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

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let me guess. To get anything else than a ridiculously small 0.68x viewfinder?

 

Not sure what you are talking about here, but Leica's OVF with the .68x gives a superb field of view. As oposed to a through-the-lens one. And it is also quite easy to understand why

[diogenis]

I'm not Michael but I hope I can answer this for you. The Lytro captures the depth of the scene in focus sort of like a solid cone from the lens forward. It also captures this entire cone in varying degrees of out of focus. Thus whatever you want to have in focus or blurry to various degrees can be chosen within whatever limitations the software has for selecting planes, regions, or objects. The bottom line is that software theoretically could map out the light field "3D" image information any way you want show it in 2D.

 

 

It is some sort of an MRI scan as opposed to a simple Xray photo

And the reaons which I asked for X-ray vision as well

[NZDavid]

Strewth, this thread is still going!

 

I think the solution is simple:

 

Keep producing the M9 and the M9-P. Keep the design unchanged, only tweaking the sensor and software from time to time. This will satisfy the purists.

 

Introduce an M10 that includes all the whizzbang techno features (EVF and the like) that obviously appeal to some.

[Xmas]

Strewth, this thread is still going!

 

I think the solution is simple:

 

Keep producing the M9 and the M9-P. Keep the design unchanged, only tweaking the sensor and software from time to time. This will satisfy the purists.

 

Introduce an M10 that includes all the whizzbang techno features (EVF and the like) that obviously appeal to some.

Hi

 

Doing anything costs money, the money is (supposed to be) recovered on (additional sales), otherwise it is a loss, Leica spent a lot on S2, ...

 

The Mazda rotary engines don't have crank shafts.

 

Noel

[John Ricard]

Obsolete ???

Name one camera that is faster to operate then a M in street photography ?

 

Since my iPhone doesn't have to be lifted to my eye and it does not have to be focused, it is much faster than my M. I'm not making a joke in any way. There are tons of photographers who are creating great work using the iPhone. Whenever I use my M9 on the street I can't help but think how much faster the process would be if I were using my iPhone instead.

[bill]

Whereas if the iPhone was the only means of image capture in the world I would never take another photo. Truly the worst handling "camera" ever.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The clue is in the name, Bill...

[jaapv]

It is some sort of an MRI scan as opposed to a simple Xray photo

 

More like an CBCT scan. And it uses voxels instead of pixels.

[yanidel]

Since my iPhone doesn't have to be lifted to my eye and it does not have to be focused, it is much faster than my M. I'm not making a joke in any way. There are tons of photographers who are creating great work using the iPhone. Whenever I use my M9 on the street I can't help but think how much faster the process would be if I were using my iPhone instead.

.. then you really need to learn how to use the M9.

[diogenis]

Since my iPhone doesn't have to be lifted to my eye and it does not have to be focused, it is much faster than my M. I'm not making a joke in any way. There are tons of photographers who are creating great work using the iPhone. Whenever I use my M9 on the street I can't help but think how much faster the process would be if I were using my iPhone instead.

 

iphone much faster than M9????!!!

Are you serious?

Why did you bought an M9?

[Ruhayat]

Obsolete ???

Name one camera that is faster to operate then a M in street photography ?

 

Again, for the sake of argument:

 

In digital, the Ricoh GRD III with its step zoom and hyperfocus is faster. Composing with the LCD is a lot faster than having to bring the viewfinder to your eye before each shot. The whole operation is more fluid, too. Plus, it makes hipshots more accurate than an M, because you can still see a little bit of what's going to be in the frame on the LCD, as opposed to an M (where you won't see anything at all with hipshots).

 

For the same reason (because you use the LCD to compose), when I used to have it, the Olympus EP1 with a manual lens set in zone focus was also as fast as an M. In both cases, the smaller sizes and lighter weights added to the speed for candids.

 

For film, the Trip 35 is often faster than an M, too. Image quality in all these cases compared to an M is certainly debatable, but that was not the perimeter asked in the question.

 

EDIT: Can I just add, that the Canon 5D with 50mm Summicron-R is also as fast as an M for street shooting. I used to guess distances and shoot - using f4 - all the time with that combo. Eventually I got good enough to have high hit rates even at f2. Have some pics if you're interested to see. This combo was my training wheels before I moved to rangefinders, since I figured if I was going to use the clunky 5D like a rangefinder I might as well use rangefinders.

[Ruhayat]

How long have you used a Leica M. Show us some outcomes.

 

Follow my sig.

 

What non-crankshaft car, other than some electric hub vehicles, exist for automobiles? I have a 4WD Kubota tractor that is 100% hydraulic driven, but I've never seen the same on an automobile on the road. Are you just BS-ing us?

 

Well, I did say for the sake of argument.

[Ruhayat]

Here's an example of a guessed grabshot from the Canon 5D + 50mm Summicron at f2. As you can see, it was a kneejerk reaction - a millisecond later, and I would have missed her display of concern for her boyfriend. Shot at dusk, in Aperture Priority mode.

 

This holiday trip with friends was what made me decide to sell the 5D and get an M6.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[yanidel]

Again, for the sake of argument:

 

In digital, the Ricoh GRD III with its step zoom and hyperfocus is faster. Composing with the LCD is a lot faster than having to bring the viewfinder to your eye before each shot. The whole operation is more fluid, too. Plus, it makes hipshots more accurate than an M, because you can still see a little bit of what's going to be in the frame on the LCD, as opposed to an M (where you won't see anything at all with hipshots).

 

For the same reason (because you use the LCD to compose), when I used to have it, the Olympus EP1 with a manual lens set in zone focus was also as fast as an M. In both cases, the smaller sizes and lighter weights added to the speed for candids.

 

For film, the Trip 35 is often faster than an M, too. Image quality in all these cases compared to an M is certainly debatable, but that was not the perimeter asked in the question.

 

EDIT: Can I just add, that the Canon 5D with 50mm Summicron-R is also as fast as an M for street shooting. I used to guess distances and shoot - using f4 - all the time with that combo. Eventually I got good enough to have high hit rates even at f2. Have some pics if you're interested to see. This combo was my training wheels before I moved to rangefinders, since I figured if I was going to use the clunky 5D like a rangefinder I might as well use rangefinders.

Your arguments are a bit weak (hipshots ?! LCD ?! I don't use them) + I don't see much action street photography in your stream (meaning any camera will give you time to focus right). I have tried micro 4/3rs, D700, DP2, ..., nothing is as fast as a M when you know how to use it.

[John Ricard]

.. then you really need to learn how to use the M9.

 

iphone much faster than M9????!!!

Are you serious?

Why did you bought an M9?

 

Open challenge to anyone on this forum. Let's hit the streets of NYC. I'll bring a videographer and we'll post it on You Tube. I'm confident that I can shoot any scene faster and more discreetly with an iPhone than you can with an M9.

 

Yes I'm serious.

 

I bought an M9 in February. Love it. I walk with it everyday and I'm pleased with the images I've been producing. However, its slower than shooting with my iPhone and its much harder to be discreet with an M9 than it is with an iPhone.

[zimboom]

Henri Cartier-Bresson quote:

"Think about the photo before and after, never during. The secret is to take your time. You mustn't go too fast. The subject must forget about you. Then, however, you must be very quick."

I don't think shooting from the hip or with an BS gadget you can get result that matter. When you master the M camera technique, focus tab, zone metering and all, after shooting over 50,000 photos with the same lens, then will discuss how to inprove the M system and not comparing it with gadget cameras.

[jsrockit]

Henri Cartier-Bresson quote:

"Think about the photo before and after, never during. The secret is to take your time. You mustn't go too fast. The subject must forget about you. Then, however, you must be very quick."

I don't think shooting from the hip or with an BS gadget you can get result that matter. When you master the M camera technique, focus tab, zone metering and all, after shooting over 50,000 photos with the same lens, then will discuss how to inprove the M system and not comparing it with gadget cameras.

 

So wait, there is only one method to making photos?

[John Ricard]

Henri Cartier-Bresson quote:

"Think about the photo before and after, never during. The secret is to take your time. You mustn't go too fast. The subject must forget about you. Then, however, you must be very quick."

I don't think shooting from the hip or with an BS gadget you can get result that matter. When you master the M camera technique, focus tab, zone metering and all, after shooting over 50,000 photos with the same lens, then will discuss how to inprove the M system and not comparing it with gadget cameras.

 

IPhone is not a gadget camera. In fact there is no such thing.

 

We photographers had a saying in the old days, "F8 and be there". This meant that simply being there was half the battle. Today, the average joe with an iPhone is "there" and capturing amazing stuff.

 

Take at look at the photos from June Ambrose. She is a fashion stylist with a large Twitter following. She photographs with an iPhone or Blackberry and because she's backstage at various events she's able to produce images that the pro shooters can't. Her images with cut off heads and extreme contrast, etc, would be considered "artistic" if they were shot by a pro. She focuses on the "fashion". That is her vision. Many pros don't even have a vision for covering an event. Without realizing it, she's a better photographer than many pros.

 

If I had a magazine, and I wanted a photo spread on last night's BET (music channel similar to MTV) Awards last night, I'd be quicker to run a spread of her images than the images taken by a pro working the red carpet with a Nikon D3s. People like her are doing something far more substantial than running around with a "gadget camera". She has vision and access. Two things that matter greatly.

 

June Ambros Twit Pics

Twitpic / juneAmbrose

 

Be sure to note this particular image. Who cares what camera it was shot with? It's a great photo.

http://twitpic.com/5hidm5

[zimboom]

 

So wait, there is only one method to making photos?

 

Yes

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[zimboom]

 

IPhone is not a gadget camera. In fact there is no such thing.

 

We photographers had a saying in the old days, "F8 and be there". This meant that simply being there was half the battle. Today, the average joe with an iPhone is "there" and capturing amazing stuff.

 

Take at look at the photos from June Ambrose. She is a fashion stylist with a large Twitter following. She photographs with an iPhone or Blackberry and because she's backstage at various events she's able to produce images that the pro shooters can't. Her images with cut off heads and extreme contrast, etc, would be considered "artistic" if they were shot by a pro. She focuses on the "fashion". That is her vision. Many pros don't even have a vision for covering an event. Without realizing it, she's a better photographer than many pros.

 

If I had a magazine, and I wanted a photo spread on last night's BET (music channel similar to MTV) Awards last night, I'd be quicker to run a spread of her images than the images taken by a pro working the red carpet with a Nikon D3s. People like her are doing something far more substantial than running around with a "gadget camera". She has vision and access. Two things that matter greatly.

 

June Ambros Twit Pics

Twitpic / juneAmbrose

 

Be sure to note this particular image. Who cares what camera it was shot with? It's a great photo.

http://twitpic.com/5hidm5

 

Sorry but not for me, this is a good example why we should not mix street photography with paparazzi shooting style.