, that's not quite true. Split-field or prismatic SLR screens are always in the center, nowhere else. For a medium tele at 90mm wide open close up, the ground glass is very hard to focus with IMO. But I agree it's sometimes faster than focus and recompose you must use on the M9,

 

C) The 90 & 135 framelines on the standard M9 aren't optimal, to be sure. I use a 1.25x magnifier and that helps a lot. I kinda wish I could afford an M9 MP .85 RF That would fix the 90 dilemma.

 

The big balancing advantage of manually focusing with the M9 is that it's just way brighter than any AF dSLR I've ever used, even with special screens (the 1ds2 and Nikon D3. To my eyes it's also more "positive" in feedback because there's an apparent change in contrast in addition to convergence when the patch "snaps" into focus. Having said that, the best normal format dSLR I've seen for manual focusing is the D3 / D3s, they have a very nice viewfinder for a dSLR; coverage is great and it's really quite bright.

 

The other exception is the S2 viewfinder. It's probably the sheer size of the mirror or something, but it's very large and very bright and easy to focus with.... the R series were great too, but they were manual focus cameras... and weren't splitting light for AF sensors...